= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MarkusRamikin comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1529)
How would you defend it?
Most effectively by insulting the masculinity of any male who disagrees with you. I've actually seen this done. It was almost comical in the degree it went to.
I'm not interested in debating this particular issue, but clearly a reasonable argument could be made based on the disparities in physical strength.
What makes the broader context interesting, however, is that issues like these demonstrate that principled egalitarianism is not a viable Schelling point for basing social norms. This however clearly leads to some very problematic questions.
It is far from "clear" to me that such an argument would be reasonable.
If I chose to defend such a position, I'd defend it by arguing it's more dangerous to indirectly encourage the physically-stronger group to exert violence on the physically-weaker group than vice-versa. The words "on average" to be inserted as appropriate in the preceding sentence.
Still, I'd rather discourage violence altogether.