= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loqi comments on Mate selection for the men here - 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 (111)
This analogy is based on a reinterpretation of the original statement . Consider instead the trivially false statement: "if you don't have references, you will be a lousy employee".
Which "this"? Your statement seemed to imply that I should "accept as valid" (which I assume means something along the lines of "don't publicly object to") a sentiment or preference with an understandable evolutionary origin. Why not a preference for violence?
According to you, her way of expressing this fact was to express a different fact.
Thanks for draping me with stereotypes and assuming the worst, but that wasn't my objection. I was objecting to the elevation of a mere social intuition or preference to the status of a logical truth (note the if-then, case-by-base logical structure of the original context). If Alicorn had said "I think it's creepy when a guy doesn't know any women", I would not have replied.
Understood, and fair enough. However, it would've been much more helpful if you'd just said that to start with, rather than answering her with a sweeping dismissal.
I personally don't see what she said as that big a deal; I took the "something wrong" part as meaning "you have characteristics women in general will find undesirable" or "you lack characteristics that women in general will require" -- and I see that as a true statement.
If you take this as meaning there is something morally or ethically wrong with you in some absolute sense -- as opposed to merely "wrong" for the result you desire -- then I could see how you might consider it prejudice.
In my case, it's easy to see Alicorn as speaking through the lens of a worldview in which it's simply common sense that of course you would know other people, because otherwise you'd have to be some sort of creep, or at least have a terrible life that's in urgent need of repair. And within the sphere of women's social lives (in general), such an assessment is perfectly logical and sensible.
I mean, "understand why a human being might feel that way and separate your opinion of the behavior from your judgment of the person" - to disagree without being disagreeable, in other words.
I think it's more helpful to sweepingly dismiss sweeping, incorrect generalizations of people that others may take to heart.
I don't, except in the tautological sense ("there's something wrong with men who don't know any women, and that something is women find them undesirable, because they don't know any women").
Ah, I see. You're talking about "wrong" in the sense that it's wrong to have gay friends, if you want to meet Christians.