Political discussion thread

akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Why not throw caution to the wind and admit that you would like to see a time when women would be forced to sleep with their potential bosses if they wanted the job.  After all, that would be a "voluntary" interaction. I don't believe anyone should be forced to do anything. If an employer (male or female) wishes to specify sexual intercourse as a condition of employment (I suspect many already do, albeit not officially), I think that should be their choice. I would hope no one would work for that company, though.   Seems like legalised rape or sex abuse to me ? Nice.

It's not rape or abuse if someone knows what they are getting into and voluntarily agrees to it. No one would agree to such an arrangement unless they thought the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No one anywhere has sex with anyone unless they think the benefit of doing so outweighs the cost. There is no difference.

Let me add that I think using sex as a bargaining chip to get what you want is pretty deplorable, and I would think very poorly of anyone who did such a thing, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen in voluntary relationships every day.
"Do what I want or else you're not getting any for a month, buster"
or
"I got you that nice piece of jewelry so now you owe me sex, baby."


Edited by thellama73 - October 14 2012 at 16:56

thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Why not throw caution to the wind and admit that you would like to see a time when women would be forced to sleep with their potential bosses if they wanted the job.  After all, that would be a "voluntary" interaction. I don't believe anyone should be forced to do anything. If an employer (male or female) wishes to specify sexual intercourse as a condition of employment (I suspect many already do, albeit not officially), I think that should be their choice. I would hope no one would work for that company, though.   Seems like legalised rape or sex abuse to me ? Nice. It's not rape or abuse if someone knows what they are getting into and voluntarily agrees to it. No one would agree to such an arrangement unless they thought the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No one anywhere has sex with anyone unless they think the benefit of doing so outweighs the cost. There is no difference. Let me add that I think using sex as a bargaining chip to get what you want is pretty deplorable, and I would think very poorly of anyone who did such a thing, but let's not pretend this doesn't happen in voluntary relationships every day. "Do what I want or else you're not getting any for a month, buster" or "I got you that nice piece of jewelry so now you owe me sex, baby."

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: Its rape.  Someone may have sex if they are desperate, or have mental issues, or are very young or in debt or addicted to drugs or there are not enough jobs to go around .  But you would legalise rape annd say its ok to do that because thats fredom for you

I would not legalize rape.
You are arguing that it is possible to make someone better off by reducing their available options. I do not believe this is possible.

Scenario 1:
Ms. Lonely Worker has two options.
Option A: Sleep with Mr Sleazeball employer in exchange for a job.
Option B: Don't, and go find somewhere else to work.

Scenario 2:
Mr. Sleazeball employer has been thrown in prison for his illegal hiring practices. Ms. Lonely Worker now has only Option B available to her.

Is Ms. Lonely Worker better off in Scenario 2?

thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Its rape.  Someone may have sex if they are desperate, or have mental issues, or are very young or in debt or addicted to drugs or there are not enough jobs to go around .  But you would legalise rape annd say its ok to do that because thats fredom for you I would not legalize rape. You are arguing that it is possible to make someone better off by reducing their available options. I do not believe this is possible. Scenario 1: Ms. Lonely Worker has two options. Option A: Sleep with Mr Sleazeball employer in exchange for a job. Option B: Don't, and go find somewhere else to work. Scenario 2: Mr. Sleazeball employer has been thrown in prison for his illegal hiring practices. Ms. Lonely Worker now has only Option B available to her. Is Ms. Lonely Worker better off in Scenario 2?

Ah but you are leaving out scenario 3:

Mr. Sleazeball employer and others of his ilk are the only employers hiring, so...

Ms. Lonely Worker can sleep with any number of sleazy employers or
Ms. Lonely Worker can starve.

And scenario 4:

Mr. Sleazeball employer is in jail, so the multi-national company he works for was forced to appoint Mr. Nice Guy employer, so....

Ms. Lonely Worker can accept a job for that company without giving up her dignity or
Ms. Lonely Worker can continuing looking for another job if she wishes and has the means to do so.

It is scenario 4 we are shooting for. 


Edited by The Doctor - October 14 2012 at 17:21

^you don't have to work for an employer to keep from starving </brokenrecord>

Scenario 4 sounds nice, but I see no reason to assume it will be the result. In my scenario Mr. Sleazeball employer was a sole proprietor so if he goes to jail, there will be no one to replace him.


Edited by thellama73 - October 14 2012 at 17:24

thellama73 wrote: ^you don't have to work for an employer to keep from starving </brokenrecord> Scenario 4 sounds nice, but I see no reason to assume it will be the result. In my scenario Mr. Sleazeball employer was a sole proprietor so if he goes to jail, there will be no one to replace him.

But in your world, number 3 is a much more likely outcome than 4, and in mine number 4 is much more likely.  Just because the result is not guaranteed, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for that result.

You love to talk about how if someone isn't running their business the way people want him/her to, someone else will come along and create a business that's better.  So, if Mr. Sleazeball employer is in jail, someone else will come along who won't be a sleaze, with a business to replace Sleazeball's.

akamaisondufromage wrote: Scenario 1 Girl (Lonely or otherwise (whatever lonely has to do with anything)) Option A Employer offers job and contract  and no sex.  No Option B because Rape is illegal

She's not a girl, she's a woman. Lonely Worker is her name. Her first name is Lonely, her surname is Worker.

It's not rape.

thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Scenario 1 Girl (Lonely or otherwise (whatever lonely has to do with anything)) Option A Employer offers job and contract  and no sex.  No Option B because Rape is illegal She's not a girl, she's a woman. Lonely Worker is her name. Her first name is Lonely, her surname is Worker. It's not rape.

Ooh sorry! 

Edited by akamaisondufromage - October 14 2012 at 17:43

akamaisondufromage wrote: I guess her name is Worker cos in your world that's all she is.

That's not how names work. If a person is named Smith is does not mean they are only useful as a smith. It's just a name.

thellama73 wrote: It's a fair point, but social programs like the ones you mention are not about me trading my freedom for benefits (that would be perfectly acceptable) but it's about trading everyone else's freedom for my benefit. Add an opt-out clause and all of my objections go away. I don't think the few have the right to impose their values on the many.

An opt-out clause automatically makes the programs unfinanceable, because those who have enough money will always opt out and buy a private plan. So yes, I'm also willing to trade off some of my liberties for the benefits of others. I understand why you find it troubling that you don't have any choice but to participate, but this is one of those cases where the will of the majority trumps your individual objections. Much like a president you didn't vote for is still your president and you can't do anything about it.