FeepingCreature comments on "NRx" vs. "Prog" Assumptions: Locating the Sources of Disagreement Between Neoreactionaries and Progressives (Part 1) - Less Wrong

6 Post author: Matthew_Opitz 04 September 2014 04:58PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (340)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: FeepingCreature 06 September 2014 10:59:23AM -1 points [-]
Comment author: Azathoth123 06 September 2014 05:44:04PM 3 points [-]

If you think of marriage as merely a database entry or XML tag with no connection to how the participants act or should act in the real word, yes.

Comment author: FeepingCreature 06 September 2014 08:56:37PM 0 points [-]

I was trying to draw a comparison to Transhumanism as Simplified Humanism - Universal Marriage as simplified Hetero Marriage.

Comment author: Azathoth123 07 September 2014 09:17:08PM 6 points [-]

Could you spell out the connection, I don't see it.

Eliezers essay looks at humanism, looks at the reasons for it and than argues that those reasons apply to transhumanism. The article you linked to starts with a model of marriage that has already abstracted away all the reasons for it existing in the first place and goes from there.

Comment author: FeepingCreature 11 September 2014 01:13:22AM *  -1 points [-]

Eliezers essay looks at humanism, looks at the reasons for it and than argues that those reasons apply to transhumanism.

Eliezer's essay then makes the case that transhumanism is preferable because it lacks special rules.

By analogy: "Love is good. Isolation is bad. If two people are in love, they can marry. It's that simple. You don't have to look at anybody's gender."

Elegant program designs imply elegant (occam!) rules.

Comment author: Azathoth123 11 September 2014 03:04:44AM 2 points [-]

"Love is good. Isolation is bad. If two people are in love, they can marry. It's that simple. You don't have to look at anybody's gender."

Um, marriage isn't just about love, also the nature of heterosexual and homosexual "love" is very different.

From the article I linked above:

Marriage: Originally, within the lives of older married people, an irrevocable commitment to live together and raise the resulting children. Now the point of marriage is divorce, the legal authority of the wife over a husband on pain of confiscation of his assets and income. Some people attempt to use Church and social pressure to enforce old type marriage, but hard to find an old type church. Because “gay marriage” means a pair of gays cruising together to pick up boys, an effort is under way to redefine marriage yet again as a pair of people of either sex cruising for pickups but it is probably that this redefinition will fail, because it is hard to get a good wingwoman. Therefore, probably will continue to mean matrilineality and female headship. The feminists and the gays are fighting over this one. Feminists want “marriage” to refer to the female headed family, while gays want it to refer to cruising for pickups.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 07 September 2014 10:41:18AM -2 points [-]

If you think if words as having intrinsic connections to Platinum Forms..