3 ms·

So it's only fine if a private individual hires models for their party?

by ImSkeptical 9y ago

heartbreak 9y ago
That’s not what I said.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  You wrote that women should be free to work as models at a party, but that companies shouldn't employ them - what else does that mean if not that women should be models at private parties only? Instead of requiring me to guess what you mean, why not state it plainly?
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    The set of all party throwers is not composed of private individuals plus employers. But now you’ve changed it to private parties, which would seem to include parties thrown by privately held companies. Maybe you should start by getting your terminology straight. My point is that employees should not be subjected to employers hiring models to attend company events.
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      Your comments create the impression that you are trying to be antagonistic towards me. I can't think of another reason why you would pretend to be confused about the meaning of the phrase "private parties" when the phrase was set in contrast to parties held by companies and used after the phrase "a private individual hires models for their party". Even with the understanding that you are trying to be hostile, I'm at a loss as to why you think pretending that you have a poor grasp of the English language would annoy me. Regardless, I'm not really interested in trading verbal barbs with you, and your attempts thus far have purely been to your discredit, so please restrain further replies in this thread to the subject at hand. Responding to your point, isn't this a matter that's best determined by the employees in question? That is, it's not for you to say whether or not they would or wouldn't enjoy a party with models in paid attendance - but it should be up to them, their employers, and the models? Employees are subjected to a long list of unpleasant conditions. Having attractive people paid to interact with you seems like it would fall low on the list of grievances - and some people may prefer it. Finding the balance is something for the interested parties (employees, models, and employers) to do and not something for uninterested third parties. Finally, your point is still incompatible with what you've previously asserted. If it's okay for models to attend parties incognito (i.e. not identifying themselves as models), it must be okay for people to hire models to attend parties incognito. The models have as much agency and information as the employers - so, if it is wrong for employers to hire incognito models then it must be equally wrong for models to hire out as incognito models because whatever harm you think the employers are perpetrating the models are also participating for a profit.

So it's only fine if a private individual hires models for their party?

heartbreak 9y ago

That’s not what I said.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
You wrote that women should be free to work as models at a party, but that companies shouldn't employ them - what else does that mean if not that women should be models at private parties only? Instead of requiring me to guess what you mean, why not state it plainly?
- heartbreak 9y ago
  The set of all party throwers is not composed of private individuals plus employers. But now you’ve changed it to private parties, which would seem to include parties thrown by privately held companies. Maybe you should start by getting your terminology straight. My point is that employees should not be subjected to employers hiring models to attend company events.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    Your comments create the impression that you are trying to be antagonistic towards me. I can't think of another reason why you would pretend to be confused about the meaning of the phrase "private parties" when the phrase was set in contrast to parties held by companies and used after the phrase "a private individual hires models for their party". Even with the understanding that you are trying to be hostile, I'm at a loss as to why you think pretending that you have a poor grasp of the English language would annoy me. Regardless, I'm not really interested in trading verbal barbs with you, and your attempts thus far have purely been to your discredit, so please restrain further replies in this thread to the subject at hand. Responding to your point, isn't this a matter that's best determined by the employees in question? That is, it's not for you to say whether or not they would or wouldn't enjoy a party with models in paid attendance - but it should be up to them, their employers, and the models? Employees are subjected to a long list of unpleasant conditions. Having attractive people paid to interact with you seems like it would fall low on the list of grievances - and some people may prefer it. Finding the balance is something for the interested parties (employees, models, and employers) to do and not something for uninterested third parties. Finally, your point is still incompatible with what you've previously asserted. If it's okay for models to attend parties incognito (i.e. not identifying themselves as models), it must be okay for people to hire models to attend parties incognito. The models have as much agency and information as the employers - so, if it is wrong for employers to hire incognito models then it must be equally wrong for models to hire out as incognito models because whatever harm you think the employers are perpetrating the models are also participating for a profit.