this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
229 points (91.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43750 readers
1243 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Guy who refuses to answer the first question

Your "question" was garbage to begin with because you're seriously arguing that all work is only equally harmful and exploitative.

no logical position

I don't see why you need to stan so hard for unregulated sexpat adventures when you're doing a fine job masturbating right there.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You deflected first

That doesn't matter to me whatsoever. You sound like a creepy sexpat using false equivalencies to vindicate your little hobby.

they aren't helping you

Don't say stupid shit like "all work is equally as exploitative."

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you spelt rubric with a k

also, you're a creep

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'm afraid. Your should probably spend some time in reflection

Get whatever jibe is left in you out of your system

You are such an incredibly pretentious creep as well as a liar.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Get whatever jibe is left in you out of your system

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.

You very strongly implied otherwise:

whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.

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!

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Never said they were equally exploitative

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.

You're a liar and a creep.