Actually “have their hearts broken” was the term he used. That you replace it with the word “torture” isn’t helpful in keeping the focus on what is actually discussed.
No, and I actually downvoted your objection because this is important. What was actually being discussed was equivalence to Superhappy debates. I am asserting that torture is a far more appropriate analogy—albeit the stakes with mere torture are far lower than the stakes in systematically rewriting our species’ DNA.
On a technical note and without necessarily being require for my point—breaking people’s hearts would absolutely fit the definition of torture. Moreover if it were possible to do without the whole pesky ‘falling in love’ part it would almost certainly be used for that purpose by military organisations.
Though I’m all in favour of torturing people that actually want to know what torture feels like.
And if everybody wanted to have their hearts broken this proposal would not be outrageous.
No, and I actually downvoted your objection because this is important. What was actually being discussed was equivalence to Superhappy debates. I am asserting that torture is a far more appropriate analogy—albeit the stakes with mere torture are far lower than the stakes in systematically rewriting our species’ DNA.
On a technical note and without necessarily being require for my point—breaking people’s hearts would absolutely fit the definition of torture. Moreover if it were possible to do without the whole pesky ‘falling in love’ part it would almost certainly be used for that purpose by military organisations.
And if everybody wanted to have their hearts broken this proposal would not be outrageous.