= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on The more privileged lover - 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 (108)
Yes. It isn't an especially controversial or remarkable standard. "All else being equal people can do what they want to, particularly regarding the disposition of their own person, so long as it does not interfere with other people".
It is a valid preference for them to the have and in they are "totally in the right" in expecting to be left alone if they actively seek privacy. The "right" to have another person unable to speak doesn't follow.
Responding to the inferred intent of your questions I'd like to emphasize the phrase in the grandparent "just choose the BATNA". Thinking through the implications of that you may find that my position isn't quite as objectionable as your first impression suggests. Someone being "in the right" when doing a thing doesn't preclude dumping them the instant they do it and finding someone more suitable. That too is a 'right' (for whatever that is worth).
Ok. That seems to be a distinction. Rights as prerogatives versus right as approved of. Someone has "a right" to say "my way or the highway in all things" in a relationship. But I wouldn't call such a person "totally in the right", I'd call them totally a douchebag.
The "in all things" was your addition, and yes, that does seem to make them a douchebag. An alternative that seems more in accord to your agenda here is "if my sexual needs are not met". Is that not the practical outcome you are advocating? Or do you explicitly need for the less sexual partner to be labelled 'bad' by external observers for the scenario to be satisfying to you?
Need is an extremely loaded term that I rarely find helpful.
There is one's preferred optimal level, there are less than optimal levels that one is willing to accept, and less than optimal levels that one will not accept. If that second zone is a null set, you are something of a douchebag, barring hypothetical gymnastics. An unwillingness to trade of any of your preferences for the good of your relationship or your partner does make you a douchebag.
This gets a little more complicated in binary situations, where it's not the amount of sex, but whether you have any at all. As some have pointed out (maybe you?) there are ways to make that less binary, and find mutually agreeable alternatives, so that again, zone 2 is non empty.
No, only that the same potential exists for them to be labelled as bad as their more sexed partners. That's the point of the original - why is the partner who wants more automatically the bad guy?
The first “right” is a countable noun, the second “right” is an adjective except in the phrase “in the right”, so in any given context they're distinguishable.
Note that you're not actually giving a low-complexity ‘first principle’ from which to derive stuff, but merely hiding complexity away into the word “interfere” -- ‘normal’ humans (who already know what you're saying on some level) will understand (except possibly in borderline cases), but try explaining to an alien or an AI what exactly counts as “interference” and what doesn't.
Just? If you think that my statement doesn't do anything more than hide complexity then you are mistaken in a sense very similar to this. I was referring to a human concept that a reasonable human could be expected to at least approximately understand. That's why we have words.
Many things are hard to explain in full reduced detail. Sometimes it appropriate to attempt such an explanation. Sometimes it is better to just say "It's a tiger".
I didn't clearly express what I was thinking. Edited -- is it better now?
The same reply applies. You have given a much more detailed explanation of a principle that does not fit the context. Lack of clarity was never a problem.