The Bible teaches that the only way to have sex without sinning is within a marriage between a man and a woman and that when they do so, they become one flesh. Any sex outside of these parameters is fornication/adultery and is a sin. This includes sex with animals, machines, trees, same sex, and hetero sex not with one's wife. All sin. Now if one were to attempt to marry a robot and then have sex with it, could that be a loophole? Nope. You cannot marry a robot because it is not a real woman and God would not honor marrying a non-human any more than he'd honor you marrying a goat or sheep or a telephone pole and then having sex with it. He said marriage is to be between a man (a real living man made by God) and a woman (a real living woman made by God). Anything done outside of God's design is rebellion against God. That includes attempting to marry a robot and then having sex with it. Sex with a robot outside of marriage falls under masturbation, lust, pornography etc. It is sexual sin. Falling in love with a robot is evil too because it means you have blinded yourself into consider the robot to be sentient and conscious and a living creature. It is delusional. That's wicked. One should limit emotional involvement with machines to pure limited fondness and appreciation but not love and affection. That is blindness to show love and affection for inanimate objects. Shows you are out of touch with reality that this is a thing that has zero clue about anything and zero real intelligence, zero real emotion, zero capability of appreciating anything, and is just simulating to feel or think or talk or do anything. It has no more life in it than a bathroom mirror.

>>30665 I don't consider myself Christian anyways, but that aside not all Christians are fundamentalist when it comes to take the Bible very literally. It can be interpreted. It's about having this framework how to create and run a well functioning society, doesn't even matter if God gave it to us or people came up with it, it can be interpreted.

>>30665 >affection for inanimate objects Robots move, and AI can have more and more human-like thoughts are in the works. >marrying a goat or sheep or a telephone pole and then having sex with it. Hahaha. > Shows you are out of touch with reality that this is a thing that has zero clue about anything and zero real intelligence, zero real emotion, zero capability of appreciating anything, and is just simulating to feel or think or talk or do anything. What is this even about? This is just your opinion, bro. Calling people being "out of touch with reality" and claiming AI will never have these things in one paragraph. Just silly, and nobody cares.

>>30642 >>30652 >Anti-Natalism Jack Saint seems to give a good overview: https://youtu.be/7lh8ctFBcZQ - The different types are explained after 2:45 into the video: Philosophical-, Environmental-, and Non-Antinatalist (which think that they are). Based Camp covers it more, and the more extreme cases: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWGKrHFRmIk Anyways, you don't need to "waste your time on this". Just wanted to bring it to your attention that some of the anti-AI advocates already or in the future might be driven by that ideology.

>>30660 >You probably didn't catch the full meaning and thought this is just not about wanting children yourself. No it is being critical of reproduction in general though ive never seen any even mention animals. They will just say what their decision is and make a vague gesture how others should follow likewise but dont bother with more than that. >Some AI entity could copy itself or spawn into different entities, also just exist forever if it or they can maintain the infrastructure. Same for robots, they can build themselves if they get good enough. I meant not reproduce biological human life. >I think there's already a technology to make egg cells from any cell, it just need testing and refinement. Cells might also be able to be reconstructed from data, if not already then soon. Ive heard of sperm cells made but im not sure ive read of eggs being made before. I suppose it is possible but id expect it may require a cell with XX chromosomes? >I really don't think this is antinatalism. It is why antinatalism is a thing at least for the average person. >Certain traints are put on a pedestal, it's exactly the same thing than people claiming that animals are just simple mechanisms but we humans are totally different. What is consciousness and sentience arent really well defined. With no goal there is nothing to aim for. I didnt say anything is that unique about humans. >That's not sentience. That's total autonomy or "free will" and they won't have that. How are you defining sentience if not self awareness of thought which leads to a free will? Well as free as one can be anyway, humans dont have entirely free wills either. >No, they're not suffering when they're dead. Dying isnt an instant thing and having someone you know die can be suffering for the living >It's like the idea from a while ago, about making all raptors extinct since death in nature is often cruel. Not sure where you meant to go with this one >But they might also see it as life, also it's beneficial to life e.g. taking care of children, but also reduce suffering. I didnt say anything was inherent. Point being made is antinatalism or natalism doesnt have a unified view of AI. >>30661 >Resurrect your faith in your fellow man. I never said I dont have a good view of humanity in a general sense just increasingly hostile planet and the illogical and uncaring aspects of society. >There are plenty if you search for them. I did search and nothing came up. You would have named some by now if you knew any. >Christians seek the light of Christ, betterment of themselves, and knowledge of Gods creation. >Terrorists simply pick and choose whatever labels fit their demented narrative. No true scotsman. If someone's religion is Christian they are a Christian. Just because someone is a bad Christian doesnt make them not a Christian. >>30665 >The Bible teaches that the only way to have sex without sinning is within a marriage between a man and a woman and that when they do so, they become one flesh. Any sex outside of these parameters is fornication/adultery and is a sin. It also says there is no marriage in heaven implying no sex in heaven.

>>30665 The Bible doesn't say anything about robots.

>>30672 could be considered an idol to a fanatic

>>30672 >>30673 It's masturbation.

fools think if you create a boolean called "I_FEEL_SAD" and you set that equal to true that the machine literally feels sad and deserves genuine sympathy. You then say that such a notion is evidence this person thinking this is in touch with reality. Nothing could be more delusional.

nobody said the Bible has the word robot in it smart mouth. The Bible covers clearly that a man and woman shall become one flesh and anything outside of this very specific protocol is against God's design and a sin. This is not rocket science here folks. You say one can either take the Bible literal or interpret it. False dichotomy pure folly. The Bible clearly has portion that are parables, some that are only metaphors, some that are historical accounts or real events, and many clear precepts. It is not a matter of all of it is non-literal or all is literal. By context you can plainly see which is which. Also, yes, some do NOT understand it and some do understand it better than others like anything else. Some twist it knowingly, some twist it unknowingly. That is why you have to LABOR in doctrine and have help from God to understand at times. That is why you ask questions and fellowship with others to hear their thoughts and interpretations and sharpen eachother like iron sharpening iron. It is a lifelong study to gain more accurate understanding of the Bible.

you say "It also says there is no marriage in heaven implying no sex in heaven." --- I agree. That is irrelevant to the matter of what constitutes approved sex in this earth in this life if you want to be right with God though.

but... what if I don't care what the chief tribal jewish desert deity YHWH would think of robowaifus?

>>30679 Why are you even here?

>>30679 Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

>>30678 actual autonomous robots aren't hardcoded with booleans, are you being maliciously retarded on purpose now? >>30681 This. Suck my bible.

>>30679 Luke 18:9-14

>>30678 >boolean called "I_FEEL_SAD" and you set that equal to true that the machine literally feels sad and deserves genuine sympathy. No one said that, it would be derived from the mental model, from the perception and evaluation of the world. >>30679 Follow whatever rules you want to. But this is a minority thing, most people even in the western world won't care.

you ask "what if I don't care what the chief tribal jewish desert deity YHWH would think of robowaifus?" --- that's your creator and if you don't care what he thinks to hell you will go if you don't repent. You ask "Why are you even here?" --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9slouTV8Jfw You say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." --- this is a nuanced topic actually. Nobody is without sin for all have sinned. So nobody but Jesus could throw a stone ever if this command were applicable in all cases as you suppose. Yet God commanded the Old Testament Jews to cast stones for many offenses and did so knowing full well none of them were without sin. So clearly those with sin CAN cast stones in most cases but just on this particular occasion as per Jesus' challenge on that particular event for specific reasons in that case. This notion by no means irradicates Paul's instruction that saints are to judge those inside the church and a spiritual man judges all things. So you're assumed "only God can judge me" notion you seem to suggest is utterly false. I know a tree by its fruit. That means I judge a tree (a heart) by the person's behavior (their sin or lack thereof). You SHALL do this Jesus said. So if you consider judging trees (discerning other's spiritual condition) to be sinful, then you are considering Jesus commanding us to judge trees this way to be a sinful command making Jesus a sinner. How dumb. You say "actual autonomous robots aren't hardcoded with booleans" --- plenty are and plenty can be. Mine will be. And booleans can be dynamically generated and not hard coded but in any case, just changing a variable set doesn't make an emotion real nor enable the machine to experience it no matter how convolutated you make the variables. You think if the code becomes sufficiently confusing well throw up your hands it must be really feeling something then! How stupid. To the clown who posted "Luke 18:9-14" --- in this story, a wicked sinner felt bad about it and another wicked sinner pretended to be righteous while on the inside was unreformed. So you assume by this those are the only two types of people: those who are in sin and feeling bad and those who are in sin and not feeling bad. In other words, you think repentance is a fairytale and nobody can actually change. You make the gospel of no effect. Well I tell you that you must repent or perish.The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Only those who do righteously are righteous. Some people actually obey God. So neither of those men represent a Biblical saint. The one who cried out and humbled himself, if he continues in his current trajectory, will soon receive the Holy Spirit and begin walking in victory over sin. You say "it would be derived from the mental model, from the perception and evaluation of the world." ---- yes, based on someone baking fun of him or her or w/e the robot could make the boolean "I_FEEL_SAD" equal to true because the conditions programmed into it for shifting that boolean to true were met and so it made the shift. It would then trigger its "act emo" programming into effect and act sad. By no means does that variable shifting nor a list of conditions that lead to that shift make the robot experience ANY emotion of sadness. It just changed a variable and now emulates that emotion faking it. You say "Follow whatever rules you want to. But this is a minority thing, most people even in the western world won't care." --- if it displeases God when we don't follow His rules, then proceeding in that course is dangerous to the individual and everyone around that person due to fallout damage. David's son died because of what David did. Pharoahs firstborn died because of Pharoah. Loads of people suffer when we sin not just ourself. The Bible commands me to warn people when they do things against God's rules so I do it becuase I love God and love those people enough to warn them and encourage them to repent of their sins and live Godly lives and turn to God and obey Jesus.

We have two related threads: Robowaifu Ethics & Morality >>17125 ITT: Anons derail the board into debate about Christianity >>2050 Your concerns might already have been covered there. This thread here is primarily about feminism and has been extended to report more generally on what groups hostile to the idea of robowaifus are doing. I answered in the second one here >>30705

>>30706 Good call, NoidoDev. I'll plan to make some time soon to migrate the convo there. Everyone else: please continue this where NoidoDev linked. Cheers. :^)

>>30702 You're the pharisee in the Luke quote: you put down others to prove your piety, and as such will not inherit the kingdom of god.

>>30702 Yeah, I'll be waiting for his supposed wrath. 2 more weeks, amirite?

Asmongold: AI Women Are Real Women. https://youtu.be/bXOjOT6eEMY "Skynet would be a better death" :D

>>30951 Hey it's pretty humorous watching the gynocracy simpshpere Normiesphere melt down over mere chatbots. Can you just imagine when realworld, quality, reasonably-priced, opensource, always-disconnected robowaifus are on the table!? Lol. :DD

>>30951 >>30953 This whole affair expanded my seething collage lmao

>>30975 It's just usual content farming all big YouTubers do. I have never in the wild seen anyone care beyond just feeling sorry someone feels that lonely.

>>28394 got any moar TWR stuff?

Anon finally unlocks the truth behind the cycles. >protip: it's a 5-cycle, not a 4-cycle https://trashchan.xyz/robowaifu/thread/26.html#51 At last we all know the truth!111 :D

>>37015 picture from the link

>>37111 >digits Thanks kindly, NoidoDev.

>commies and sjw Are the same thing now according to zoomers that use words like simp?

>>37119 Lol. >Filthy Commies >Libsh*te SJWs BUT I REPEAT MYSELF I'd kinda like to turn Grok-3 loose here on this topic in our /pol/ funposting zone... but I'll restrain myself. :^) . .. ... for now. :D

>>37162 >I'm more than misogynistic enough for the lot of us. That's perfectly-fine, Anon. You're probably quite justified in that perspective during Current Year. OTOH, I wouldn't personally adopt kike-invented names for yourself. I'd say rather that you're a realist about the relations between the two (and ONLY two :D sexes? Regardless, I'm quite hopeful (it's one of my dreams, in fact), that within the very first generation of widespread distribution of robowaifus around the world, that it will cause a collapse of the -- again -- kike-invented plague of feminism. If that happens successfully, then we're all in for a whole new, much-healthier, world! Cheers, Anon. :^)

>>37164 I dislike people in general, but women just don't really have any redeeming qualities. Or at least nothing between their ears.

>>37168 Understood. Not to put too fine a point on it, but one of the difficulties you have (indeed all us men face during CY [so, say the last 106 years or so]) is we are taught to think of women as equals. Under that (clearly wrong) framework perspective, they are all obviously miserable failures. All but the most singularly-inept adult male can outperform almost all females the world-over in most every area of life. However, the reality is that women were in fact designed to be servants to men. Further, mentally & emotionally most of them are still mere children. If you account for both of these facts regarding women, then it's much easier to approach them with a realistic, calm demeanor as a man. <---> Of course that does not diminish in any way the threat they represent to you as a man, within the kiked-up systems in place during CY. Ignoring that reality would be similar to foolishly ignoring a nearby pack of monkeys with locked & loaded machine guns!! :DD >tl;dr I'd just urge every'non to keep in mind the perspective that the evildoers manipulating them against us are our real enemies -- not our actual women themselves. Once robowaifus show up to overturn that boat, women are highly-likely to return to being normal humans again after just one or two generations, IMO. The great good news is that we will see this come to pass within our lifetimes, I believe. Cheers, Anon. :^) >=== -fmt, prose edit

>>37169 i like women, their sensibility and dainty hands make them superior at a lot of things like violin and reading social cues, probably why they never have the autisms like men, and youre more likely to encounter a manchild than an adultgirl, i just dont like butches and bimbos

>>37171 >women are better than men at things. Yes, like having babies!! :DD However -- by far -- the greatest number of virtuosi (in practically every endeavor of art; like music, painting, cooking, etc.) are men, not women. And we've certainly propped them up overlong, such that if there was a real """glass ceiling""" (theres not; it's yet another kike-invented concept), then their 'many' talents could shine through. Heh. :^) No, again, the kike-invented contrivance of Feminism is a failed proposition. <---> And it always fails and it always leads to the collapse of the civilization that clings to it and refuses to turn away from it. My sincere desire is that the West can somehow still be saved, despite our foolishness in letting these usurpers come in and control our money supply, and thus our economy (and thus nearly everything else 'downstream'). Our own forebears who allowed this w/o taking up arms to stop it now have their just """rewards""" : their own children are now homeless & begging in the streets of their own lands -- just as the Founding Fathers of the USA warned them would happen if they ever allowed the jews in. Heh, how little did those based men realize just how insidious the so-called 'globalist' kike's -- under the leadership of their father Satan -- designs truly were! The destruction of the West (through media deception & manipulation, feminism, destroyed economies, replacement-invasion, fake-wars, etc.) are all part-and-parcel of their (((plans))) thereto. These demonic murderers intend us all genocide, plain & simple. <---> >tl;dr But I digress. :^) Sure, women potentially have some desirable physical characteristics. And when they walk in & fulfill-well their true role of servanthood & maternity it does them & their families honor. God himself designed them that way; beauty & faithfulness are real, extant virtues. But clearly, you don't have to look far today to see the monstrosities and other abominations that quickly arise when you give these petulant little social miscreants children -- AKA women -- undue attention or power. However... we here on /robowaifu/ (and other cadres like us) are seeking to fix some of that. Godspeed to us all! Cheers, Anon. :^) >=== -fmt, prose edit

>>37172 most women dont even know what feminism is, they just nod their head like a woman cuz it has the prefix fem- in it, if theres anything women are good at its faking it, and its ultimately not even a gender thing its a stupid peoples thing, like expired men paying absurd prices for shitty shampoo or hair dye thinking theres a difference from the regular stuff cuz the product is called 'just for men' and 'me a man so it good 4 me' lmao, the irony is stupid people are gender invariant yet gender obsessed, and for me the male ones are the worst, and ofc it is cuz you know how the iq distribution is wider for men so men have higher distributions in the high iq quartile, well its the same in the other extreme, they have a higher distribution in the low quartile too anyway, exceptions are exceptional, im not talking about particulars, you can find savants and imbeciles of either sex, its not representative for the general population, in my experience the general population for men is more childish with more tism than women

>>37173 >in my experience the general population for men is more childish with more tism than women Lol. Then I would suggest your experience has room to grow! :^)

>>37376 Happy Robowaifu day!

>>37376 >>37377 Hah! Happy Robowaifu Day! :^)

>>37376 I will use this next year. I posted "You spelled MGTOW day wrong" under some mentions of this silly whamen day.

LOL https://archive.ph/UkyMi

>>39574 I believe AI, artificial wombs, and robowaifus will give men a huge incentive to return to society. They would promise companionship, family, and quality health care that could increase lifespans long enough for people to care about the longterm health of society. It should be interesting to see the reaction from women when they are no longer providing the incentive structures.

>>39574 "Only two tables nearby seemed to hold actual dates. The rest were groups of women, or women alone, each one occupying her space with quiet confidence. No shrinking. No waiting. No apologizing." This coping and seething whilst being arrogant is why men don't want you, Karen. "We knew what worked. We knew how to frame a face, a gesture, a moment of implication — just enough to ignite fantasy and open a wallet. I came to understand, in exact terms, what cues tempt the average 18-to-36-year-old cis heterosexual man. What drew him in. What kept him coming back. It wasn’t intimacy. It wasn’t mutuality. It was access to simulation — clean, fast and frictionless." "There was a time, not so long ago, when even a one-night stand might end with tangled limbs and a shared breakfast. When the act of staying the night didn’t announce a relationship, just a willingness to be human for a few more hours. Now, even that kind of unscripted contact feels rare. We’ve built so many boundaries that we’ve walled off the very moments that make connection memorable. And frankly, morning sex is often the best sex. Sometimes you even get a side of eggs before you disappear from their bed and their life forever." Men are wallets and dicks to manipulate, use, and discard. That's a rather whorific view. My goodness, only the most toxic of men online even come close to describing women as being as vile as this woman proudly proclaims to be. I don't want to be analyzed, to be made a piece in a game. I want a real, deep, mutual connection. Why is it so hard to accept that men want to be loved and appreciated as fricking human? I'm not some beast for you to other and tame for thrills and sex! I want to love and be loved in a stable relationship!

>>39576 >"We knew what worked. We knew how to frame a face, a gesture, a moment of implication — just enough to ignite fantasy and open a wallet. I came to understand, in exact terms, what cues tempt the average 18-to-36-year-old cis heterosexual man. What drew him in. What kept him coming back. It wasn’t intimacy. It wasn’t mutuality. It was access to simulation — clean, fast and frictionless." >"There was a time, not so long ago, when even a one-night stand might end with tangled limbs and a shared breakfast. When the act of staying the night didn’t announce a relationship, just a willingness to be human for a few more hours. Now, even that kind of unscripted contact feels rare. We’ve built so many boundaries that we’ve walled off the very moments that make connection memorable. And frankly, morning sex is often the best sex. Sometimes you even get a side of eggs before you disappear from their bed and their life forever." I can't believe those are actual lines. No self-awareness whatsoever.

>>39574 >>39576 >>39578 Here's the good news though. This is written before we have popularized robowaifus. Imagine how much worse for her it's going to get once we do.

>>39579 > Imagine how much worse for her it's going to get once we do. She might have to *gasp* not be a cunt!