4 ms·
No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in m
by empthought 10y ago
No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in my possession of a television that demeans or degrades another human being; it's simple circumstance that makes working conditions more or less morally acceptable.
The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy.
- croon 10y ago> The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy. I'm a contractor, and I get to choose my clients. If I don't want to work with someone, I don't. Why would it be "inherently" demeaning in sex work, if they got to choose their clients and there were better protection and regulation? Why is it an implementation issue with your TV purchase, and an inherent issue with sex work? I don't follow the logic.
- empthought 10y agoHN comments really don't do justice to the answer to this question, please consider http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000913/091355mb.pdf TL;DR no prostitute can "choose" a john that isn't going to sexually exploit her (and thus violate her human rights) because that's the nature of purchasing sex. A direct quote TL;DR Does the 'right to prostitute' exist?' Clearly prostitution cannot exist as a right because it usurps and negates already established human rights of the prostitute woman to human dignity, bodily integrity, physical and mental well-being...Human rights are universal and inalienable. They cannot be reduced to the instrumentality of individual choice alone because individual choice can and does include the right to harm or propagate harm on others or inflict harm on oneself.
- croon 10y agoYou're arguing on the premise that someone can dictate someone elses values on human rights. Which I would argue is a worse violation.
- empthought 10y agoOK, in that case we had no right to prosecute the Holocaust, and saying that we did is a worse violation than the Holocaust...
- croon 10y agoWait, what? You honestly went with Godwin's law on this? There are people in the sex industry who enjoy their industry. There were no people on the receiving end of the holocaust who enjoyed that. If you can't grasp the difference you should not try to discuss anything.
- empthought 10y agoThe question was whether to "dictate someone elses values on human rights" consists a worse violation than the human rights violation itself; it's pretty obvious the answer is "no." In fact the entire concept of human rights relies on there being some possibility of an objective standard of "human rights" that does not depend on an individual's choice or opinion, even if that individual's choice or opinion biases them to permit the violation of their own human rights. You think prostitution is not a violation of human rights. I do. It's pretty much that simple. But clearly what specific individuals used to think about freedom from slavery, or the right of Jewish people to exist, or the right to basic dignity and access to food and livelihood, has no bearing on whether or not these things are human rights. They just are.