nick012000 said:
Drachasor said:
It would be completely different if you had enough power to force your familiar or servant to do what you wanted no matter what. Berserker and Illya are probably a better example of this.
The fact is there are lots of reasons within these stories for Hercules behavior that don't involve him sexually fetishizing anything. Indeed, there's nothing indicating anything like that is going on. Regarding Omphale, Hercules asked the Oracle of Delphi how to make amends for an inadvertent murder. The result was supposed to be humiliating and as a story is believed to have been the basis for comedies -- not sexual fetishizing. In principle this isn't much different from comedies of today where you might have Female on Male abuse -- that doesn't make such abuse ok outside of the comedic elements of the story nor does it mean the abusee is "asking for it" or "wants it." And like such stories today, often there's a romantic element to the story as well. Again, this doesn't mean the male character likes to be abused. As for Illya, she's clearly a lost and lonely little girl. It is well within the character of Hercules to forgive her transgressions even if he hates being in a fury -- and there's every reason to think he'd hate being kept in a constant state of fury, as it alludes to when Hera conspired to make him kill his own family. But Hercules is perhaps one of the best of Greek Heroes, so he's remarkably understanding about the follies of others (generally speaking).
Solaris said:
Well, this topic derailed quickly.
I'm not sure If my definition of abuse is unusually broad but I do think keeping a familiar against it's will is abuse yes.
As for the sanctity of the dead and the living. Since your previous statement made it seem like you believe any development of intelligent familiar is bad. My example was to point out that someone using non sentient humans as familiars was far more disturbing than a happy bond between an intelligent familiar and master. Which my later examples were made to emphasize.
Anyway, I'm kind of confused about what your argument is for. Are you ok with the creation of intelligent familiars? Or are you against the creation of intelligent familiars?Is honestly curious
Drachasor said:
That's not what I am saying. I'm just pointing out that there are a lot more ways to do wrong to a sentient being than abuse them. Unless perhaps you define abuse so broadly that it's not a helpful way to distinguish good and bad behavior.
I think you are gravely mistaken to think the rights of the dead are more important than the rights of the living.
I think you are gravely mistaken to think the rights of the dead are more important than the rights of the living.
As for the sanctity of the dead and the living. Since your previous statement made it seem like you believe any development of intelligent familiar is bad. My example was to point out that someone using non sentient humans as familiars was far more disturbing than a happy bond between an intelligent familiar and master. Which my later examples were made to emphasize.
Anyway, I'm kind of confused about what your argument is for. Are you ok with the creation of intelligent familiars? Or are you against the creation of intelligent familiars?Is honestly curious
I think there are ethical ways to go about it (much like there are ethical and unethical ways to have and care for children). So I'm not against it by any means.
Also, I think this stuff is worth thinking about in general.
Edit: Though similarly there might be interesting stories in looking at people who "mistreat" familiars that look like people or animals but have no brains/will/intelligence at all. It would look bad on the surface even if such familiars are truly just things.
I didn't mean to cause a derailment though.