Bad laws, not bad whores: sex workers (2 Viewers)

[abbeyroad]

If you kill or hurt people in your own home, you are violating people's property rights to their body.

If you create excessive noise or smell, you are discharging noxious particles into your neighbor's property and thus violating their property rights.

If you don't let someone into your home or business, you are not violating anyone's property rights.



"Basic principles of fairness." That could mean anything to anyone. Who is to be the judge of what is and is not fair?

come on m8 as a self-proclaimed libertarian I expected you to say something like how it's their right to refuse service to someone and how government intervention forcing these businesses to serve them is a form of tyranny etc etc



edit just noticed that point had been raised before disregard that I suck cock

 

[Chemical Ali]

y can't we legally refuse to serve niggers at a shop guys?

 

[SylviaB]

in a stateless society racism would be harmless

those people who value race enough to refuse service to (i.e. they refuse the money of) certain races, then they're going to be pretty passionate about their race hatred and so would form their own, whites only communities and so their actions won't affect blacks who don't try and be a part of these communities.

obviously they would have to actively go and make their own communities, because would not even remotely close to enough support among the entire population to "kick black people out" of a large geographical area, so to speak. Quite the contrary.

Even is somehow magically support became that large, then governments wouldn't be able to stop it, nor have any incentive to.

 

[murphyad]

-your whole concept of "fairness" is completely bullshit and unfounded.

You have a house and I don't. It's cold outside and I want in your house, but you exclude me from your property.

omg liek government this is unfair halp plz.

For fucks sake;

I have ALREADY said that this is acceptable because a homeowner creates no obligation of fairness to anyone by keeping to themselves. This is DIFFERENT if you choose to positively interact with people.

Are you deliberately being disingenuous or are you just a dumb shit?

-Businesses have abolsutely zero obligations to society, other than following the law.

If I open a shop, nobody has the "right" to use my shop. It's my property and I'm extending them the privilege of using it.

My belief stems from the idea that every member of society has a right to be treated fairly and equitably in their dealings with others, with respect to the particulars of their situation. This is an idea so basic that it hardly even needs supporting. I could even say that it is a natural right. If you want to provide a service to someone, you are ethically obliged to provide the same service to everyone under this principle. The only fair discrimination is discrimination with respect to the relevant particulars of the situation in question e.g. if you are selecting an employee you 'discriminate' on the basis of proficiency.

Obviously there is a layer of ambiguity to this principle (e.g. 'Leb-only' clubs) and I acknowledge that, but we have institutions such as parliament and particularly the judiciary to try and resolve these ambiguities. Applying an absolutist stance is hardly a reasonable alternative.

 

[SylviaB]

Are you deliberately being disingenuous or are you just a dumb shit?

Say I am a doctor, and to see me you have to make an appointment. if I ignore requests from blacks to see me, then I am KEEPING TO MYSELF, in the same way I'll let some people into my house and not others.

I could even say that it is a natural right. If you want to provide a service to someone, you are ethically obliged to provide the same service to everyone under this principle.

This is COMPLETELY unfounded, and my bet is that you have no understanding of ethics in a philosophical sense and just go on what you feel is...wait for it..."fair".

The only fair discrimination is discrimination with respect to the relevant particulars of the situation in question e.g. if you are selecting an employee you 'discriminate' on the basis of proficiency.

What if you're naturally not as good as someone else at something and never will be? You didn't choose that, and people don't choose race?

What if I believe blacks are all inherently worse at doing a certain job? Does that now fit in with your concept of fairness?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Discrimination based on income prospects is obviously not the same as discrimination based on occupation per se.

Please tell me you do not think that people should be discriminated against solely because of the connotations of their profession.

He's saying banks should be able to "discriminate" against sex workers just as they would against a 40 year old ballet dancer.

 

[abbeyroad]

the right to be treated fairly is not a natural right you dumb fuck

omgzzzz he treated me unfairly dats a gross violation of mai natural rights

 

[Optimus Prime]

"It was often seen when women lost custody cases because of negative stereotypes associated with their jobs."

What?
Women who are prostitutes shouldn't be given full custody of their children if the father is well equipped to take care of them. A mother with that kind of job would be out at all times of the night and be setting an extremely bad example for any children that are in their care.

What if they are a 9-5 whore?

Also prostitutes aren't out "at all times of the night" any more than, or setting any worse example than someone who works in a 24 hour gambling venue of bar.

 

[Graney]

If you want to provide a service to someone, you are ethically obliged to provide the same service to everyone under this principle.

If I sell cigarettes and alcohol to some people, am I then ethically obliged to sell cigarettes and alcohol to minors? Would it be unethical for me to refuse to sell alcohol to an alcoholic?

Extrapolating this out to the original example of providing loans for housing, what if I believe black people are inherently incapable of behaving responsibly enough to service the requirements of a housing loan, in the same way that children are believed to be inherently incapable of making a responsible decision on whether to consume drugs and alcohol?

Defaulting on a housing loan is extremely harmful to a person. When selling alcohol to a child you can't be sure it would cause them harm, there is only considered to be a good likelihood that it will. I believe some children possibly would be capable of making the decision to purchase and consume alcohol responsibly. Some blacks possibly could service a loan to purchase housing. However, I consider based on my perception and experience, that most blacks are inherently irresponsible with finance, in the same way that typical children are irresponsible with alcohol.

Why is prejudice acceptable towards children, but not towards other races?

 

[cosmo kramer]

It's a question I myself have asked frequently Graney. While nobody would dispute that selling alcohol to minors would be morally indefensible, a blind eye is still turned to the question of the ethics regarding selling alcohol and other potentially harmful things, to the improvident peoples. The very question you brought up touches on a theme many great thinkers throughout history have pondered; that the responsibilities that come with the rights that we ideally desire to afford to all, can only reasonably be fulfilled by the provident and responsible peoples.

Even though you were likely speaking hypothetically, it is obvious that the liberal is thoroughly intoxicated with the idea that prejudice, at least when it concerns race, is of utmost abhorrence and cannot as a practice be allowed to exist.

 

[I Study Hard]

What if they are a 9-5 whore?

Also prostitutes aren't out "at all times of the night" any more than, or setting any worse example than someone who works in a 24 hour gambling venue of bar.

It's different (in my opinion) because someone who is a prostitute is selling their body, what kind of an example does that give his/her children. Shouldn't children be taught to respect themselves enough not to whore themselves out when they get older? If there is a chance for the child to live in a good home, away from a mother/father that is prostituting herself then it would be best for the child to live with the other parent.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Well they are arguing that there is nothing wrong with selling one's body, it is just a service. The oldest of all professions etc? Even if we accept that it is the result of not respecting yourself, you're presenting a false dichotomy. Why can't someone who is a prostitute provide a good home for a child? Statistically they will earn just as much as you are likely too. Furthermore how would the child even know the mother was a prostitute?