I said appropriately address the fictional content in a discussion. You took a fictional plot designed for the purpose of discussing the dynamics of a BIV scenario that required an element of justifiable captivity, and turned into a rape fantasy. If the plot had simply specified slave, you could have feigned indignation to any possible violence attributed to slavery, such as torture, rape, or even experimental brain surgery. But wait, isn’t forced experimental brain surgery one of the central elements being discussed in this thread? Shouldn’t any hypothetical casting of an opponent in such a scenario be considered intent to inflict violence? So how do you remove Jan’s brain and put it in a vat without his knowledge? In other words how would you violate Jan’s body in the most grievous way imaginable without his knowledge? You’d render him unconscious, kidnap him and steel his brain. Pretty nasty stuff is you’re inclined to be offended by it. And if you’re not offended by it according to some, you must be harboring sociopathic tendencies. I find it odd considering your characterization of it, that you made no objection to the original casting as a sex slave, only to the implausibility of the scenario in general. It wasn’t until a few exchanges later when I mentioned the capacity to engage in sex out side of the simulation, which has nothing to do with enslavement, and everything to do with continuing a semblance of life as usual out side the simulation, that you objected to the nature of the plot. Why is that? I claim rape scenarios to be part of healthy sexuality? By what application of logic has that been determined? My only acceptance of rape scenarios is they are indeed a reality, and thus acceptable fodder for discussion or fictional presentation. Most of western society has the same take on it, that’s why it’s so prevalent in media and literature. Ever see the movie The Searchers with John Wayne? Or Return of the Jedi? The plots in these movies contain depictions of sexual slavery, along with other expressions of violence. Does this imply a desire by the film makers to sexually assualt potential audiences? Or a desire by viewers to perpetuate the practice of sexual violence in society? According to your logic it does. I didn’t make up the definition, I suggest you go petition to have the English lexicon amended, or learn to properly use it. If forum rules prohibit casting other members in situations of implied violence, then: This member perceived that you cast them as a child molester. And above I explained how James hypothetically "brutalized" Jan by casting his brain in a vat. I didn’t realize consent was necessary to engage in topical discussion. I also didn’t recognize your perceived right to dictate the essentials of my presentation. And assigning a minor plot element associated with sexual violence has nothing to do with its normalization outside the realm of fiction; its proper use in this respect has already been normalized by society. Your objection to it is what’s out of the norm. It’s OK to hypothetically drug, kidnap, and surgically remove a brain for experimentation, but to feed that brain the simulated identity of a sex slave is over the line? Let’s empty the prisons of all such violent offenders, because your inverted sense of ethics grants them absolution by comparison.. If I had cast my female coworkers as such, in a fictionalized thought experiment that had nothing directly to do with sexual activity, I guarantee you they would not act in the irrational and hysterical fashion you did. If you can’t show a sensory advantage of an unvatted brain just say so. It’s not that I’ve failed to establish such links; it’s that you refuse to acknowledge them If I get a sports score in a simulation that references a real life game, it’s equivalent to receiving that score by way of a real life experience. An envatted brain can receive enough real information about itself in a simulation to reference itself. It doesn’t have to know everything about itself to accomplish this. But from a knowledge standpoint it can be equivalent. Everything contained in the simulated skull is modeled structurally and functionally to be identical to the real brain. The real brain could be contained an actuated container that would mimic stresses imposed in the simulation. For example a concussion sustained in the simulation would result in like trauma to the real brain. No it doesn’t, the gedanken is not that narrowly defined, there’s all kinds of room for customized stipulations. What gives you the right to dictate the content of my propositions? Because they offend your irrational sensibilities? You were a target of an intellectual discussion, not an exercise of sexual conquest. That you can’t acknowledge the difference illustrates your lack of intellectual competency. The critical designation for the character was a captive, which is satisfied by the condition of slave. I chose to further refine the plot by adding the topical news reference of sexual slavery in a basement, as described in the Pizzagate topic that both you and I have addressed in the politics forum. Realistically any form slavery is going to carry implications unwanted violence. But like it or not, I considered forced captivity to be an essential element of the BIV concealment. I would expect you to behave as a rational man and not fixate on a trivial element of a thought experiment, or to further impose irrational limits on its discussion.