0023 - In which Lee is a person

Discussion related to Forward

0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby GruntBlender » Mon Mar 12, 2018 1:29 am

Image

That's not how that works. That's not how anything works.
If you own a butterknife and decide it's purpose is now to be a screwdriver it doesn't become a shitty screwdriver. It's a misused butterknife and you're an idiot. Now, that's not to say you can't use things for unintended purposes, just that they don't become something else just because you decide it. A thing is made for a purpose, and that defines the thing. If you want to change its purpose, you have to remake the thing. You can turn a butterknife into a screwdriver with any number of tools, but not with your mind.

Ownership. People do not own themselves. A person owns their body, but are themselves unowned. You can't own a person (anymore, in most of the world). Conversely, garbage IS owned. You own your garbage right up until the utility workers pick it up, at which point the ownership of the garbage passes to the state. When you own something, you're responsible for it.

Personhood means owning yourself? So someone who gets sold into slavery stops being a person and it's OK to do whatever you want to them? If someone bought Zoa from the company that owns her, then gifted that ownership to her, does Zoa magically become a person with legal rights? What if I do that to my toaster? Or is it that someone who is owned (a non-person) can't be gifted anything? Then how does a slave gain freedom? Ownership has nothing to do with personhood.

If Zoa needs a COPING MECHANISM to deal with the fact that she has an owner, that issue can't be handwaved away with some surface discussion of personhood=ownership.
GruntBlender
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby Merle » Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:25 am

If you own a butterknife and decide it's purpose is now to be a screwdriver it doesn't become a shitty screwdriver. It's a misused butterknife and you're an idiot.


Who defines it as a butter knife? Who defines it as a screwdriver?

A thing is made for a purpose, and that defines the thing.


If you take a butter knife and use it as part of an art installation, are you an idiot for calling it art? What if you bend it into a different shape? What about if you melt it down and cast it into something else? Not to mention there's a whole constellation of forms of "found object" art.

Ownership. People do not own themselves. A person owns their body, but are themselves unowned.


Are you really disagreeing with Zoa here, or are you just asserting a different definition entirely? How do you define "ownership"? Zoa appears to be using it as "who is allowed to use/control this object", under which definition, addressing humans as "self-owned" seems apt.

You can't own a person


Slavery still exists. How do you describe prison labor?

If someone bought Zoa from the company that owns her, then gifted that ownership to her, does Zoa magically become a person with legal rights?


This is exactly what manumission is. See also Discworld and its Golem Trust; if you haven't read Feet of Clay, I must recommend it.

What if I do that to my toaster?


I mean, there was the Tree that Owned Itself...but more generally, I believe competence (in the legal sense) is held as a prerequisite for ownership. Zoa is currently an intelligent slave, or some close fascimile thereof, and could reasonably practice self-ownership. A toaster is a toaster. Toasters are not only poor conversationalists, they are generally not intelligent enough to understand the concept of "ownership", or indeed of "toaster".
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby GruntBlender » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:08 am

You're being awfully nit-picky with some of those points, particularly the ones I addressed before you mentioned them.
GruntBlender
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby Merle » Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:12 am

I'm sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but I do think you're using arbitrary definitions as arguments. For one, there isn't really too much distinction between relabeling something and remaking it, at least in the context of Zoa's point...
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby Deepbluediver » Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:56 pm

I didn't really focus on it before, but Zoa has to have eyes the size of tennis-balls. I'm sure those HD lenses give her some great telephoto capabilities, but to see something like the rendered realistically would hit freaky levels of uncanny valley hard. It would be like getting a BJ from one of these guys: CLICK ME!
Deepbluediver
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby GruntBlender » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:37 pm

Deepbluediver wrote:I didn't really focus on it before, but Zoa has to have eyes the size of tennis-balls. I'm sure those HD lenses give her some great telephoto capabilities, but to see something like the rendered realistically would hit freaky levels of uncanny valley hard. It would be like getting a BJ from one of these guys: CLICK ME!

So, this?
Image
GruntBlender
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby GruntBlender » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:40 pm

Merle wrote:I'm sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but I do think you're using arbitrary definitions as arguments. For one, there isn't really too much distinction between relabeling something and remaking it, at least in the context of Zoa's point...

To look at it another way, can you look at an object and determine what it is? If you look at a butterknife, you don't say, "Hey, that's a screwdriver." Why?
GruntBlender
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby dr pepper » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:37 pm

I just find it annoying when people refer to a dinnerknife as a butterknife, and then they don't know what to call a butterknife. And btw, while i have used a dinnerknife as a screwdriver in a pinch, a butterknife won't even work on most common screwheads.
User avatar
dr pepper
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby Merle » Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:54 am

GruntBlender wrote:
Merle wrote:I'm sorry if I'm being nitpicky, but I do think you're using arbitrary definitions as arguments. For one, there isn't really too much distinction between relabeling something and remaking it, at least in the context of Zoa's point...

To look at it another way, can you look at an object and determine what it is? If you look at a butterknife, you don't say, "Hey, that's a screwdriver." Why?


Because of subjective and preconceived notions, rather than inherent properties of the object? You have strong concepts of "butterknife" and "screwdriver". If I see a dinglehopper, I might know what it's for just as strongly as you say it's a "fork" (what a weird concept for eating food, stabbing it with four little knives held in parallel - so much easier to use chopsticks).
Neither a creeper nor a jackass be; if you manage these two things, everything else should work itself out.
User avatar
Merle
 
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:12 am

Re: 0023 - In which Lee is a person

Postby Deepbluediver » Tue Mar 13, 2018 5:30 pm

GruntBlender wrote:So, this?
*scrubbed*

Yes! It's horrifying!!! :shock:
Deepbluediver
 
Posts: 907
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:50 pm

Next

Return to Forward

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron