@creaky_hinge's banner p

creaky_hinge


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 July 13 06:21:29 UTC

				

User ID: 2565

creaky_hinge


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 July 13 06:21:29 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2565

What do you see as the practical benefits of stricter sexual mores as practiced in your home country?

Apart from societal judgment, why is prostitution any worse than normal sex?

I certainly don’t find that truth to be self-evident.

Why would it change the answer?

What are these false premises, and how do you measure “do better”?

I see. Thanks!

So… does anyone on the motte want to actually debate the question posed? I’ll start.

No to child prostitutes because child prostitutes presumably cannot consent, and it is not ethical to commit a crime with a victim involved, just because it’s someone’s dying wish to do so.

Saying yes to adult prostitutes assumes that the dying child is capable of consenting to sex for themselves, which is the complete opposite of what we’ve just established for the “No to child prostitutes” case. If we want to keep “No to child prostitutes” while maintaining “Yes to adult prostitutes”, we’ll have to introduce a difference between the two scenarios: “A teenager can reasonably be expected to understand consent for sex alone (and this is why it is moral for teenagers to consent to sex with each other), but the concept of consenting to sex in exchange for money is too advanced for teenagers to consent to (and therefore immoral for a child to prostitute themselves even though it is moral for a child to have sex without money).”

At which point is it genuine nuance, and at which point is it just contorting yourself into mental gymnastics? Perhaps either saying yes or no to all prostitution in this scenario would be the most consistent moral positions to take. The case for “yes”: a being will miss out on having a fundamentally common human experience before they die. If we care about providing dying children with less fundamental human experiences (like going to Disneyland) before they go, why not provide them with one that matters more?

The case for “no”: children are not capable of deciding for themselves whether they truly want such experiences. Even adults make poor decisions that they regret because it harmed them, and it would be horrible to allow a dying child to harm themselves before they go. (Although, as I understand it, the main reason why it’s bad for an underage teenager to consent to sex with an adult is because they risk emotional manipulation by the more experienced adult. Making sure that it’s a one-off affair would seem to largely mitigate this risk.)

In fact, how much does the dying child part even matter? It seems it would only matter if we first establish that harm is always caused to children having sex, even if they ostensibly consent. Otherwise, this might as well be ethical even without the child in question being mortally ill. But if sex always causes children harm, the question is whether it’s ethical to allow kids to hurt themselves. Is it ethical to sell a knife to a teen who has just stated their desire to stab themselves, regardless of whether the teen was going to die anyways?

What perspectives am I missing?


Also, meta questions:

  1. Who the hell is Aella? From your post, it sounds like she’s been mentioned here before
  2. Why is the general populace so averse to calmly discussing the moral foundations of our sexual mores? Given how strong the societal taboo is, I should probably delete my account after this discussion. But I mean, why is there such a strong taboo, such that even bringing up the subject as Aella has leads to such accusations of pedophilia?

Why do you think that is?

  1. Why not simply disengage from LGBT culture, as opposed to disengaging from homosexuality? I dislike many aspects of “straight Chad culture,” for lack of a better term, but that doesn’t put me off from having hetero sex.
  2. Apart from your religion, why do you consider gay sex an unhealthy habit?

Is this purely an academic discussion over whether homosexuality is innate/controllable, or is there an additional implication that homosexual acts should be avoided? If the latter, I’d be interested in hearing reasons why.

What is category collapse? What are some examples of disastrous outcomes you foresee?

Ah I see where you’re coming from, thanks for elaborating. Given the genetic diversity of “Han,” is it not possible to extend racial identity to promote group cohesion? I can think of “white” expanding to include Italians as another example where the genetics didn’t change but the concept of what the “race” entails did.

Yet there's nearly always someone on top, nearly always tension and an eventual break-up.

Why does tension and eventual breakup mean race must be the main arbiter of which team you're on? France had tension despite being relatively homogeneous right before the French Revolution; China broke up and reunified countless times throughout history, all the while slowly Sinicizing major parts of modern China so that even genetically different people who didn't use to be "Chinese" became culturally "Chinese."

I get into fights because I get angry and make bad decisions in the heat of the moment, I enjoy them because the adrenaline and catharsis of releasing a lot of anger into my surroundings drowns out the pain and fear I would normally feel for doing something so reckless. It's not smart, but it feels amazing.

I admit, I would've never expected someone like this to be so self-aware about it. Thanks for expanding my perspective.

Ordinary people certainly don't tend to buy the libertarian ethos of anonymity, and sure would prefer to live in a global village, a Panopticon where special respectable representatives of the Community are tracking down offenders at all times.

I tend to agree, given the lack of migration off of Twitter and Reddit to decentralized alternatives despite recent events.

Does there exist trustless enforcement mechanisms? There are already escrow contracts where 2 out of 3 parties (including an arbiter) have to agree for a transaction to take place, but that still involves choosing and trusting (and paying) an arbiter.

The thing that makes crypto precarious is if you misplace or forget a password you can lose thousands or millions of dollars...

I've lost a good amount of money from an Ethereum smart contract that got hacked. I mean, fair enough you know, that's the price you pay for trusting buggy code on a trustless network.

But my point is, when is the last time a US bank failed because somebody hacked the bank and the US legal apparatus could not undo the transactions? With crypto, you have to not only trust the devs to be honest, but also that they were competent and the code they wrote watertight. Even if you manually check the code yourself, like I do on rare occasions, you have to trust yourself not to have missed an exploit somewhere.

My personal issue with crypto is that it's almost always a speculative asset rather than hard currency.

I am fond of the existence of Darknet markets,

Isn't this, and countries with rampant inflation, the main non-speculative use cases for crypto right now? After all, what's the point in conducting transactions over a decentralized network when you can do so faster and cheaper on centralized ones, unless there's a reason you're unable or unwilling to use centralized ones?