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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Did pointy boobs feel different from today's rounder brand?

lol

Not that it matters but is Tyler gay? Thought he was doing it for attention.

I think he’s really gay, actually

Yeah Tyler is Morrissey elph

Yep. Uh, what the **** is wrong with you?

If he is fair play to him, not easy for anyone to come out but probably more so in Hip-Hop circles.

Never heard his music btw.

He’s great.

Today’s Odd Future fans are not the new Smiths fans.

Odd Future serves the same purpose for some people that the Smiths did for others. Not that tricky to figure out even if elphenor just has ****ty taste.

Go ask all of the wrong generation kids about their favourite Pink Floyd album.

The Talking Heads and the VU seem to hold up.

Odd Future is visceral and the Smiths are cerebral. Odd Future is about ****ing and the Smiths are about beating off. Odd Future are football and the Smiths are chess. Odd Future is in your face and the Smiths are behind your back. Odd Future fans cheat and Smiths fans studied.

I'd say that the Smiths are not that ubiquitous despite being well known and that the Talking Heads is about on the same plane.

:soapbox:

My grumpy old man moments are mainly about language use, and how the retreat from accuracy can easily slide into a retreat from truth.

Some recent examples from American news coverage:-

Michael Flynn famously resigned about a year ago. Without checking, I suspect Trump of having said, "I had to fire MF," and I've certainly heard this version of events repeated by cable news anchors. I would've thought that there is sufficient difference between resigning and being fired for people to maintain a distinction between the two actions.

Another one to lay at the door of Trump is his use of the slur, "fake news." Pre-Trump, this term was used for false stories deliberately fabricated in order to trick people into believing lies. It's now being used for any inaccuracy in reporting, or, in Trump's hands, any news he doesn't like. We should be careful not to follow his example and so lose another useful distinction - that between fake news/hoaxes and misguided or ill-informed reporting.

Since the Parkland massacre, I've heard the AR-15 gun refered to as a "weapon of mass destruction." Surely this is a term that's used to refer to bombs and similar powerful ordinance. Wasn't Iraq invaded because Saddam Hussein was thought to be stockpiling weapons of mass destruction? I always assumed that meant more than just a few rifles.
Not sure off-hand what the correct term for a rapid-fire gun is, but perhaps "assault weapon" is a good way to go, before yet another clear distinction in meaning is blurred by the misuse of language.

Well, thank you for bearing with me while I soapbox, but I guess you enter this thread at your peril, right?

After being choked out by the death of newspapers, the news media has started to prioritize clickbait headlines and panderingly biased language over journalism in order to survive. I personally believe that journalism is alive and well within the people simply due to the increased access in recording, but I don't expect accurate reporting from news outlets anymore because it's become entertainment.

RE: Flynn it could go either way. It's not uncommon for people to resign in anticipation of being fired or it could have been a firing along the lines of "we very strongly advise you to resign." It really just sounds like cheap typical Trump bluster where he's playing his favourite game of Trump v media because it's less harmful to his status than letting people stick on and focus on issues/scandals/war crimes/etc.

AR-15, the term semi-automatic works. Assault weapon is an ambiguous political term (I believe that this is intentionally so to muddy the conversation) since virtually every gun is an assault weapon. Assault is a gun's sole function.