I thought it would be something like this. These are not reasons “for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”. These are reasons why anyone might need to hit anyone else to avoid something worse happening.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”. This in the context of another person’s blog posting elsewhere advocating, right up in the title of the post, “the necessity of domestic violence”. This is what you are endorsing.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”.
Well obviously it is sometimes best for a person to use violence for their own gains if the person dosen’t mind such violence and can escape punishment. I interpreted your question as asking me when I though this is appropriate or right. The question of whether use of violence is the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is a different one depending, heavily on what preferences that person has.
For a person with different ethics (more selfish for example) there are plenty of theoretical opportunities when it is rational to use violence to get one’s way.
Given the concept “sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”, you generalised the words “man”, “woman”, and “behave” to “someone”, “someone” and “do something”, and ignored the word “his” altogether. Now you’re generalising “best” to mean serving to get whatever the first someone wants.
This reduces the whole matter to fatuity: the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is whatever will achieve those goals. Duh. The original question was about certain specific goals and specific ways of getting them.
Anyone’s ethics, including yours, must have a subgoal of aiming to influence others’ behavior in some ways, in order to have consistency. If, like any decent person, you believe that violence in less extreme situations, especially for selfish gain, is unacceptable, you can’t just fold your hands and say “Oh well” when others endorse such violence! Otherwise your morals in this regard become just an aesthetic choice for your private behavior, and not a consistent consequentialist position.
Hmm, maybe. Anyway, my point still stands; all of us, including Charlie, should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain; doubly so when it constitutes domestic abuse. To endorse or tolerate unacceptable physical or emotional violence is in itself immoral.
should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain;
Does this statement also hold true for those who would vote themselves the tax dollars of others?
Spare me your hypocrisy; repeating the current Myths of our Age does not make you holy. You disgusting, malevolent hypocrite; I never suggested hitting a woman—I outright advised against it, as did the original blog post. I simply acknowledged—as did Ferdinand—that stupid women who date stupid men enjoy being hit by them.
People such as you - ‘rationalists’ who believe all the myths of our modern era—are precisely the reason that this community has declined since Eliezer’s leaving, into obscure contests to post the most inscrutable mathematics.
Go comment on the Amazing Atheist’s Youtube channel; you’ll fit right in there.
I don’t think you understood my position in the above post. I don’t approve of clippy using my atoms for paper-clips, yet I can’t deny that for him that may very well be the rational choice. If that is the case it is hard argue that the regular meaning of the words “best for him” dosen’t includes turning me into paper-clips.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
I don’t think I understand why this particular post is down voted. Seems to be true to me.
So long as she wants to be compliant to my desire.
Do you have zero understanding of the sexual market, my friend? The moment she no longer wants me, that is the point where I leave her to the Alpha Males she has chosen as superior.
I… it’s like talking to an idiot. You misinterpret my words to impress others. I have zero interest in hitting a woman, and for that matter—dating a woman who needs to be hit.
I demand that my women act like ladies. If they want to be whores? They are more than welcome. They immediately get discounted from the marriage market. I would never hit them, but I’m not going to ‘forgive’ that gangbang (a gangbang I orchestrated would be another thing). I am simply recognizing that prole women enjoy being hit, and prole men need to hit them to keep their dumb vaginas in line. Do I think this admirable? Do I seek this out as my Utopia? Of course not!
I think most people are stupid, and stupid people enjoy the drama of violence—in a cathartic manner.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Get over yourself; I’m far more civilized, and far less likely to hit a woman, than you could ever hope to be.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)
What are the circumstances in which you think it is best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave?
Self-defence when there is a risk of bodily harm or death
Defence of another when there is a risk of bodily harm or death
While attempting to restrain her when trying to stop her from hurting herself
ect.
I thought it would be something like this. These are not reasons “for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”. These are reasons why anyone might need to hit anyone else to avoid something worse happening.
In the original context, by “behave” Aurini means “be compliant to the man’s desires”. This in the context of another person’s blog posting elsewhere advocating, right up in the title of the post, “the necessity of domestic violence”. This is what you are endorsing.
Well obviously it is sometimes best for a person to use violence for their own gains if the person dosen’t mind such violence and can escape punishment. I interpreted your question as asking me when I though this is appropriate or right. The question of whether use of violence is the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is a different one depending, heavily on what preferences that person has.
For a person with different ethics (more selfish for example) there are plenty of theoretical opportunities when it is rational to use violence to get one’s way.
The more you talk, the less you say.
Given the concept “sometimes it’s best for a man to hit his woman to get her to behave”, you generalised the words “man”, “woman”, and “behave” to “someone”, “someone” and “do something”, and ignored the word “his” altogether. Now you’re generalising “best” to mean serving to get whatever the first someone wants.
This reduces the whole matter to fatuity: the optimal tactic to get people to act according to one’s goals is whatever will achieve those goals. Duh. The original question was about certain specific goals and specific ways of getting them.
Anyone’s ethics, including yours, must have a subgoal of aiming to influence others’ behavior in some ways, in order to have consistency. If, like any decent person, you believe that violence in less extreme situations, especially for selfish gain, is unacceptable, you can’t just fold your hands and say “Oh well” when others endorse such violence! Otherwise your morals in this regard become just an aesthetic choice for your private behavior, and not a consistent consequentialist position.
(It is likely that all humans do have such ethics. It is not actually a requirement for consistency.)
Hmm, maybe. Anyway, my point still stands; all of us, including Charlie, should come down like a ton of bricks on top of anyone who seriously hints about using violence for selfish gain; doubly so when it constitutes domestic abuse. To endorse or tolerate unacceptable physical or emotional violence is in itself immoral.
Does this statement also hold true for those who would vote themselves the tax dollars of others?
Spare me your hypocrisy; repeating the current Myths of our Age does not make you holy. You disgusting, malevolent hypocrite; I never suggested hitting a woman—I outright advised against it, as did the original blog post. I simply acknowledged—as did Ferdinand—that stupid women who date stupid men enjoy being hit by them.
People such as you - ‘rationalists’ who believe all the myths of our modern era—are precisely the reason that this community has declined since Eliezer’s leaving, into obscure contests to post the most inscrutable mathematics.
Go comment on the Amazing Atheist’s Youtube channel; you’ll fit right in there.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/
It would be wise for some of the other participants to mind that advice, since I think Aurini started out in good faith in this debate.
Why don’t you try applying the lessons of that post to your own thought process?
Um… he’s being more loud about it? ;)
I don’t think you understood my position in the above post. I don’t approve of clippy using my atoms for paper-clips, yet I can’t deny that for him that may very well be the rational choice. If that is the case it is hard argue that the regular meaning of the words “best for him” dosen’t includes turning me into paper-clips.
Clearly from the perspective of someone slightly more selfish or less altruistic or different (for example non-Western) values sometimes the application of violence is the rational course of action.
I don’t think I understand why this particular post is down voted. Seems to be true to me.
So long as she wants to be compliant to my desire.
Do you have zero understanding of the sexual market, my friend? The moment she no longer wants me, that is the point where I leave her to the Alpha Males she has chosen as superior.
I… it’s like talking to an idiot. You misinterpret my words to impress others. I have zero interest in hitting a woman, and for that matter—dating a woman who needs to be hit.
I demand that my women act like ladies. If they want to be whores? They are more than welcome. They immediately get discounted from the marriage market. I would never hit them, but I’m not going to ‘forgive’ that gangbang (a gangbang I orchestrated would be another thing). I am simply recognizing that prole women enjoy being hit, and prole men need to hit them to keep their dumb vaginas in line. Do I think this admirable? Do I seek this out as my Utopia? Of course not!
I think most people are stupid, and stupid people enjoy the drama of violence—in a cathartic manner.
You idiot leftists have banned all violence, and now all entertainment is vicarious violence because real-life hatred has been banned.
Get over yourself; I’m far more civilized, and far less likely to hit a woman, than you could ever hope to be.
While this is political and thus mind-killing language I think it is only fair that if Alicorn has the opportunity to talk about “tactical difficulties” in the debate Aurini should too. I think this hatefest he has attracted has strawmaned and demonized him to ridiculous proportions and that he is indeed right about the reasons for why this happened.
Frankly, I don’t understand. Would someone here who’s not an Idiot Leftist—you, or Aurini, or whoever, clear that up, please? How do we get a real-life outlet for violent instincts that’s more safe, moral and convenient than entertainment? What precisely is he complaining about, and why is he so angry about it?
I’m an idiot leftist, who’s just wandered by from here. I don’t think Aurini or Sheen think real-life violence outlets can be more safe, moral, or convenient than watching simulated violence on TV or performing simulated violence in a video game. They (or at least Aurini) argues that a large social class finds a lot of value in cathartic violence, both the giving of it and the receiving of it, and that this value outweighs the physical and emotional damage.
I hadn’t considered it before, but I do think it’s not obvious which is correct.
This “value” is only an issue if you have utilitarian ethics in the first place. I don’t. Enforcing happiness against subjects’ will is usually insane, but enforcing virtue makes a scary amount of sense. I’d be willing to, in some form.
Yes, yes, I’m a creepy intolerant liberal-fascist who thinks that everything in the world is his business.
(Speaking objectively? Welcome to the human tradegy, where both action and inaction have such huge downsides that each one is very easy to construe as evil! We should all just hate ourselves even more, epistemically that’s my only advice here.)