HW for Thu 11/14

1) Finish writing and post your responses to Zizek’s article on the blog by Thursday.  (I’ve copied the questions below.)  In your response, introduce and discuss at least one quotation from the article (we’ve been practicing this recently—see Course Notes for help).
2) Finish reading Michelle Nijhuis’ guide to bullshit prevention and come to class prepared to talk about what she’s saying and how it might be important for thinking about research strategies.
Zizek Response Qs:
—1) What is the argument Zizek is responding to? Where does it become clear that he agrees/disagrees with this argument?
—2) Which points in this argument does Zizek respond to with criticism?
—3) What are some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with? (e.g. analogy/comparison, logical reasoning, rhetorical questions, etc.)
—4) What is YOUR response to all of this?  Do you agree with Zizek? Why/why not?  Do you have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article (eg, video games)?  How does this experience influence your response to this topic?

15 thoughts on “HW for Thu 11/14”

  1. The argument that Zizek is responding to is should sex bots have rights as if they were humans. The point in this argument that Zizek respond to with criticism is in the beginning of the passage where he says “the current wave of politically correct moralism” that shows how he doesn’t agree with sex bots having rights. A strategy he uses to critique the argument is that he was comparing it to, if violent video games make people more violent. I agree with Zizek that sex bots do not need rights. I have experience with the topic of video games, I play different games from shooting games, sports, racing, and more. 

  2. Zizek is responding to the argument on whether or not sex bots should have rights. It becomes clear that Zizek disagrees with this argument and believes sex bots should not have rights. For example, Zizek states “The relationship between imagining and doing it in real life is much more complex in both relations…” “not to mention how we often secretly daydream about doing things we would in no way be able to perform in real life”. This illustrates that sex bots shouldn’t have rights because their purpose is to do “anything to indulge their customers desires” and doesn’t mean what they do with the doll is how they would act with a human who actually has rights. Some of the strategies Zizek uses to critique his argument is by using rhetorical questions such as “if a sexbot rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed this way?…”. He does this often not looking from an answer but to make his point more effective. My response to all this is that I believe sex bots should not have rights. I agree with Zizek because I feel like the whole purpose for sex bots is to fulfill a humans desire and giving them rights would defeat the whole purpose. A similar experience with this is people believing violent video games is the cause for peoples violence I have played video games for most my childhood and disagree with this statement. My experience influences my response to this topic because most people know the difference between a game and reality as well as a fantasy from reality.

  3.  
    The argument Zizek respond is that do sexrobot have rights, and he does not agree that sexrobot has rights. Zizek “ is it better to allow him to play with them in virtual space or with machines, with the hope that, in this way, he will be satisfied enough and not do them in real life ?”. This shows that he thinks it better to let people use sexrobot beucse it bringing people satisfied than doing it in real life. Zizek criticism when he said “ why not program it  in such a way that it welcomes our brutal mistreatment?’. This clearly shows that he want sexrobot that can take people brutal misteratment. the strategies Zizek uses to critique  video games makes people more violent. I don’t play video games but I know people who play video games and I saw them playing. They don’t get violent after playing games. I agree with Zizek because sexrobot for people do whatever they want that they can’t do on people. Those things made for people do all this and it’s better on the machines than doing in real life.          

  4. The argument that Zizek is responding to is should sex bots should have rights as if they are humans . He disagrees  with this argument when he states that “it is clear that no actual entity is suffering, the proponents of the rights of Al machines would nonetheless in all probability insist o. imposing some limitations…” this shows that he do not think sex bots should have rights. they are not humans and they are sex bots for a reason. what they are used for is in their name. why would sex bots be invented if they are not use for its purpose. he then compare it to video games making people violent, the reason they are violent may not be cause the video games there are several other reason. I have seen people get mad over video games multiple times but I never seen them go out and wanting to go kill people. The logic make no sense

  5. Zizek is responding to the argument of should  sex bots have rights like humans. Zizek disagree with this argument when he states  “ is it better to allow him to play with them in virtual space or with machines, with the hope that, in this way, he will be satisfied enough and not do them in real life ?” this shows how he think that it’s better that someone do it with a robot instead of hurting a real person. I agree with him that this robots should not have rights, but I wonder if there are just robots that look like women. If there is no robot for women, I think that it’s like an offense for a women because it seem like women are being represent in a robot as sexual objects. 

  6. Zizek argument was he was against the idea that sex bots had rights. In a quote he stated that, “What they want is not to alleviate the suffering of the machines but to squash the problematic aggressive desires, fantasies and pleasures of us humans. With that he is basically saying we are using this argument suggesting sex bots have rights rather than dealing with the actual issue at hand that humans and their abnormal tendencies toward the sex bots are the problem. He brought up a fact that the makers of the bots are aware they don’t have feelings or can experience real pain and suffering which shows he’s against the argument. I agree with him because these robots don’t have any feelings and trying to state that argument is a poor excuse to focus on the real issue at hand with people not being able to control themselves.

  7. Zizek disagrees with a lot of the ill-treatment that these AI actually have to come in contact with however never does he day to get rid of these bots, this particular text it is for me personally just rhetorical you have a informative debate about the topic.Zizek disagrees with a lot of the ill-treatment that these AI actually have to come in contact with however never does he say to get rid of these bots, this particular text it is for me personally just rhetorical to have an informative debate about the topic. When he states that the bot got  severely damaged and molested is when he becomes clear! What are the bots purpose that they are around, is the criticism. The nonchalant way he says” politically-correct moralism reared its head”, also Zizek again referred to the sex bots as a class of legally Incorporated sex-slaves, for me there is comparison/analogy, logical reasoning, and rhetorical questioning within the passage. Everyone has to find an outlet for sex it is the nature of the beast.Being physically, mentally, sexually,emotionally and financially satisfied is something everyone as an adult has to fulfill. Just like our  body needs and craves water to help move everything along. Sex is a need just as much as everything else you can suppress it but it has to happen. That’s why people turn to sex bots! If there was not these sex bots wouldn’t brutal sex crimes and human trafficking be on a rise? Food for thought! Why is it that the conversation is very limited because they don’t go into detail about what is taking place with this intercourse between a human and a sex bots? A.I servers a purpose as we all now know, these sex bots can’t afford to not serve there purpose if it is, have they gone so far and are there spouses or significant other refusing to give them everything they desire causing them to go elsewhere. That is what they are made to do, NO?In ” Do Sexbots Have Right’s, Slavoj Zizek states, We enter thereby the old debate: if someone has brutal tendencies, is it better to allow him to play with them in virtual space or with machines, with the hope that this way the buyer is satisfying these sexual pleasures enough so not to do them in real life?

  8.  

    Zizek is responding to the argument which states that AI machines need to have rights that limit what humanas can do to these machines. He soon after stating the claim made by the person who wrote the news report states his personal position although not directly saying what he believes he dares to describe his train of thought saying what he thinks is right in that article and what its writer might have been trying to say and how he feels about it.

    Zizek responds to the point which says that robots most have rights, He responds saying that “proponents of such demands do not really care about the AI machines but about aggressive humans.” Here Zizek is criticizing the way that the news reports was written and clarifying that the actual preoccupation is not the robots themselves but the humans are doing to them and how those actions could be translated toward actual humans.

    He uses logical reasoning to get the reader to the same page as far as understanding what he is trying to say about the arguments made before him and how he differs from them (Saying that obviously AI machines don’t feel anything but humans do) and also he uses comparisons to make the reader identify what the consequences could be and how it would translate in different types of media in what the same moral conditions may not apply (comparing to videogames)

    I agree with Zizek as far acknowledging  that sex don’t feel anything and is bettter to leave a person to discharge whatever he feels in a machine that can’t feel than in an actual person, besides talking form my onw experience with videogames I believe that we all humans have diferent way to discharge our feeling without hurting others and videogames have been working perfectly with that purpose. Games give people a chance to do things that the rest of humanity may not find morally acceptable, plus doing it in a  controlled space where you can’t hurt nobody but yourself is far more acceptable that trying to oppress all these feelings or needs because one day they could all explode at once bringing even worse consequences that destroying one sexbot.

  9. The argument that Zizek responds to is “sexbots should have legal rights.” Zizek logistically disagrees that sex robots should have some right, because it is argued that sexbots developers have claimed that their projects will do anything to satisfy their customers’ wishes, for which Zizek says “The argument that those who fantasize about these things are prone to do them in real life is very problematic: the relationship between imagining and doing it in real life is much more complex in both relationships. ” In other words, experiencing things between humans can cause conflicts, unlike doing it with a robot that has no human sense. When analyzing the statements of the Zizek projectors, he responds critically by assuring that the defenders of such demands do not really care about {AI} machines, because they are very aware that they really cannot experience pain and humiliation. Which explains that the purpose is not to alleviate the suffering of machines, but that of aggressive humans. In this thought Zizek makes logical reasoning and rhetorical questions by questioning, “If we grant rights to AI sexbots and prohibit their brutal abuse, this means that we treat them as minimally autonomous and responsible entities, so we should also treat them as minimally” guilty ” If they mistreat us, or should we blame their programmer? The basic error of AI’s human rights defenders is that they presuppose our standards and human rights as the highest form. It is probably inevitable that the sexbot industry will continue to grow. After all, with almost all the inventions that arise, there will always be people wondering how it can be used to have or help to have sex. Proponents of sexbots have argued that sexbots will help reduce loneliness, improve health and marriages by improving sex life. However, I agree with Zizek that sexbots should not have rights because sexbots are supposed to be programmed to do their jobs without setting conditions, since they have no feelings like human beings. Based on these arguments, I believe that video games do not include as much reason to escape from reality, as sexual robots, since it is proven that people can live in a fantasy by becoming addicted to a sex life different from normal.
     

  10. The argument Zizek is responding to is “Do sex bots have rights”?  Zizek disagrees with this statement. He believes sex bots do not have rights. For example,”if a sex bot rejects our rough advances, does this not simply mean that it was programmed in this way? So why not re-program it in a different way?”. This quote shows that Zizek is asking rhetorical questions by pointing out his opinion on if sex bots have rights. He disagrees that sex bots have rights because if anything is wrong with sex bot it is the programmer’s fault and the programmer can can fix the issue.  Another example is , If we confer rights to AI sexbots and prohibit their brutal mistreatment, this means that we treat them as minimally autonomous and responsible entities – so should we also treat them as minimally “guilty” if they mistreat us, or should we just blame their programmer?”. If we were to be mistreated by sex bots and they had rights. Who do we blame the sex bots or the programmer? If they have the rights they should be blamed and held accountable for what they did but they are not at fault because they were programmed to act the way they act. This proves sex bots are nothing but a robot following its owner’s and programmer’s orders. It can not stop or do anything out of their own consciousness like a human being would do and does. They do not have the rights or deserve to have rights because they do not move and make choices on their own. One of the points in this argument Zizek responds with criticism is , “The argument that those who fantasize about such things are prone to do them in real life is very problematic: the relationship between imagining and doing it in real life is much more complex in both relations”. This is very problematic because chances are if a person starts doing evil things to sex bots they can start doing it to human beings because the hunger does not end. Another point is “The catch is, of course, will we, the sadistic perpetrators, still enjoy it in this case? Because a sadist wants his victims to be terrified and ashamed”. He is talking about rapists and disgusting man or women who wants its victims to be terrified and ashamed while having sex. Sex bots can also create monsters. One of the strategies Zizek uses to critique the argument he disagrees with is by asking rhetorical questions and using logical reasoning. My response to all of this is sex bots should not even exist at all. It will and does ruin relationships between loved ones. It can also take over one day. I agree with Zizek because Sex bots are made to satisfy their owners. They are mostly made to fulfill sexual desires. They are not human beings. You can program them. If they become aggressive or rejects rough advances they can simply just re program it. A sex bot does not have feelings. You can simply switch it on and off. I do not have any life experience with any of the topics mentioned in the article. 

  11. The argument that Zizek is responding to is, should sex bots should have rights? Which he disagreed with. He does not think they should have rights. He states ” Indeed, the initial suspicion is that the proponents of such demands do not really care about the AI machines (they are well aware that they cannot really experience pain and humiliation ) but about aggressive humans: what they want is to alleviate the suffering of the machines but to squash the problematic aggressive desires…” He is implying that the purpose of these bots is to help release tension and pain for humans. He was also saying this machine does not speak nor have any type of emotion, so why should it need rights and if people believe that is the case, then they should re-program it the way they want. A strategy he used to critique his argument is comparing it to video games. He indicated that video games can play a role too. Lastly, I agree with Zizek that they should not be given rights because they are just a machine with no emotions and no right to even say anything. This is there purpose. However, I do believe that people should be able to program it the way they want it too and realistically speaking these machines can cause a lot of issues so there definetly should be some sort of restriction to it. 

  12. Zizek is actually responding to the argumentative article being used to be criticized within the text. The author is actually against the topic being used in the article as he believes it to be ridiculous. He responds to the points that sex-bots deserve to have some sort of validation for rights because they’ll eventually have self consciosuness. He critiques the argument with a question stated “Is it better to allow him to play with them in virtual space or with machines, with the hope that, in this way, he will be satisfied enough and not do them in real life?”. This question is important because it opens up a counter argument that it is a better alternative to use a sex bot, then to use a real life person. I agree that the article brings up a very ridiculous point because it is essentially trying to bring rights and humanize a product that is only made to perform one goal.

  13. The argument Ziezek is responding to is whether sexbots have rights. Throughout the article he makes his point clear by imposing a lot of rhetorical questions as he states his point of view. He states that, “the relationship between imagining and doing it in real life is much more complex in both relations. We often do horrible things while imagining that we are doing something noble, and vice versa.” He claims that the sexbots were created to do anything the costumer desire. But he ends the paragraph by imposing a question, “if someone has brutal tendencies, is it better to allow him to play with them in virtual space or with machines, with the hope that, in this way, he will be satisfied enough and not do them in real life?” As a result of ending with a question, he raises the issue that the problem isn’t if sexbots should have rights but rather that if people don’t have these sexbots, they’ll probably want to have brutal tendencies on humans. He uses logical reasoning to get the reader to understand his claim and hopefully agree with him. He claims that AI machines don’t have feelings like humans do. 
    I argue with Zizek’s claim. Sexbots were created to “do anything to indulge their costumer’s desires.” These sexbots dont have feeling and it would be a tragedy, if by taking these sexbots from people that desire sex, they will force themselves on humans. I agree that this topic is something we shouldn’t be discussing because “we are avoiding the complex web of underlying problems.” By discussing this we are hiding the bigger problem.  
     

  14. In this text Zizek is making a point that sexbots should not have the same rights as humans. He states that they shouldn’t have rights because sexbots main purpose is to do the job in which it is meant to do. In addition Zizek states that if sexbots was to have rights then they should be made in a way to interact with humans (not in a such violence way).  If people we’re to treat sexbots with rights then it doesn’t make any sense as it’s an object that a has a main purpose and that’s why customer’s purchase them. On the other hand other’s argue that being brutal to sexbots can also make a human reach their partner the same way which is not true as a robot is different from a actual human being. And a person should have a common sense of not hurting someone cause we eventually have rights unlike sexbots. I personally agree that sexbots shouldn’t have rights but the programmer should make major changes when building them.

  15. Zizek is against the idea that sex robots have rights by arguing that sex robots were only created for it’s job. For example, he says that AI bots can’t really “experience pain or humiliation” and that their jobs are to “squash the problematic aggressive desires, fantasies, and pleasures of us, humans.” He begins to include the topic of video games and virtual reality and says that they’re used as an escape where people can “torture and brutally exploit people” without the actual intent to do it in real life. Zizek compares this to the use of sex robots, since the main argument is that their primary job is to satisfy people’s desires and they can be programmed differently if they were to have other purposes such as having rights. I agree with Zizek because it seems weird to program sex robots to “have rights” when they were created for one purpose. I feel like the idea that sex robots should have rights hide other problems, such as abusive or aggressive people.

Leave a Reply to Salama Akter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.