History Headscratchers / Unwind

27th Dec '15 2:31:45 PM Willbyr
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* How is Unwinding even managing to go on? Aside from the fact that the process is so deep into ArtMajorBiology that it nearly hits CriticalResearchFailure, it also violates some long-established laws and codes of ethics, which in and of themselves would be pretty much sufficient to ensure nobody does the research. The premise itself is a [[DarthWiki/WallBanger Wall Banger]] if you know any of the science involved here, really...

to:

* How is Unwinding even managing to go on? Aside from the fact that the process is so deep into ArtMajorBiology that it nearly hits CriticalResearchFailure, it also violates some long-established laws and codes of ethics, which in and of themselves would be pretty much sufficient to ensure nobody does the research. The premise itself is a [[DarthWiki/WallBanger Wall Banger]] makes no sense if you know any of the science involved here, really...



** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone layer. They have become the very thing they hated.

to:

** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its it's convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone layer. They have become the very thing they hated.
7th Feb '15 10:16:18 AM Bk-notburgerking
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** It's supposed to be like that on purpose. The biological rules in our world applies in the series, but nobody puts much thought.
1st Nov '13 10:17:34 PM mchitrak
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's a fair point, but two reasons come to mind. Firstly, ending a war was a tasty incentive. Books like 'The Shock Doctrine' show how states of crisis can allow unwanted, and generally unpopular laws and policies to slip through (in the real world). In essence, Reality is Unrealistic and humans are not always rational, especially when the trustworthy news channels blow up with reports of feral teens. If people can get behind the ethnic cleansing of people they've lived amongst for decades/centuries, the unwinding compromise doesnt seem so far fetched. All of this is lampshaded in the book itself.
The second reason is, of course, all the B.S. about the unwound not being dead, but merely 'being in a divided state' etc. etc. Instead of tangible foetus deaths, you have abstract arguments of 'what measure is a human' and the nature of death, which is sufficiently complex to allow most people to stop thinking about it and classify it, in Terry Pratchett terms, as 'somebody else's problem'

to:

** It's a fair point, but two reasons come to mind. Firstly, ending a war was a tasty incentive. Books like 'The Shock Doctrine' show how states of crisis can allow unwanted, and generally unpopular laws and policies to slip through (in the real world). In essence, Reality is Unrealistic and humans are not always rational, especially when the trustworthy news channels blow up with reports of feral teens. If people can get behind the ethnic cleansing of people they've lived amongst for decades/centuries, the unwinding compromise doesnt seem so far fetched. All of this is lampshaded in the book itself.
itself. The second reason is, of course, all the B.S. about the unwound not being dead, but merely 'being in a divided state' etc. etc. Instead of tangible foetus deaths, you have abstract arguments of 'what measure is a human' and the nature of death, which is sufficiently complex to allow most people to stop thinking about it and classify it, in Terry Pratchett terms, as 'somebody else's problem'
1st Nov '13 10:17:06 PM mchitrak
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* ''Why'' is the process of Unwinding considered a "compromise" between pro-choice and pro-life? It violates the central ideas of both schools of thought. People can no longer choose what to do about unwanted pregnancies--storking means they aren't going to be raising the kid, but it doesn't solve the medical or psychological issues that can come with being pregnant. And if pro-lifers consider a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet too sacred to get rid of, then it's unlikely they would support chopping up teenagers. It's like an anti-compromise, if anything. It just seems unlikely that people would agree to this.

to:

* ''Why'' is the process of Unwinding considered a "compromise" between pro-choice and pro-life? It violates the central ideas of both schools of thought. People can no longer choose what to do about unwanted pregnancies--storking means they aren't going to be raising the kid, but it doesn't solve the medical or psychological issues that can come with being pregnant. And if pro-lifers consider a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet too sacred to get rid of, then it's unlikely they would support chopping up teenagers. It's like an anti-compromise, if anything. It just seems unlikely that people would agree to this.this.
** It's a fair point, but two reasons come to mind. Firstly, ending a war was a tasty incentive. Books like 'The Shock Doctrine' show how states of crisis can allow unwanted, and generally unpopular laws and policies to slip through (in the real world). In essence, Reality is Unrealistic and humans are not always rational, especially when the trustworthy news channels blow up with reports of feral teens. If people can get behind the ethnic cleansing of people they've lived amongst for decades/centuries, the unwinding compromise doesnt seem so far fetched. All of this is lampshaded in the book itself.
The second reason is, of course, all the B.S. about the unwound not being dead, but merely 'being in a divided state' etc. etc. Instead of tangible foetus deaths, you have abstract arguments of 'what measure is a human' and the nature of death, which is sufficiently complex to allow most people to stop thinking about it and classify it, in Terry Pratchett terms, as 'somebody else's problem'
21st Oct '13 9:18:34 AM Amcelynn
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

**Most people aren't willing to believe that their family are the kind of people who would do anything for money. It's what keeps the Black Widows and the Blue Beards of the World employed.
15th Jul '13 1:35:57 PM cordychase
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone layer. They have become the very thing they hated.

to:

** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone layer. They have become the very thing they hated.hated.

*''Why'' is the process of Unwinding considered a "compromise" between pro-choice and pro-life? It violates the central ideas of both schools of thought. People can no longer choose what to do about unwanted pregnancies--storking means they aren't going to be raising the kid, but it doesn't solve the medical or psychological issues that can come with being pregnant. And if pro-lifers consider a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet too sacred to get rid of, then it's unlikely they would support chopping up teenagers. It's like an anti-compromise, if anything. It just seems unlikely that people would agree to this.
20th May '13 5:36:26 PM Amcelynn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone lyar. They have become the very thing they hated.

to:

** The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone lyar.layer. They have become the very thing they hated.
20th May '13 5:36:12 PM Amcelynn
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because a teenager is not equivalent to a fetus. Not even close.

to:

* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because a teenager is not equivalent to a fetus. Not even close.close.
**The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone lyar. They have become the very thing they hated.
29th Apr '13 1:09:09 PM Snowsky
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because chopping a teenager into a zillion different body parts is not equivalent to yanking out an unborn fetus with a suction machine.

to:

* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because chopping a teenager into a zillion different body parts is not equivalent to yanking out an unborn fetus with a suction machine.fetus. Not even close.
29th Apr '13 1:08:19 PM Snowsky
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because it's being done to a teenager instead of an unborn fetus.

to:

* "Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because it's being done to chopping a teenager instead of into a zillion different body parts is not equivalent to yanking out an unborn fetus.fetus with a suction machine.
This list shows the last 10 events of 20. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.Unwind