Huh? I wasn't saying Elliot's modding was immoral.

OT: Why was Spitzer outed for having sex with a lady who likes money?

Most ladies like money, and Spitzer was saving US millions and billions of dollars for playing a financial cop. Given that having sex with ladies increases one's performance it would be foolish to forbid people in the public sector access to it. Also even for the reasons that given the Democrats they will try to turn the whole US into a big centralized sosialdemocrat state like Sweden has and that means that half the people are working for the government basically doing nothing productive, and if you dont give them their booty they will do less than basically nothing.

I would not argue that it is hard to discover if women is forced in to the profession.

ok. I can't be bothered to spend any longer than 30 seconds looking over your posts.

And what would you think of me if I didn't throw it to them?

mjkidd - what do you think if my personal stance on socially stigmatizing men who visit prostitutes? Do you think it would be beneficial to anyone? Do you think it's unfair for me to want to stigmatize these men? Or should I just leave them to do whatever they want as long as they're not initiating violence or stealing?

Hows do you do that? Ask them: "Were you forced into this?" Seems foolproof...

How do you socially stigmatize them?

I wouldn't understand why you wouldn't help someone when it costs you nothing.

imo

I don't think it is beneficial to anyone. Men who visit prostitutes are socially stigmatized currently, at least in the US.

Well fortunately I don't come into contact with men who use prostitutes, as far as I know, but I'd probably try and convince him through argument that it's unethical, exploitative and facilitates the self-destruction of vulnerable women. If he continued to use prostitutes and continued to defend the practice of seeing them, I doubt I'd remain friends with someone with so little concern for the well-being of others. Yes, I'd be up on a high horse, I don't really care.

I didnt read the link, just your cliffs, but that seems idiotic to me. Ok, prostitutes are most often victims of childhood rape and violence. And? Why is "sex" now the only thing these women are prohibited from doing, or the only thing they are being exploited while doing?

This seems like it would be an argument for treating childhood rape/violence victims as mentally challenged and in need of societal protection.

But you wouldn't consider me a scumbag, or unethical? Your lone reaction would be puzzlement?

I would. If it literally costs you nothing, and you wont help someone, I consider you a scumbag.

YOU ALL LOOK ALIKE TO ME

So we are able to make a moral judgment on people for actions they take (or fail to take) which are not initiating violence or violating property rights?

Well it is a good thing nothing is stopping you from doing this.

Also, you are still assuming that the person isn't concerned for the well-being of others. You are assuming that all prostitution stems from a broken past or what have you.

I mean, if we follow your argument, we could just as easily say that johns often come from broken or abusive homes....

Yeah its a tricky thing because "obligation" is a loaded word. I certainly feel an obligation in this sense. But you mean it as "an obligation that I would be comfortable using force to compel YOU to meet." I think you have a little-o obligation to throw the ring, in that you are a bad person if you dont. But it would be MORE immoral for me to use force to compel you to do it, so its not a big-O obligation.

I mean....*I* am. Yes. I make all kinds of moral judgments, on a daily basis. The guy in front of me on Canal Road today? Burning in fiery hell for eternity, mortal lock. I'm not sure what you mean by "we" here. Sounds dangerous.

Don't make me bring fly into this thread.

Well, yeah. All I'm talking about is how we perceive moral acts, and how we discuss those acts with other people. I'm not arguing for force to be used at all.

No, just most, or a lot of prostitution. The facts seem to back me up on this.

Yeah, we could. I haven't looked at the studies or anything yet (I plan to at some point), but just based on anecdotal evidence, Johns do have certain issues to deal with, and prostitution can definitely exacerbate them.

The Stefan Molyneux podcasts ian posted go into this quite a bit - basically everyone on the forums there accused him of being judgmental because he said some guy who used prostitutes probably had issues around low self-esteem.

I definitely think it can often be a mutually exploitative transaction.

Well now you see the problem with using such a broad judgmental brush to classify these acts as unethical or immoral in such a manner.

Wait, so is my neighbor selling me tomatos a mutually exploitative transaction? I mean, he's using his tomatos (something I desire to have) to get me to give him money (something he desires to have).

Only if he was ritualistically beaten with a sack of tomatoes when he was a child.

No of course not. Buying and eating tomatoes hasn't been shown to be a self destructive, emotionally crippling exchange, at least as far as I know.

But from the few studies I've read, and the stuff Stefan talks about in the podcasts and on the forum (his wife had been a psychologist, or therapist or something for 14 years at some point), men who frequent prostitutes often (not always) have emotional problems, problems relating to people, trouble maintaining relationships, low self-esteem and so on, and visiting prostitutes tend to increase many of these problems for them.

I could be wrong about this stuff on the Johns though, I've read rather little about it. I think it's a strong possibility though.

And this