Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway5752 | Hacker News Reader

I think you should accept some people think of it differently.

And let's be frank here. OF is probably a viable financial opportunity - on average - for a small number of more attractive that normal people, and it's probably weighted towards younger women. I'd love to have hard data to present to you, but I can't find it.

I have literally zero problem with people who want to use OF to support themselves. However, let's agree 1) that some people for whom it would be a viable financial option find it objectionable and 2) it's a less viable financial option for some, even if they don't find it objectionable.

I think that groups 1 & 2 in there should still be able to work a 40 hour job and pay for food and rent, and still be able to save something to retire if they want to. And they probably should fear starving or dying of exposure even if they don't have a job.

Call it unrealistic, but I prefer to fix that problem, too.

View on HN

I am completely fine with people having their own views on this issue and not participating in it if they don't like it, blocking it on their computers or whatever else. The problem is these views being imposed upon the greater population for no reason.

The point is, why would you specifically single out sex work? Why should the people "still be able to work a 40 hour job and pay for food and rent" without getting involved in sex work in particular? I.e. jobs with far less dignity, or far more danger (e.g. logging), less comfort, etc., are ok in that broad "work a 40 hour job" category, but sex work is not ok? You could as well say "some people find retail jobs degrading/exhausting/unfulfilling [many if not most retail workers do, I suspect], so they should still be able to work a 40 hour [non-retail] job and pay for food and rent".

The only real reason to single out OF (an objectively superior option to a median job, if you can get it) is precisely the puritanical morality.

> I think you should accept some people think of it differently

But why? Because their parents told them so?

Is there some fundamental reason to see this differently? Some cultures accept murder too, should we accept that some people think of it differently? I say fuck those people.

All cultures accept murder. The ones that didn't were killed by the ones that did.

How so? Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted. There are nations that wage war, yes, but this is not generally accepted as good. And in daily life, murder has been basically banished completely (compared to, for example, 200 years ago, where murders for honor or duels were more socially acceptable).

American culture did not think killing Osama Bin Laden was objectionable.

> Murder seems to be very looked down upon in most cultures and is not generally accepted.

Mostly for people’s in-groups. The care goes down as in-group association goes down.

—-

America, Europe/NATO, and other allied countries have unnecessary “wars” and conflicts and use things like drones to murder people. Drones killing people randomly isn’t war a lot of the time.

Murder definition is silly. Says “unlawful” killing of someone. Who determines what’s lawful when the countries included at the beginning do stuff overseas? Obviously some will consider all the killing done as murder.

It’s not hard to say we (as in the west) murdered Yemenese, Afghans/Pakistanis (the drones attacking people), Palestinians, and more in recent years. Then we have the big name ones like murdering the Iranian general a year ago.

via equity, alliance, and diplomatic and financial support. Not directly, but murder charges in most countries can be charged to people who aren’t directly doing the killing too

Reply on news.ycombinator.com