Backpage Raided, CEO Arrested on Sex-Trafficking Charges

Post by pavel_lishin » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

throwaway2016a wrote: post #180

makomk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matt Levine just shows that Wells Fargo wanted a paper trail showing that they told employees not to do this. The interesting question is, what happened when whistleblowers told them it was happening anyway? Apparently, the answer is that they fired the whistleblowers. That says everything about what Wells Fargo really wanted, as opposed to what they said to cover their asses. Remember, he's an industry insider with…

Explain what exactly Wells Fargo upper management had to gain from the fake cards? They wouldn't generate real money for the company. The people who stand to benefit most are the individual employees. I don't know the banking industry well so maybe there is some way for the company to make money off fake cards but I can't think of one. And because of that, I tend to believe that upper management really did not intend…

Post by empthought » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #188

empthought wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again you are misrepresenting my position; it's not that "sex work" is somehow more immoral than other work, it's that the purchase of sex is immoral, shameful, and frankly, pathetic. It has nothing to do with capitalism vs. anarchism or anything else. Even under capitalism, purchasing e.g. food for your family that was somehow acquired under coercive circumstances is still less shameful than purchasing e.g. diamonds…

Assuming you own a TV - the purchase of your television was immoral, shameful, and pathetic - you bought into the incredibly poor working conditions of various mines in developing countries, coercive labour in China, and more. And yet you bought it for entertainment. If you don't own a TV, I'm reasonably sure I could pick out something else you've done that involved coerced labour that you didn't need to. The solutio…

Post by psyc » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

niftich wrote: post #31

SwellJoe wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most sex workers agree that their safety is improved dramatically by having the business side of it out in the open. And, there have been studies on sex worker safety that indicate strongly that legal prostitution is safer for everyone; it also reduces coercion when it is not underground (women don't need a pimp, if law enforcement is on their side). Since I started paying attention a few years ago, I've noticed that…

There's idealism on both sides of the argument. On one hand, there are those who believe that conducting these arrangements in the open is safer for all involved parties. On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual, because even if consent is given, a sex worker may have felt pressured to seek this life because all other choices available to them to make a living and att…

Post by croon » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

empthought wrote: post #193

vertex-four wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you own a TV - the purchase of your television was immoral, shameful, and pathetic - you bought into the incredibly poor working conditions of various mines in developing countries, coercive labour in China, and more. And yet you bought it for entertainment. If you don't own a TV, I'm reasonably sure I could pick out something else you've done that involved coerced labour that you didn't need to. The solutio…

No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in my possession of a television that demeans or degrades another human being; it's simple circumstance that makes working conditions more or less morally acceptable. The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's o…

Post by Anderkent » Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

random_upvoter wrote: post #111

imtringued wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sex workers don't care about your morals. They have different morals than you and care about different things. Stop telling them and other people what morals they should have. Regulated prostitution may be bad in your eyes but unregulated prostitution is even worse for those who are already in this industry. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

The heart of the matter is simple: if you buy the services of a prostitute, you have little means of knowing his/her backstory. She may be doing this willingly, or she may have been coerced. So you are willingly taking the risk that you're raping somebody. The conclusion is that it is an immoral act to visit a prostitute. And that's all you need to know really. Oh and here's another dirty little secret for you: a goo…