Would you love a robot or clone?

Page 3 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Valoyossa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,287
Location: Freie Stadt Danzig

20 Nov 2010, 8:07 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUpuCBTrbKo[/youtube]

I think that robot would be great for Mensch Maschine.


_________________
Change Your Frequency, when you're talking to me!
----
Das gehört verboten! http://tinyurl.com/toobigtoosmall size does matter after all
----
My Industrial Love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBo5K0ZQIEY


nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,784
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA

21 Nov 2010, 3:32 am

At the risk of sounding extremely narcissistic here; I'd love a female clone of myself. I know I do have lots & lots of faults but overall I think I'm a great person despite my negative qualities. A lot of my qualities that others think are bad, I consider to be good things. I believe I have some of the problems I have because I'm an outsider who is unable to connect with others because no one understands me or is on the same level as me. It sux that I'm going to spend the rest of my life alone because I am incapable of being understood & accepted & given a chance by anyone because others see me as a freak :cry:


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,784
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA

22 Nov 2010, 4:28 am

I think I might could get into robosexuality but I will NEVER trust a Vasectomy Bot :shameonyou:


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


AbbeyDoll
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 12

25 Nov 2010, 2:09 pm

As a woman, I sure as hell would. I am almost at my limit with being hurt by men that I have loved.

This robot or clone would look like 'Spencer' (Matthew Gray Gubler) on Criminal Minds. He would have Spencers mind and intelligence (and before any of you laugh at my choice, he was a high fashion model before he started acting ;) ).....and he would have the voice of Pete Loeffler from Chevelle. With the ability to write songs just like Pete: in very abstract ways, while using heavy metaphors. And he would cook, and be great in uhmmm, certain other areas of the house as well. And I may be a girl, but my geekiness tells me a robot never says no...lol!

:) Abbey



Weiss_Yohji
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 258
Location: Delaware

25 Nov 2010, 2:29 pm

Futurama said it best: DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

A robot lover would just be crossing into the uncanny valley.
Humans have strengths and weaknesses, flesh and blood. Give me a human lover instead.



RICKY5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

25 Nov 2010, 2:37 pm

Weiss_Yohji wrote:
Futurama said it best: DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

A robot lover would just be crossing into the uncanny valley.
Humans have strengths and weaknesses, flesh and blood. Give me a human lover instead.


That's because humans would practically go extinct.



lotusblossom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,994

25 Nov 2010, 2:43 pm

Weiss_Yohji wrote:
Futurama said it best: DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

A robot lover would just be crossing into the uncanny valley.
Humans have strengths and weaknesses, flesh and blood. Give me a human lover instead.


honestly I dont think it would be all that different from dating a fellow aspie :lol:



HerbivoreCat
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

25 Nov 2010, 2:55 pm

I've often thought about this too.

My feeling would be that because this robot wasn't real it would become a toy for me. I would try to love it, but presumably I wouldn't be able to, resulting in me constantly kissing it which would probrably spoil the point.

Now a clone... I would need to fall in love with a clone first but yes, I guess I could fall in love with the clone as long as it made choices, had some differences to me, and loved me and wouldn't cheat.



nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,784
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in capitalistic military dictatorship called USA

25 Nov 2010, 6:34 pm

RICKY5 wrote:
Weiss_Yohji wrote:
Futurama said it best: DON'T DATE ROBOTS!

A robot lover would just be crossing into the uncanny valley.
Humans have strengths and weaknesses, flesh and blood. Give me a human lover instead.


That's because humans would practically go extinct.

It's because guys would spend too much time making out with their Marlin Monro Bot to do anything else. I saw the propaganda vid :lol:



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

26 Nov 2010, 1:09 pm

Russell Howard sums it up well:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X7WdeU7y0I[/youtube]



RICKY5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Nov 2010, 12:33 am

hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
Sexbots will be an extremely disruptive technology. If the gals opine that good men are hard to find now, wait until the guys go completely off the market!


It depends what they mean by a good man. If they mean a man for whom sex is not the be-all and end-all of a relationship, then it'll actually be easier. All the men (like yourself) who are in it just for the sex will buy a robot and be happy, leaving all the guys who are interested in the girl for who she is with far better odds of finding someone.

This is sounding increasingly like The Stepford Wives.


What I am saying is that all those "dogged nice guys" (see tvtropes.org) will be dropping off the sexual marketplace post-haste as soon as they see they can get laid with a 10 who doesn't age. Relationships are built around an irregular (occasionally wishful) reward cycle.

When that cycle is short-circuited, it is like playing a game again after your punched in the cheat codes.

The guys who stay on the sexual marketplace will find that it is easy pickings and guys with options are guys who are less and less likely to commit to one girl.

your logic is flawed. this doesn't happen in post-war countries, where a large number of marriageable men are killed off.


Are you referring to post-ww1/ww2 American society?

Post-ww1 and post ww2 America are radically different from 2010 America. Gender role expectations are different, birth control was not widely available, STD treatments not as advanced, and divorce was somewhat stigmatized and not the sort of profitable industry like it is today.

i'm talking about every country that had fewer men than women because of war. let's say in the last century (even recently in war-torn countries). there is no reason to think that men would suddenly start hopping from bed to bed just because there are more women available, whether it is because of robots or because of war.


What I am saying is that men who are not likely to even be wanted on the dating market in the first place will drop out to be with their Megan Foxbots along with guys who are maybe 7-8 in terms of social status and looks. You have to look at history and the circumstances surround each time period along with the cultural norms. Post WW1 and Post WW2 societies did not have the "Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse" which are:

Quote:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

29 Nov 2010, 9:30 am

RICKY5 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
Sexbots will be an extremely disruptive technology. If the gals opine that good men are hard to find now, wait until the guys go completely off the market!


It depends what they mean by a good man. If they mean a man for whom sex is not the be-all and end-all of a relationship, then it'll actually be easier. All the men (like yourself) who are in it just for the sex will buy a robot and be happy, leaving all the guys who are interested in the girl for who she is with far better odds of finding someone.

This is sounding increasingly like The Stepford Wives.


What I am saying is that all those "dogged nice guys" (see tvtropes.org) will be dropping off the sexual marketplace post-haste as soon as they see they can get laid with a 10 who doesn't age. Relationships are built around an irregular (occasionally wishful) reward cycle.

When that cycle is short-circuited, it is like playing a game again after your punched in the cheat codes.

The guys who stay on the sexual marketplace will find that it is easy pickings and guys with options are guys who are less and less likely to commit to one girl.

your logic is flawed. this doesn't happen in post-war countries, where a large number of marriageable men are killed off.


Are you referring to post-ww1/ww2 American society?

Post-ww1 and post ww2 America are radically different from 2010 America. Gender role expectations are different, birth control was not widely available, STD treatments not as advanced, and divorce was somewhat stigmatized and not the sort of profitable industry like it is today.

i'm talking about every country that had fewer men than women because of war. let's say in the last century (even recently in war-torn countries). there is no reason to think that men would suddenly start hopping from bed to bed just because there are more women available, whether it is because of robots or because of war.


What I am saying is that men who are not likely to even be wanted on the dating market in the first place will drop out to be with their Megan Foxbots along with guys who are maybe 7-8 in terms of social status and looks. You have to look at history and the circumstances surround each time period along with the cultural norms. Post WW1 and Post WW2 societies did not have the "Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse" which are:

Quote:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

there are no rigged laws. and women are still at a huge disadvantage financially - especially after divorce, which we already showed you (you conveniently ignore any proof that undermines your misogynistic viewpoint).

you are making it clearer and clearer that you have an agenda on WP; for some reason you seem to want more men to drop out of the dating scene. is that because you want women to be "punished" for your perceived slights?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


RICKY5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Nov 2010, 10:42 am

hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
RICKY5 wrote:
Sexbots will be an extremely disruptive technology. If the gals opine that good men are hard to find now, wait until the guys go completely off the market!


It depends what they mean by a good man. If they mean a man for whom sex is not the be-all and end-all of a relationship, then it'll actually be easier. All the men (like yourself) who are in it just for the sex will buy a robot and be happy, leaving all the guys who are interested in the girl for who she is with far better odds of finding someone.

This is sounding increasingly like The Stepford Wives.


What I am saying is that all those "dogged nice guys" (see tvtropes.org) will be dropping off the sexual marketplace post-haste as soon as they see they can get laid with a 10 who doesn't age. Relationships are built around an irregular (occasionally wishful) reward cycle.

When that cycle is short-circuited, it is like playing a game again after your punched in the cheat codes.

The guys who stay on the sexual marketplace will find that it is easy pickings and guys with options are guys who are less and less likely to commit to one girl.

your logic is flawed. this doesn't happen in post-war countries, where a large number of marriageable men are killed off.


Are you referring to post-ww1/ww2 American society?

Post-ww1 and post ww2 America are radically different from 2010 America. Gender role expectations are different, birth control was not widely available, STD treatments not as advanced, and divorce was somewhat stigmatized and not the sort of profitable industry like it is today.

i'm talking about every country that had fewer men than women because of war. let's say in the last century (even recently in war-torn countries). there is no reason to think that men would suddenly start hopping from bed to bed just because there are more women available, whether it is because of robots or because of war.


What I am saying is that men who are not likely to even be wanted on the dating market in the first place will drop out to be with their Megan Foxbots along with guys who are maybe 7-8 in terms of social status and looks. You have to look at history and the circumstances surround each time period along with the cultural norms. Post WW1 and Post WW2 societies did not have the "Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse" which are:

Quote:

1. Effective and widely available contraceptives (the Pill, condom, and the de facto contraceptive abortion).
2. Easy peasy no-fault divorce.
3. Women’s economic independence (hurtling towards women’s economic advantage if the college enrollment ratio is any indication).
4. Rigged feminist-inspired laws that have caused a disincentivizing of marriage for men and an incentivizing of divorce for women.

there are no rigged laws. and women are still at a huge disadvantage financially - especially after divorce, which we already showed you (you conveniently ignore any proof that undermines your misogynistic viewpoint).

you are making it clearer and clearer that you have an agenda on WP; for some reason you seem to want more men to drop out of the dating scene. is that because you want women to be "punished" for your perceived slights?


I never said those "4 sirens" were rigid or concrete final explanations. All I was pointing put were possible sociological changes that have likely altered the dating scene.

It seems more and more like you just resort to ad hominem arguments every time someone doesn't agree with you.

If I wanted women to be punished, then I wouldn't be happy for Erisad.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

29 Nov 2010, 8:46 pm

RICKY5 wrote:

I never said those "4 sirens" were rigid or concrete final explanations. All I was pointing put were possible sociological changes that have likely altered the dating scene.

It seems more and more like you just resort to ad hominem arguments every time someone doesn't agree with you.

If I wanted women to be punished, then I wouldn't be happy for Erisad.

let me rephrase. i've never seen a single post from you that was positive or complimentary about women in general. your posts about women as an overall group (and men's relationships with women) are very often negative, judgemental, and unkind.

i am overwhelmed with the unbelievable amounts of misogynistic viewpoints on WP. these attitudes are nothing new, but i've only been here a few months. and when i see a lot of posts like that coming from one person, i do start to wonder exactly what is going on there. i shall try to keep it from getting so personal, as it isn't fair for me to do that. but i want it understood that women are people that are worth treating well in words and actions.

i am just as quick to jump on any posts that are unfair towards men as well, but they are not nearly so common. i love men a great deal, and i also love women. i don't like to see remarks that are intended to be disparaging towards an entire gender. it creates an environment that is unfriendly to an important group on WP, and i will definitely speak up about it, even if it contributes to the hostility. or even if i become a target (too late!).


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Darkword
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,398

30 Nov 2010, 12:05 am

I could love a clone of myself. We'd misunderstand each other perfectly.


_________________
I am autism.


CrinklyCrustacean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,284

30 Nov 2010, 12:33 am

hyperlexian wrote:
i don't like to see remarks that are intended to be disparaging towards an entire gender. it creates an environment that is unfriendly to an important group on WP, and i will definitely speak up about it, even if it contributes to the hostility. or even if i become a target (too late!).


Well said.