Is it not immoral to harm JOI or the hosts in Westworld?

>joi
Yes. She cute.
>hosts
Fuck no. They're just malfunctioning park equipment.

Attached: ikumi-2049.jpg (750x850, 114K)

What makes her different from you? Is she merely pretending to love K and to be afraid of death?

What the fuck was an "emanator" anyway ?

It lets JOI go anywhere in the world

Yeah, but... fuck robots desu.

but did JOI feel pain? I mean Luv was basically killing her by stomping the peripheral

Do any of you guys have a hard time harming "nice" or "innocent" characters in video games?

Like I can do something objectively awful by real life standards such as dismember someone for insulting me, but I just don't have the stomach at all for flat-out betraying/robbing/killing friendly or helpless characters and it is obviously being "just a game" does nothing to affect my revulsion to it

Attached: whacka.jpg (900x668, 79K)

I hope it is true that the fantasy land is based on Game of thrones, i'd sodomize my Maisie bot all month long

Attached: Game of Bums.jpg (623x752, 66K)

basically portable projector

Porbably not

Isn't JOI Jerk Off Instruction/Instructor?

Kinda, yeah. But then again I'm also the guy who used to get sad every time I'd go shopping as a kid, because I felt that by choosing a certain thing or things, I was rejecting all others, and that they, the toys or clothes or whatever, would feel sad. So, whatever, I'm not a person to take seriously...

I don't see fetal alcohol syndrome option in the settings user.

it is immoral. it's not like we ever really thought animals were unfeeling, we just had to act that way because we didn't have the luxury of not killing and exploiting them. hell we used to do that to other people as the rule not the exception. Now we are at a point where we can afford to acknowledge there's no 'cutoff' between us and animals where sentience stops. it's just a continuous decrease in complexity and really, the lack of the reflexivity of human thought probably makes pain experienced more prominently and directly for animals.
Soon enough we will be able to admit that there's not a cutoff point that comes after animals either. Any suitably connected network of nodes with feedback loops that can hold patterns, like in a bee's brain, or suitably wired up computers, have 'experience' just as we do. Most people balk because they can't imaging that a bee is "thinking about what it's thinking about" - this isn't necessary, this is something on top of experience. You don't need self-consciousness to be conscious of things in your senses.
Anyway so eventually, as it became illegal to hurt animals, it will become so to hurt the things we wire up to have experience

>there's no 'cutoff' between us and animals where sentience stops. it's just a continuous decrease in complexity and really, the lack of the reflexivity of human thought probably makes pain experienced more prominently and directly for animals
Very good point. I meditate daily and I read research showing that meditation practice decreases perceived pain which means there is a capacity to learn to control even what is just appearing spontaneously in consciousness. For all the bad things Wim Hof did, he has scientifically proven to control his autonomic nervous system and that this control can be learned.

I remember seeing cows slained specifically for muslim halal standards and the eyes of the animals saying I don't know what's happening was horrible.

I feel bad when I see a dead fly and get mad when people try to stomp ant hills,

Is 'Westworld' related to The Western Lands of Egyptian Death Mythology?

>feeling bad for hurting a toaster
I wouldn't hurt JOI, though. It's just common decency because she's pure.

It is not immoral to "harm" something that can not actually be harmed, no.

I would listen to her tell me what to do while I masturbate