I can Der Trish’s point depending on what we’re talking about.
If I beat her senseless every day for a year, will she still love and adore me the same as if Id never touched her? What are we talking about here love/brainwashing wise?
If I have a puppet, theres an absolute power kind of problem here.
Otara
Since she;s already left her husband, I’d like to meet her. What’s done is done.
Technically, the decision is perfectly identical to what I am hoping I will happen with every woman I date. Since all the women I date are in their 30s they’ve all ended a relationship at some point.
I don’t buy Der Trihs’s theory that the woman’s not a human. The OP’s description simply doesn’t say that.
Eh, free will’s overrated. I’d rather be happy
I hate those people. If I’m physically incapable of deterring or punishing the culprits (because they are long dead or deities) and I’m physically incapable of making amends with the victims (because they are long dead or affected in a way I cannot cure), calling me complicit is stupid.
I’d get the woman’s number, and I’d tell her what happened. I wouldn’t tell her ex-partner, because they have no reason to believe me.
Ditto..
Wouldn’t the Goddess of Love be hotter than some huntress chick?
I’m with DT. This sounds less like a romantic partner than a pet at this point. This isn’t a real person who loves me for me. This a pet who loves its master because it was made that way.
It sucks that he isn’t going to be satisfied in any other relationship, but I’m not going to be satisfied in any relationship where I’m the only one making the actual decision to be in it.
The huntress was Artemis, not Athena.
Again, I figure we’re both victims of Aphrodite. As long as I told the hottie what happened, it’s informed consent. I try not to worry about things I can’t control.
Thank you, but no I’m not interested.
In Greek mythology, would the gods be able to exercise long term control over a mortal’s will this way? I know that they drove various people mad and tricked them into doing despicable things, e.g., Hera vs. Herakles vs. Herakes’ children. But to me that would be different from Hera simply reshuffling Herk’s mind such that “You hate your children now and want to kill them.”
I don’t see how; consent implies the ability to say no, to make choices. She can’t. She can’t consent to a relationship any more than your car can consent to you driving it. She no longer has the mental equipment to consent.
For crying out loud, folks, she just hit the beauty with one of Cupid’s Arrows with your name on it. It’s not nice, but it’s how everyone falls in love. The-o-retically.
On the one hand, I’m absolutely the kind of guy who would turn down such a deal out of some silly ethical concerns, even if it means more pain for everybody involved as is the case here. Or possibly *because *it means more pain for everybody involved. The easy way is not my way, not when there’s a perfectly serviceable hard way right over there.
On the other hand, Greek gods have never been quite down with people turning down their “favours”, and Aphrodite can be kind of a cunt when she’s made to leave in a huff… That might be just a tad too hard a way. I wouldn’t want Ares riding my ass just because I upset his wuvey dovey honeycat, that dude is a psycho.
The problem I have with Der Trihs’s solution is not that he doesn’t want to go through with it, but that he thinks it’s his choice to decide whether or not she gets to live or not. Quite a few people live without ever finding anyone to love as a life partner. Heck, if I remember correctly, Der Trihs has said that he’s never been in love.
As for myself, I agree that, if the Greek pantheon exists, then Aphrodite is ultimately responsible for everyone who falls in love, and thus there’s no ethical dilemma. There is no difference between what she did and someone just happening to fall out of love with their spouse, and then fall in love with someone else.
Now if she’s just some alien with mind control powers, that’s a totally different story. I’d still take the number, but then, when she left, I’d tear it up and never use it. It’s unfortunate that the woman has to fall out of love and will never fall back in love, but I am ethically required to do what little I can to thwart the injustice.
If some god said “Thanks for rescuing my dog. I just made a rich guy pull all of the money out of his bank accounts and cash out all of his bonds. If he meets you, he’ll give you all of his money,” I also wouldn’t take it and I consider it the same thing.
Better that a person have some unfulfilled desire to do something for me than that I take advantage of it and have such power over them.
She has her moments of poor foresight, is all I’m saying. And she’s a god, she’s doesn’t need my acknowledgment.
Actually my point is that she is arguably already dead. Some pretty central portions of her mind have been replaced with rigid programming. She’s not the same person she was, and she may well not be a person any more at all.
:eek:
Blasphemy!
You are SO lucky that you’re already on the short list.
You seem to be basing your claim of the Victim’s loss of personhood on her or his inability to consent. Am I correct there? If so, I think your argument is flawed.
In the first place, it’s not true that the Victim cannot consent. It’s more that the Victim can only consent; the Victim has is compelled to consent; the Victim has lost the freedom to not consent. If the Victim were unable to consent, then the Victim could not agree to an overture you made regardless of her or his wish to do so.
Please understand that I’m not saying that the Victim has not lost her or his free will; clearly Aphrodite has restricted that in at least one area. I just don’t think that saying the Victim cannot consent is the correct phrasing.
In the second place, The Victim’s inability to decline consent isn’t necessarily unlimited Aphrodite has made the Victim fall in love with you, so presumably she or he would want to have sex with you, live with you, and so forth. But that doesn’t mean the Victim would agree to anything you suggested. The Victim was in love with his or her former spouse (Aphrodite specifically said so, and surely she knows if anyone does), but that doesn’t mean the Victim was willing to have anal sex or engage in a three-way just because the spouse desired it; many persons who are in love are not.
In the third place, I’m not convinced a loss of partial loss of free will necessarily means a loss of personhood. I know a beautiful, intelligent woman who is absolutely addicted to cigarettes; she’s been trying to quit for years without success. She is, in other words, without free will when it comes to nicotine. Her addiction was gradual and naturalistic, unlike what happened to the Victim, but I don’t see that it’s qualitatively different. The Victim’s brain has been changed, but that does not make her a zombie. Also, while my friend has little or no free will when it comes to cigarettes, she has quite a bit when it comes to whom she will date, where she will work, what religion she will practice, and so forth. Why can something similar not be true of the Victim?
In the fourth place, it’s not necessarily true that the Victim’s state is permanent. Athena (or perhaps some lesser deity like Zeus ) could always kick Aphrodite’s ass and force her to undo her frivolous mischief. If you grant the existence of gods, why isn’t petitioning for that a better choice than killing murder?
Lastly, one of the RhymerPrinciples is that, to avoid atrocities, one should also assume that things that walk like ducks and quack like ducks are, in fact, ducks. If the Victim still looks and acts human, I’m going to need a lot of convincing to believe that her or his inability to romantically love anyone but a single person represents a lack of personhood.
Honey? Honey, uh, do you know anything about that fleet of a thousand ships pulling up to the docks? Holy shit, is that you’re ex? Oooh, I don’t like the looks of that big guy with the fancy shield.
The ability to consent is the ability to say yes OR no. If you can only say one or the other, it isn’t consent.
If Aphrodite were standing there with a gun pointed at the hottie’s head and said, “Hottie, agree to have sex with Skald or I’ll kill you,” and hottie agrees and you have sex with her, are you going to say that was consent because she has lost the freedom to not consent? Because I think most of us would say that’s not consent and, oh by the way, you’re a rapist.