You deflected first by invoking economic coercion. Unless it’s your firm belief that there are zero people who would knowingly choose to fuck for money over taking a menial job.
Get better talking points than these sad little ad hominems, they aren’t helping you.
Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.
What you are doing is what’s called strawmanning. It’s where you reframe an argument you are unable to counter to a slightly different one that you are able to counter.
I’d say it’s beneath you, but it honestly doesn’t seem to be.
Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.
You very strongly implied otherwise:
whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.
If we play devil’s advocate, the strictest denotation of what you are saying allows for the interpretation that one should consider exploitation in all cases, but you are very clearly implying that there is a comparable magnitude. I don’t “apply my opinion of” John Wayne Gacy to someone was convicted of a sexual assault charge, because both people are sex criminals (and should be condemned) but the cases are clearly not comparable beyond a statement as generic as that.
Likewise, I don’t “apply my opinion of Johns” to someone who bought a bundle of bananas at a grocery store because both people “contributed in some manner to exploitation” but the scale is not remotely similar and also the latter person still needs to eat!
deleted by creator
You deflected first by invoking economic coercion. Unless it’s your firm belief that there are zero people who would knowingly choose to fuck for money over taking a menial job.
Get better talking points than these sad little ad hominems, they aren’t helping you.
deleted by creator
Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.
What you are doing is what’s called strawmanning. It’s where you reframe an argument you are unable to counter to a slightly different one that you are able to counter.
I’d say it’s beneath you, but it honestly doesn’t seem to be.
you spelt rubric with a k
also, you’re a creep
Indeed I did. I’ll own up to that mistake.
The rest is projection, I’m afraid. Your should probably spend some time in reflection, but you’re not going to.
Get whatever jibe is left in you out of your system and be on your way.
If you got into the habit of doing this before you went outside, you probably wouldn’t find yourself compelled to defend such a shitty position.
deleted by creator
You very strongly implied otherwise:
If we play devil’s advocate, the strictest denotation of what you are saying allows for the interpretation that one should consider exploitation in all cases, but you are very clearly implying that there is a comparable magnitude. I don’t “apply my opinion of” John Wayne Gacy to someone was convicted of a sexual assault charge, because both people are sex criminals (and should be condemned) but the cases are clearly not comparable beyond a statement as generic as that.
Likewise, I don’t “apply my opinion of Johns” to someone who bought a bundle of bananas at a grocery store because both people “contributed in some manner to exploitation” but the scale is not remotely similar and also the latter person still needs to eat!
deleted by creator