No, I’m afraid someone’s attractiveness doesn’t take them out of the set of people whom it is immoral to emotionally abuse. From an outside perspective, you not getting laid is morally neutral. You reaching into your Jedi mind trick toolbox to get laid at the cost of lowering someone’s life quality is very much not morally neutral. Why should she suffer more to get a worse deal? When she could enter a healthy relationship with someone who’s attractive and ethical enough not to resort to dirty tricks to get her to stick around? Because it’s you offering the deal, and I’m supposed to cheer for your side since I’m talking to you? No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
I was asking Lumifer specifically. But because you seem interested I’ll put some more pixels into it:
Lumifer’s post says that their price of dumping someone is generally lower, and they can easily find a replacement. If you could be easily replaced, then you’ll naturally want a way to stand out. How does one stand out? No crows out there, so no need for straw men, either.
No, I’m afraid someone’s attractiveness doesn’t take them out of the set of people whom it is immoral to emotionally abuse.
Hm.. emotional abuse is a very strong word to use here. If I call that upping my chances, I can say that there are major differences here, but for the sake of our discussion, the most important thing is that one person perceives certain acts to be bad, while the other good. But clearly both of those are binary generalizations. The thing to do in this situation is to sit down and start breaking the machine apart and see which parts are the problem. I absolutely believe we could do that. Let’s put things on a continuum instead of polar opposites.
you not getting laid is morally neutral.
I think there’s plenty of people who would like a relationship but for whatever reason can’t get it. Morally neutral, you got it. The situation could be better? Undeniably. The right way? Pssh.. no crows in the sky.
You reaching into your Jedi mind trick toolbox to get laid at the cost of lowering someone’s life quality is very much not morally neutral.
This is a very common argument, and I’d like to point out that at this point you’re repeating yourself.
But there’s something that really bother me with that argument: that it gives too much power to one party and too little to the other. This type of argument implies that women have no way to defend themselves from such mind attacks. I’d like to know if this is really so. In parallel, I would also like to know how many women do defend themselves from those type of attacks. Does it not sound reasonable to be able to protect against damage, especially if you’re vulnerable?
When she could enter a healthy relationship with someone who’s attractive and ethical enough not to resort to dirty tricks to get her to stick around?
To all the glasses girls here: wanna have some action? Be quick though—there’s a limited supply..
You surely are hoping that’s what it means, eh?
No, I’m afraid someone’s attractiveness doesn’t take them out of the set of people whom it is immoral to emotionally abuse. From an outside perspective, you not getting laid is morally neutral. You reaching into your Jedi mind trick toolbox to get laid at the cost of lowering someone’s life quality is very much not morally neutral. Why should she suffer more to get a worse deal? When she could enter a healthy relationship with someone who’s attractive and ethical enough not to resort to dirty tricks to get her to stick around? Because it’s you offering the deal, and I’m supposed to cheer for your side since I’m talking to you? No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
We are not obliged, in our personal interactions, to refrain from actions which cause other people any amount of harm whatsoever.
This being so, there must be a point where an action is bad if it causes a certain amount of harm, but okay if it causes slightly less harm.
That being so, “less harm because they are more attractive and can find partners more easily” can be one cause of the slightly less harm.
I was asking Lumifer specifically. But because you seem interested I’ll put some more pixels into it:
Lumifer’s post says that their price of dumping someone is generally lower, and they can easily find a replacement. If you could be easily replaced, then you’ll naturally want a way to stand out. How does one stand out? No crows out there, so no need for straw men, either.
Hm.. emotional abuse is a very strong word to use here. If I call that upping my chances, I can say that there are major differences here, but for the sake of our discussion, the most important thing is that one person perceives certain acts to be bad, while the other good. But clearly both of those are binary generalizations. The thing to do in this situation is to sit down and start breaking the machine apart and see which parts are the problem. I absolutely believe we could do that. Let’s put things on a continuum instead of polar opposites.
I think there’s plenty of people who would like a relationship but for whatever reason can’t get it. Morally neutral, you got it. The situation could be better? Undeniably. The right way? Pssh.. no crows in the sky.
This is a very common argument, and I’d like to point out that at this point you’re repeating yourself.
But there’s something that really bother me with that argument: that it gives too much power to one party and too little to the other. This type of argument implies that women have no way to defend themselves from such mind attacks. I’d like to know if this is really so. In parallel, I would also like to know how many women do defend themselves from those type of attacks. Does it not sound reasonable to be able to protect against damage, especially if you’re vulnerable?
To all the glasses girls here: wanna have some action? Be quick though—there’s a limited supply..