Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We are all animals at night

hazlitt.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 295 posts

Re: We are all animals at night

#221

Post by dotnet00 »

Kiro wrote: post #218
dotnet00 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fighting them means offering less destructive ways to release those urges, and for the vast majority of people, that's what casinos are. If we're talking about destructive urges, another popular one would be alcohol, and yet we have many many examples of how it needs to be accessible to an extent to serve as a release, even if sometimes it still causes serious damage.

What are those examples?

In the US, famously the prohibition era, and there are similar cases all over the world, eg cases in Iran of people getting ethanol poisoning from homebrewed alcohol, and very common similar occurances in various states of India, where the government sometimes spuriously decides to temporarily ban alcohol consumption.

Put differently, the societal cost of outright banning some self-destructive things ends up being higher than just regulating them because a ban doesn't actually stop much.

We even seem to be heading towards a similar realization for many drugs (eg Marijuana).

Re: We are all animals at night

#222

Post by brabel »

tuatoru wrote: post #202
smabie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if this was true, then why do office workers generally earn more?

This made me laugh out loud, at the sheer political naivete. Office workers earn more because they do jobs more similar to the jobs of those who allocate money.

Well, your take also seem pretty naive. Salaries in non-regulated jobs are a function of supply VS demand, that's pretty much all.

I would say office work does not actually pay more, it depends. Easy office-hand jobs probably pay much less than your previous job... but when it does pay more, it's simply because there's fewer people willing and capable of doing that job as a rate of the number of people actually needed for such tasks.

When a job is regulated (requires license, or is protected by some law etc) the equation is skewed, usually in favour of a profession.

Re: We are all animals at night

#223

Post by BlargMcLarg »

strken wrote: post #205
XorNot wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have men been told they're entitled to sex and attention for free tho? I kinda feel it's the exact opposite. Men are told they need to pay for meals, rooms, travel, and housing and custody later. Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected. I'd even say (at least in TV shows and movies) men are expected to be the funny ones and provide entertaining values in a relationship. Do…

The "for free" part is what I disagree with because it's almost totally the opposite of what I've seen. Men are taught that their work is valuable but they are not; they feel entitled after putting in work, even if it's work that nobody asked for, like going to the gym a lot or chatting up strangers at bus stops. No, they're not actually entitled to sex and attention, but the entire problem is that men feel like they…

>men feel like they paid and should therefore receive

Way to simplify something very complex. What do you expect men to do, quit trying everything and leave it up to fate? Keep up with women's magazines changing their minds by the day and chasing trends to get women to buy things they don't need? Accept the tax of women casually demanding 100+ bucks a date just to have a chance? Wait for them to socially atomize themselves even further to the point of 'maybe you should pick hobbies with more women instead of your own circles filled with men'? Oh wait, that last one also has the caveat of 'if you do it just to meet women, you are a creep'.

About everything in the world, people have expectations for putting in effort and others root for their success. This is the one topic society has gone nuts about chastising men, while both encouraging women to demand more and encouraging the same aggressive approach. Even just saying

>nobody asked for, like going to the gym a lot

shows you're completely out of touch with the younger generations, given the increased demands in muscularity and fitness. Seriously, the women themselves are saying it and have been saying it for decades now.

The western world has gone completely mad in regards to dating, but the most vocal party can only shout 'men bad' no matter what they do beyond being a complete doormat with zero expectations.

Re: We are all animals at night

#224

Post by sparrowInHand »

chongli wrote: post #204
beebmam wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have some deeply self-destructive tendencies. It's not just a predator/prey or an oppressor/oppressed relationship. I'm not sure that if we ban all outlets for self-destructive behavior that something good will come of it. Offering some amount of consentual self-destruction is absolutely in the business of helping mankind, in my opinion.

Humans evolved over millions of years in an environment without casinos, addictive drugs, fast food, or any of this other stuff surrounding us in modernity. The fact that a bunch of these things hack into people’s natural blind spots is not evidence of “self-destructive tendencies.” These are exploits of people’s psychology, every bit as bad as fraud, but run by powerful, politically entrenched people. These are extr…

Im gonna jump on that mamoth with a spear- watch me, and if you want steak worship me.

Re: We are all animals at night

#225

Post by seventhtiger »

quinnjh wrote: post #120
smabie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if this was true, then why do office workers generally earn more?

Who earned more, the architect for the pharaohs pyramid or the people pushing one of the massive slabs of rock? Which job was harder?

The ox that pulled the cart. So now what?

This kind of measuring jobs by efforts always ends up being won by an animal or machine. Even among humans, the guy digging ditches with his bare hands is putting in more work than the guy using a shovel.

It ends up being a stupid incentive structure, and is not a replacement for supply and demand in the labor market.

Re: We are all animals at night

#226

Post by scns »

raincole wrote: post #122
lmm wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see the negatives other commenters are pointing out. Yes she’s talking about her perceptions born from her clients and years worked. That’s an absolute right for all of us, right? To simply relate the experiences we’ve had. She's not "simply relating experiences" though. She goes beyond that, turning them into a general sociopolitical claim: > Unlike sex work, my “good” jobs didn’t threaten to overthrow tra…

Have men been told they're entitled to sex and attention for free tho? I kinda feel it's the exact opposite. Men are told they need to pay for meals, rooms, travel, and housing and custody later. Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected. I'd even say (at least in TV shows and movies) men are expected to be the funny ones and provide entertaining values in a relationship. I'm…

> Men are told they should be the proactive side and take the risk of being rejected.

Walking up to a woman takes courage, which is a desirable quality. Why should a woman wan't a man, that lacks the balls to talk to her? The mating dance of many species has rules they have to follow. Complaining about them does zero for your dating success. The female decides if his display is good enough for her.

The App Bumble has women message first and it is strange for them.

Re: We are all animals at night

#227

Post by ChoHag »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #123

This article is too left-wing echochamber for my tastes. Of the form - it can be done, and no-one literally dies, therefore it may be done. People don't work to marginalize prostitution because it's "the only field in which women outearn men". People work to marginalize prostitution because it's fundamentally morally bankrupt. Most well adjusted people eventually realise that casual sex is not the key to happiness in…

[dead]

Re: We are all animals at night

#228

Post by whimsicalism »

tuatoru wrote: post #202
smabie wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if this was true, then why do office workers generally earn more?

This made me laugh out loud, at the sheer political naivete. Office workers earn more because they do jobs more similar to the jobs of those who allocate money.

This is a factor, but to say it is the factor is nonsense.

Supply vs demand dynamics very much do exist. I get paid a lot, I also create measurably more than my salary in value.

Re: We are all animals at night

#229

Post by avidiax »

CPLX wrote: post #161
avidiax wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monogamy as a norm is about stability. Without it, what would tend to happen is that many more men would have no wives and families. Which means they have relatively little to lose. Which could tend to make your society unstable, since these men have little reason not to flip alliances, revolt, defect, etc. Hence laws and consequences for adultery, prohibition of an open market for non-monogamous sex, etc. The tradit…

> prohibition of an open market for non-monogamous sex Are you fucking kidding? Have you heard of Tinder? You’re just reinforcing the authors point, which is that we treat this situation noticeably differently, for “reasons”

Are you allowed to have a tinder profile that says '$350/hr'?

That would be an open market.

Re: We are all animals at night

#230

Post by vacuity »

throwaway22044 wrote: post #214
beebmam wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have some deeply self-destructive tendencies. It's not just a predator/prey or an oppressor/oppressed relationship. I'm not sure that if we ban all outlets for self-destructive behavior that something good will come of it. Offering some amount of consentual self-destruction is absolutely in the business of helping mankind, in my opinion.

>Offering some amount of consentual self-destruction is absolutely in the business of helping mankind, Prostitution, substance abuse, suicide, and other self-destructive acts, are the only measure that is available to us for enforcing that Leviathan keeps its end of the social contract: that our bodies and minds are first and foremost our own, and only when we infringe on others' freedom may ours be curtailed. The da…

Suicide is an expression of one's ultimate freedom to one's body, but these acts can have consequences beyond oneself. That goes from "oh well, it's your choice" to "don't drag other people down with you". What of a child born from a prostitute? What of others' safety when driving drunk? What of friends and family who expend mental energy and money? Cut yourself away absolutely or not at all, or perhaps in a more measured action, but don't just sink the ship and not care of the people scrambling for safety.
Post reply on HN