Against the censorship of adult content by payment processors

Post by some_furry » Sat, Jul 26, 2025, 8:48 PM UTC

throwpoaster wrote: post #237

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, did you just in one breathe say we need payment processors to enforce an arbitrary morality and then in the next breathe criticize laissez-faire morality? And what if, tomorrow, the payment processors capitulate with a new morality? They decide women politicians shouldn't be allowed to take donations, for instance? Sex workers should be better supported and the markets cleansed via strict regulation of the…

I'm not saying morality is arbitrary, no. I'm saying that commodifying human bodies is reprehensible and your advocacy for same is shameful. Live sex work already involves existing payment processors. Porn addicts are definitionally addicted to fantasy. I wish you luck with the rest of your comment.

Post by AngryData » Sat, Jul 26, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

joegibbs wrote: post #41

bfg_9k wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting one - I've always thought that businesses should have no right to refuse business, and it kind of already exists, for example you can't refuse to serve a customer purely on the basis of their skin color. Likewise, if a casino or betting company (ladbrokes, for example) have customers that win too often, I also think it should be illegal to stop them betting. Fundamentally if you're running a busin…

But say you're a concreter, you've worked with a client who's an absolute prick - doesn't do anything illegal exactly but he's a total stickler with your work, calls you all the time with stupid questions, tries to find problems everywhere to justify a discount (despite you having hypothetically done the job perfectly), pays as late as possible. Shouldn't you have the right to not take on another job for this guy?

Post by thrance » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 12:46 AM UTC

nicman23 wrote: post #230

thrance wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No protection against theft, insane energy consumption.

you mean the same protection as cash and a fraction of the energy cost of all banking / visa / mastercard with an economic incentive to use renewables. dont forget protection against theft inserts someone else to each transaction

Post by throwpoaster » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 2:41 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #241

throwpoaster wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the sex trafficking victims. Are you a Tate supporter? In reality, the belief that porn is harmless has no evidentiary support. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_pornography

> Tell that to the sex trafficking victims. “Slavery hurts everyone involved” is true, but is not a reason to ban work that is not slavery. And that is just as true if you limit it to sex work as it is more generally.

Post by throwpoaster » Sun, Jul 27, 2025, 2:46 AM UTC

some_furry wrote: post #250

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single reply you have given is a non-sequitor or wildly misreads what someone has said. Payment processors are a basic requirement of modern life.

Their username has "poast" in it. This should be the only breadcrumb you need to realize you're replying to a troll.