Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't believe both people in a child-adult situation are going to be happy about it, even putting aside the other parts of the objection - the capability disparity, the coercion, the disgust with the adult's conduct, etc. I also don't believe in God or the primacy of maximally darwinist behaviour. In general, I want societies to exist to make individuals within happy rather than individuals existing to make societies happy, and I prefer mild discomfort that's shared over severe oppression that's offloaded onto a few.
In that case you should be supportive of society being discomforted by a child recieving $10 million for having sex with Epstein with their full understanding and the support of their parents. Remember the child is getting an extremely good deal here they are free to choose to take or refuse. It's not you will be forced into sex with Epstein and given $10 million, it's "you may choose to have sex with Epstein for $10 million". In financial markets we have options that give you the right to do something and thus they have value, If this option here were offered on the financial markets it would be priced in the millions.
This trade lifts the oppression of a life of drudgery from the child's shoulders for only a few minutes of suffering. Remember we're not talking about a long term relationship here, just a single act and there is no coercion happening here, the child only gets access to the money once they are 21 so their parents won't get to see a cent of it unless the now adult child decides to share it with them of thier own volition. The child may well not be happy about the sex act itself, but the $10 million on the other end brings enough utility to easily make it up.
Our Saudi Arabian moralist would be equally disgusted with the conduct of the two gays, but that's not a good reason to listen to him.
I'm aware that it must sound like an extremely obvious choice to someone who's willing to high-decouple it and look at the thought experiment as a strictly one-time thing, not something that is in practice a) too good a deal to be true; b) will lead to a markedly more degraded world if permitted in general. I'm not humoring it, and seeing as it's originally proposed for the purposes of trolling, I'm feeling rather vindicated about it, too.
As the joke goes, "in theory we have $3 million between us, and in practice we have 2 faggots and a whore". I prefer to show my moral inclinations in practice.
Unlike some I do not believe in a God-given right to be listened to, mine or otherwise. You will not mathematically prove the righteousness of your beliefs to me, and neither will I attempt to. The answer to "why do you think you're right and this guy you disagree with isn't" is always "because I'm right and this guy I disagree with isn't".
Sure, so I hope you understand why I am completely dismissive of your objections to the issue at hand (and think that society should also be completely dismissve of it), it's for the exact same reason you are dismissive of the Saudi moralist's objection to gays (and think that society should be completely dismissive of that too).
If that's the only thing you were trying to tell me, you've kind of been wasting your time, because I'm already aware of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link