I have this friend. His wife left him for another guy, but that didn’t work out for her. Meanwhile, my friend poured his life into his work, got wealthy and bought himself a sex-bot (Evangeline). Anyway, his ex reprogrammed the damned thing to save the sperm rather than flush it, and she used it to artificially inseminate herself, and now the guy’s in court trying to overturn the child support award that the state gave her.
Sucks, huh?
To make matters worse, while he was all wound up with the court business, his <scare quotes>pal</scare quotes>, who was supposed to be taking care of his place, raped his sex-bot. How fucked up is that?
You know, just about every snarky comeback I can think of involves questions of whether artificial intelligences can give informed consent. And there’s something deeply wrong with that.
HAH! I never fall for this kind of crap.
Ever wish Yale had kept that Taliban dude hanging around? Just to see the look on his face.
The point of art is not to make your bacon and eggs never taste the same after a showing.
Hmmmm.
DUDE! Whez teh sexe?
I’m bummed!
Evangeline should meet my Ex’s sex bot, O’Jay.
Dan, you have to see this: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/04/17/theres-no-way-this-is-real/#comments
Those of you who objected to post-abortion effluent as the subject of art on the grounds that it was a) a flippant treatment of a serious moral issue and b) really, really silly/bad art were WRONG. WRONG for lending credibility to what someone plainly stated that she had done. It was, like, a total hoax that is entirely impossible. (except for the fact that the stories that I read referred to “abortofacient drugs” which, I am aware, do exist and are available, as in the case of a mega-dose of birth control pills, no?) You just believed it because it confirms your straw-man of feminists.
Then, in the comments, on more than one occasion, there are statements of support for what the “artist” claimed to have done in the first place, thus reinforcing those so-called “straw-men.”
Good stuff. Also, when seeing a picture of the “artist,” did anyone else think “Shvarts” was an onomatopÅ“ia?
I did see that onomatopoeia angle, Alec. My comment was, “But is it shvart?” I’ll check out the Pandagony, though, thanks.
Where does art stop and the heavy dosing with medications begin?
So, Alec, your default mode is to assume feminists are lying?
I’ll keep that in mind.
“Well, if “art” means thinking up ever-increasingly degraded ways of getting attention, this person has certainly created “art.”
That line would seem to apply to much of today’s art world.
I give art letter grades.
This was definitely “F” art.
“Well, if “art†means thinking up ever-increasingly degraded ways of getting attention, this person has certainly created “art.â€Â
I do not think she created art. She committed an act of art.
Actofart?
“So, Alec, your default mode is to assume feminists are lying?
I’ll keep that in mind.”
I don’t have a hard-and-fast rule for feminists, other than that they rarely like it “hard-and-fast,” or, at all.
I think a thread stating that Chrystal Gail Mangum’s rape accusations were “performance art” would be appropriate at this time. “Haha! She like, totally fooled all the feminists! Hah-za! Bing! Pow!”
I just realized who will reappear if I say that two more times…
Table 1 lists the amount of virtual memory and the maximum amount of physical memory that each edition of Windows supports. ,