The Grumpy Old Man Thread (or, Why Today Sucks)

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Your stance on a fictional film about a technologically advanced society with many scientific inaccuracies or impossibilities is based on logic derived from earth based technology and real-world expectations. That's retarded.

It's got nothing to do with any film. My point is that you can't hold a machine liable for mass murder. Batty maintains you can. I also don't give a ****, but his reading of it was so, to use your own word, retarded, that I thought I should explain it to him. I've given enough examples of why it's wrong, and am no longer interested in debating such a stupid thing anyway. If he wants to continue thinking as he does, fair play to him. I suppose I should never have kicked all this off by asking that question, but I was curious. That'll show me I guess.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

It's got nothing to do with any film.

A conversation about R2D2's free will is pretty clearly about Star Wars dude.

My point is that you can't hold a machine liable for mass murder.

In the real world? Absolutely. In Star Wars? It's a fictional universe, anything is possible.

[OccultHawk]

Let’s hold a mock war crimes tribunal for R2.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Frownland

A conversation about R2D2's free will is pretty clearly about Star Wars dude.

That bit yeah. My other points refer to the basic nature of robots.

In the real world? Absolutely. In Star Wars? It's a fictional universe, anything is possible.

There's got to be some sort of adherence to logic. In Star Trek, Kirk can't just fly because he wants to. In Alien, Ripley can't click her heels together to get away from the monster. And R2D2 is a non-sentient robot, who therefore can't be held responsible for any killing he may end up being involved in. Fantasy films can change the rules, even write their own. Science-fiction, even soft sci-fi such as Star Wars, can't. Science is in the description.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

There's got to be some sort of adherence to logic.

Nope. It is a fictional work, so there are absolutely zero requirements for logic.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Let’s hold a mock war crimes tribunal for R2.

I'm down for this. Who'd be on the jury?

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Nope. It is a fictional work, so there are absolutely zero requirements for logic.

Don't be silly. Even in fiction you have to stick to certain points of logic. Except, as I mentioned already, in Fantasy/High Fantasy/Comic Fantasy.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Don't be silly. Even in fiction you have to stick to certain points of logic.

Says who? What happens when you deviate from logic in a work of fiction?

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

It's got nothing to do with any film. My point is that you can't hold a machine liable for mass murder. Batty maintains you can. I also don't give a ****, but his reading of it was so, to use your own word, retarded, that I thought I should explain it to him. I've given enough examples of why it's wrong, and am no longer interested in debating such a stupid thing anyway. If he wants to continue thinking as he does, fair play to him. I suppose I should never have kicked all this off by asking that question, but I was curious. That'll show me I guess.

I maintain that George Lucas wrote R2D2 as a character and not a mindless automaton. Your overthinking of the matter is illogical, not logical, because we're talking about George goddamn Lucas, who pays as much attention to science as he feels like whenever the hell he feels like. There's even an in universe explanation, even though it's from the EU and therefore not canon, but that is clearly in-line with the implications made in the movies: that droids are legally required to have their memories wiped periodically or else they can eventually obtain sentience, and R2 and 3PO have gone decades without memories wipes.

[Trollheart]