Confused on: Bunraku - Dumpshock Forums

Confused on: Bunraku, One word, multiple meanings?

Options

JonathanC

Jan 29 2008, 03:48 AM

Post #51

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 10-August 02
Member No.: 3,083

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 28 2008, 07:31 PM)

Loss of life is suffering.

:proof:

I suppose it's not surprising that someone who quotes the slave master from Roots would need this concept explained to them, but depriving someone of their life to harvest their organs for someone else qualifies as creating suffering.

They suffer because they are no longer able to enjoy the pleasures of life.

They suffer because their final hours are filled with the stress of knowing that they will be killed.

Their friends and family suffer from the loss of one of their own.

Either you're trolling, or you're a moron for asking me this. Pick one.

Wounded Ronin View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 05:39 AM Post #52
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383	I'm glad that there's someone else on this forum who catches the Roots reference. That was a pretty awesome mini-series, but the only reason I know if its existence and get the reference myself is actually because we watched it in my 9th grade history class. It's finding things like the Roots mini series from before my time which really adds a genuine thrill to the study of contemporary history and popular culture.

hyzmarca

Jan 29 2008, 06:17 AM

Post #53

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 28 2008, 10:48 PM)

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 28 2008, 06:17 PM)

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 28 2008, 07:31 PM)

Loss of life is suffering.

:proof:

I suppose it's not surprising that someone who quotes the slave master from Roots would need this concept explained to them, but depriving someone of their life to harvest their organs for someone else qualifies as creating suffering.

They suffer because they are no longer able to enjoy the pleasures of life.

As WR stated, life is suffering. If not for suffering no one would ever do anything. It is, in a certain way, what makes life worth living. It is what drives us to do put so much effort into doing what we do it is what drives us to seek pleasure. The absence of pleasure is not suffering, it is merely the absence of pleasure. One might as well state that a rock suffers because it will never experience the pleasures of life.
By definition, inanimate objects cannot suffer. That doesn't mean that being transformed into an inanimate object is a good thing, just that it is the surest way to eliminate suffering. Since compassion concerns itself with the alleviation of suffering rather than the maximization of pleasure (it is utilitarianism which does so) it is correct to say that the total destruction of all life in the universe is the most compassionate act one could commit.

QUOTE

They suffer because their final hours are filled with the stress of knowing that they will be killed.

Their friends and family suffer from the loss of one of their own.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

There is no need for them to know that they will be killed at all. In fact, giving this knowledge would be counterproductive in most situations; it might encourage resistance. Also, the original thought experiment did not contain any reference to family or friends; it can easily be the case that the individuals in question have neither friends nor family.

Regardless, by your own criteria the assertion that killing one to save another causes suffering makes no sense. If the end of life causes suffering then it is a wash either way, at the very least. Of course, one might use the criteria you proposed (knowledge of impending death, number of friends and family) to calculate the relative suffering each death will cause and choose the death which causes the least suffering.

Your assertion that allowing 5 to die to save 1 is somehow more compassionate than killing 1 to save 5 doesn't make much since due to the fact that the deaths of five individuals are likely to cause five times as much suffering as the death of one individual is.

We seem to be missing each other over the issue of positive and negative causation. You seem to be coming from the position that only positive causation matters.

Logically, negative causation is just as important as positive causation is. Doing nothing is an action. If Not A causes B then by not doing A you are causing B. While most systems of laws and ethics do not hold one liable for inaction except in rare circumstances where a duty to act is presumed to exist, action and inaction are essentially equivalent in the chain of causation. If you have the ability to rescue a person and choose not to, then you are a cause of his injuries. That you choose not to because doing so would injure another is irrelevant to causation, you are a cause
either way.

And there is the rub. If you are put in a situation where you can save one by killing another then you are a killer either way. You can choose to kill through action or through inaction, but you cannot choose to not kill. It is a trap, it's a Sophie's Choice. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. The very existence of the choice forces you to be a monstrous bastard.

I'm not saying that compassionate (or utilitarian) organ harvesting is a good thing - for a variety of reasons it is not and it would be a disaster if implemented as a social policy; but in certain isolated non-repeating circumstances it is the choice that results in the least amount of suffering. Since the only choice that results in 0 suffering for all is the simultaneous unexpected death of all, causing the least amount of suffering is the best we can reasonably go for.

JonathanC View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 06:35 AM Post #54
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,241 Joined: 10-August 02 Member No.: 3,083	You're not sacrificing 5 to save 1, because the 1 healthy person isn't in danger unless you decide to murder him/her to "save" the others. I'm guessing that you're some kind of failed philosophy major. Only a philosophy major would accept a statement like "life is suffering" as a scientific fact, and only a failed one would make such a poor argument in favor of something as ridiculous as forcible organ harvesting, let alone claim that it has any link to the concept of "compassion". You're reaching. Badly. Hint: this isn't making you look nearly as smart as you would like it to.

hyzmarca

Jan 29 2008, 06:58 AM

Post #55

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 29 2008, 01:35 AM)

You're not sacrificing 5 to save 1, because the 1 healthy person isn't in danger unless you decide to murder him/her to "save" the others.

Then I suppose protect would have been a better choice of words. Still, you are in a position to kill them in this thought experiment. By not killing him, you are causing him to continue to live. You don't chose to not kill him, then he will not be alive. By making the choice to not kill him, you are saving his life, or protecting him from yourself.

Perhaps it is the ethical reprehensibility and social unsustainability of the organ harvesting example. We might instead choose to use the train example. You work at a railroad switching post. There are two tracks, one leading to a tunnel and one to a bridge. The bridge is undergoing routine maintenance. Around midday, an unexpected earthquake causes the tunnel to collapse. A train is due through in a few minutes and you radio the train's conductor to inform him of the situation telling him to stop. He replies that he can't; his train's brakes are damaged. If he continues on his path, the train will crash and hundreds of passengers will die. You radio the bridge maintenance crew and tell them to evacuate; they say that they can't, they don't have time. So you have a choice. You can do nothing and let the train crash, killing hundreds of people, or you can switch the train onto the bridge, killing the substantially smaller maintenance crew.

It is the same scenario, the same basic logical question; Act A kills few people, Act Not A kills many people, yet for some reason some people will say that switching the train is somehow different from harvesting the organs, though switching the train is just as much an act of premeditated killing. I can understand why, this example is cleaner, but it is still logically identical.

QUOTE

I'm guessing that you're some kind of failed philosophy major. Only a philosophy major would accept a statement like "life is suffering" as a scientific fact, and only a failed one would make such a poor argument in favor of something as ridiculous as forcible organ harvesting, let alone claim that it has any link to the concept of "compassion". You're reaching. Badly.

Argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks don't bolster arguments. Neither does appeal to ridicule.

JonathanC

Jan 29 2008, 07:50 AM

Post #56

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 10-August 02
Member No.: 3,083

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 29 2008, 01:35 AM)

You're not sacrificing 5 to save 1, because the 1 healthy person isn't in danger unless you decide to murder him/her to "save" the others.

Then I suppose protect would have been a better choice of words. Still, you are in a position to kill them in this thought experiment. By not killing him, you are causing him to continue to live. You don't chose to not kill him, then he will not be alive. By making the choice to not kill him, you are saving his life, or protecting him from yourself.

Perhaps it is the ethical reprehensibility and social unsustainability of the organ harvesting example. We might instead choose to use the train example. You work at a railroad switching post. There are two tracks, one leading to a tunnel and one to a bridge. The bridge is undergoing routine maintenance. Around midday, an unexpected earthquake causes the tunnel to collapse. A train is due through in a few minutes and you radio the train's conductor to inform him of the situation telling him to stop. He replies that he can't; his train's brakes are damaged. If he continues on his path, the train will crash and hundreds of passengers will die. You radio the bridge maintenance crew and tell them to evacuate; they say that they can't, they don't have time. So you have a choice. You can do nothing and let the train crash, killing hundreds of people, or you can switch the train onto the bridge, killing the substantially smaller maintenance crew.

It is the same scenario, the same basic logical question; Act A kills few people, Act Not A kills many people, yet for some reason some people will say that switching the train is somehow different from harvesting the organs, though switching the train is just as much an act of premeditated killing. I can understand why, this example is cleaner, but it is still logically identical.

QUOTE

I'm guessing that you're some kind of failed philosophy major. Only a philosophy major would accept a statement like "life is suffering" as a scientific fact, and only a failed one would make such a poor argument in favor of something as ridiculous as forcible organ harvesting, let alone claim that it has any link to the concept of "compassion". You're reaching. Badly.

Argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks don't bolster arguments. Neither does appeal to ridicule.

It's not logically identical. For starters, you are again abusing the english language when you state that, in the original example, you are "causing" the healthy man to survive. You aren't "causing" anything; you're simply not killing him.

Secondly, the train example is not the same as the organ havesting example. More importantly, neither example has anything to do with the concept of compassion. In the train example, there is an immediate threat, and an immediate choice. The track *has* to go somewhere. In the organ example, you don't *have* to tear out someone's organs, and saying that you only have the choice of murdering a healthy person and giving away their organs or watching the rest of them die is simply ridiculous. And again, regardless of what you're choosing in either example, you are not making a "compassionate" choice. In the organ example, you're simply choosing to either murder someone for their organs or not. In the train example, the choice is even more ridiculous; a train with no brakes is going to crash or derail anyway. So if you choose to kill the rail crew, you're killing them AND the people on the train.

hyzmarca

Jan 29 2008, 09:36 AM

Post #57

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 29 2008, 02:50 AM)

It's not logically identical. For starters, you are again abusing the english language when you state that, in the original example, you are "causing" the healthy man to survive. You aren't "causing" anything; you're simply not killing him.

Secondly, the train example is not the same as the organ havesting example. More importantly, neither example has anything to do with the concept of compassion. In the train example, there is an immediate threat, and an immediate choice. The track *has* to go somewhere. In the organ example, you don't *have* to tear out someone's organs, and saying that you only have the choice of murdering a healthy person and giving away their organs or watching the rest of them die is simply ridiculous.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002962/ This article can help better understand negative causation.

In both examples in their most restrictive forms can be boiled down to the same logical equation.

A and B are sets

A {Some persons not in set B}
B {Some persons not in set A}

x>0

|A| = x ; |B| = x +y

If A lives then B dies
If A dies then B lives

One may choose the life-state of A

This is the basic form of a binary Sophie's Choice. There are more complex Sophie's Choices, with more sets and the potential for some overlap between sets, but this is the basic form that we're dealing with.

We could also use torture states rather than life states, IE thus you would get to choose who gets tortured. We could even create rather complex suffering functions.
The result is the same, a bad thing happens to some group and you must choose which one. You can't not choose. If you choose not to decide you'll still have made a choice.

QUOTE

And again, regardless of what you're choosing in either example, you are not making a "compassionate" choice. In the organ example, you're simply choosing to either murder someone for their organs or not.

You seem to be applying some sort of moral value to murder which is uncalled for when acting on the natural human impulse to minimize suffering. If murder results in less overall suffering than not murder does, then murder is the most compassionate choice.

QUOTE

In the train example, the choice is even more ridiculous; a train with no brakes is going to crash or derail anyway. So if you choose to kill the rail crew, you're killing them AND the people on the train.

Assuming the track is long enough and the engine can be cut off, friction would eventually bring the train to a halt.

Fuchs View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 09:43 AM Post #58
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,328 Joined: 28-November 05 From: Zuerich Member No.: 8,014	I think Bunraku parlors offer a lot of opportunities for Shadowruns. The set up offers a lot for hackers, and the SimSense/VR/Skillwire/personafix angle can alos net a lot of runs - or character backgrounds.

Serial_Peacemake... Serial_Peacemaker View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 06:35 PM Post #59
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 29-December 06 Member No.: 10,483	Well from a weird sort of perspective Bunraku Parlors give even hardened killers something to feel moral about. I mean really I'm just killing the guy, its not like I'm putting cyber into him and using him as a human meat puppet.

JonathanC

Jan 29 2008, 06:57 PM

Post #60

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 10-August 02
Member No.: 3,083

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jan 29 2008, 01:36 AM)

QUOTE (JonathanC @ Jan 29 2008, 02:50 AM)

It's not logically identical. For starters, you are again abusing the english language when you state that, in the original example, you are "causing" the healthy man to survive. You aren't "causing" anything; you're simply not killing him.

Secondly, the train example is not the same as the organ havesting example. More importantly, neither example has anything to do with the concept of compassion. In the train example, there is an immediate threat, and an immediate choice. The track *has* to go somewhere. In the organ example, you don't *have* to tear out someone's organs, and saying that you only have the choice of murdering a healthy person and giving away their organs or watching the rest of them die is simply ridiculous.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002962/ This article can help better understand negative causation.

In both examples in their most restrictive forms can be boiled down to the same logical equation.

A and B are sets

A {Some persons not in set B}
B {Some persons not in set A}

x>0

|A| = x ; |B| = x +y

If A lives then B dies
If A dies then B lives

One may choose the life-state of A

This is the basic form of a binary Sophie's Choice. There are more complex Sophie's Choices, with more sets and the potential for some overlap between sets, but this is the basic form that we're dealing with.

We could also use torture states rather than life states, IE thus you would get to choose who gets tortured. We could even create rather complex suffering functions.
The result is the same, a bad thing happens to some group and you must choose which one. You can't not choose. If you choose not to decide you'll still have made a choice.

QUOTE

And again, regardless of what you're choosing in either example, you are not making a "compassionate" choice. In the organ example, you're simply choosing to either murder someone for their organs or not.

You seem to be applying some sort of moral value to murder which is uncalled for when acting on the natural human impulse to minimize suffering. If murder results in less overall suffering than not murder does, then murder is the most compassionate choice.

QUOTE

In the train example, the choice is even more ridiculous; a train with no brakes is going to crash or derail anyway. So if you choose to kill the rail crew, you're killing them AND the people on the train.

Assuming the track is long enough and the engine can be cut off, friction would eventually bring the train to a halt.

Those assumptions aren't part of the initial scenario.

And again, I suggest you look into the definition of compassion. You're trying to shoehorn the word around a different concept. It's like saying that a car is a type of bathtub, just because you put people in both of them.

JonathanC View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 07:00 PM Post #61
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,241 Joined: 10-August 02 Member No.: 3,083	Also, you've thoroughly derailed the thread with pages of bullshit that has nothing to do with Bunraku Parlors. Congratulations.

hyzmarca

Jan 29 2008, 07:57 PM

Post #62

Midnight Toker

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456

QUOTE (JonathanC)

And again, I suggest you look into the definition of compassion. You're trying to shoehorn the word around a different concept. It's like saying that a car is a type of bathtub, just because you put people in both of them.

QUOTE (dictionary)

1. a deep awareness of and sympathy for another's suffering
2. the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it

Definition 2 is pretty much the one I'm going on, since it is the only one that pertains to actions.

Konsaki View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 08:39 PM Post #63
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,526 Joined: 9-April 06 From: McGuire AFB, NJ Member No.: 8,445	I'd love to continue reading the bickering posts between Hyz and John, they're hilarious to read but seriously... Derailing only exists to a point and then you crossover into total domination of a thread...

bibliophile20

Jan 29 2008, 08:58 PM

Post #64

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,180
Joined: 22-January 07
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 10,737

QUOTE (Konsaki)

I'd love to continue reading the bickering posts between Hyz and John, they're hilarious to read but seriously... Derailing only exists to a point and then you crossover into total domination of a thread...

Amen on that; I've abandoned the P.O.ed Yaks thread for precisely that reason, as mfb and toturi are currently hashing it out.

It's okay, though; I got what I needed from it.

Adarael View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 09:18 PM Post #65
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566	Seriously. All I know is once, a PC's friend (who turned out to be a double agent, but oh well) got kidnapped by a bunraku parlor, and in retribution he killed the building. So I think that says what I think of bunraku and how creepy it is. Which is lots.

JonathanC

Jan 29 2008, 10:00 PM

Post #66

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Joined: 10-August 02
Member No.: 3,083

QUOTE (Konsaki)

I'd love to continue reading the bickering posts between Hyz and John, they're hilarious to read but seriously... Derailing only exists to a point and then you crossover into total domination of a thread...

My apologies. It took me a while to realize what was going on, but at this point I think Hyz is just trolling. Back on the topic of Bunraku parlors, I think that realistically, the number of "involuntary" puppet operations would be fairly low. It's a pretty expensive operation to run, fairly distasteful even among Shadowrunners (judging by the comments in the books on the subject), and if the whole operation relied on kidnapping unwilling people, then having Bunraku parlors be so easy to find and up-front about what they are just doesn't make sense. They'd be raided every week, either by Lone Star or, if the 'Star is being paid off (which couldn't last long...if the op is primarily kidnapping-based, it's only a matter of time before you kidnap someone who's paying for 'Star coverage) then by relatives, rival gangs, or activists.

If people are willing to blow up factories to save a tree, imagine what they'd be willing to do to you for being involved in bunraku slavery.

Involuntary Bunraku should be the province of Yakuza of "low character", guys that even other Yaks look down on.

Of course, even voluntary work like this is fairly sad. Economically depressed people willing to literally give up control of themselves for money, selling their minds as well as their bodies. Less disturbing, but still pretty dystopian.

Kanada Ten View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 10:06 PM Post #67
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826	As hyzmarca points out, compassion has many shades of grey, but denying individuals the right to self-determination, the basic freedom to pursue happiness (however miserable life may be), is the core of cyberpunk: from wageslaves to the SINless, every choice is already made for you. Bunkraku parlors, Halberstam, Tamanous, and Insect Spirits all embody this aspect, and one has a natural reactance to it. It's the reason drugs like meth are so hideous: that person you knew is gone - add elements of BTL, and not only are they gone but a plastic soulless zombie is standing in their shoes. I think one of the reasons shadowrun has moved away from this core is because real-life is moving away from it. People aren't being denied choices, they're being drowned in them. There's more religions, more subcultures, more cracks to fall through. This dichotomy in 2070, where on one side you have no choices: your education, your friends, your opportunities are all pre-decided by a machine super-crunching your genome; and on the other side: the myriad fake choices of clothing styles and plethora of praying practices, where inside these set lives you are lost and constantly trying to find yourself, makes it more terrifying than cyberpunk's original dystopia. But with nano-paste and wireless, you don't have to install any ware inside the puppets anymore. Persona fix on the fly, alter the character to match the clients responses, customize storylines and AR environments to boot.

Serial_Peacemake... Serial_Peacemaker View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 10:10 PM Post #68
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 192 Joined: 29-December 06 Member No.: 10,483	Well here is the thing though. In Shadowrun and quite a bit of cyberpunk the value system is different. People will kill to protect trees is not a big deal, because the inhibitions on killing are much lower. However this is due to people devaluing other human beings, and so using people as meat puppets is seen as less a problem than cutting down trees. After all humans are cheap and easily replaced, but trees actually are valuable to someone. However I do agree that for the most part the Bunraku Puppets are most likely more or less willing for many establishments, but that there are lots of unwilling Bunraku, and really you can not really tell which is which by the nature of the establishment.

mfb

Jan 29 2008, 10:12 PM

Post #69

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (JonathanC)

Also, you've thoroughly derailed the thread with pages of bullshit that has nothing to do with Bunraku Parlors. Congratulations.

hey, hey, whoah, pal. it takes two to tango.

Kanada Ten View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 10:14 PM Post #70
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826	And, really, you're only adding to the unemployment rate by blowing them up. Maybe sneak some job training skills into the parlor's network, or self-confidence tapes, vocabulary builders... Has no one had their team sabotage a puppet before?

nezumi

Jan 29 2008, 10:15 PM

Post #71

Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,548
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760

QUOTE (JonathanC)

It's a pretty expensive operation to run,

I believe it's only a few thousand for enough skillwires to run a personafix. Less if it's used and you don't care whether the girl gets an infection and dies or not. Even a toothless hooker can make that up in a month.

QUOTE

fairly distasteful even among Shadowrunners

I don't think most clients would even recognize an involuntary bunraku from a willing one (personafix, remember?) All your shadowrunner knows is the place down the street won't fulfill the fantasy he wants, but this place will, and cuts $100 off the price to boot.

QUOTE

and if the whole operation relied on kidnapping unwilling people, then having Bunraku parlors be so easy to find and up-front about what they are just doesn't make sense. They'd be raided every week, either by Lone Star or

The star only gets to raid if they can pay.

No, I joke. Even modern day prostitutes give about 10% of their tricks for free to cops. There was an article on it very recently. Cops don't ask questions because they get free services. A legitimate parlor isn't going to do that, and Lone Star doesn't get paid to take care of the SINless. If someone important is grabbed, that particular joint is busted, or the Star rescues the person discretely and makes headlines about it, then lets the parlor owner return to his business.

It isn't especially hard to make the place hard to find as well. The girl has a PERSONAFIX CHIP IN HER. I tell her to go to 12th and West and meet up with Joe, she does it. I don't have to go anywhere! If Joe happens to be a cop, well, I'm out a set of used skillwires.

QUOTE

If people are willing to blow up factories to save a tree, imagine what they'd be willing to do to you for being involved in bunraku slavery.

People are willing to blow up factories right now to save trees, but I don't see anyone going to any of the zillions of cheap, forced-sex whorehouses in the world and blowing them up.

QUOTE

Involuntary Bunraku should be the province of Yakuza of "low character", guys that even other Yaks look down on.

Why is that? It's good money. I don't recollect the Mafia saying "well, drugs are good money, but they ruin lives and bring down the value of our neighborhood. We shouldn't pursue that revenue." You think the Yaks are much different?

I can see not allowing bunraku because it hits too close to home, but arguing if you're arguing it doesn't make reasonable sense, you're just not paying attention.

Adarael View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 10:18 PM Post #72
Deus Absconditus Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566	Thought about it. Wetwork job on some Japanese corp upper-management slub. Thought about re-wiring his bunraku doll's pfix to include a kill trigger, and slaving its skillwires to some combat softs. In the end, I think we just shot him. Somehow it always seems to boil down to that.

Riley37 View Member Profile	Jan 29 2008, 10:21 PM Post #73
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319	Try some research on involuntary labor in the United States, currently; then specify involuntary prostitution. Then try again for the same in Mexico, Thailand, etc. If current real-life law enforcement hasn't dropped it to zero, then somehow I doubt Sixth World law enforcement will do better. There are people who are essentially alone in the world, with neither family nor nation nor any other group motivated and able to protect or avenge them; illegal immigrants are often in that state, far from family and unwilling to turn to police. Activists willing to take on Yakuza thugs (or other OC) are rare. And when it comes to sex trade, the owners are not only able to bribe cops with money, the cops, and/or the people who control the cops, sometimes include a customer or two. I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm saying that's how it is. I have not, myself, taken a gun in hand and a camcorder to get evidence and gone on a campaign to bust sweatshops in my hometown, nor to check that all of the employees of the below-the-waist "massage parlors" are working without any coercion or threat of handing them over to INS, so I'm not in a position to claim moral high ground. PC shadowrunners generally oppose bunraku. PCs are presumably a small percentage of shadowrunners in most game worlds. Fluff suggests that the Robin Hood types are a minority; that makes any altruistic or honorable PCs get to feel even more special.

Kanada Ten

Jan 29 2008, 10:23 PM

Post #74

Beetle Eater

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,797
Joined: 3-June 02
From: Oblivion City
Member No.: 2,826

QUOTE (Adarael)

Thought about it. Wetwork job on some Japanese corp upper-management slub. Thought about re-wiring his bunraku doll's pfix to include a kill trigger, and slaving its skillwires to some combat softs.

I was thinking more along the lines of interrogation, even beyond pillowtalk. But hell, think of all the information the Yakuza could squeeze out of clients without them even knowing.

mfb

Jan 29 2008, 10:30 PM

Post #75

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

QUOTE (JonathanC)

and if the whole operation relied on kidnapping unwilling people, then having Bunraku parlors be so easy to find and up-front about what they are just doesn't make sense. They'd be raided every week, either by Lone Star or, if the 'Star is being paid off (which couldn't last long...if the op is primarily kidnapping-based, it's only a matter of time before you kidnap someone who's paying for 'Star coverage) then by relatives, rival gangs, or activists.

If people are willing to blow up factories to save a tree, imagine what they'd be willing to do to you for being involved in bunraku slavery.

well, bunraku parlors are not necessarily primarily kidnapping-based, at least in the sense you're thinking of it. if i were going to run a bunraku parlor, the people i'd be kidnapping to staff it would be barrens trash from parts of the barrens that my syndicate controls. and i wouldn't kidnap them, per se; i'd simply offer them credit, and then force them to work in my brothel when they find themselves unable to pay.

moreover, the Yakuza operate globally, in their way. i can see the Triads selling girls and boys kidnapped from China to the Seattle Yaks for use in bunraku parlors; meanwhile, the Yaks are selling the people they kidnap to the Vory in Vladivostok. that will certainly cut down on the number of angry parents/corps/gangers/whatever who might otherwise be beating down the Yaks' doors in search of their lost loved ones--those loved ones, rather than showing up elsewhere in the city under the Yaks' employ, simply disappear.

QUOTE (Riley37)

Try some research on involuntary labor in the United States, currently; then specify involuntary prostitution. Then try again for the same in Mexico, Thailand, etc. If current real-life law enforcement hasn't dropped it to zero, then somehow I doubt Sixth World law enforcement will do better.

indeed.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »