• UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You deflected first

    That doesn’t matter to me whatsoever. You sound like a creepy sexpat using false equivalencies to vindicate your little hobby.

    they aren’t helping you

    Don’t say stupid shit like “all work is equally as exploitative.”

    • Surface_Detail@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.

      What you are doing is what’s called strawmanning. It’s where you reframe an argument you are unable to counter to a slightly different one that you are able to counter.

      I’d say it’s beneath you, but it honestly doesn’t seem to be.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never said they were equally exploitative, just that we all suffer from some level of economic coercion.

        You very strongly implied otherwise:

        whatever your opinion of Johns is, it should consistently be applied to anyone who ever buys any product or uses any service.

        If we play devil’s advocate, the strictest denotation of what you are saying allows for the interpretation that one should consider exploitation in all cases, but you are very clearly implying that there is a comparable magnitude. I don’t “apply my opinion of” John Wayne Gacy to someone was convicted of a sexual assault charge, because both people are sex criminals (and should be condemned) but the cases are clearly not comparable beyond a statement as generic as that.

        Likewise, I don’t “apply my opinion of Johns” to someone who bought a bundle of bananas at a grocery store because both people “contributed in some manner to exploitation” but the scale is not remotely similar and also the latter person still needs to eat!