3 ms·

Yeah, and it is a fact that cartel and authoritarian statist money laundering is intertwined with banking. See just about any story about Deutsche in the last d

by _jal 4y ago

Yeah, and it is a fact that cartel and authoritarian statist money laundering is intertwined with banking. See just about any story about Deutsche in the last decade. I've worked with sex-related sites before. And you're right that there are sleazy people in that industry. But it really isn't hard to distinguish, especially when you can see their payment stream. Without moralist obsessions with sex, nobody would care.

patrick451 4y ago
What's your point? Sans morals, nobody would care murder either.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colpabar 4y ago
  If you kill someone I care about, I will want to see you punished. So many people agree with this that we have laws saying you can't kill people or else you'll be punished. But if you pay someone to have sex with them, so what? If both parties consent to everything, then who is harmed? Some people get mad because they think it's immoral, but not everyone.
  - rendang 4y ago
    > who is harmed This is begging the question (assuming morality must be based on harm or consent). Not everyone agrees on the morality of all sorts of things. Human sacrifice has been licit in various times and places. Lending someone a high-interest payday loan is a consensual transaction but morally suspect according to many, and so on.
    - colpabar 4y ago
      > Not everyone agrees on the morality of all sorts of things. Well yeah, of course. My point is that the overwhelming majority of people agree that murder is bad and should be illegal. That's not the case with sex work, which is why people argue about it online all the time. When I asked who is harmed by sex work, I didn't mean to imply that no one is harmed, I just meant that the answer to that question varies a lot more than the answer to who is harmed by murder.
- _jal 4y ago
  What I find interesting is that everyone critiquing my critique completely ignores the swipe I took at banks. It appears to be utterly banal and beneath concern that banks subvert legal and moral efforts against multinational drug cartels and abusive authoritarian regimes. I guess even with morals, people don't care about murder.
User23 4y ago
> Without moralist obsessions with sex, nobody would care. That is an observably incoherent claim. Sex is a subject that virtually everyone obsesses over and cares about to a greater or lesser extent and literally everyone that does is moralist about it. You, for example, evidently hold the moral position that prostitution, pornography, and other sex-related commercial activity is either good or at least not bad.
- everforward 4y ago
  I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. I believe woodworking should be allowed. Not because it's "good" or "bad", but because people want to do it and there aren't sufficient harms to warrant trying to ban it. Some people feel the same about porn and sex work. It's something people want to do, they believe there aren't sufficient harms to warrant regulating it. Watching or performing in porn doesn't make someone better or worse, it's just a thing they do like how some people make canoes or birdhouses. Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense.
  - User23 4y ago
    > I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? > Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense. That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” Incidentally, talk of “beneficial” “good” makes me think of the classic Windows 2000 tagline: “New NT Technology.”
    - everforward 4y ago
      > That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. Morally neutral and being without a moral component are different. Gravity lacks a moral component; it is neither good nor bad, it just exists. Moral neutrality contains opposing good and bad effects, with neither significantly outweighing the other. Killing someone in self-defense could be seen as morally neutral. Killing someone is bad, but saving people is good, causing a wash. Someone who kills another in self-defense isn't a bad person for doing so, but it also doesn't make them a better person. > That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? In the context of porn, genuinely not. Canoe-making seems like it has far greater moral significance. It's a practical skill and potentially a bonding experience with others. Porn is maybe a waste of time, but it's hardly alone there. It's like playing with a fidget spinner, which I don't find morally significant either. > That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” A beneficial good lacks a moral component, or is morally neutral as you would say. A scooter is a beneficial good; it allows people to get places faster, so they can do what they want. It's not morally good to own and use one, and it's not morally bad to not do so. Its merits are amoral. A moral good is something that has a clear moral component; feeding the homeless is morally good, not doing so is morally bad.

by _jal 4y ago

patrick451 4y ago

What's your point? Sans morals, nobody would care murder either.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colpabar 4y ago
If you kill someone I care about, I will want to see you punished. So many people agree with this that we have laws saying you can't kill people or else you'll be punished. But if you pay someone to have sex with them, so what? If both parties consent to everything, then who is harmed? Some people get mad because they think it's immoral, but not everyone.
- rendang 4y ago
  > who is harmed This is begging the question (assuming morality must be based on harm or consent). Not everyone agrees on the morality of all sorts of things. Human sacrifice has been licit in various times and places. Lending someone a high-interest payday loan is a consensual transaction but morally suspect according to many, and so on.
  - colpabar 4y ago
    > Not everyone agrees on the morality of all sorts of things. Well yeah, of course. My point is that the overwhelming majority of people agree that murder is bad and should be illegal. That's not the case with sex work, which is why people argue about it online all the time. When I asked who is harmed by sex work, I didn't mean to imply that no one is harmed, I just meant that the answer to that question varies a lot more than the answer to who is harmed by murder.
_jal 4y ago
What I find interesting is that everyone critiquing my critique completely ignores the swipe I took at banks. It appears to be utterly banal and beneath concern that banks subvert legal and moral efforts against multinational drug cartels and abusive authoritarian regimes. I guess even with morals, people don't care about murder.

User23 4y ago

> Without moralist obsessions with sex, nobody would care. That is an observably incoherent claim. Sex is a subject that virtually everyone obsesses over and cares about to a greater or lesser extent and literally everyone that does is moralist about it. You, for example, evidently hold the moral position that prostitution, pornography, and other sex-related commercial activity is either good or at least not bad.

everforward 4y ago
I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. I believe woodworking should be allowed. Not because it's "good" or "bad", but because people want to do it and there aren't sufficient harms to warrant trying to ban it. Some people feel the same about porn and sex work. It's something people want to do, they believe there aren't sufficient harms to warrant regulating it. Watching or performing in porn doesn't make someone better or worse, it's just a thing they do like how some people make canoes or birdhouses. Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense.
- User23 4y ago
  > I find that much more incoherent. It's absolutely possible to believe that things should be allowed without a moral component. That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? > Many people who use the word "good" to describe porn and sex work are describing it in the beneficial sense, not the moral sense. That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” Incidentally, talk of “beneficial” “good” makes me think of the classic Windows 2000 tagline: “New NT Technology.”
  - everforward 4y ago
    > That’s a bit odd on account of claiming that something is morally neutral is clearly a moral assertion. Morally neutral and being without a moral component are different. Gravity lacks a moral component; it is neither good nor bad, it just exists. Moral neutrality contains opposing good and bad effects, with neither significantly outweighing the other. Killing someone in self-defense could be seen as morally neutral. Killing someone is bad, but saving people is good, causing a wash. Someone who kills another in self-defense isn't a bad person for doing so, but it also doesn't make them a better person. > That being said, can you imagine why perhaps sex might have greater moral significance than canoe-making? In the context of porn, genuinely not. Canoe-making seems like it has far greater moral significance. It's a practical skill and potentially a bonding experience with others. Porn is maybe a waste of time, but it's hardly alone there. It's like playing with a fidget spinner, which I don't find morally significant either. > That’s fascinatingly novel. Can you explain the difference or at least distinction between a “moral” “good” and a “beneficial” “good?” A beneficial good lacks a moral component, or is morally neutral as you would say. A scooter is a beneficial good; it allows people to get places faster, so they can do what they want. It's not morally good to own and use one, and it's not morally bad to not do so. Its merits are amoral. A moral good is something that has a clear moral component; feeding the homeless is morally good, not doing so is morally bad.