TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
Groundhog Day and Rape
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [246]  1 ...  5  6  7  8  9
10

Groundhog Day and Rape:

tilkau
[up] What's the use of other definitions here?

"Of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill"? (my definition mostly maps onto this)

"Reasonable; sensible."?

the way I see it being used here is neither of those. It's more like "people who agree with me (who OBVIOUSLY are reasonable and sensible)". Which is not any kind of definition I care to subscribe to; it just looks like taking your own moral intuitions as evidence for things actually being that way.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:19:26 PM by SavageOrange

Raven Wilder
So, Yeah Bro, what if I built a life-size, completely realistic looking replica of a person, then chopped it into pieces with a hatchet: does that make me the moral equivalent of a murderer?
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
^Only if it could think and feel pain. Like someone other than you in a "Groundhog Day" Loop.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:19:39 PM by RTaco

Raven Wilder
But someone else in a "Groundhog Day" Loop can't think or feel pain, because the version of them that experienced the pain never existed.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
We're Having All The Fun
What's the use of other definitions?

Yeah, fuck having words with multiple meanings, language would be so much better if everything had one word to describe it, and every word had only one definition. That wouldn't totally destroy language as we know it. Much as I hate to take a leaf from your book, you might want to look up Newspeak.

"Of sound mind; not mad or mentally ill"? (this is what my definition maps onto)

How is this the definition you use when clearly not everyone is mentally ill. I mean, I have no mental conditions, so there is at least one bit of evidence which fucks over your whole claim.

It's more like "people who agree with me"

If they did not agree with me, then they would be a rape apologist. You see, in that instance there is a dichotomy, there are people with sound morals (The non-rape apologists) and those without.

edit:

So, Yeah Bro, what if I built a life-size, completely realistic looking replica of a person, then chopped it into pieces with a hatchet: does that make me the moral equivalent of a murderer?

Would it react like a person as you were killing it? If so, then you are certainly someone who is willing to kill in cold blood, is that not reason enough to deem someone as fucked in the head?

edited 6th Dec '11 8:22:36 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.
Mentor
[up][up][up]That's assuming that universe still exists. In a literal loop the universe is destroyed and reformed every 24 hours. That action did not happen.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:21:42 PM by thatguythere47

 232 Colonial1. 1, Tue, 6th Dec '11 8:23:44 PM from The Marvelous River City
Crazed Lawrencian
Would you want those images in your mind for next decade or so of days?
Proud member of the IAA

What's the point of being grown up if you can't act childish?
"But someone else in a Groundhog Day Loop can't think or feel pain"

Uh, yes, they can. Where did you get that from?

edited 6th Dec '11 8:26:06 PM by DisasterGrind

 
tilkau
How is this the definition you use when clearly not everyone is mentally ill. I mean, I have no mental conditions, so there is at least one bit of evidence which fucks over your whole claim.

Well, if you believe in diagnonsense determining whether you are actually mentally sound or not, I have nothing more to say to you. Good Day Sir.
[up] Okay, you really want to be able to call yourself insane. We get it.

[down]You're the best. That's all I can say at this point.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:33:08 PM by DisasterGrind

 
We're Having All The Fun
Well, if you believe in diagnonsense determining whether you are actually mentally sound or not, I have nothing more to say to you. Good Day Sir.

Running away are we? So, why don't you believe professionals who are likely to know what the fuck they are talking about and why do you feel that you, probably a fat spotty nerd kid who thinks that they are a genius philosopher, are more qualified to judge?

[up] He clearly wants to diagnose himself with Aspergers without actually having it.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:30:08 PM by YeahBro

All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.
"I note that, though I don't agree with Swish, it's pretty clear that this scenario is basically of a solipsistic fantasizing, just, derived from reality rather than distorted concepts. Applying morals to anything except a) the effects on the solipsist, or b) the final loop, is pretty clearly a type error (the situation is sufficiently different that inputting it to moral calculus will just return nonsense.) In order to say that inflicting pain is bad in this context, you'd have to actually make an argument that the concept of inflicting any kind of suffering even makes sense in this context, instead of simply asserting that inflicting pain is bad (it is normally, but the proposed situation is very abnormal). I would like to see you do that. It would satisfy my moral intuition.. I myself have found no such argument."

In this scenario, as in any other, the golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you can't think of any reason not to be raped if the event will promptly be erased, go for it, more power to ya.
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
Raven Wilder
"But someone else in a Groundhog Day Loop can't think or feel pain"

Uh, yes, they can. Where did you get that from?

Anything someone else thinks or feels during a "Groundhog Day" Loop doesn't actually occur. There's only one timeline, and just because one guy has seen a bunch of different version of how the timeline could turn out doesn't change the fact that those events never transpired.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
tilkau
For pretty much the reason I distrust organized religion.. there's WAAAAAY too much vested interest there to expect them to be accurate rather than following the money.

But regardless, I don't trust such diagnostics from ANYONE (inc. me). People are people and diagnostics are medical.

So perhaps you can edit out that absurd attack.

edited 6th Dec '11 8:38:10 PM by SavageOrange

[up][up]Let me go the simple route and ask you this:

How did you come to the conclusion that someone living in an ever-repeating day will definitely lose their ability to think and feel? Especially since that's not the scenario we're presented with in the OP?

edited 6th Dec '11 8:37:11 PM by DisasterGrind

 
"Anything someone else thinks or feels during a Groundhog Day Loop doesn't actually occur. There's only one timeline, and just because one guy has seen a bunch of different version of how the timeline could turn out doesn't change the fact that those events never transpired."

If you interpret the trope as the character exploring different possibilities in a kind of physical vision, in the vein of Run, Lola, Run, then yes. However, that isn't relevant to the ethical question being posed.
And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?
We're Having All The Fun
For pretty much the reason I distrust organized religion.. there's WAAAAAY too much vested interest there to expect them to be accurate rather than following the money.

Wouldn't they get more money if they over-diagnosed rather than under-diagnosed. Your batshit crazy conspiracy theory is not internally consistent. Also, following the money is not exactly the best way to judge things. Flower salespeople made a shittonne of money following Princess Dianna's death, would you then go on to say that the flower salespeople are the cause of Dianna's death?
All I do, is sit down at the computer, and start hittin' the keys. Getting them in the right order, that's the trick.
Mentor
"How did you come to the conclusion that someone living in an ever-repeating day will definitely lose their ability to think and feel? Especially since that's not the scenario we're presented with in the OP?"

It's not that they lose their ability to think and feel it's that they never had it. All events that occur within a loop do not actually happen. You remember them but you physically haven't even done them yet. (assuming the loopee is reset physically every day, otherwise it'll get weird when you loop back and you've melded into a car that was parked there earlier that day)

Raven Wilder
The version of the person within the "Groundhog Day" Loop can't think or feel because they don't actually exist.

Let's say the loop begins at 3:00 PM on November 10th. The loop lasts 12 hours, so at 3:00 AM on November 11th time is reversed, and it's suddenly November 10th at 3:00 PM again. This repeats twenty times, and during three of these repetitions Alice and Bob are run over by a steamroller. Then, on the twenty-first loop, time doesn't rewind, and 3:00 AM on November 11th is followed by 3:01 AM on November 11th, just like we're used to it doing. So how many times were Alice and Bob run over by a steamroller?

Zero, because, until the last go around, nothing that happened between 3:00 PM and 3:00 AM actually happened. By reversing time you don't simply alter the effects of what you did during that period of time; you make it so that you never actually did those things in the first place. Everything you saw or experienced during the time loops wasn't real; all of it (including the people) exists only as memories in your brain.
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko
 245 USAF713, Tue, 6th Dec '11 8:50:53 PM from the United States
I changed accounts.
I don't understand why one would need to justify rape either way.

I mean, even in the movie, he never really uses violence to solve anything. After all, what if you really did have infinite time with only yourself as the one who remembers anything? You could learn everything there is to know, what with the internet. You could figure out how to simply charm the pants off any man or woman you chose, by learning everything about them. You could memorize the patterns of the day and manipulate them as you wished.

Of course, that may not be particularly moral either, but I see little reason why one would immediately resort to rape or murder to get what one wants simply because the crime is lacking in realistic consequences. To me, that simply means one would already have a moral deficiency as it is, and are merely fantasizing what it would be like without a society to hold one's self and one's own twisted desires back from harming others...
I am now known as Flyboy.
 246 blackcat, Tue, 6th Dec '11 8:55:49 PM Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Enough's enough.
Love extends the boundaries of what people can accept, but don't depend on it.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 246
 1 ...  5  6  7  8  9
10


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy