Feminism

ShaneRoach said:

Swadius 2.0 said:

ShaneRoach said:

I think the correct thing to do with such a hypothetical person is to tell as many people as possible that this individual has the means to solve world hunger and yet refuses to do so unless someone performs fellatio on them. One hopes a goodly number of people would show up to stone the idiot, take the money, and cure all the world's ills without anyone having to humiliate themselves to satisfy the greedy pig's ego.

Click to expand...

I don't think stoning someone to death to erase world hunger is better than sucking a **** to end world hunger. In fact I'd probably say that the latter isn't so bad.

Click to expand...

I find it intriguing that you're so opposed to any sort of use of violence that you would prefer someone to be humiliated who is innocent rather than have something violent happen to some ogre who would prefer to spend that amount of money coaxing someone into something grotesque.

Click to expand...

I think you need to step back and get some perspective. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, the one who will suck his **** and end world hunger would be doing so voluntarily.

Second of all, look at it from his perspective. Who in the world, that would have enough money to end world hunger would give up the money required to do so just for one ********. For one ********! Not a castle, or an island, or a large piece of land, a limb, or slaves! One ********! This person is practically giving the money away. Blowing someone is not that big of a deal. Your only complaint about this person is that this person has not given away the money to solve world hunger for free, in all seriousness the price this person has asked isn't that high. I'm even going to say that the price is disproportionately in the favor of the **** blower. Keep in mind, no one is forcing HIM to give away the money for such outrageously low price. You nor I would begrudge this person if the price was to listen to the complete albums of Celine Dion which is by far much worse than a fellatio, but still not that high for the trillions this would bring about.

I would further posit that the reason we have world hunger at all is that people are so averse to putting the effort necessary into making things work correctly that they would just as soon cut corners to get something "good enough".

Click to expand...

Do not be so quick to deal out death in judgement. You are not the wisest among us, and even the wisest cannot see all ends. Life is a lot more complicated than some people make it out to be, so do not jump to conclusions and shoe horn people into predetermined roles so hastily.

No one starves these days because of a shortage of food. They starve because people cannot be brought to put the effort into breaking up the powerful organizations of folks who horde resources and enslave their fellow man, taking the fruits of their fellow man's labor so that they can, well... buy sex for example.

Click to expand...

I do not think that it is only evil that is keeping the world this way, our indifference and our incompetence probably plays a bigger part.

Mrs. Dryvus said:

ShaneRoach said:

If it were not more or less human nature for the strong to prey on the weak, why then women would ALWAYS have been equal..... Depressingly, given power, women appear to be just as amenable to enslaving their fellow man as men have always been.

Click to expand...

Considering that cultures in which women are now closer to equality in status are also those in the history of which actual slavery was abolished, I think that's a lot of conjecture. It sounds snappy though. Many cultures in general are less amenable to enslaving people than they used to be.

Click to expand...

That seems likely to be, at least in part, sort of a ''correlation equals causation.'' deal you're trying to give there. The abolishment of slavery as a general rule predates women's liberation (Whether sexual, political etc) as far as I know. Plus, slavery is illegal in all countries since 1980, so even though countries with high gender equality have abolished slavery at some point, so did countries with low gender equality.

Actually, you're being presumptuous about my meaning. Your counter-point is predicated on a conclusion that I never made. I am not saying that Feminism or women were the reason that slavery was abolished. I'm saying that it seems strange to conclude that women today (or people in general, as I say) have proven themselves to be as uncompassionate as men were in a time in which women did not have power, since that time in these cultures, and the eras preceding it, was less inclusive of the people (or animals) deserving full rights as people (men and women) are now. 

Anthropoid said:

Dying is less "humiliating" than doing fellatio!? Homophobic much?

Click to expand...

Since we were talking about feminism I wasn't really thinking homosexual. Besides, I made it fairly clear the point to me is that no one who would force someone to do such a thing when they had so many resources is really some sort of innocent in my view.

I'm about to beg off here. It seems to me a rather ridiculous attempt to just sort of pretend people do not know why prostitution is bad even with a world wide sex trade causing human rights violations left and right.

Fantasize away. Bottom line, most decent folks don't do a lot of pondering about selling sex for money. Even folks who do it or partake in it tend to get a pretty solid feeling it is less than ideal.

Swadius 2.0 said:

No one starves these days because of a shortage of food. They starve because people cannot be brought to put the effort into breaking up the powerful organizations of folks who horde resources and enslave their fellow man, taking the fruits of their fellow man's labor so that they can, well... buy sex for example.

Click to expand...

I do not think that it is only evil that is keeping the world this way, our indifference and our incompetence probably plays a bigger part.

Click to expand...

You're not even paying attention to what I am saying. Here you quite literally repeat my point while seeming to want to argue.

As I said previously, I am done with this portion of this topic. I will not be bullied into accepting the ridiculous premise based on a rather sad attempt at the absurdly reductionist . Bottom line, no one should be forced into a situation where they have to submit to sexual humiliation in order to save others lives. A person using that sort of coercion deserves whatever punishment people can muster their courage to apply. Period. The end.

Obviously my opinion, and no need to wax loquacious about my presumed high opinion of my understanding. I just don't have a lot of patience for the ongoing breakdown of common decency in modern civilization. Being a perverse pacifist doesn't qualify you any more than being a militant puritan would qualify me to judge situations. You asked the bizarre question, and i gave you my answer.

The whole thing is moot from the get go. It'll never happen.

Slavery abolished? No... no slavery has not been abolished. It's been renamed. We can discuss that endlessly no doubt, but for example, the common English peasant had more right to access to the then current means of production than people do today. And yet we are constantly told how much more freedom we have.

Point being, women today are not any more compassionate than men when they get into positions of power. They do, however, make better hedge fund managers.

The "Modify" button exists for a reason, just so you know.

Epicrules said:

The "Modify" button exists for a reason, just so you know.

Click to expand...

I'm answering three different posts. Just so you know.

You know what, I'm out of here... Sorry to bother you with any sort of reality check to begin with. I just can't believe you are all waxing self righteous about promoting prostitution.

That doesn't mean your reply needs to be 3 different posts.

ShaneRoach said:

Epicrules said:

The "Modify" button exists for a reason, just so you know.

Click to expand...

I'm answering three different posts. Just so you know.

Click to expand...

Ugh, here, why don't you do this: scroll down when you're making a post and press the "Insert Quote" button, just like how I'm about to do it right now.

ShaneRoach said:

I'm about to beg off here. It seems to me a rather ridiculous attempt to just sort of pretend people do not know why prostitution is bad even with a world wide sex trade causing human rights violations left and right.

Click to expand...

Except prostitution merely refers to performing sexual acts in exchange for money. This is not morally unjust. It is the unethical businesses that have spawned around this act that are unjust.

ShaneRoach said:

As I said previously, I am done with this portion of this topic. I will not be bullied into accepting the ridiculous premise based on a rather sad attempt at the absurdly reductionist . Bottom line, no one should be forced into a situation where they have to submit to sexual humiliation in order to save others lives. A person using that sort of coercion deserves whatever punishment people can muster their courage to apply. Period. The end.

Click to expand...

Bringing about the end of world hunger would easily be enough to counter the "sexual humiliation" from performing fellatio. Anyway, I think it's ridiculous to believe that this hypothetical person should be killed. It'd be far easier for this individual to just say "Screw all of you" and then go live in some luxurious mansion, but no, this person is willing to give away everything in exchange for one mere sexual act. I think it's honestly more morally reprehensible to kill them rather than satisfy their one simple request.

ShaneRoach said:

You know what, I'm out of here... Sorry to bother you with any sort of reality check to begin with. I just can't believe you are all waxing self righteous about promoting prostitution.

Click to expand...

A reality check? When you claim that even the mere act of two individuals engaging in an exchange of sexual favors for an amount of currency is, by itself, "morally reprehensible"? Ugh.

ShaneRoach said:

You're not even paying attention to what I am saying. Here you quite literally repeat my point while seeming to want to argue.

As I said previously, I am done with this portion of this topic. I will not be bullied into accepting the ridiculous premise based on a rather sad attempt at the absurdly reductionist . Bottom line, no one should be forced into a situation where they have to submit to sexual humiliation in order to save others lives. A person using that sort of coercion deserves whatever punishment people can muster their courage to apply. Period. The end.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is very important, stay in school. The hypothetical situation isn't one where the person is forcing others to have sex with him, he is offering money for a volunteer to do so.

Obviously my opinion, and no need to wax loquacious about my presumed high opinion of my understanding. I just don't have a lot of patience for the ongoing breakdown of common decency in modern civilization. Being a perverse pacifist doesn't qualify you any more than being a militant puritan would qualify me to judge situations. You asked the bizarre question, and i gave you my answer.

Click to expand...

Next time, take the time to read the question.

Jennifer Lawrence nudes!
Oh, am I in the right thread?

I know.

I think that given a situation where fellatio can end world hunger it's a bit of an odd immediate response to say kill the guy and steal his ****.

Ultimately the property is his, and therefore he has a right to do with it as he pleases. If the transaction then is voluntary between him and the person performing fellatio I do not see the issue. Just because you wish to extrapolate your own preferences on the guy in the situation does not really validate killing the person and taking their property.

It's the same thing with prostitution really. As long as the transaction is voluntary there isn't anything wrong with it. The same as if someone pays money for going to a Skrillex concert. I personally find it rather distasteful, but as long as they are all in it voluntarily the transaction does not concern anyone else.

There may of course be externalities and the condition of voluntary participation may be violated often which may make it sensible to outlaw prostitution but not Skrillex concerts.

Everyone can relax since no one will pay very much money for fellatio.

You wanna bet on that.

It may help your career in acting or politics. I'm not sure about that but I hear tings.

I hear it can do wonders for you in video game journalism.

Not sure why some guy suggests complicating things by killing the man.

I'm always in favour of killing The Man.