Fair enough. You point out a valid concern, and it's one I share. It's the reason I maintain that every federal level politician and everyone that makes over $X per year (We'll say $500,000 for this discussion) should have their children on mandatory, front-line, active duty military service in the event of any military action. No exceptions for any reason. If they want to declare a war then they'd best be prepared to let their family be on the front lines.Deshara said:
As with jetpack, Science will tell you "Try down the road, that's where Engineering lives." ^^seydaman said:
well they deal with pain because its the easiest kind of stimuli. they know how to easily induce it and can be induced at anytime. also it is easily remembered . quickly think of the sensation you have when you touch some say fabric. now think of the pain when someone punched you in the jaw. yeah the pain is way more easily remembered. and it can be used in anyway. why not use sight or sound you may ask. well because sight can not be always used. what if the mouse shuts it's eyes? and sound is not remembered easily at all. also im sure it wasn't like to shock them with say 100k kilowatts. it was just a little shock to make sure the mice remembered.GoaThief said:
I'm with you mate, this is some seriously scary shit and once fully developed could be very dangerous; our memories form the core of our personality and our identity, change them and you effectively change a person, and with the right false memories implanted you could potentially coerce someone into doing terrible acts that they wouldn't normally do.FancyNick said:
Yeah, yeah...we've already done plenty of the Aperture Science/Cave Johnson jokes earlier in the topic. In fact, I already did that one a little earlier on this page:DRTJR said:The Question your asking is "Why?" When it should be "Why not?"RJ 17 said:I generally tend to agree...but like I implied: isn't there something better they could be doing?Syzygy23 said:
RJ 17 said:
I forgot that was a Cave Johnson quote, what's the Over/Under on how long until MIT makes combustible lemons? I'd say a year at the earliest.RJ 17 said:Yeah, yeah...we've already done plenty of the Aperture Science/Cave Johnson jokes earlier in the topic. In fact, I already did that one a little earlier on this page:DRTJR said:The Question your asking is "Why?" When it should be "Why not?"RJ 17 said:I generally tend to agree...but like I implied: isn't there something better they could be doing?Syzygy23 said:
Hehehe, which brings me back to my original response to this topic: "MIT: Because apparently we really DON'T have anything better to do."DRTJR said:I forgot that was a Cave Johnson quote, what's the Over/Under on how long until MIT makes combustible lemons? I'd say a year at the earliest.RJ 17 said:Yeah, yeah...we've already done plenty of the Aperture Science/Cave Johnson jokes earlier in the topic. In fact, I already did that one a little earlier on this page:DRTJR said:The Question your asking is "Why?" When it should be "Why not?"RJ 17 said:I generally tend to agree...but like I implied: isn't there something better they could be doing?Syzygy23 said:
You want soldier's to be responsible for what they have done, BUT you also want to force some people into military service just because of their socio-economic background?shirkbot said:
I openly admit that this is extremely harsh, if not outright cruel but my logic is thus: War is pretty much the worst thing humankind engages in, and often the people suggesting it aren't facing any personal consequences from doing so. People don't empathize well with the "existential other" so this is a way to make sure everyone involved will have to face the harshest possible consequences for engaging in it. If you want to describe their family as hostages, remember who's families we're talking about: Federal level politicians and the very wealthy. The former is directly responsible for making the decision to use military force, and the latter has a great deal of influence over the former. They're only hostages to their own family members who have almost complete control over the decision. This is not a perfect solution, or even a particularly ideal one. This is a solution created on the basis that no one should be willing to put another person's life at risk, unless they'd be willing to either do the same themselves or have a family member in the same situation. If you want the clearest example of why this is even an option in my mind, look to the Vietnam War and the behavior of the groups we're discussing.Chicago Ted said:
