229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
229 points (91.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43995 readers
1103 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We're all victims of economic coercion. Very few would willingly work service or clerical jobs if they didn't need to.
If that's your rubrik, then whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.
We all work because we need to get paid to survive. Knowing that, how do you believe those who choose for that work to be sex work should be treated?
You’re being an asshole in response to a good faith discussion.
Guy who refuses to answer the first question asked continues to deflect because he knows there's no logical position he can take that isn't 'I don't like sex workers'.
You deflected first by invoking economic coercion. Unless it's your firm belief that there are zero people who would knowingly choose to fuck for money over taking a menial job.
Get better talking points than these sad little ad hominems, they aren't helping you.
Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.
What you are doing is what's called strawmanning. It's where you reframe an argument you are unable to counter to a slightly different one that you are able to counter.
I'd say it's beneath you, but it honestly doesn't seem to be.
you spelt rubric with a k
also, you're a creep
Indeed I did. I'll own up to that mistake.
The rest is projection, I'm afraid. Your should probably spend some time in reflection, but you're not going to.
Get whatever jibe is left in you out of your system and be on your way.
If you got into the habit of doing this before you went outside, you probably wouldn't find yourself compelled to defend such a shitty position.
You very strongly implied otherwise:
If we play devil's advocate, the strictest denotation of what you are saying allows for the interpretation that one should consider exploitation in all cases, but you are very clearly implying that there is a comparable magnitude. I don't "apply my opinion of" John Wayne Gacy to someone was convicted of a sexual assault charge, because both people are sex criminals (and should be condemned) but the cases are clearly not comparable beyond a statement as generic as that.
Likewise, I don't "apply my opinion of Johns" to someone who bought a bundle of bananas at a grocery store because both people "contributed in some manner to exploitation" but the scale is not remotely similar and also the latter person still needs to eat!
someone being forced to work a till is not morally equivicable with being forced to have sex the later is far more intimate a violation