Westworld : Would security allow guests to rape child hosts?

Do you think?

Guests are paying $40K a day, EACH so there shouldn't be any security at all except for where families are maybe. But yes Stubbs stated "give the guest whatever he wants." I have to assume that would include a child host for the raping and murdering if the guest wants to.

Come on, America was pretty much like Westworld in that before the civil war and a long time after you could get a human being, even babies "for the doing of anything you wanted including murder", and of course for a lot less money or free.

what a sick thought. I would hope they wouldn't allow it and I highly doubt they would. I would imagine society would hold them accountable and make sure they didn't allow it.

---

what a sick thought. I would hope they wouldn't allow it and I highly doubt they would. I would imagine society would hold them accountable and make sure they didn't allow it.

---

Are you kidding? The techs are "raping" hosts. But it's not rape. Hosts are not human. See it's perfectly okay, they are not human so why would you have a problem with it. They are created to work for us and we can do whatever we want with them. Even their children and women. We can cut their babies up into pieces and bury them in the woods. That's what being human and rich is all about, right?

They are not HUMAN "thus have no rights" a human need respect. Dred Scott V. Sanford 60 US 393 (1857).

"so why would you have a problem with it."

Why would you not have a problem with it? People who have fantasies about raping and killing, and want to carry those fantasies out, are a serious concern.

---

"so why would you have a problem with it."

Why would you not have a problem with it? People who have fantasies about raping and killing, and want to carry those fantasies out, are a serious concern.

---

Of course I have a MAJOR problem with it. I thought my extreme sarcasm was clear, even though it was legal in America per Dred Scott V. Sanford (1857) supreme court case.

But rest assumed I AM TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY AGAINST IT.

I could go into all the ways a sane mind must adjust to killing before it can kill. The act of "killing" in a fantasy world is the very thing that can condition the mind to do it in a real setting. These have been my thoughts from the very first episode.

But you're ok with people raping, torturing and murdering adults?

---

But you're ok with people raping, torturing and murdering adults?

---

I hope you're not directing this to me. I've stated my feelings. They should be very clear.

Guest can probably rape children hosts in front of human children guests, it is that kind of park.

absolutely not

---

absolutely not

---

Absolutely so. The parents of the human child had better take them back to their room or wherever.

Yes, the Talmud is very clear that this would be perfectly permissible in the eyes of Jehovah.

---

Yes, the Talmud is very clear that this would be perfectly permissible in the eyes of Jehovah.

---

You mean the Talmud that "allows" old perverted rabbis to suck the blood from the cut tiny penises of newborn babies and wash it down with wine, Talmud? When the Torah states not to drink blood. Is that the Talmud you speak of?

The Talmud that allowed old perverted men to rape babies (under 2 years and a day)and the more the babies cry the more their virginity comes back? That Talmud?

The Talmud and Kabala are pieces of garbage created by and for deprived pieces of child molesting, raping and murdering garbage.

The Talmud is a deranged interpretation of Yahweh's holy Torah/Pentateuch scriptures that allows evil to be practiced in the name of religion. Please don't even go there with me. I know more about the Talmud than I ever want to. Nothing so evil is "perfectly permissible" in the eyes of anything compassionate and merciful and surely not the "Jehovah" I'm familiar with.

MiB said 'too small'.

I believe he said that for the blood in the child to give to teddy

not for anything sexual

*knowledge speaks..wisdom listens*

---

I believe he said that for the blood in the child to give to teddy

not for anything sexual

---

And we have no idea what he could have done to Maeve's daughter after he knifed Maeve, which we were blessed not to see that either.

"And we have no idea what he could have done to Maeve's daughter after he knifed Maeve, which we were blessed not to see that either."


I think we will see this in a later episode


very enjoyable and entertaining show so far


*knowledge speaks..wisdom listens*

Ah thanks for clearing that up. I was a bit shocked when he said it - seems totally out of character for MiB, but now that you've explained it, it makes much more sense that way. All the 'rape' talk on the board since the show started polluted my thinking. Thank you.

Maryn Trant said "too old."

Kentoc'h mervel eget beza saotret

sadly yes. "They are not human" I hate this logic but that is what it is.

For me those AI being in human form means something.

Choose your relationships wisely. It's better to be alone than to be in bad company

Currently digital CP is illegal, so I would imagine that would have to be illegal unless the future of this show is dystopian as all hell. Realistically, it'd be illegal.

Kentoc'h mervel eget beza saotret

---

Currently digital CP is illegal, so I would imagine that would have to be illegal unless the future of this show is dystopian as all hell. Realistically, it'd be illegal.

---

Well first if it's not illegal, than it's legal. But legal is very different from moral. Digital CP was legal until it was outlawed. Yet the argument could be made that CP is that of real children. In a park where rich people play, the distinction could be made again that these are not real children. They are a facsimile, a machine and thus do not have the legal rights of human children.

This is the same with murder. The legal and very narrow definition of murder is crime committed where a human person of sound and reason mind and discretion kills any human creature in being without any warrant, justification, or excuse in law with malice aforethought, express or implied. I'm keeping this very narrow for the sake of discussion. Thus a machine that malfunctions can never murder a human being. So there's not legal penalty. And thus a human being can never murder a machine. This is the current law. Now if lawmakers want to change that definition they can but until they do "killing" a machine is not illegal.

However, I would say in this case of those AI's the definition of human and alive could be where the courts would have to change the definition. But then we are walking into the realm of what being "human" and "alive" means. That may be where the law would have it's toughest challenge in this regarded.


Law Dictionary: What is MURDER? definition of MURDER (Black's Law Dictionary)

When I say digital CP, I mean animated CG children. It's a direct analogy.

Kentoc'h mervel eget beza saotret

---

When I say digital CP, I mean animated CG children. It's a direct analogy.

---

Then I would have to agree, but the law would have to include AI's specifically for them to be included. That's because they are such a unique creation. Yet, there are still several legal arguments that can be made to distinguish the analogy you made.

The biggest one is digital children can not be touched and the creation is made only for the sexual stimulation of adults. AI's are not made or created only for adult sexual stimulation. Digital CP is. AI's children are not children at all but a small sized version of a bigger AI. Digital CP is clearly designed to be children. AI's do not grow and they are fully complete the moment their designer is done crafting them. Digital CP is clearly art animation. AI's are not so clearly defined, they are machines and do not have sexual gratification as their only purpose of existence.

I would refine these arguments much more for a real case but that's just off the top of my head and the way I would go for starters.

The sad part is, again, when we are talking about rich people, many being the executive heads of corporations and even elected officials and lawmakers themselves, with much power and financial resources, it could be just about impossible to get any court to side with those of us who would want to shut down or change the law to make their fun illegal.

This is partly the reason why the civil war was fought all those many years ago. And why many Southerners want their "way of life" back. State's rights verse Federal Government aggression, their confederate culture flag and heritage. For me, it's really the direct analogy.

Killing and rape is fine but kiddie fiddling isn't?

I suspect they'd allow guests to do whatever they want.

A drawing of a headless woman getting skull *beep* by a guy while another rapes her corpse would be legal, a drawing of any sexual act with what is obviously a minor is illegal to distribute, currently in the real world in the USA.

Kentoc'h mervel eget beza saotret

A meaningless analogy.

Is rape and destruction of robots acceptable in Westworld? Yes.

Ergo, all acts upon robots are acceptable.

Of course. The guests can do anything they want to the hosts. That's sort of the point to the park. Real world morality doesn't apply in Westworld.
I'd be really surprised if the producers of the show ever actually showed something like that though.

Who knows? We still have no idea what time period this is supposed to take place. The stuff that goes on in the park we know about already makes me think that it's a distinct possibility that anything goes.

If you're getting f-ked either way, go with the lucrative version

---

If you're getting f-ked either way, go with the lucrative version

---

Well, Maeve has a point. I'm thinking she's too dang smart already. If they upped the ante, so to speak Well, be afraid, be very afraid.

Maeve rocks. I like Delores but Maeve makes a much better badass.

If you're getting f-ked either way, go with the lucrative version

This thread is a waste of time and a ridiculous question. The writers of the show not only will not show anything like that, they won't allude to it or make a comment about it in any shape or form. There will be no guest who wants it and there will be no "rule" about it by the park techs or leaders. End of subject.