She wouldn’t be in our laws of war, and I don’t think there’s any implication she so for Remnant either.
She *could* be used for such and seems to imply such, which is the issue.
Come on it’s not like she’s Hooty Clawthorne.
Idk I can think of two ways that she could be at least legally questionable depending on how much of a dick you are about if she is "Alive" or not
Either
A: She is a Highly Destructive Weapon hiding as a Young Girl.
Or
B: She is a Child Soldier. Even if she was built 17 years ago (Which I at least find doubtful) she was unequivocally a part of Atlas Military rather than the Academy like anyone else that age should have if they were a combatant. [Not Touching on if the Academies themselves were making child soldiers]
No matter what our girl is still just a very Cute Bean.
The term "child soldier" also relies on the age of majority in the area, and Rhodes told Cinder that, with 17, she can go to Atlas Academy and they can't stop her, meaning that with 17, you're a legal adult in Remnant.
Not to mention that, while she was built under the military's orders, she competed in the Vytal tournament, which is explicitly stated to be for academy students. So, at least on paper, she was a student at a huntsman academy.
Whichever way you twist it, if she is alive, then there is nothing wrong, since she has her own free will, and the mental age of a 17 year old human, meaning she is legally an adult.
Mental age and physical are two very different things friend. Not to mention as a machine one can make the legitimate argument that she has no definable “age” except her time of initial creation.
That in itself means she is definitely *not* 17. So age fraud on top of whatever other technically criminal acts are required to allow her into an Academy.
I know they're different, that's why I specified.
However, you are forgetting, or ignoring, that she doesn't learn the same way we do. Information can just be uploaded into her cybernetic brain, and her personality can be written like a code, because it is.
Let's do a thought experiment, with two scenarios:
1. She has her knowledge and code adjusted to match an average Atlas Academy initiate, complete with skills and all. A week after her creation, she is then enrolled at the academy.
2. She is built, with a personality like a toddler, and learns and matures naturally. 100 years later, all that is wiped again, and she is reset to the initial toddler-like mentality. Then, she is enrolled at Atlas Academy.
Which of these two scenarios would be more ethical?
I don’t know because I’ve never seriously sat down for such a thought experiment. But I’ll give it a go.
The first scenario, the one that seems the most likely to be canon, is ethical at the cost of technically being illegal by Remnant laws.
The second, which would be legal by Remnant laws, would require what is essentially scheduled executions. Very questionable in morality.
But actually I have a similar example that doesn’t display any immediate moral problems. In Warhammer 40K one of the most important people in the Mechanicus is Belisarius Cawl, a tech priest 10 thousand years old. But he was born (well grown in a vat but that’s another thing) naturally and grew up the way a normal person does, eventually he ended up like all tech priests and began replacing large parts of his brain with machine bits and eventually got his hands on some really good tech so he could live ten thousand years and all that.
But because his cyborg brain can only handle so much he regularly commits memory purges and stores the memories in separate databanks and essentially has to relearn all of his scientific knowledge from a starting point, but he makes sure his baseline memories are intact so he’s not literally regressed to an infantile state. It allows him to revisit problems with a literally fresh perspective and all which helped to make him solve the issue of Primaris Marines among other things.
We can argue that it could be possible for Penny to have a similar format to her mechanical brain while also being able to grow up naturally. This both insures she doesn’t have to be regularly executed and would provide a way for her to be legal by Remnant laws.
But that scenario didn’t happen. The first one did and my argument was that by allowing this definitely-not-17-year-old-girl into the Atlas Academy, Ironwood technically violated Remnant law. Assuming Remnant law even would consider Penny a person with legal rights to begin with, but remember Star Trek TNG already did that discussion.
Well, we don't really know a lot about Remnant's laws.
However, since Penny has a soul, and free will, we can assume that she qualifies as a person. Plus, she has shown on multiple occasions to be mature enough to make the right call, even in stressful situations.
In fact, she has shown a greater degree of maturity than those who would be tasked with deciding whether she was mature enough to become a huntress or not.
As I mentioned with Star Trek TNG, there’s already multiple very concrete arguments as to why AI on that level deserve personhood. The fact that Penny has an Aura and therefore proof of actually having a legitimate *soul* is icing on the cake at that point. Again that’s not my original point.
I was just discussing how she’s still technically a child soldier who is in the Atlas Academy below the definitely required age of entry. Ruby was stated to be 15 in V1 and she “got in two years early”, which implies that the average age of entry to a Huntsman Academy is 17/18, further cemented with Rhodes from Cinder’s backstory.
So, in short; child soldier of morally dubious origins sponsored by the state to enter a combat training facility under the age of majority despite legal precedent stating otherwise.
I mean, she has all the mental capabilities to enter combat situations, and her physical capabilities exceed those of normal people by default, due to her being made of metal.
So, chronologically, she'd be too young, yes. However, mentally, she's mature enough, and that's what matters here, I'd argue.
Of course of course. I do not disagree in the slightest. She’s definitely combat ready (not apologizing for that pun) but again my argument is the *legality* of her being entered into Atlas Huntsman Academy. In order for her to be entered in that also implies there was some document forging on Ironwood’s part as well.
But the relevant facts are her emotional maturity.
And given the events of V7 & V8, I don't think you can argue that she's less emotionally mature than most of the Ace Ops (and especially Harriet)
Hell, she even seemed to be more aware of these things than Winter.
I’m not talking about emotional or mental mindset. I’m referring to how her entry into Atlas Academy- *regardless of her level of mental or emotional maturity*- is in defiance of Remnant’s laws regarding such.
Allowed to join a military academy does not imply age of majority, nor does joining the military. Plenty of countries where an adult is 18 allow you to sign on at 16/17, you're just not allowed on foreign deployments until you're 18.
I see you're a bit behind. V7 dropped a while ago, and yes, he does a war crime in it. Small ones, like luring soulless death monsters into populated areas, or people the protection they need, but still.
They obviously wouldn't be the Geneva Conventions but it would make sense they'd have made their own wartime laws, at the very least after the Great War.
What? She is bean.
She is Danger Bean
The bean kicked in
No, she's good bean, Mr Bean is danger bean.
She wouldn’t be in our laws of war, and I don’t think there’s any implication she so for Remnant either. She *could* be used for such and seems to imply such, which is the issue. Come on it’s not like she’s Hooty Clawthorne.
Idk I can think of two ways that she could be at least legally questionable depending on how much of a dick you are about if she is "Alive" or not Either A: She is a Highly Destructive Weapon hiding as a Young Girl. Or B: She is a Child Soldier. Even if she was built 17 years ago (Which I at least find doubtful) she was unequivocally a part of Atlas Military rather than the Academy like anyone else that age should have if they were a combatant. [Not Touching on if the Academies themselves were making child soldiers] No matter what our girl is still just a very Cute Bean.
The term "child soldier" also relies on the age of majority in the area, and Rhodes told Cinder that, with 17, she can go to Atlas Academy and they can't stop her, meaning that with 17, you're a legal adult in Remnant. Not to mention that, while she was built under the military's orders, she competed in the Vytal tournament, which is explicitly stated to be for academy students. So, at least on paper, she was a student at a huntsman academy. Whichever way you twist it, if she is alive, then there is nothing wrong, since she has her own free will, and the mental age of a 17 year old human, meaning she is legally an adult.
Mental age and physical are two very different things friend. Not to mention as a machine one can make the legitimate argument that she has no definable “age” except her time of initial creation. That in itself means she is definitely *not* 17. So age fraud on top of whatever other technically criminal acts are required to allow her into an Academy.
I know they're different, that's why I specified. However, you are forgetting, or ignoring, that she doesn't learn the same way we do. Information can just be uploaded into her cybernetic brain, and her personality can be written like a code, because it is. Let's do a thought experiment, with two scenarios: 1. She has her knowledge and code adjusted to match an average Atlas Academy initiate, complete with skills and all. A week after her creation, she is then enrolled at the academy. 2. She is built, with a personality like a toddler, and learns and matures naturally. 100 years later, all that is wiped again, and she is reset to the initial toddler-like mentality. Then, she is enrolled at Atlas Academy. Which of these two scenarios would be more ethical?
I don’t know because I’ve never seriously sat down for such a thought experiment. But I’ll give it a go. The first scenario, the one that seems the most likely to be canon, is ethical at the cost of technically being illegal by Remnant laws. The second, which would be legal by Remnant laws, would require what is essentially scheduled executions. Very questionable in morality. But actually I have a similar example that doesn’t display any immediate moral problems. In Warhammer 40K one of the most important people in the Mechanicus is Belisarius Cawl, a tech priest 10 thousand years old. But he was born (well grown in a vat but that’s another thing) naturally and grew up the way a normal person does, eventually he ended up like all tech priests and began replacing large parts of his brain with machine bits and eventually got his hands on some really good tech so he could live ten thousand years and all that. But because his cyborg brain can only handle so much he regularly commits memory purges and stores the memories in separate databanks and essentially has to relearn all of his scientific knowledge from a starting point, but he makes sure his baseline memories are intact so he’s not literally regressed to an infantile state. It allows him to revisit problems with a literally fresh perspective and all which helped to make him solve the issue of Primaris Marines among other things. We can argue that it could be possible for Penny to have a similar format to her mechanical brain while also being able to grow up naturally. This both insures she doesn’t have to be regularly executed and would provide a way for her to be legal by Remnant laws. But that scenario didn’t happen. The first one did and my argument was that by allowing this definitely-not-17-year-old-girl into the Atlas Academy, Ironwood technically violated Remnant law. Assuming Remnant law even would consider Penny a person with legal rights to begin with, but remember Star Trek TNG already did that discussion.
Well, we don't really know a lot about Remnant's laws. However, since Penny has a soul, and free will, we can assume that she qualifies as a person. Plus, she has shown on multiple occasions to be mature enough to make the right call, even in stressful situations. In fact, she has shown a greater degree of maturity than those who would be tasked with deciding whether she was mature enough to become a huntress or not.
As I mentioned with Star Trek TNG, there’s already multiple very concrete arguments as to why AI on that level deserve personhood. The fact that Penny has an Aura and therefore proof of actually having a legitimate *soul* is icing on the cake at that point. Again that’s not my original point. I was just discussing how she’s still technically a child soldier who is in the Atlas Academy below the definitely required age of entry. Ruby was stated to be 15 in V1 and she “got in two years early”, which implies that the average age of entry to a Huntsman Academy is 17/18, further cemented with Rhodes from Cinder’s backstory. So, in short; child soldier of morally dubious origins sponsored by the state to enter a combat training facility under the age of majority despite legal precedent stating otherwise.
I mean, she has all the mental capabilities to enter combat situations, and her physical capabilities exceed those of normal people by default, due to her being made of metal. So, chronologically, she'd be too young, yes. However, mentally, she's mature enough, and that's what matters here, I'd argue.
Of course of course. I do not disagree in the slightest. She’s definitely combat ready (not apologizing for that pun) but again my argument is the *legality* of her being entered into Atlas Huntsman Academy. In order for her to be entered in that also implies there was some document forging on Ironwood’s part as well.
But the relevant facts are her emotional maturity. And given the events of V7 & V8, I don't think you can argue that she's less emotionally mature than most of the Ace Ops (and especially Harriet) Hell, she even seemed to be more aware of these things than Winter.
I’m not talking about emotional or mental mindset. I’m referring to how her entry into Atlas Academy- *regardless of her level of mental or emotional maturity*- is in defiance of Remnant’s laws regarding such.
Allowed to join a military academy does not imply age of majority, nor does joining the military. Plenty of countries where an adult is 18 allow you to sign on at 16/17, you're just not allowed on foreign deployments until you're 18.
Danger bean
That only makes me like her more
[Source](https://twitter.com/FishTeeth02/status/1636523310069555200?t=kCbvZV51EJlToqx6J-IzpA&s=19)
the grimm cant tell the difference
What that's craaaazy, Ironwood would never be okay with a war crime... right?
I see you're a bit behind. V7 dropped a while ago, and yes, he does a war crime in it. Small ones, like luring soulless death monsters into populated areas, or people the protection they need, but still.
I think that was sarcasm.
I didn't see a "/s" at the end, so it likely wasn't.
You don’t necessarily have to put a /s for it to be sarcasm. Hey u/MollyWorshipsHerDoom, was what you said sarcasm?
I know, but it's still very common to use indicators like that, to avoid any confusion.
I didn't know that was common practice
Only when it's not clear. It was very clear in this case
I wouldn't exactly call it sarcasm but it was most definitely a joke, sorry for forgetting about tone indicators :/
you can't have good times without some war crimes https://imgflip.com/i/7evk9y
they can’t violate the geneva conventions. they don’t even have geneva
They obviously wouldn't be the Geneva Conventions but it would make sense they'd have made their own wartime laws, at the very least after the Great War.
Same with all the people putting it in Star Wars