Is it ok to have sex with holograms?

[BillJ]

Also, the idea that education alone is supposed to lift our species out of our ignorance is ignorant in itself.

I just don't know how to respond to this. Seems to me the disaster in Japan completely destroys whatever point your trying to make here. Their children are taught the importance of family, order and self-sacrifice from an early age. Those teachings have allowed it to remain an ordered society even in the most trying of times.

I agree that some regulations makes little sense. But to say that we should abandon attempts to regulate is illogical. We have to draw the line somewhere. We can argue over where the line should be draw, but don't tell me there shouldn't be any lines. We didn't evolve to where we are by allowing every member of our society to enjoy in self-indulgent behavior as often and as much as possible.

The only time a line should be drawn is when the actions of one infringe on the freedoms of another. And the punishment should be harsh.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Also, the adult book stores are not allowed to carry any material that depicts explicit rape or underage sex without a disclaimer that it is all acted out.

A condition which is thoroughly satisfied by a holodeck, of course.

Adult book stores are all but extinct in the U.S. now - some hang on, but are pretty moribund compared to the 1970s and 80s when they were a primary retail outlet for hard core pornography. The Internet, far less effectively regulated - including prevention of access by children - has replaced all of that. Any holographic technology would move in the same direction, at least in the West (and frankly, there's little enough evidence in Star Trek other than the occasional costume that any cultural matrix other than Western survives to the 23rd century, unlikely as that may be).

 

[infinix]

I just don't know how to respond to this. Seems to me the disaster in Japan completely destroys whatever point your trying to make here.

In the same way that my example about what happened to China and the opium addiction destroyed your point?

Their children are taught the importance of family, order and self-sacrifice from an early age. Those teachings have allowed it to remain an ordered society even in the most trying of times.

That is a very good point, isn't it? The children were taught that their personal freedom and desires were nothing compared to the well-being of the family and society. Strict regulation and discipline were imposed upon the populace at a very young age. By your "never infringe upon personal freedom, people are naturally good" argument, you should never approve of this type of society. But suddenly you are okay with it??

 

[infinix]

A condition which is thoroughly satisfied by a holodeck, of course.

Adult book stores are all but extinct in the U.S. now - some hang on, but are pretty moribund compared to the 1970s and 80s when they were a primary retail outlet for hard core pornography. The Internet, far less effectively regulated - including prevention of access by children - has replaced all of that. Any holographic technology would move in the same direction, at least in the West (and frankly, there's little enough evidence in Star Trek other than the occasional costume that any cultural matrix other than Western survives to the 23rd century, unlikely as that may be).

I didn't introduce the subject of adult book stores into this discussion. But on the possibility that holodeck technology would be as easily accessible as the internet.... I don't know. Holodecks require elaborate setups and significant energy input even in the 24th century. I don't see how it would be easy for every family to have multiple holodecks as we have multiple computer today.

Now, I know that when the computer first came out, it was large and expensive as well. But the nature of the holodeck requires at least walk-in closet sized space to function properly. Unless they eventually beam the holodeck fantasy directly into the brain...

 

[BillJ]

In the same way that my example about what happened to China and the opium addiction destroyed your point?

Opium existed in China for hundreds of years without any ill effect. What changed? The British targeted the poor. They violated those who didn't know any better.

That is a very good point, isn't it? The children were taught that their personal freedom and desires were nothing compared to the well-being of the family and society. Strict regulation and discipline were imposed upon the populace at a very young age. By your "never infringe upon personal freedom, people are naturally good" argument, you should never approve of this type of society. But suddenly you are okay with it??

I'm not sure how bringing kids up with a dose of common sense is the same thing as regulation? But what do I know?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I didn't introduce the subject of adult book stores into this discussion.

No, but I did note in my introduction of the subject that they're passe. They were an economic phase in the absorption of sexually explicit entertainment into American culture and were supplanted by more efficient, private and less interference-prone delivery systems.

But on the possibility that holodeck technology would be as easily accessible as the internet.... I don't know. Holodecks require elaborate setups and significant energy input even in the 24th century. I don't see how it would be easy for every family to have multiple holodecks as we have multiple computer today.

Since the title of the topic is "sex with holograms" rather than "sex on the holodeck" I'm not inclined to restrict speculation on how holographic sex fantasies would work to the rather prosaic and backward visualizations of Star Trek (where, let it be noted, every hand-held computer is evidently capable of storing only one or two files ). The question of "if you come up with an entertainment technology that lets people act out their sex fantasies, how would society adapt to that?" is bigger than Trek - since we already know that by the 24th century a little bit of neurosis is about the worst psychological shortcoming that human beings are liable to manifest.

 

[infinix]

Opium existed in China for hundreds of years without any ill effect. What changed? The British targeted the poor. They violated those who didn't know any better.

The form of opium that existed before is different from the form of opium that the British introduced. The form that the Brits introduced were far more addictive. And it wasn't just the poor that were addicted. People of all classes were hooked on the drug.

I'm not sure how bringing kids up with a dose of common sense is the same thing as regulation? But what do I know?

What's your definition of common sense and how do you imagine that common sense was instilled into the children? You are nuts if you believe that American children are brought up and disciplined the same way as the Japanese (Asian) children.

I spend the first 12 years of my life in Taiwan and the education I received were the same as that of the Japanese. We were taught very explicit set of rules and when we broke those rules, there were very severe consequences. In the Taiwanese and Japanese public educational system, teachers had ultimate authority and teacher's words were law. The teacher regulated the class room as if it were a militaristic state.

But what do I know?

You don't know.

 

[sonak]

I just don't know how to respond to this. Seems to me the disaster in Japan completely destroys whatever point your trying to make here.

In the same way that my example about what happened to China and the opium addiction destroyed your point?

Their children are taught the importance of family, order and self-sacrifice from an early age. Those teachings have allowed it to remain an ordered society even in the most trying of times.

That is a very good point, isn't it? The children were taught that their personal freedom and desires were nothing compared to the well-being of the family and society. Strict regulation and discipline were imposed upon the populace at a very young age. By your "never infringe upon personal freedom, people are naturally good" argument, you should never approve of this type of society. But suddenly you are okay with it??

Yes, having Japanese children getting indoctrinated with the idea that their individual beliefs and desires are nothing compared to the WILL OF THE SOCIETY/MILITARY/EMPEROR is a great idea with no negative consequences foreseeable.


oh wait, no.... maybe not.

(This isn't a post even specifically about Japan, just amusement at how someone could make a post like the one above without a trace of irony or historical awareness. I could have used German children for an analogy but I would've been violating Godwin's Law.)

 

[infinix]

Yes, having Japanese children getting indoctrinated with the idea that their individual beliefs and desires are nothing compared to the WILL OF THE SOCIETY/MILITARY/EMPEROR is a great idea with no negative consequences foreseeable.

oh wait, no.... maybe not.

(This isn't a post even specifically about Japan, just amusement at how someone could make a post like the one above without a trace of irony or historical awareness. I could have used German children for an analogy but I would've been violating Godwin's Law.)

We were talking about effects of education strictly within the confines of whether society should have rules and regulations. The educational system didn't make the Japanese people imperialistic. The rulers of the Japan made the military into an imperialistic military and the educational system helped the rulers control the people.

The British and the Spanish and the rest of the European powers were stepping on each other colonizing the world, imposing their will on the everyone else. What they were doing weren't that much different than what the Japanese tried to do. Different educational systems, same results. But that's neither here nor there.

Let's focus here and retrace what happened.

Me "We need rules and regulations to help keep the society civil."

Bill J "No, Education will deliver humanity out of ignorance."

Me "Education ALONE will NOT accomplish that goal."

Bill J "Look at Japan. They are educated very well and they are coping with disaster with civility."

Me "Yes, but Japanese education is based on strict rules and regulations."

 

[sonak]

Yes, having Japanese children getting indoctrinated with the idea that their individual beliefs and desires are nothing compared to the WILL OF THE SOCIETY/MILITARY/EMPEROR is a great idea with no negative consequences foreseeable.

oh wait, no.... maybe not.

(This isn't a post even specifically about Japan, just amusement at how someone could make a post like the one above without a trace of irony or historical awareness. I could have used German children for an analogy but I would've been violating Godwin's Law.)

We were talking about effects of education strictly within the confines of whether society should have rules and regulations. The educational system didn't make the Japanese people imperialistic. The rulers of the Japan made the military into an imperialistic military and the educational system helped the rulers control the people.

The British and the Spanish and the rest of the European powers were stepping on each other colonizing the world, imposing their will on the everyone else. What they were doing weren't that much different than what the Japanese tried to do. Different educational systems, same results. But that's neither here nor there.

Let's focus here and retrace what happened.

Me "We need rules and regulations to help keep the society civil."

Bill J "No, Education will deliver humanity out of ignorance."

Me "Education ALONE will NOT accomplish that goal."

Bill J "Look at Japan. They are educated very well and they are coping with disaster with civility."

Me "Yes, but Japanese education is based on strict rules and regulations."

Mmm OK, but I was responding to your line where you were remarking with seeming approval about a system that teaches the individual is almost meaningless compared to society.

I was pointing out that kind of thinking is looked on favorably by totalitarian systems(obviously) and has disastrous consequences.



Also, just because one opposes regulations on personal behavior that affects no one else doesn't mean they oppose all regulations.

 

[BillJ]

Also, just because one opposes regulations on personal behavior that affects no one else doesn't mean they oppose all regulations.

Said it much better than I ever could Sonak.

 

[BillJ]

Different educational systems, same results. But that's neither here nor there.

Now let's compare New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina with Northern Japan after the 8.9 earthquake. Different educational systems, different results.

 

[Cyke101]

Different educational systems, same results. But that's neither here nor there.

Now let's compare New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina with Northern Japan after the 8.9 earthquake. Different educational systems, different results.

Different government responses too, but you could maybe chalk that up to education as well. There are some values that are institutionalized and part of the overall hegemony here that isn't carried on in another academic atmosphere and vice versa -- lessons that transcend text books.

 

[BillJ]

Bill J "No, Education will deliver humanity out of ignorance."

Me "Education ALONE will NOT accomplish that goal."

Bill J "Look at Japan. They are educated very well and they are coping with disaster with civility."

Me "Yes, but Japanese education is based on strict rules and regulations."

Nowhere did I say I was against "rules and regulations", I only said I didn't favor regulating personal activities that didn't conflict with others' freedoms. And that with education people are going to be able to handle the moral implications of new technology.

I'm rather disappointed that this debate came to this.

 

[infinix]

Also, just because one opposes regulations on personal behavior that affects no one else doesn't mean they oppose all regulations.

Okay. But are you making that statement in an absolute term? eg. regardless of how many warning signs a person is exhibiting to be a danger to the society, the society should do nothing until harm is actually done?

Nowhere did I say I was against "rules and regulations", I only said I didn't favor regulating personal activities that didn't conflict with others' freedoms. And that with education people are going to be able to handle the moral implications of new technology.

But your position is an absolute black/white as well, no? Because you believe personal freedom should never be violated unless after harm is actually done to another person. Regardless of how many warning signs may have been available?

I'm rather disappointed that this debate came to this.

You and me both, buddy.

 

[BillJ]

Also, just because one opposes regulations on personal behavior that affects no one else doesn't mean they oppose all regulations.

Okay. But are you making that statement in an absolute term? eg. regardless of how many warning signs a person is exhibiting to be a danger to the society, the society should do nothing until harm is actually done?

Nowhere did I say I was against "rules and regulations", I only said I didn't favor regulating personal activities that didn't conflict with others' freedoms. And that with education people are going to be able to handle the moral implications of new technology.

But your position is an absolute black/white as well, no? Because you believe personal freedom should never be violated unless after harm is actually done to another person. Regardless of how many warning signs may have been available?

I'm rather disappointed that this debate came to this.

You and me both, buddy.

I said earlier in the thread that it comes down to a case by case basis. Might want to rescan the thread.

 

[BillJ]

A lot of people talk about punishing people like this.... What if it turned out, they never were going to kill and rape someone? Then you'll stuck with someone with an emotional problem because you forced them to expose themselves...! Mental pain and anguish is not easy to treat. That's why you never want to exposed anyone, for that matter, in the first place.

So your answer is basically this if you were in a position where you discovered explicit and vivid written descriptions of rape/torture/murder fantasies of those around you, you will pretend it never happened and you will do nothing about it.

YES or NO?

I love how you're desperately trying to paint this as a black and white issue. There would be multiple factors involved before I could make a decision that could theoretically ruin a persons personal life.

Here it is...

 

[infinix]

I love how you're desperately trying to paint this as a black and white issue. There would be multiple factors involved before I could make a decision that could theoretically ruin a persons personal life.

Here it is...

Thanks for finding it.

Look, I wasn't advocating that we jail everyone of those cases. I wasn't even advocating that we ship everyone of them off to a mental hospital. I was making a simple case that there should be a system in place where people who are more knowledgeable and specifically trained can be brought in to evaluate the situation.

My black/white area ends at "I need to find people to help me evaluate these disturbing things I am seeing." After that, its all shades of grey.

I have stated previously in this thread that the person who is being evaluated doesn't even have to know that it is happening. Because at the end, it might very well be harmless and nobody else needs to know about it. But at least due diligence was done.

Do we even agree on that? Because if we don't, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

[BillJ]

Look, I wasn't advocating that we jail everyone of those cases. I wasn't even advocating that we ship everyone of them off to a mental hospital. I was making a simple case that there should be a system in place where people who are more knowledgeable and specifically trained can be brought in to evaluate the situation.

I have stated previously in this thread that the person who is being evaluated doesn't even have to know that it is happening. Because at the end, it might very well be harmless and nobody else needs to know about it. But at least due diligence was done.

Do we even agree on that? Because if we don't, then we will simply have to agree to disagree.

I think anyone being evaluated needs to know that they are under surveillance.

The government is a blunt instrument unfortunately... and I doubt their ability to handle something like this with any type of care that is necessary.

For me it still all comes down to a case by case basis.

 

[infinix]

^
I can drink to that.

Okay, I'm done here. As surely as my *screen*name is infinix, I will not post in this thread again.