Hacker News Reader

Comment by lelanthran | Hacker News Reader

> Abstinence would mean no sex at all,

No, it doesn't. If you have to change the definitions of words from what is in a dictionary to make your argument work, it's your argument that is broken, not the dictionary.

And, disregarding your attempt to shut down discussion by shaming language, the fact still remains that mandating what sex consensual adults have with each other never works.

Legislating consensual sex is a primitive and regressive opinion, mostly opined by a few close-minded but loud and vocal puritanicals.

The government should not be getting involved in consensual sex between adults.

View on HN

Abstinence means what I wrote. It means to refrain (= not do) something. In the sexual context and on this topic, this would mean not buying sex.

It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.

Oh, and you don't have to be a puritanical to think that intimacy for sale is a bad idea and should not be encouraged.

Once again, the problem is societal. If you treat everything as a market, you will get a society where everyone is treated as a commodity.

> Oh, and you don't have to be a puritanical to think that intimacy for sale is a bad idea and should not be encouraged.

But you do have to be a puritannical to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do to each others bodies, and for what reasons.

Anytime your argument starts with "sex between consenting adults should be regulated like this ...", step back and ask yourself "Do I really want the government in my bedroom?"

Because many the freedoms we enjoy today are because we kicked the government out of bedrooms. Now you want to invite them back in?

> It's cool that you have to resort to low-key ("look in the dictionary", "shaming", "primitive and regressive", "close-minded") blows to push your argument, fantastic for discussion.

Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?

You lead with slurs, what did you expect? You took civilised discussion off of the table, and then turn around and complain that others must expend more respect to you than you do to others.

> Do I really want the government in my bedroom

No, I want the government to regulate markets. As in, I want the government to do everything in its power to abolish the sex trade market and help people get out of the famously violent, dangerous and abusive field of prostitution.

> Didn't you start off by saying all people who buy sex are mentally ill and all people who sell sex have no agency of their own?

No, I said they need therapy (which would benefit most people, me and you included). The fact that you are misrepresenting what I said and turning it into polemics is uncalled for and unproductive.

> You lead with slurs, what did you expect?

Nowhere did I use a slur. In fact, the only slurs dropped were by you, which I pointed out to you and now you become defensive.

Moreover, based on your outrage, it appears that you think that mental illness is something people (or right now: specifically me) use to denounce or otherwise degrade others.

Please look into how you are doing the actual thing (taking civil discussion off the table) you accuse others of doing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com