But I do honestly believe that with a bit of reason you can solve EVERYTHING.
Not strongly incompatible value systems.
Yeah, that takes a shit ton of reason.
For real though, in my experience “incompatable value systems” often turn out to be less terminally different than they appear, and are just (perhaps vastly) different strategies with based on different positions/beliefs.
For example, I have a friend who was closed to the idea of monogamy in principle—even to the idea of being with someone who wanted monogamy with her. After much talking about how to be flexible/how to convey your needs/frame well, she’s now with a guy who apparently started as into monogamy as she was non-monogamy.
“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Though I guess there’s a point hiding in there. If two random people are stranded in the desert with enough water for one to survive, their value systems will both say “I want the water”, but they point at different “I”s. Even if they manage to cooperate and draw straws, there’s still room for the stronger to just take it because of “incompatable value systems”—even if the value systems have the same fundamental structure after abstracting away specific beliefs and positions.
However this definitely doesn’t apply in modern day relationships and I very much doubt that it applies to terrorists either.
“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Killing your enemies is pretty terminal.
(Historical footnote for visitors from the future: “today’s news” alluded to upthread refers to the Charlie Hebdo killings, a phrase which should be easily googleable for a long time to come.)
Sounds pretty obviously instrumental to me. “Why do you want to kill your enemies?” has pretty obvious answers. “so they won’t kill me”, “so I can take control of their resources”, etc.
And if you take those away, perhaps by making them unable to harm you, finding a way to take their stuff without killing them, etc, how much do you expect people to still care about killing their enemies?
To some extent yes, but to some extent, that’s not just due to incompatible values: the people in question are actively wrong about the nature of the universe. That is, if they understood that factually speaking, no version of their deity exists, their values would adapt (they might change to some other extreme, violent belief system but they would presumably change).
the people in question are actively wrong about the nature of the universe
I would guess that about 80% of the world’s population is “actively wrong about the nature of the universe” and out of the remaining 20% the great majority live in China.
Well, even if any particular theistic group were right, the vast majority of the world would still be wrong. I am not 100% sure that my belief on the subject is accurate, but it’s vastly more likely to be correct than those of people who believe that radical violence in response to a cartoon is appropriate and will be rewarded. Even a great many Muslims would reject that view.
I did not attempt to compare mono and poly. I intended to mean in in inter-relationship. Also, this is just a preference and as I said, no reason to dwell on it too much. Works for me, end of the story.
I think poly is defined as multiple relationships, not just many fuckbuddies.
I thought that they also have sex with other partners. But this kind of stretches the definition of a relationship. It means a higher level of connection with another person. I am not such an emotional person so I think I might suffer from overclarity. I connect to people on an intellectual level. If I have a girlfriend but I also enjoy the company of a few different women does that mean I’m a poly-mono hybrid? It does not feel anything like a relationship to me but rather a solid friendship, and I think this is what poly folks feel too, but they go for it with more intensity than I’d do.
But before I fall into a bottomless pit, I think we have different definitions of the word “relationship” so the best we can do is state what are thoughts are in order to reach some agreement but I honestly feel we’re talking about different things when we say relationship.
By “relationship” here I mean both a sexual relationship and an emotional relationship. Just sex makes one a fuckbuddy, just emotion makes one a friend (or maybe a tragic unrequited love interest :-/). In the poly context I use “relationship” to mean that people are both sleeping with each other AND are emotionally involved.
I thought the point of polygamy is to be able to have sex with multiple partners.
This makes me feel a bit weird because I can have a relationship with a female friend and not kiss her or hug her too much or whatever. More like a friendship but you get the point.
Still though, I don’t see how it refutes my point of them just wanting to have sex with more than one person. I suspect this might be because I place more weight on the sex rather than the relationship.
I thought the point of polygamy is to be able to have sex with multiple partners.
Nope, that’s just sleeping around and does not necessarily involve polygamy.
I don’t see how it refutes my point of them just wanting to have sex with more than one person
Because your point involves the word “just”. If you just want to have sex with many people, no need to do the whole polygamy thing—just sleep with whoever you want and can get.
Not strongly incompatible value systems.
I think poly is defined as multiple relationships, not just many fuckbuddies.
Yeah, that takes a shit ton of reason.
For real though, in my experience “incompatable value systems” often turn out to be less terminally different than they appear, and are just (perhaps vastly) different strategies with based on different positions/beliefs.
For example, I have a friend who was closed to the idea of monogamy in principle—even to the idea of being with someone who wanted monogamy with her. After much talking about how to be flexible/how to convey your needs/frame well, she’s now with a guy who apparently started as into monogamy as she was non-monogamy.
The top item in today’s news is precisely about how incompatible value systems can be terminally different.
“terminally different” does not mean “it’s hard enough to come to agreement that at least one party resorts to violence”.
Though I guess there’s a point hiding in there. If two random people are stranded in the desert with enough water for one to survive, their value systems will both say “I want the water”, but they point at different “I”s. Even if they manage to cooperate and draw straws, there’s still room for the stronger to just take it because of “incompatable value systems”—even if the value systems have the same fundamental structure after abstracting away specific beliefs and positions.
However this definitely doesn’t apply in modern day relationships and I very much doubt that it applies to terrorists either.
Killing your enemies is pretty terminal.
(Historical footnote for visitors from the future: “today’s news” alluded to upthread refers to the Charlie Hebdo killings, a phrase which should be easily googleable for a long time to come.)
Sounds pretty obviously instrumental to me. “Why do you want to kill your enemies?” has pretty obvious answers. “so they won’t kill me”, “so I can take control of their resources”, etc.
And if you take those away, perhaps by making them unable to harm you, finding a way to take their stuff without killing them, etc, how much do you expect people to still care about killing their enemies?
To some extent yes, but to some extent, that’s not just due to incompatible values: the people in question are actively wrong about the nature of the universe. That is, if they understood that factually speaking, no version of their deity exists, their values would adapt (they might change to some other extreme, violent belief system but they would presumably change).
I would guess that about 80% of the world’s population is “actively wrong about the nature of the universe” and out of the remaining 20% the great majority live in China.
Well, even if any particular theistic group were right, the vast majority of the world would still be wrong. I am not 100% sure that my belief on the subject is accurate, but it’s vastly more likely to be correct than those of people who believe that radical violence in response to a cartoon is appropriate and will be rewarded. Even a great many Muslims would reject that view.
I did not attempt to compare mono and poly. I intended to mean in in inter-relationship. Also, this is just a preference and as I said, no reason to dwell on it too much. Works for me, end of the story.
I thought that they also have sex with other partners. But this kind of stretches the definition of a relationship. It means a higher level of connection with another person. I am not such an emotional person so I think I might suffer from overclarity. I connect to people on an intellectual level. If I have a girlfriend but I also enjoy the company of a few different women does that mean I’m a poly-mono hybrid? It does not feel anything like a relationship to me but rather a solid friendship, and I think this is what poly folks feel too, but they go for it with more intensity than I’d do.
But before I fall into a bottomless pit, I think we have different definitions of the word “relationship” so the best we can do is state what are thoughts are in order to reach some agreement but I honestly feel we’re talking about different things when we say relationship.
By “relationship” here I mean both a sexual relationship and an emotional relationship. Just sex makes one a fuckbuddy, just emotion makes one a friend (or maybe a tragic unrequited love interest :-/). In the poly context I use “relationship” to mean that people are both sleeping with each other AND are emotionally involved.
I thought the point of polygamy is to be able to have sex with multiple partners. This makes me feel a bit weird because I can have a relationship with a female friend and not kiss her or hug her too much or whatever. More like a friendship but you get the point.
Still though, I don’t see how it refutes my point of them just wanting to have sex with more than one person. I suspect this might be because I place more weight on the sex rather than the relationship.
Nope, that’s just sleeping around and does not necessarily involve polygamy.
Because your point involves the word “just”. If you just want to have sex with many people, no need to do the whole polygamy thing—just sleep with whoever you want and can get.
“Polygamy” involves marriage.
Not in the typical LW usage of the word.
I think that’s why people use “polyamory” to distinguish the two.
Fair point.