The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:45 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
It's not "He" and "You", its "You" and "You"...

Perhaps a different grief counselor should be found, one who has a better grasp of the new post mortality reality.


(changed the title to better represent that this is an author choice)


Last edited by DrCron on Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:49 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
Well, maybe this is the part of post-mortality that we'll be exploring in this story arc. While I certainly would say that this Tagon is the same one who has commanded the Toughs for many years, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the Tagon who used himself as a dumb delivery system. I'm not sure Tagon senior can separate those two concepts, but then I'm not sure it would be easy for most people to do so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:08 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 301
I don't think that's the way Howard wants this to go. And he's COMPLETELY WRONG about it. He WANTS to force a complete break between ressurective iterations, but that doesn't work unless the PERSONALITY changes, too. It doesn't work unless it's a DIFFERENT PERSON that comes out.

This Kaff Tagon is NO different from the one that died, except he can't remember what happened for forty minutes. That's a head injury and a four month coma.

That is not a WHOLE NEW PERSON, and trying to treat them such is stupid and incredibly short sighted and COMPLETELY misunderstands psychology and the continuity problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:36 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
JohnSmith wrote:
Well, maybe this is the part of post-mortality that we'll be exploring in this story arc. While I certainly would say that this Tagon is the same one who has commanded the Toughs for many years, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the Tagon who used himself as a dumb delivery system. I'm not sure Tagon senior can separate those two concepts, but then I'm not sure it would be easy for most people to do so.


But they have plenty of experience with someone taking a bullet for someone else, and getting brain damage as a result (nanny bagging isn't perfect) . If they didn't consider that, or terraporting, or hell, the old wormgates, as a "they" and "you" situation, whats new now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:31 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 707
Kendrakirai wrote:
And he's COMPLETELY WRONG about it.

He's presented it (heavily) one way through the eyes of the many characters. Maybe they're the ones getting it wrong. Maybe Howard knows this. Maybe he doesn't.
I'd wait and see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:35 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
Kendrakirai wrote:
I don't think that's the way Howard wants this to go. And he's COMPLETELY WRONG about it. He WANTS to force a complete break between ressurective iterations, but that doesn't work unless the PERSONALITY changes, too. It doesn't work unless it's a DIFFERENT PERSON that comes out.

This Kaff Tagon is NO different from the one that died, except he can't remember what happened for forty minutes. That's a head injury and a four month coma.

That is not a WHOLE NEW PERSON, and trying to treat them such is stupid and incredibly short sighted and COMPLETELY misunderstands psychology and the continuity problem.


Uh, no. I'm afraid that you're the one misunderstanding the continuity problem. It's got absolutely nothing to do with personality and everything to do with an interruption of consciousness. That's why the word 'continuity' is in there. Now, I'm of the opinion that comas and maybe even sleep DO interrupt the stream of consciousness. But Howard isn't misunderstanding anything here - Tagon's stream of consciousness was undeniably interrupted. Now, he's still Tagon, descended from the same stream of consciousness that the dumb munition came from, but he's not the dumb munition. And taking ONE character's viewpoint and attributing that to the author is extremely shortsighted. How on god's green earth do you expect an author to explore a topic if they can't have characters supporting different sides?

EDIT: I've now seen more of your complaining about this story line, Ken. And your bull-headed assertions that 'the continuity problem is only for the person being cloned' really makes me scratch my head. If the person you care about just died, why should you spin up a new version of them? To make yourself feel better? The one you miss is still dead, still died. You are bringing a new consciousness into the universe to be a replacement goldfish. It's not absurd that people have a major problem with that. Yes, it's the same person, bar whatever failed to be backed up. But let's repeat it again: The person you're missing died. That stream of consciousness has ended. Even if you bring back the person you're STILL going to have to mourn the one who died.

DrCron wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Well, maybe this is the part of post-mortality that we'll be exploring in this story arc. While I certainly would say that this Tagon is the same one who has commanded the Toughs for many years, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the Tagon who used himself as a dumb delivery system. I'm not sure Tagon senior can separate those two concepts, but then I'm not sure it would be easy for most people to do so.


But they have plenty of experience with someone taking a bullet for someone else, and getting brain damage as a result (nanny bagging isn't perfect) . If they didn't consider that, or terraporting, or hell, the old wormgates, as a "they" and "you" situation, whats new now?

Terraporting and wormgates should be seen as continuity problems, I agree. They're basically Star Trek teleporters, with all the philosophical problems they provide. But nobody in-comic has ever treated them as such, possibly because you only ever get out what you put in. More narrativly, they allowed the plot to move forward and Howard didn't feel like tackling the philosophical side. Nannybags don't have a stream of consciousness problem though. Nannybags just keep the brain from degrading, and the body is regrown around it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 3:47 am 
Offline
Aquarium Exhibit
Aquarium Exhibit

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 11:17 pm
Posts: 27
Go back to our first interrupted reincarnation.

When Schlock was told that he jumped down the hole without a suit and fractured into a bazillion bits he replied _I didn't_ -- and he was right.

Don't discount the 40 minutes that Kaff lost. That person made a heroic decision to sacrifice himself. He left a final message that made no presumption about reincarnation, it talked about family. It was a real sacrifice and it deserves a memorial, and he deserved a decent funeral.

It's not that it was 40 minutes. It was THOSE 40 minutes. That man lost a "forever" and did so willingly. From the moment he awoke in the simulation in the tank he wasn't THAT Kaff, he was someone who never had to make that decision, and has to deal with the decisions of others.

This is NOT the same as brain injury-memory loss-coma. That person sacrificed himself, died, and was mourned.

A person who is injured, loses memory and is in coma is not dealing with a community that experienced traumatic loss.

It's possible that the society will, after centuries of internalizing the backup technology, adjust its attitudes so that such things are seen as interruptions, and that soldiers and citizens will willingly sacrifice knowing that the interruptipon is temporary. But don't try to impose that attitude on a society and individuals who are still dealing with a lifetime of knowing that death is permanent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:51 am 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
RickBoatright wrote:
Go back to our first interrupted reincarnation.

When Schlock was told that he jumped down the hole without a suit and fractured into a bazillion bits he replied _I didn't_ -- and he was right.

Don't discount the 40 minutes that Kaff lost. That person made a heroic decision to sacrifice himself. He left a final message that made no presumption about reincarnation, it talked about family. It was a real sacrifice and it deserves a memorial, and he deserved a decent funeral.

It's not that it was 40 minutes. It was THOSE 40 minutes. That man lost a "forever" and did so willingly. From the moment he awoke in the simulation in the tank he wasn't THAT Kaff, he was someone who never had to make that decision, and has to deal with the decisions of others.

This is NOT the same as brain injury-memory loss-coma. That person sacrificed himself, died, and was mourned.

A person who is injured, loses memory and is in coma is not dealing with a community that experienced traumatic loss.

It's possible that the society will, after centuries of internalizing the backup technology, adjust its attitudes so that such things are seen as interruptions, and that soldiers and citizens will willingly sacrifice knowing that the interruptipon is temporary. But don't try to impose that attitude on a society and individuals who are still dealing with a lifetime of knowing that death is permanent.


There is some difference in that Schlock is literally a sentient storage unit. I go back to the example of Murtaugh, she lost far more of "forever" than Kaff did and was certainly just as dead, so where was the deep introspection? Certainly members of the Toughs must have had many other injuries leading to loss of memory of a heroic action, why weren't they being treated like Kaff, hell, why weren't the folks who had their memories tampered with?

You aren't the same as you were an instant ago, let alone a blink, startle, nap, or concussion ago. "You" exist in the metacognition if that continues you are, well, you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:05 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:22 pm
Posts: 210
Kendrakirai wrote:
That is not a WHOLE NEW PERSON, and trying to treat them such is stupid and incredibly short sighted and COMPLETELY misunderstands psychology and the continuity problem.

There is a significant problem for the Toughs in that their commanding officer, Karl, who naturally has the most influence on how they behave, is the one with the least insight into the new situation. This has been made worse by his pre-immortality-style reaction to the loss of his son, and taking so long to decide if he wants (his son brought back/a new copy built) hasn't helped.

Now, I think Howard is going to explore adjustment to immortality as a theme of this book. So we definitely shouldn't treat Karl's reactions as authorial voice at this time.

"A little immortality ... is a dangerous thing" is one completion of the title, but I'd be surprised if it's the one we end up with.

_________________
Weapon: Meal, Ready to Explode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
DrCron wrote:
You aren't the same as you were an instant ago, let alone a blink, startle, nap, or concussion ago. "You" exist in the metacognition if that continues you are, well, you.


None of that has anything to do with the continuity problem.
Look, maybe you don't see the big deal, but that puts you in a distinct minority. There's nothing idiotic about a character who reacts poorly to an actual, much-discussed philosophical problem. Captain Tagon's death was idiot-ball territory because it required several extremely stupid moves in sequence. General Tagon's reaction TO his son's death is certainly flawed (don't talk about the dead son, you ass), but also pretty natural given the responses I've seen to these philosophical problems in real life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:25 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2123
DrCron wrote:
It's not "He" and "You", its "You" and "You"...

Where as, unlike you, I remember that Karl and Kaff have a slightly adversarial (and humorous) relationship and take that as gentle chiding in the vein of "I love you son, but sacrifice yourself like that again and I'll kill you".



RickBoatright wrote:
From the moment he awoke in the simulation in the tank he wasn't THAT Kaff, he was someone who never had to make that decision, and has to deal with the decisions of others.

You don't think "New Kaff" would make that exact same decision given the same circumstances?

I do. It's the same man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:47 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 344
Regarding the psychological disconnect between a gate killing you and resurrecting you on the other side, and no-one blinking, and this new situation, that has everyone reminding "new Kaff" that he's not "old Kaff".

The gate system was a black box. People knew it worked, but not how. For all they knew, and were probably led to assume, was that they were the same going in and coming out. No death.

When you get a drink of water, you're essentially drinking the urine of millions of creatures that came before you. People don't like to think about that, and they don't. People rely on magical thinking to ignore that upstream of their city is generally another city that uses their water supply as a sewage outlet. While total water recycling is a thing, and people are starting to do it within the confines of one city, it still squicks people out to think about. When it's not rubbed in their face, they're fine with it.

Kaff Tagon was DEAD for a full two months, and Dead pending resurrection for another two months. Karl Tagon is having trouble with that. He's grieved. He's convinced himself that he's accepted his son being dead, (then had another son spun up and gave him a birthday present of a copy, hopefully a superior copy, of his first ship.)
Frankly, if he wasn't ready to sit down and say, honestly with himself, "you are my son", he shouldn't have done the resurrection yet, or ever. Kaff wasn't suffering the rejection while he was dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:21 pm 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:08 am
Posts: 114
Regarding the reincarnation issue, I would say some separation is warranted, but not complete separation. The closest analogy I can come up with is the fork. (The software kind.)

Captain Tagon's original fork died. Karl created a new fork, but it's still a fork of Captain Tagon. I would say neither "he" nor "you" is 100% appropriate for the dead fork.

Maybe we need a new pronoun. Fork-you? :fist: :mrgreen: No, that doesn't sound right either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:42 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
There was a full intact backup so he was never fully dead. People thought he was dead for a bit over two days untill Dr. Bunnigus remembered to check if he was actually dead. (Another uncharacteristic idiot ball)

Again, the characters have been dealing with the effects of LAZ for a long while now, the reactions don't make sense happening now. Shouldn't there have been checks for all the other people incapacitated in the action to see if they are actually dead or not? Or does the magic revive button only get used on brass?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:44 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
Although that would be a good in universe reason for it taking 4 months. Everyone else gets revived before the command that Fd it all up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:46 pm 
Offline
Safari Exhibit
Safari Exhibit

Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:08 am
Posts: 114
DrCron wrote:
There was a full intact backup so he was never fully dead. People thought he was dead for a bit over two days untill Dr. Bunnigus remembered to check if he was actually dead. (Another uncharacteristic idiot ball)


That's true, there's another take on it. What's the difference between Tagon dying and Tagon being conked on the head and losing his memory of a few hours?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 7:52 pm 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 301
JohnSmith wrote:
Kendrakirai wrote:
I don't think that's the way Howard wants this to go. And he's COMPLETELY WRONG about it. He WANTS to force a complete break between ressurective iterations, but that doesn't work unless the PERSONALITY changes, too. It doesn't work unless it's a DIFFERENT PERSON that comes out.

This Kaff Tagon is NO different from the one that died, except he can't remember what happened for forty minutes. That's a head injury and a four month coma.

That is not a WHOLE NEW PERSON, and trying to treat them such is stupid and incredibly short sighted and COMPLETELY misunderstands psychology and the continuity problem.


Uh, no. I'm afraid that you're the one misunderstanding the continuity problem. It's got absolutely nothing to do with personality and everything to do with an interruption of consciousness. That's why the word 'continuity' is in there. Now, I'm of the opinion that comas and maybe even sleep DO interrupt the stream of consciousness. But Howard isn't misunderstanding anything here - Tagon's stream of consciousness was undeniably interrupted. Now, he's still Tagon, descended from the same stream of consciousness that the dumb munition came from, but he's not the dumb munition. And taking ONE character's viewpoint and attributing that to the author is extremely shortsighted. How on god's green earth do you expect an author to explore a topic if they can't have characters supporting different sides?

EDIT: I've now seen more of your complaining about this story line, Ken. And your bull-headed assertions that 'the continuity problem is only for the person being cloned' really makes me scratch my head. If the person you care about just died, why should you spin up a new version of them? To make yourself feel better? The one you miss is still dead, still died. You are bringing a new consciousness into the universe to be a replacement goldfish. It's not absurd that people have a major problem with that. Yes, it's the same person, bar whatever failed to be backed up. But let's repeat it again: The person you're missing died. That stream of consciousness has ended. Even if you bring back the person you're STILL going to have to mourn the one who died.


Except for the fact that the continuity problem SHOULD only matter to the people 'suffering' it. What should I care if YOU think I'm not who I am? You brought me back for no reason besides you missed me, and now you expect me to NOT be who you brought me back to BE? That's just idiotic and hypocritical. And it isn't just ONE character. EVERYBODY is treating Kaff and Schlock like they aren't THEM anymore, despite that being THE EXACT REASON THEY WERE BROUGHT BACK.

Either you THINK you're the person you are, or you don't. Other people don't get to decide who you are, and SCREW YOU if you think they do. THAT is what people are doing with Kaff. Forcing THEIR view of who he is onto him. And so far EVERYBODY is doing this. Even Tailor, who KNOWS FULL WELL that live backups and constant syncing maintains who you are, because HE DOES THAT. THE AIS DO THAT. REMEMBER THE DAYSTROM-TINGO DRYDOCK BOTS?!

DrCron wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Well, maybe this is the part of post-mortality that we'll be exploring in this story arc. While I certainly would say that this Tagon is the same one who has commanded the Toughs for many years, it's not quite accurate to say that he's the Tagon who used himself as a dumb delivery system. I'm not sure Tagon senior can separate those two concepts, but then I'm not sure it would be easy for most people to do so.


But they have plenty of experience with someone taking a bullet for someone else, and getting brain damage as a result (nanny bagging isn't perfect) . If they didn't consider that, or terraporting, or hell, the old wormgates, as a "they" and "you" situation, whats new now?

Terraporting and wormgates should be seen as continuity problems, I agree. They're basically Star Trek teleporters, with all the philosophical problems they provide. But nobody in-comic has ever treated them as such, possibly because you only ever get out what you put in. More narrativly, they allowed the plot to move forward and Howard didn't feel like tackling the philosophical side. Nannybags don't have a stream of consciousness problem though. Nannybags just keep the brain from degrading, and the body is regrown around it.[/quote]

But there STILL IS degradation and injury. A lot more is lost when requiring a nanny bag than Kaff lost because of his backup being slightly out of date.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:17 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
Quote:
Except for the fact that the continuity problem SHOULD only matter to the people 'suffering' it.
Thanks for ignoring my entire argument of why it does matter to other people.

Quote:
But there STILL IS degradation and injury.
But no loss of continuity. Which again tells me that you still don't actually understand what the continuity problem IS, despite it being explained to you. I'm not going to continue to discuss a topic with somebody who's wilfully ignoring the meaning of the things being discussed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:24 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
JohnSmith wrote:
Quote:
Except for the fact that the continuity problem SHOULD only matter to the people 'suffering' it.
Thanks for ignoring my entire argument of why it does matter to other people.

Quote:
But there STILL IS degradation and injury.
But no loss of continuity. Which again tells me that you still don't actually understand what the continuity problem IS, despite it being explained to you. I'm not going to continue to discuss a topic with somebody who's wilfully ignoring the meaning of the things being discussed.



Wait, what????

No loss of continuity if your head gets blown clean off your shoulders because everything below your neck is now hot vapor? Do you not know what unconsciousness is?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:54 pm 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
DrCron wrote:
JohnSmith wrote:
Quote:
Except for the fact that the continuity problem SHOULD only matter to the people 'suffering' it.
Thanks for ignoring my entire argument of why it does matter to other people.

Quote:
But there STILL IS degradation and injury.
But no loss of continuity. Which again tells me that you still don't actually understand what the continuity problem IS, despite it being explained to you. I'm not going to continue to discuss a topic with somebody who's wilfully ignoring the meaning of the things being discussed.



Wait, what????

No loss of continuity if your head gets blown clean off your shoulders because everything below your neck is now hot vapor? Do you not know what unconsciousness is?

Reread. He was talking about nannybagging, where the brain is explicitly intact. Or are you saying that continuity is lost because the person passes out? Because most people don't consider that a loss of continuity any more than sleeping. I personally think that it's quite possible even sleep is a loss of continuity, which would render the entire thing moot, but that's an uncommon position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:06 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 301
JohnSmith wrote:
Quote:
Except for the fact that the continuity problem SHOULD only matter to the people 'suffering' it.
Thanks for ignoring my entire argument of why it does matter to other people.

Quote:
But there STILL IS degradation and injury.
But no loss of continuity. Which again tells me that you still don't actually understand what the continuity problem IS, despite it being explained to you. I'm not going to continue to discuss a topic with somebody who's wilfully ignoring the meaning of the things being discussed.


And thanks for ignoring MY entire reason for why it SHOULDN'T. Okay, maybe it MATTERS to them. But it DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to insist you AREN'T YOU anymore!

They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'

Once again, SCREW YOU if you think you get to decide who people are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:25 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
Kendrakirai wrote:
And thanks for ignoring MY entire reason for why it SHOULDN'T. Okay, maybe it MATTERS to them. But it DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to insist you AREN'T YOU anymore!

They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'


Well, it's rude. I said that in the first place. And like I said then, it's silly to take one character's view as the author's view and rant against it. If an author never had characters take unpleasant views, it'd be an awful boring and preachy story.

If your viewpoint is that General Tagon is being extremely rude and condescending, sure. Great. But the continuity problem is what you've been arguing about, and that's where you're going completely off base. The continuity problem DOES apply, and it DOES concern General Tagon since the General was the one who had to decide to bring a new Tagon into the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 2:46 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 301
JohnSmith wrote:
Kendrakirai wrote:
And thanks for ignoring MY entire reason for why it SHOULDN'T. Okay, maybe it MATTERS to them. But it DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to insist you AREN'T YOU anymore!

They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'


Well, it's rude. I said that in the first place. And like I said then, it's silly to take one character's view as the author's view and rant against it. If an author never had characters take unpleasant views, it'd be an awful boring and preachy story.

If your viewpoint is that General Tagon is being extremely rude and condescending, sure. Great. But the continuity problem is what you've been arguing about, and that's where you're going completely off base. The continuity problem DOES apply, and it DOES concern General Tagon since the General was the one who had to decide to bring a new Tagon into the world.


The continuity 'problem' ISN'T one unless the person IN QUESTION feels its a problem. You (the general 'you') don't get to tell me if I'm me or not. *I* decide if I'm me. And Howard is JUMPING UP AND DOWN on the button that says 'I DO get to say if you're you, because i say I get to.'

EVERY CHARACTER is insisting that Kaff isn't Kaff. That he's a fake and a copy and not the person he was just because THAT him died forty minutes after his backup.

So again; YOU don't decide if continuity is a problem. *I* do, as the person whose 'continuity' was supposedly interrupted.

You may as well insist Kaff isn't human because he has soldier boosts, or because he was BUILT and not BORN. At least THOSE arguments have SOME basis in fact and not feelings.

'we mourned his death, you aren't him'.

So the people who are missing and presumed dead and show up again later (after say, suffering a head injury and being in a coma as a John Doe for four months) aren't ACTUALLY themselves, huh? They're just replacements?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:48 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:22 pm
Posts: 210
Kendrakirai wrote:
And thanks for ignoring MY entire reason for why it SHOULDN'T. Okay, maybe it MATTERS to them. But it DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT to insist you AREN'T YOU anymore!

They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'

Once again, SCREW YOU if you think you get to decide who people are.

<Moderator>
Please keep this polite. If people aren't understanding your arguments, it's perfectly possible they aren't as clear as you think.
</Moderator>

_________________
Weapon: Meal, Ready to Explode.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:52 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2123
Kendrakirai wrote:
EVERY CHARACTER is insisting that Kaff isn't Kaff.

No they aren't.
In fact only one person has insisted that at all*. You're reading into the strip what does not exist.


Multiple people have used conversational tones that indicate they see this Kaff as being the same old Kaff:
Ennesby: Happy Birthday! let's play "guess how long you were gone."
Schlock: FOOUR months. Your dad took folrever to make up his mind.
Karl: We'll spend some time catching up up. The impportant thing is that we're glad to have you with us again.

Twice Karl has chided Kaff for dying, using the "he died so you could be here" and "we built a statue in his honor" lines to chastise Kaff for going and being heroic and dying. But again, these lines follow his earlier "we're glad you are back" line so this is likely just Karl being antagonistic and chiding, not some attempt to convince his son that he isn't the same person.



* Ran out of url allotment, that strip is here, it's Tailor: schlockmercenary.com/2016-12-09


Last edited by evileeyore on Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:54 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2123
Kendrakirai wrote:
They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'

Depending on the laws of the land.... they do or don't have that right.

For instance in the US, freedom of speech means they can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:09 am 
Offline
Reptile House Exhibit
Reptile House Exhibit

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 8:10 am
Posts: 301
evileeyore wrote:
Kendrakirai wrote:
They can THINK you aren't you anymore, but they DO NOT get to say 'you aren't you, and you need to stop thinking you are!'

Depending on the laws of the land.... they do or don't have that right.

For instance in the US, freedom of speech means they can.


And under those same laws, I have the right to say something like 'homosexuals aren't people', that doesn't mean it's correct or something that ANYBODY should do, because it is REPREHENSIBLE and attacks people for who they are.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you when youre being, nor does it ALLOW you to be, a piece of crap who tries to impose your own beliefs on others. It just means you can SAY it without the GOVERNMENT telling you to stop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:32 am 
Offline
Entertainment
Entertainment

Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:54 am
Posts: 620
Ken, you're going ballistic because somebody is doing something you find rude and reprehensible. But that has absolutely bugger all to do with the philosophical considerations, or in fact whether or not the General would plausibly feel that way. And really, that last one is the only thing that matters at all in this situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:47 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:44 pm
Posts: 2123
Kendrakirai wrote:
And under those same laws, I have the right to say something like 'homosexuals aren't people', that doesn't mean it's correct or something that ANYBODY should do, because it is REPREHENSIBLE and attacks people for who they are.

"Correctness" has nothing to do with rights. You're arguing they do not have a right. You are incorrect.

But I'll defend to your death your right to be incorrect.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 8:17 pm 
Offline
Arctic Exhibit
Arctic Exhibit

Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:36 pm
Posts: 69
JohnSmith wrote:

Reread. He was talking about nannybagging, where the brain Or are you saying that continuity is lost because the person passes out? Because most people don't consider that a loss of continuity any more than sleeping. I personally think that it's quite possible even sleep is a loss of continuity, which would render the entire thing moot, but that's an uncommon position.


The subjective continuity resumes when you wake up, or otherwise resume consciousness. "You" are turned off during unconsciousness, that's the defining trait. My point is that a group that has lots of experience dancing around on the boundary of death should have already worked through this "Are you still you after advanced medical intervention/how much change is a "new person"" is one question that should have been answered already, "Is this an intervention we should do" is separate.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group