On the one hand, I'd love a judge to respond 'yes' to all of these, if only to confirm how ridiculous they are and that a reasonable implementation is impossible. On the other hand, I'd hate for a judge to respond 'yes', because then the enforcement of said ridiculousness becomes vindicated.

> My point is that even if you were a robot, if you had feelings.

This is one of the biggest reasons I'd rather be a robot. The anguish they cause me do not help me.

> He couldn't really compare between two decisions.

Such is life without a ground truth to decide your priorities. There are hopefully other source of that than emotions.

> A robot has no purpose other than being spawned in to create something brittle like yet-another-crud-app.

Neither do humans.

If being a robot is shit, but being human is also shit, then then I can only really conclude that it's better to not be at all.

I'm not a big fan of eating, so yes please? Even if I then want to indulge in something tasty every now and then, the option to just 'top up' without actually eating is hugely attractive.

On some level I agree, but I don't think most of my fellow humans would agree.

Either way, editing away the need for social connections from humans seems to be quite a long way from our current level of technology, so it's not really worth considering as something that can actually be done. There's a philosophical discussion worth having despite that though.

I'd rather be a robot than a human, so from my perspective, the answer is clearly clearly none. I just don't have the option of turning into a robot.