Say your son is walking on the street. Then a thug stab him on his back and took his wallet. Then the thug get caught. The thug says that the he tried to do appendices surgery. Somehow the cops believe and the thug is not arrested.
Okay we got 2 theories here:
1. The thug is a robber. Simple. When caught, he simply come up with more politically correct explanation to reduce punishment.
2. The thug does want to do appendices surgery to help your son.
Which one is right?
Well, it's not that hard to figure out.
1. Incentive, intent and result is highly correlated. The thug has incentive to get your son's wallet. He doesn't have any incentive to commit any appendix surgery on your son.
2. Watch how other primates behave. Does monkeys and chimps like to kill other monkeys for resources? If so, then chance is it's the same preference that show up in humans.
3. Theory #1 can more correctly predict more data. For example, we know that most species are selfish.
4. Evolutionary psychology explains that those who like to rob others may have gene pool survival advantage rather than those who like to perform altruistic surgery.
5. His other acts, namely taking your son's wallet, fit #1 theory.
So what a person real motive is are truly scientific and disprovable.
Now, let's try this on something relevant.
Feminazis prohibit consensual women trafficking
Theory 1: Feminazis are usually ugly and they don't want to compete cheaper women from poorer countries.
Theory 2:Feminazis genuinely care about the fate of trafficked women that are oppressed despite consent.
Exercise:
Use our method to see the real motives of those robbers to see motives of feminazis. What do you think?
Feminazis prohibit consensual women trafficking Theory 1: Feminazis are usually ugly and they don't want to compete cheaper women from poorer countries. Theory 2:Feminazis genuinely care about the fate of trafficked women that are oppressed despite consent. Exercise: Use our method to see the real motives of those robbers to see motives of feminazis. What do you think?
This reads like an economics textbook written by some guy doing life in prison for rape.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
I'm going to suggest you quit posting here - you seem like a very angry person with some ax to grind - postings like this will do you no good
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
+1 mikachussetts
Is my analysis wrong?
Am i wrong to guess that socialists just don't want the rich to get richer rather than trying to help the poor?
In fact, most government intervension in economy look a lot like those attempted appendix story to me. Why does government bother interfering in economy? You mean all those rethorics are honest and true that Ganja is really dangerous, that women are not sex objects, and so on.
I am not the only one with the same opinion.
It also seems extremely self-centered and petty to try to convince others to think and feel a certain way just so we can marginalize our lesser qualities. Feminists’ cries of outrage at man’s obsession with physical beauty are not altruistic. They are not upset that women are degrading themselves; rather, they are upset that other women are benefitting from a quality that they don’t and probably never will possess. Their own perceived value relative to better-looking women will inevitably increase if looks are dismissed as unimportant. http://www.misanthropytoday.com/why-most-feminists-are-ugly/
It's the only explanation that make sense to me. That humans hate each other so much that if they can they would come up with ways to deprive each other out of happiness. Feminism hate porn. Muslims love burqha. Commies hate wealth. Single males hate polygamists and prostitution. Gee... It makes a lot of sense to me. Also libertarian just want somoene to blame for this so called lack of freedom, rather than trying to understand reality.
Notice here intent is not what they say their intent is or not even what they think their intent is. Intent is whatever utility function that correctly predict what they choose.
I don't why you're all so hard on him - his method really isn't that different to that, for example, of Mises in The Anti-capitalistic Mentality. Keep posting, genepool.
I don't why you're all so hard on him
I thought that feminazi was a slang for feminists, which I thought are pro-prostitution. I must have committed the error of concluding that they should be pro-prostitution for my own reasons and assumed they are.
I mean, it's been a running joke for more than a century that feminists are ugly. But so what? What can we learn from this? What use is it to talk about it besides baiting sexism or venting the misogyny of a frustrated little man who is pissed off that his advances keep getting turned down?
Remember the thread where you were praising some Japanese author for his notion of why black women are less attractive? Think about the behavioural and visible effects of androgens. There are reasons that some women are more rebellious than others.
I used feminazis for feminists that support facism. There is another feminists called libertarian feminists, which I think I my self is am.
Actually I like Mises a lot. I am honored that somebody compared me to Mises. The idea about utility function is a function that correctly predict what people will choose, again, and again, and again, and again. That is very scientific.
Quite often it's not the same with what they claim they want and not even the same with what they honestly think they want. Of course, we need to take into account useful idiots that are indeed honestly tricked rather than malicious.
Anyway, in sceptic forum, you cannot ask about a person's true motive. They said it's undisproveable. So, I said, it is actually scientific. Humans' motive are quite scientifically obvious.
The idea that feminazis are ugly is not a joke. Beautiful feminazis would be like hard working engineers demanding higher income tax.
There could be some of those, but I bet it'll be rare. Dumb blondes, on the other hand, are indeed jokes.
By the way, black women are indeed less attractive. I would still bang them. They just don't turn me on. Black men are quite attractive though. Tiger woods have 5-10 white mistresses that's quite hot. So he can indeed attract babes. Why he bother marries one is beyond me. You see how much it costs him.
If what I said make libertarian looks bad, I am sorry. Not my intent. I want you to win. I want you to know what's reality is, so you win. I think I can promote that ron paul guy.
You do raise some good points, Clayton - especially after the last post, which has some rather odd points in it to say the least. Perhaps it is the language barrier, but who knows...
Yes, and on several counts.
First, you assume that there are no incentives for people to want to help another person. Feminists who oppose sex trafficking (even if it is done voluntary) generally do so on the grounds that it is degrading for these women, and that there are underlying institutional structures which "push" girls into prostitution by removing opportunity elsewhere. More generally, people behave benevolently for any number of reasons, and material gain is rarely one of them. As social animals, it makes us feel good to help others.
Second, you are making homogenous groups out of broad ideologies, ultimately reducing entire traditions of diverse viewpoints into opposition statements which are demonstrably false. Whatever it is that is common to all communists, or common to all single males, it isn't a hatred of wealth or a hatred of polygamy. Feminists don't hate porn -- women's liberation and sexual liberation were two sides of the same coin.
Finally, even if you were making an insightful analysis, your premises are absurd and your terms are loaded. If a thug stabs someone and takes their wallet, I don't see how this can be anything but assault and robbery. "Thugs" don't do surgery, and surgery isn't done by "stabbing" and taking a wallet.
If what I said make libertarian looks bad, I am sorry.
What other people look like or see is not your responsibility.
I used feminazis for feminists that support facism.
I don't see how fascism relates to any of this.
I would still bang them. They just don't turn me on.
We have an expression for that in English: "too much information".
Does monkeys and chimps like to kill other monkeys for resources?
They don't accumulate possessions. Killing is rare and not particularly easy given the lack of leaping mantis death punch technique among chimps.
Btw, I don't support the idea that feminists are unattractive. Most celebrity women that are generally labelled bombshells look more androgynous than average. It's nigh a requirement in fashion modelling. Read the last paragraph of Megan Fox's early life.
They just don't turn me on
Interesting; I would bet a nickle they feel the same about you. The only difference is I doubt many would still "bang" you.
I would also bet a nickle you don't act this asocial around people in real life, so why the hell do it here?
My feminist side is fucking pissed, but also very confused because none of what this guy posted makes sense.
First, you assume that there are no incentives for people to want to help another person. Feminists who oppose sex trafficking (even if it is done voluntary) generally do so on the grounds that it is degrading for these women, and that there are underlying institutional structures which "push" girls into prostitution by removing opportunity elsewhere. More generally, people behave benevolently for any number of reasons, and material gain is rarely one of them. As social animals, it makes us feel good to help others. That's where I disagree. I think you overestimated people's willingness to help others. Humans in general are not that hell bent to help others. Capitalism are not build based on altruism, but greed. Have you ever heard of holocaust? That's what will happen if you let government to have power over you. It's not surprising. I actually expected more of that when government start having power.
That's where I disagree. I think you overestimated people's willingness to help others.
If they truly want to help others they can give those others better choices. That's what I do when I want to help others. Offer people choices, not taking away choices. Also research shows that lawyers that help cook food for the homeless are actually helping inefficiently. Result according to Matt Ridley is that those helpers just want to look good, rather than actually want to help. What's new again? Governments interfering in free market that works fine without it, is like those back stabbers that claim that they want surgery. "Degrading" is a vague word. I ignored that in my analysis. Ignore the words, look at the game structure. That's my whole point. What matter is what the consensually trafficked girl actually choose. Does she want it? If so, then it must be what maximize her utility function. By definition of homo economicus, what maximize her utility function is her best interest. Radical feminists (which I called feminazis) and all women in rich country has an incentive to prevent competitors coming in. It's like workers in US not wanting cheaper immigrant come in. Whether it's their real intent or not is just what's on their mind. We know they have incentive. Hence, we can conclude that it's the intent. Single males have incentive to ensure that women can only pick singles. What's actually on their mind is irrelevant. Most likely some absurd excuses. We know they have incentives. Hence, we can conclude that it's the intent. People true intent is maximizing his/her utility function. People's utility function is whatever correctly predict what he does, not what what he said. Second, you are making homogenous groups out of broad ideologies, ultimately reducing entire traditions of diverse viewpoints into opposition statements which are demonstrably false. Whatever it is that is common to all communists, or common to all single males, it isn't a hatred of wealth or a hatred of polygamy. Feminists don't hate porn -- women's liberation and sexual liberation were two sides of the same coin. Ignore all ideologies. Just look at what they actually choose. Ignore their words. Ignore their reasoning. Just look at what they choose and their pay off. See, if some debtor doesn't pay the loan, do you listen about his sick kids or would you just start breaking fingers? The latter is what get your money back. If you want your freedom, you got to start breaking fingers like debt collectors. Ignore their words. All those are just excuses. Note: breaking fingers here means figuratively. I am not advocating torture of anyone.
If they truly want to help others they can give those others better choices. That's what I do when I want to help others. Offer people choices, not taking away choices. Also research shows that lawyers that help cook food for the homeless are actually helping inefficiently. Result according to Matt Ridley is that those helpers just want to look good, rather than actually want to help. What's new again?
Governments interfering in free market that works fine without it, is like those back stabbers that claim that they want surgery.
"Degrading" is a vague word. I ignored that in my analysis. Ignore the words, look at the game structure. That's my whole point.
Radical feminists (which I called feminazis) and all women in rich country has an incentive to prevent competitors coming in. It's like workers in US not wanting cheaper immigrant come in. Whether it's their real intent or not is just what's on their mind. We know they have incentive. Hence, we can conclude that it's the intent.
Single males have incentive to ensure that women can only pick singles. What's actually on their mind is irrelevant. Most likely some absurd excuses. We know they have incentives. Hence, we can conclude that it's the intent.
People true intent is maximizing his/her utility function. People's utility function is whatever correctly predict what he does, not what what he said.
Ignore all ideologies. Just look at what they actually choose. Ignore their words. Ignore their reasoning. Just look at what they choose and their pay off.
Not all feminists hate porn. I have nothing against feminists that don't hate porn. What I mean by feminazis are feminists that's indeed want government to eliminate individuals' freedom. That means thought police. That means facism. That means nazi. Hence, feminazi pormanteou.
That is where you are wrong. You pay too much attention to "diverse viewpoints into opposition statements".
All those viewpoints are just smoke screen. Ignore the words, look at the game structure. That's my whole point.
Let's get back to the back stabbing robbers again. The robbers can have "diverse viewpoints" to explain that he actually cares about your son. Ignore everything he said. If people are beneficial to you, approach him and reward him. If people are harmful to you, run away from him, or eliminate him. That's it. Ignore the words. Those are just excuses anyway.
Finally, even if you were making an insightful analysis, your premises are absurd and your terms are loaded. If a thug stabs someone and takes their wallet, I don't see how this can be anything but assault and robbery. "Thugs" don't do surgery, and surgery isn't done by "stabbing" and taking a wallet. It is indeed absurd. So is most justifications against consensual acts. Think about it. It's legal to bullshit women. Yet it's not legal to pay them. You think that's not absurd? Prostitution is defined as exchange of sex for "money or other consideration." Now what kind of sex, or anything in this world are not done for money or other consideration. You think that's not absurd too? Beatty Chadwick went to jail because he got married. Basically, the reasoning is by choosing to get married he agreed to pay a life time alimony and because he refused to pay, he went to jail for 14 years. So the conclusion is: Beatty Chadwick agreed to go to jail for 14 years. You think that's not absurd? You think there is no women that want to mate with millionaires like Beatty without making him go to 14 years in prison? You think if all those oppressed and exploited women that get paid $5500 per hour being prostitute would quit their job if only they can work at mcDonald? Yet feminazis (which doesn't mean all feminists, but feminists that are indeed like nazis), say that the job can't possibly be consensual. You think that's not absurd? C'mon. All ideas of prohibiting consensual acts are almost as absurd as that. People won't consent to things that do not benefit them. Yes there are mistakes. There are knowledge mistake, there are fraud mistakes, techological mistakes. In austrian sense, those mistakes are often not real mistakes. Morever, I do not think something as tell tale as prostitution and women trafficking contains significant knowledge mistakes. We know what each player pay off is.
It is indeed absurd. So is most justifications against consensual acts.
Think about it. It's legal to bullshit women. Yet it's not legal to pay them. You think that's not absurd?
Prostitution is defined as exchange of sex for "money or other consideration." Now what kind of sex, or anything in this world are not done for money or other consideration. You think that's not absurd too?
Beatty Chadwick went to jail because he got married. Basically, the reasoning is by choosing to get married he agreed to pay a life time alimony and because he refused to pay, he went to jail for 14 years.
So the conclusion is: Beatty Chadwick agreed to go to jail for 14 years. You think that's not absurd?
You think there is no women that want to mate with millionaires like Beatty without making him go to 14 years in prison?
You think if all those oppressed and exploited women that get paid $5500 per hour being prostitute would quit their job if only they can work at mcDonald? Yet feminazis (which doesn't mean all feminists, but feminists that are indeed like nazis), say that the job can't possibly be consensual. You think that's not absurd?
C'mon.
All ideas of prohibiting consensual acts are almost as absurd as that. People won't consent to things that do not benefit them. Yes there are mistakes. There are knowledge mistake, there are fraud mistakes, techological mistakes. In austrian sense, those mistakes are often not real mistakes. Morever, I do not think something as tell tale as prostitution and women trafficking contains significant knowledge mistakes. We know what each player pay off is.
I think the essesne of what I want to say is best said here:
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. Ayn Rand
I think the essesne of what I want to say is best said here: Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.
Either you don't understand what Rand is saying, or you've done a terrible job explaining yourself in this thread.
My feminist side is fucking pissed, but also very confused because none of what this guy posted makes sense
The nonsense part helps; also the fact that this guy probably doesn't have the balls to talk like this in front of any woman.
Oh, and if you can create the dichotomy of "judging by looks" / "not judging by looks" (or whatever it is you are trying to get at) that means that you've created a category where you don't existentially have to "judge by looks". My guess is if you opt for the latter option, most people including yourself would be better off in most situations
I'm not sure what is the point now to this discussion. Are political motives beyond "science"? No. That is too agnostic for me.
If you are using science to mean "everything possible / everything that is" of course it is a "no", but if that is the case, why ask the question? If you ask if X is "beyond" something else - I am going to assume you are putting some limit on the word X - otherwise it's not a question, but a definition if it is already implied in the definition that it can't be.
If we are talking about the scientific method, or even saying there is some objective "mental construct" that is "fixed and measurable" than it can do no such thing. In fact you could argue such a thing would be a Plutonic / idealistic type of position. Scientism (the way Mises, Nietszche or Weber would use the term) is a failure when applied to the social sciences and can not be reconciled with that sort of idealism.
That's the whole point. I agree with Caley.
Are political motives beyond science? I agree. No. It's too agnostic to me too.
Now:
Observation: many feminazis hate porn
Hyphotesis:
There are 3 theories that explain why feminazis prohibit porn
1. Porn demean women. Cause rape, can't possibly be consensual, bla bla. This is the standard argument.
2. Feminazis are usually ugly. Like all women they are attention whore and porn stars pretty much get all the attention.
3. They hate us so much they don't want us to be happy.
Which of the hyphotesis make most sense.
What do you think?
Now let's use our robber case to analyze
1. Incentive, intent and result is highly correlated. What incentive do people have in protecting others from "demeaning" job? C'mon. Not that high.
2. Watch how other primates behave. When a monkey see other monkeys copulate in exchange for fruit, and they fight, does the other monkey fight because they think exchanging sex for fruit is "demeaning" or are they just jealous?
3. For example, we know that most species are selfish. Explanation #2 fits selfishness most. The #1 is too nobel and #3 too comical (though may be true too)
4. Evolutionary psychology explains that getting rid superior competitors or more attractive speciments out of mating market can help ones' own gene pool survival.
5. Feminazis other acts, namely not condemning women from becoming soldiers, which is another shitty job, is consistent with the motive that they don't have women's best interest in mind. They're just jealous that hot babes get all the attention.
I'd say
Hyphotesis #2 is correct. #3 is reasonable. #1 is utter bullshit.
To reply to this is probably a bad idea, but I can't help myself. Like a black hole it keeps pulling me in. By restricting yourself to those 3 'theories', you are building a case to support a conclusion that seems pre-ordained. After all, religious conservatives, and conservatives in general are also known to be generally opposed to pornography, and yet I don't see how they would fit into these categories. You also present your 'theories' with an obvious bias against the first, and for the second two.
And finally, your reasoning is counter to what we can see historically. Point 1: What do you mean by incentive? Do people have an 'incentive' to give money to beggars? No more than to make working conditions better for others. And yet people give to beggars and unionize to improve their working conditions. And indeed, they will even protest against sub-par working conditions for other individuals. (Anti-childlabor movements were seldom started by the working children themselves.)
Point 2: Who knows why primates fight, probably for food. They certainly don't picket in order to end the fruit-for-copulation transactions, because reflection on these abstract concepts are mainly beyond other primates. Point 3: Again, how, if organizing to rectify a perceived evil is impossible due to the selfishness of primates, was it possible to form unions and associations to stop these perceived evils? Why do people give money to beggars? Point 4: How does opposing pornography remove superior competitors or more attractive specimens from the mating market? Point 5: Feminists also do not condemn women from becoming septic tank service-women, which is most certainly a shitty job, nor any other job out on the market. Why is that? Could it be that they have a very specific complaint against a very specific set of occupations that they think run counter to their philosophy, and don't oppose other occupations that do not run counter to their philosophy, but instead reinforce it? Is it possible that THAT's the reason, and not necessarily that, *sigh*, all the 'hot babes' get all the attention? (Seriously, are you fucking 15 or something?) Seriously, if you looked over a list of regular sexual fetishes in porn, what categories do you find? Is it only, *sigh*, 'hot babes' that count as a category? Because if it isn't, then your argument is pretty freaking weak. Furthermore, is it your contention that the only possible kind of prostitute is a, *sigh*, 'hot babe'? Are women suddenly incapable of selling sex if they have a crooked nose, a disfiguring scar, are overweight or are older than most men prefer (which is the kindest way I can put out the idea that women above a certain age no longer counts as, *sigh*, 'hot babes')? Sometimes the language we use betrays our bias, and I think that's the case with you, here.
Point 4: How does opposing pornography remove superior competitors or more attractive specimens from the mating market?
The attractiveness factor is by far the easiest way for women to make money. Women are much less competitive than men in a strictly sexual respect.
Caley McKibbin: The attractiveness factor is by far the easiest way for women to make money. Women are much less competitive than men in a strictly sexual respect. So it's job envy? :) | Post Points: 5
vive, on a lighter note, what is that awesome avatar of yours?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer