Where is NT going?

[The Observer]

I see your two bucks and raise you five plus a cookie. I'll go with over, since I believe in the good old fashioned morals buried deep down inside the pervs that flock to SavOxO games and Fenforum.


No mental gymnastics are needed to simultaneously be against blatant exploitation of natives, proselytizing or no proselytizing, and thinking that there are systems several aspects of which are appalling enough to warrant some poking into their internal affairs.


Also, what Misty said.

So cultural genocide (that's the exact wording from one of the posts complaining about Snuggle) is only okay if it fits within the moral framework of the people doing the genociding? Leave the exploitation et al out of this, I'd like to focus on this aspect:


This was the accusation levelled against Darnock:

He swans in from the heavens,sets up shop,and does everything he can to force his values and culture upon the primitive natives,seemingly without any regard for their own values and cultures,or even their consent; No idea if you're aware,but where I'm from,if you tell a proselyte to stop,they legally have to stop,or else they're in violation of one of your fundamental rights,and Darnock seems like the kind of man to violate that right,which largely informs my stance on the man. He thinks he's doing good things. Or,maybe,he wants to think he's doing good things.

So, what's the difference here? Oh, one falls in line with modern western values, and the other doesn't. That's all. What defines appalling? Who gets to say which culture is good, and what is appalling? In-universe, it's the UGC, because they have the biggest guns and can say "stop it or else", which is exactly what happens on Myrellion. Out-universe, it's modern western values, which is what I'd imagine most forumites subscribe to, with a few variations.


Hypothetical: if Shep Darnock suddenly said that he found the "rape each other for dominance" aspect of Zil culture appalling and that he needs to save the less sexually-gifted Zil from this barbaric practice by shutting down and destroying their culture, would he now be justified? Or maybe he claims wants to end the transphobia of native Zil culture? Is that appalling enough to justify crushing Zil culture? Does that make destroying it okay? Given previous discussions on Embry and potential Simii society, I suspect people would be perfectly fine with it.

 

[Nik_van_Rijn]

@The Observer that discourse of hypocrisy is only applicable to people who condemn Darnock for trying to destroy Zil culture while wanting to destroy the pillars of NT's society.


It's still not necessarily correct, since you can approach it from the moral universalism point of view and see that both of those cultures incorporate 'objectively immoral elements'. But that's not something I'd like to argue on this forum, if possible.


If you look closely at my post, you can see that the main beef I myself have with Darnock (and that I imagine most people having) is the objective fact that he is planning to exploit Zil. That's why I can't leave this out of the discussion, that's literally the beginning and the end of my point.


Also:

Out-universe, it's modern western values, which is what I'd imagine most forumites subscribe to, with a few variations.

That has not been the case for a good long while now. Your country, even more so than mine, is an example of that.


As someone who also lives in Russia, a country with a value system that only partially align with the main one of the West (the rest being seemingly random bits and bobs of undigested eastern orthodoxy and communism), and that catches a lot of flack for it and gets dragged through the mud on a regular basis, I can sympathize with wanting to expose the blaming party. But let's not politicize our favourite porn forum. "Be at home, but don't forget that your are a guest" etc.

 

[The Observer]

@The Observer that discourse of hypocrisy is only applicable to people who condemn Darnock for trying to destroy Zil culture while wanting to destroy the pillars of NT's society.


It's still not necessarily correct, since you can approach it from the moral universalism point of view and see that both of those cultures incorporate 'objectively immoral elements'. But that's not something I'd like to argue on this forum, if possible.


If you look closely at my post, you can see that the main beef I myself have with Darnock (and that I imagine most people having) is the objective fact that he is planning to exploit Zil. That's why I can't leave this out of the discussion, that's literally the beginning and the end of my point.


Also:


That has not been the case for a good long while now. Your country, even more so than mine, is an example of that.


As someone who also lives in Russia, a country with a value system that only partially align with the main one of the West (the rest being seemingly random bits and bobs of undigested eastern orthodoxy and communism), and that catches a lot of flack for it and gets dragged through the mud on a regular basis, I can sympathize with wanting to expose the blaming party. But let's not politicize our favourite porn forum. "Be at home, but don't forget that your are a guest" etc.

Very well, I'll leave it well alone. I do enjoy playing devil's advocate, but sometimes I do go too far.


For DFP and the others still around:


Alternatively, consider a reverse universe where everyone else is Treated, and New Texas is the last holdout of untreated people. Steele flies in, declares that Big T is cruel and evil to deny his people the happiness and comfort that the Treatment can bring, then sets about plotting to introduce the Treatment to everyone. Doesn't matter that they don't want it, doesn't matter that their culture emphasises free will and mental clarity, Big T is a wicked, wicked man to deny his people the Treatment and stunt their potential, and Steele is going to forcibly treat everyone and destroy their planetary culture.


Of course, we as players and writers feel this is abhorrent, because we're informed by our real-world values that free will and consent are cardinal virtues. In normal universe TiTS, Steele is perfectly justified in shutting down the Treatment because our values are Good and Enlightened and Just and Noble, and those of NT's are Evil and Backward and Oppressive and Stupid. All very good, we can meddle and mess when we're the Good Guys (TM). The Bad Guys(TM) aren't justified in meddling, because their values are Evil and Backward and Oppressive and Stupid.


What's to stop bizarro world Steele from claiming they're the Good Guy(TM), especially if they have the bigger guns? Bizarro Steele is Evil and Backward and Oppressive and Stupid? But clearly, given bizarro Steele's point of view they are Good and Enlightened and Just and Noble, even if we as readers and writers don't agree; they're merely bringing the light of the Treatment to the darkened world of New Texas, and since they're Good and Enlightened and Just and Noble, bizarro Steele knows what's good for you, will force it upon you, and is perfectly justified in forcing it upon you. In the end, it all boils down to who has the bigger guns and more political will, doesn't it?


Utopianist people with good intentions are infinitely more terrifying than mustache-twirling evil people. Anything can be rationalised away, especially with smart people; that's why "smart silly" is a thing.

 

[shadefalcon]

Some planets, cultures and/or people are bound to fall in bad taste to some people. There´s good and bad sides to everything, the only thing that decides which is which is the perspective. (*random philosophical opinions, no need to pay much mind to them really. I haven´t put all that many point into WIS)


I personally would never even consider nuking New Texas, not gonna deny others the pleasure though.


I think it would´ve been nice to be able to somehow convince the people of the planet to make the treatment no longer mandatory, but leave it as a choice when they reach 18. That way they can take it by their own will whenever they want. It would by no means be a perfect solution if one considers group pressure and all that. But I think it would fit the semi-realism this game seems like it´s going for. And anyway this is just a small naive dream on my part. (As to how you would convince them to change their rules, what better ways than to bang yourself up to the position of New Texas governor  )


But all politics and philosophy and no play makes Shadefalcon a dull rusher. I love this planet for what it is, a sexually themed vacation planet, and truly an up and coming haven for the centaur players. That is one of the directions I want NT to go towards xD  


And I´m really looking forward to see the cured Reaha path. Didn´t she have a younger sister too? I want to meet her.

 

[Couch]

It's a spurious hypothetical because we are informed by our real-world values that free will and consent are cardinal virtues.  We cannot avoid looking at the world from that perspective and still have the world be one that makes intuitive sense to us.  If someone were to make such a bizarro version of the game, its intent would have to be to disturb the player in Brave New World fashion.  New Texas is essentially a version of Brave New World that places somewhat more emphasis on nature over nurture than Huxley did, in fact.


You have to form your worldview on some sort of postulate.  Modern Western society uses the postulate that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are cardinal virtues, and so builds its laws around the discussion of what activities need to be limited, in defiance of that person's right to free will, because if those activities are unlimited then they will cause a greater harm to the rights of others.  That postulate cannot, and does not need to be justified.


If you work from that postulate, opposition to exploitation of natives by Snuggle, Xenogen and other megacorps is completely compatible with opposition to mandatory Treatment, which inflicts permanent harm to the Treated individual's rights to liberty and to be able to pursue happiness outside the specific kind the Treatment enforces.


Making that postulate compatible with opposition to Treatment in general enters the realm of political debate.  That the Treatment causes harm to the user's free will for the rest of their life is inarguable, but what is arguable is if avoiding that loss of free will later justifies banning their ability to make that decision now.  This is the essence of most modern Western politics, or at least it's supposed to be.

 

[Noob Salad]

All I've gotten out of this thread is that we should be able to nuke all planets, for consistency of course.

 

[Ethereal Dragon]

People with their strangely sick murder boners right eh?

 

[Klaptrap]

Can we all just take a step back and enjoy New Texas if you like cow bimbos and ignore the place if you don't? Please?


Please don't tell me we've gotten to the point where everybody needs to be reminded that this is a porny video game.

 

[princezilla]

Any argument that is founded on the idea that free will and consent are not undisputedly good things that should form the moral backbone for any society is just plain ridiculous because its right up there with 'don't murder people' on the globally excepted values of right and wrong. A society's right to self determination should never supersede the individual rights of the the people living there. And no its not that people have forgotten that this a game or that they don't think that morally bad/questionable things should be in games and object to the fact that it exists in the first place. However the fact that they can't do anything about it really hinders a lot of people's ability to enjoy the game. That is part of the reason why NT has so many people who feel so strongly about it. Games usually function on a system of morality=priority where minor things bandits and who commit minor crimes like theft are optional side quests and the big bad who wants to enslave the galaxy or commit genocide is the most important thing to stop and for a lot of people NT is unquestionably the most evil thing in the game so it sort of feels like you're saying "eh just leave Hyrule and let Ganon rule in peace, you weren't raised there anyway why do you care?" 

 

[PyrateHyena]

All this just makes me SO angry I have to explain my point ONCE MORE. You can not force your opinion and (what you consider) moral values on a functional society. It does not work, or it works for a small exception (like perhaps Zephyr and Raeha and maybe her sisters, who have been around Reaha and her opinion) but sooner or later it means bloodshed. I will explain where my view on this comes from. I study cultural anthropology and in the history of cultural anthropology there once was the so called notion of eurocentrism going back to scientists like Edward Tylor and others in the 19th century. That means or meant that the european societies and values developed and cultivated there were viewed as good, universally beneficial and forward (when compared to other cultures). This notion was used to justify the suppression of primarily american and african societies and the establishment of colonies. That this did not go without a LOT of bloodshed and corruption, a lot of bad or 'evil' stuff, is history. You might ask why that was the case and I will provide an answer. It was that way, because indigenous people, that were 'invaded' by european settlers did not want to change their social order and moral values, because their societies were functional and effective. THIS is my point: a functional and (subjectively appearing as) effective society LIKE NT has no need to change their social norms and rules. They will not do that without resistance. The general populance of NT has no need to change a working and (from their perspective) winning system, so they won't. The notion of eurocentrism is considered backwards by modern scholars. What we could call 'westerncentrism', the notion of 'western' values and norms as inherently good and forward, is essentially the same thing.

 

[razorrozar]

In the real world there are certain societies that place the needs of society and/or the well-being of the family over the rights of the individual to some extent. Even Western civilizations do it with taxes, requirements of paying alimony or child support (regardless of your actual opinion of how those systems are implemented), and the prevention of dissemination of classified information.


Personally I abhor New Texas's methods and mentality, but the most drastic change I would be willing to make would be making the Treatment voluntary and requiring that the implications and results of taking it be explained thoroughly to each individual prior to taking it.

 

[Noob Salad]

Can we all just take a step back and enjoy New Texas if you like cow bimbos and ignore the place if you don't? Please?


Please don't tell me we've gotten to the point where everybody needs to be reminded that this is a porny video game.

 

[princezilla]

Personally I abhor New Texas's methods and mentality, but the most drastic change I would be willing to make would be making the Treatment voluntary and requiring that the implications and results of taking it be explained thoroughly to each individual prior to taking it.

I agree that that would be the ideal ethical solution to the issue but I also think that allowing the option to take more extreme measures would be very interesting from a game/story standpoint.

All this just makes me SO angry I have to explain my point ONCE MORE. You can not force your opinion and (what you consider) moral values on a functional society. It does not work, or it works for a small exception (like perhaps Zephyr and Raeha and maybe her sisters, who have been around Reaha and her opinion) but sooner or later it means bloodshed. I will explain where my view on this comes from. I study cultural anthropology and in the history of cultural anthropology there once was the so called notion of eurocentrism going back to scientists like Edward Tylor and others in the 19th century. That means or meant that the european societies and values developed and cultivated there were viewed as good, universally beneficial and forward (when compared to other cultures). This notion was used to justify the suppression of primarily american and african societies and the establishment of colonies. That this did not go without a LOT of bloodshed and corruption, a lot of bad or 'evil' stuff, is history. You might ask why that was the case and I will provide an answer. It was that way, because indigenous people, that were 'invaded' by european settlers did not want to change their social order and moral values, because their societies were functional and effective. THIS is my point: a functional and (subjectively appearing as) effective society LIKE NT has no need to change their social norms and rules. They will not do that without resistance. The general populance of NT has no need to change a working and (from their perspective) winning system, so they won't. The notion of eurocentrism is considered backwards by modern scholars. What we could call 'westerncentrism', the notion of 'western' values and norms as inherently good and forward, is essentially the same thing.

First of all a society that forces all women to lobotomize themselves at the age of 18 is not functional. Second independent culture or society there are certain things that are and should be be considered moral absolutes. Westerncentrism primarily revolved around the enforcement of Judo-Christian values on unwilling individuals for what they believed was for their own good and the good of society and ironically given your argument, a lot of that involved forcing them to uphold the western patriarchal values that women were supposed to dress and act a certain way and always give deference to men. This was unquestionably wrong because taking away someones right to choose their own path when they have done nothing to hurt others is tyrannical and monstrous. The key difference here is that the people in those societies wanted to keep their cultural values while with NT half of the population is robbed of their ability to even have an opinion on the matter before they get the chance to question it.


And yes it is a porny game but it is one that holds itself to a high enough standard to actually pose these issues in universe and that's why a lot of people like it so much.

 

[PyrateHyena]

First of all a society that forces all women to lobotomize themselves at the age of 18 is not functional. Second independent culture or society there are certain things that are and should be be considered moral absolutes. Westerncentrism primarily revolved around the enforcement of Judo-Christian values on unwilling individuals for what they believed was for their own good and the good of society and ironically given your argument, a lot of that involved forcing them to uphold the western patriarchal values that women were supposed to dress and act a certain way and always give deference to men. This was unquestionably wrong because taking away someones right to choose their own path when they have done nothing to hurt others is tyrannical and monstrous. The key difference here is that the people in those societies wanted to keep their cultural values while with NT half of the population is robbed of their ability to even have an opinion on the matter before they get the chance to question it.

And therefore they DO NOT question it, which means you can not persuade them to adopt your point of view. And that means they will not change shit just because YOU want them to change it.


I meant to say functional in the sense of 'it works'. The word literally does not have any other meaning to it. And the NT system does work and has worked for many years.


Of course there are moral absolutes in cultures, but they are enforced and deveoped WITHIN the culture itself, and can not be changed from outside without a deep understanding of the culture in question and long negotiations and consent of the people themselves.


My point still stands, also I do not think you got it.

 

[Thayr]

What if there was a portion of the society that wished to be like the rest of the galaxy (You know...not bimbos or studs, but normal) and one could help them in creating their own place on NT (Or somewhere else, I just throw ideas out here) OR you can help Big T in 'correcting' their behavior, as it were.

 

[princezilla]

And therefore they DO NOT question it, which means you can not persuade them to adopt your point of view. And that means they will not change shit just because YOU want them to change it.


I meant to say functional in the sense of 'it works'. The word literally does not have any other meaning to it. And the NT system does work and has worked for many years.


Of course there are moral absolutes in cultures, but they are enforced and deveoped WITHIN the culture itself, and can not be changed from outside without a deep understanding of the culture in question and long negotiations and consent of the people themselves.


My point still stands, also I do not think you got it.

I got it but the standards do not work here because the situation is reversed. NT is the culture that is forcing people to be part of it against their wishes in this situation so the colonial comparison is laughable. None of what you are saying applies here because the population is literally being brainwashed in to compliance. A culture requires a group of like minded people all agreeing on their common values and because NT removes the ability to make the agreement it has no validity as a legitimate society much in the same way roofying someone so they'll have sex with you removes their ability to consent and therefor counts as rape.

 

[razorrozar]

I agree that that would be the ideal ethical solution to the issue but I also think that allowing the option to take more extreme measures would be very interesting from a game/story standpoint.

You're right about that, plus Steele is already able to do way more abhorrent things than cultural assimilation. Plus there's problems with our way too - it could easily lead to an undercaste of Treated individuals too busy fucking all the time to understand or have a meaningful impact on their society - or an undercaste of unTreated individuals ostracized for refusing to capitulate to the society's norms. Hell, it could even lead to a revolution by the unTreated who object to seeing their sisters or their daughters pressured into self-lobotomy, resulting in a bloody war that ends up with the Treatment being outlawed or made mandatory again, with nothing improved by Steele's actions.


@PyrateHyena calm down a little, maybe? It's a game, and we're only discussing this aspect of it for fun. Whatever we say or agree on is ultimately meaningless except insofar as it might result in content being added to the game (which is itself unlikely).

 

[princezilla]

You're right about that, plus Steele is already able to do way more abhorrent things than cultural assimilation. Plus there's problems with our way too - it could easily lead to an undercaste of Treated individuals too busy fucking all the time to understand or have a meaningful impact on their society - or an undercaste of unTreated individuals ostracized for refusing to capitulate to the society's norms. Hell, it could even lead to a revolution by the unTreated who object to seeing their sisters or their daughters pressured into self-lobotomy, resulting in a bloody war that ends up with the Treatment being outlawed or made mandatory again, with nothing improved by Steele's actions.


@PyrateHyena calm down a little, maybe? It's a game, and we're only discussing this aspect of it for fun. Whatever we say or agree on is ultimately meaningless except insofar as it might result in content being added to the game (which is itself unlikely).

I agree completely that even our solution could have issues though I think that they would be far more likely to be socio-economical then bloody given the nature of treated individuals themselves and the presence of UGC oversight. However it definitely not be a completely smooth transition. I've actually been considering writing this though my coding skills are rudimentary at best and I'm unsure if anyone who could code it in would care enough to actually do it if I wrote the scenes. I can plug and chug in to an existing template but this would probably be way more involved then that.

 

[PyrateHyena]

NT is the culture that is forcing people to be part of it against their wishes [...]

This is just not my impression of NT. Yes, Reaha is pissed and does not want the treatment, but everybody else on NT does not seem to care that much. Every culture is 'forcing' people to be part of it, at least if they do not like being alone and cast out. That is a universal rule and can be applied to every culture. The treatment is nothing but a cultural norm enforced by law, similar to 'western' social norms like monogamy or property rights, which are ALSO enforced by law (different from country to country and state to state). That is how modern societies work and I simply do not believe that a single rich kid should be allowed to mess with long established social norms, no matter how wrong or evil they feel. As long as you do not have a significant amount of the people of NT behind you with that, you have simply no right to do so.

 calm down a little, maybe? It's a game, and we're only discussing this aspect of it for fun. Whatever we say or agree on is ultimately meaningless except insofar as it might result in content being added to the game (which is itself unlikely).

I agree that I overreacted and my mentioning of 'bloodshed' was way over-the-top. I'll try to calm down a bit, maybe go to sleep soon. In case you did not realize it, I was also discussing. I said I was angry and you should probably not discuss when you are angry. Okay. But I had the feeling I had a point that was ignored in the (previous) discussion, so I cared to add it. I know what I posted did not sound like fun, but I am also doing this for fun. No one is paying me and I am not socially forced to participate in (as you said) meaningless forum debates.

 

[Couch]

This is just not my impression of NT. Yes, Reaha is pissed and does not want the treatment, but everybody else on NT does not seem to care that much. Every culture is 'forcing' people to be part of it, at least if they do not like being alone and cast out. That is a universal rule and can be applied to every culture.

As Reaha demonstrates, the culture of New Texas provides no preparation for those who might want to live outside it, which functionally holds them hostage to it.  If a Japanese person wants to move to America, or an American wants to move to Australia, or an Australian wants to move to China, their culture has prepared them with the basic knowledge of social conduct, economics, and tradeable skills that they can make a living in their new culture with some minor to moderate adjustment.  New Texan culture does not provide women with any of these skills, since they won't need any of them once they're Treated, and only provides men with the most basic of those skills since they make their living purely through physical labor.  If you leave New Texas after having been raised there, you will not survive.

 

[princezilla]

Not to mention every single female New Texan we encounter in the game who hasn't had her brain fried by the Treatment is aggressively and angrily against it.

 

[razorrozar]

I agree that I overreacted and my mentioning of 'bloodshed' was way over-the-top. I'll try to calm down a bit, maybe go to sleep soon. In case you did not realize it, I was also discussing. I said I was angry and you should probably not discuss when you are angry. Okay. But I had the feeling I had a point that was ignored in the (previous) discussion, so I cared to add it. I know what I posted did not sound like fun, but I am also doing this for fun. No one is paying me and I am not socially forced to participate in (as you said) meaningless forum debates.

No idea what happened there. I was trying to delete quote blocks and somehow ended up nesting them and I decided to stop before I made it any worse.


Anyway, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't have good points or that your response was invalid simply because you were angry. On the contrary, your points were good enough to make me come down on your side (though not without reservations). I simply meant that you needed to take a step back and breathe a little. This shit ain't worth raising your blood pressure over.

 

[Krynh]

I always look at these discussions on NT and think to myself "Surely there must be better things for people to discuss about the game, rather than this topic again?". 

 

[princezilla]

I always look at these discussions on NT and think to myself "Surely there must be better things for people to discuss about the game, rather than this topic again?". 

Its something people are passionate about. If people didn't get passionate about the game it never would have gotten the crowdfunding it did and the work put in to it wouldn't be nearly as compelling so let people talk about what fuels their passion.

 

[Krynh]

Its something people are passionate about. If people didn't get passionate about the game it never would have gotten the crowdfunding it did and the work put in to it wouldn't be nearly as compelling so let people talk about what fuels their passion.

I realise that, and it's good that people are passionate about it, I'm just saying there's plenty of other stuff that seems neglected compared to this. Plus some people get a bit too passionate about how New Texas works.

 

[princezilla]

I realise that, and it's good that people are passionate about it. However some people get a bit too passionate about how New Texas works.

Well its an issue that for a lot of people hits really close to home so you have to keep that in mind. NT may use a lot of fantastic elements and over exaggeration but the core principle is a very real one which is why the original Stepford Wives was so iconicly disturbing. The idea that women should be conditioned to act in a certain way is nowhere near as common as it used to be in most places but its still there. I actually know someone whose life story isn't that much different then Reaha's in that her parents had a very strict and firm view of what a woman's role should be and pressured and disciplined her to conform to it while cutting off access to access to things that might give her other ideas until she was forced to run away and sever all contact.

 

[OnyxDrakkenblade]

One thing EVERYONE seem to forget with NT: It has its own society. The people on NT had choosen to use the Treatment/change it/still use it.

You have obviously NOT run the Reaha quest line or slept through it to do something other than pay attention. The crux of the rest of your expressed point of view relies almost completely on a parent's right to choose not only for it's children but every generation thereafter. I presume by the sparks of intelligence in your long expression that you can see the flaws in such?


@Couch


1) Wow a whole bunch of venom spewed at "a spurious hypothetical" that I cannot actually resolve your reference to. I could presume that it's towards something that The Observer posted but I cannot confirm such.


2) I thoroughly enjoy the overall take on modern western values even if you do leave out the corrupting forces that have crept in to eat away at it from the inside and turn the tables away from such a basis. Though you do hint at it in the end.


3) Modern western society would in fact simply regulate The Treatment FOR NT with or without their consent, by bringing forth some sociopolitical body under who's purview The Treatment falls under (like the FDA), and if no such body existed modify some existing one or create a new one under the color of law to fulfill such a role.


4) I agree that women in this NT picture are abused, and by my US constitutionalist mentality that equates to harm. They should definitely have a forum for redress. I think that the only solution to NT requires something that the UGC doesn't have, an unbiased third party to arbitrate the potential emancipation or liberation of any party who CHOOSES such from the veil of The Treatment.


@princezilla While free will and (necessitated) consent may in fact be accepted values or morals or whatever (if you want my judgement about morals we can talk elsewhere), there is an inherent issue with free will and necessitated consent just as there would be with ANY two absolutes in a vacuum. They WILL collide. What happens when free will collides with necessitated consent? Who's morally acceptable? When is it okay for free will to override necessitated consent? When is it okay for necessitated consent to abort free will?


2) Indeed the stepford wives could break a great many illusions, I've always valued it for such. I like Heinlein for much the same reason, almost all of his work has some level of subversive illusion breaking thinking from line-marraiges to socially controversial reformist viewpoints.


@PyrateHyena I'm not going to enter into a debate with someone that chooses to argue rather than debate. That being said and you having reined yourself in, I will say that I think you have defined your judgments a bit too strongly by/with an interpretation of westerncentrism and eurocentrism, both of which are based upon a moral fabric which is made of an invisible and non-existent cloth which cannot even be made into the emperor's new clothes. Morality is at best ambiguous and demeaning, at worst it is the stuff of nightmares. I have not yet met a bully of any type, from the individual child bully at school to the empirical nation capitalizing upon it's advantageous position in the world, that did not feel morally superior to their targets. It simply goes about it in a circuitous manner and therefore cannot be pinned easily. Ethics aren't much better. They, at least, temper their existence with an understanding that they are in fact man-made (most of the time).

 

[princezilla]

You have obviously NOT run the Reaha quest line or slept through it to do something other than pay attention. The crux of the rest of your expressed point of view relies almost completely on a parent's right to choose not only for it's children but every generation thereafter. I presume by the sparks of intelligence in your long expression that you can see the flaws in such?


@Couch


1) Wow a whole bunch of venom spewed at "a spurious hypothetical" that I cannot actually resolve your reference to. I could presume that it's towards something that The Observer posted but I cannot confirm such.


2) I thoroughly enjoy the overall take on modern western values even if you do leave out the corrupting forces that have crept in to eat away at it from the inside and turn the tables away from such a basis. Though you do hint at it in the end.


3) Modern western society would in fact simply regulate The Treatment FOR NT with or without their consent, by bringing forth some sociopolitical body under who's purview The Treatment falls under (like the FDA), and if no such body existed modify some existing one or create a new one under the color of law to fulfill such a role.


4) I agree that women in this NT picture are abused, and by my US constitutionalist mentality that equates to harm. They should definitely have a forum for redress. I think that the only solution to NT requires something that the UGC doesn't have, an unbiased third party to arbitrate the potential emancipation or liberation of any party who CHOOSES such from the veil of The Treatment.


@princezilla While free will and (necessitated) consent may in fact be accepted values or morals or whatever (if you want my judgement about morals we can talk elsewhere), there is an inherent issue with free will and necessitated consent just as there would be with ANY two absolutes in a vacuum. They WILL collide. What happens when free will collides with necessitated consent? Who's morally acceptable? When is it okay for free will to override necessitated consent? When is it okay for necessitated consent to abort free will?


@PyrateHyena I'm not going to enter into a debate with someone that chooses to argue rather than debate. That being said and you having reined yourself in, I will say that I think you have defined your judgments a bit too strongly by/with an interpretation of westerncentrism and eurocentrism, both of which are based upon a moral fabric which is made of an invisible and non-existent cloth which cannot even be made into the emperor's new clothes. Morality is at best ambiguous and demeaning, at worst it is the stuff of nightmares. I have not yet met a bully of any type, from the individual child bully at school to the empirical nation capitalizing upon it's advantageous position in the world, that did not feel morally superior to their targets. It simply goes about it in a circuitous manner and therefore cannot be pinned easily. Ethics aren't much better. They, at least, temper their existence with an understanding that they are in fact man-made (most of the time).

I would argue that when they collide consent takes priority because its removal also removes free will while the reverse is not true.

 

[OnyxDrakkenblade]

I would argue that when they collide consent takes priority because its removal also removes free will while the reverse is not true.

I would posit then the following question? At what point, if any, is a person's free will more important than another person's consent? What if your consent denies me the right to life? If such a difficult to imagine hypothesis causes doubt in the whole, then where is the point that it changes over? This is the problem there can be one. There can be three. But two is ALWAYS a non-starter.

 

[princezilla]

I would posit then the following question? At what point, if any, is a person's free will more important than another person's consent? What if your consent denies me the right to life? If such a difficult to imagine hypothesis causes doubt in the whole, then where is the point that it changes over? This is the problem there can be one. There can be three. But two is ALWAYS a non-starter.

In such a situation I would make the argument of what is the price of consent and its removal? For your example I present the case we see in the movie/book My Sister's Keeper where the exactly moral quandary you posed is presented and the removal would result in a significant drop in the non consenting party's quality of life.


Further more the question you are really asking is at what point is one person's free will more important then another person's free will because a person who cannot consent has no free will.