591
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
591 points (92.2% liked)
News
23268 readers
2750 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
In my opinion people should be able to do what they want with their own bodies (with the exception of meth, crack, etc) my problem with this only fans situation is that it's just underscoring that our society only seems to value women for their sexuality. I don't follow UFC but assuming she's good at what she does it's sad to me that society values her body more than her abilities. The same thing goes for the only fans teachers. I just wished we valued people for their skills and education more than their flesh. Like I said do what you want with your own body though.
Why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I like? I know what I'm getting into, and it's my body. A lot of psychiatrists preach the benefits of mushrooms and acid for mental health. And meth and crack certainly aren't as powerful as mushrooms or acid.
My personal opinion is that there are some chemicals that are so detrimental to a person that society has the obligation to limit their use. Also, there is no articulable right to drugs in the Constitution except alcohol through the 21st amendment.
Why would I base my opinions on what slave owners who had never seen a light bulb thought?
the Constitution and decisions by the supreme Court determines what your legal rights are. Your opinions are your own and you can base them on whatever you want
Okay but why would I base them on the opinions of slave owners? That sounds stupid and nonsensical.
So there are two things at play here: rights and opinions. Legal rights in America are based on the constitution and the decisions made by the supreme Court. I'm not saying that they're correct or not; justified or not; or ethical or not. I'm just making a statement of fact that's where rights originate from in US law.
Opinions can be based on whatever you want. You are free to agree with or disagree with both the Constitution and the supreme Court. You can consider them valid or invalid institutions.
I'm not trying to tell you that you should be of a particular opinion or not.
Rights in America are not given by the constitution, they are in-born. The constitution helps enforce your naturally given rights, but it is certainly fallible at this, for example it's initial failing to protect the right to freedom held by slaves.
There are opinions, and there are facts. The right to freedom is a fact. Many of the founders were wrong on one of the foremost issues of their time, slavery, at a time when most of the rest of the world was not wrong about it anymore. As such, we should strongly discount all of their beliefs that are not independently verifiable. For instance, the electoral college. This was created in order to maintain the power of slave owners on government, and should be seen as a tool to oppress the will of the people. The EC is not flawed because it was created by slave owners, but it is suspect due to that, and on further inspection, it turns out to be a tool of oppression.
So your initial comment was something along the lines of, "why don't I have the right to do whatever drugs I want?" And I said that there wasn't a constitutional right to drugs. Are you of the opinion that there's a right to do drugs?
Oh, lol honestly I just assumed I was in a different sort of discussion based on your comment. But actually, yes I am, to a degree. Most recreational drugs anyone's heard of are, for the most part, safe enough. Otherwise they wouldn't be widely used. Average functioning adults should be allowed to put whatever they like in their body, provided they're informed of the effects it will have. Gatekeeping getting high is idiotic, when we are fully capable of providing safe places to do it. There are a ton of benefits to mental health in recreational drug use, not to mention that it is fun and nice and so should be acceptable in society, if done safely. And if the government was actually researching which drugs are fun and good when done safely, we wouldn't have to rely on either dealers, our idiot friends, or the Internet to tell us which ones not to do.
So I personally disagree. I don't think there's a right to be intoxicated (or shouldn't be a right). I actually would like to see the limits of the 21st amendment tested by passing laws that forbade alcohol consumption after DUIs. I personally don't have a problem with the legalization of marijuana and I'd extend it to certain hallucinogens (e.g. psilocybin, mescaline, & LSD). I would not like to see amphetamines and opiates legalized though and if there were a legalization referendum on them I'd personally vote against it.
Opiates and amphetamines are wildly different classes of drugs. The vast majority of overdose deaths are due to opiates. You can very much function in the real world while on amphetamines, which is not true for opiates (at average doses of each). There was a time actually when MLB players were regularly using amphetamines as a performance enhancing drug. There are definitely some lifestyle reasons one might choose to use them (for instance, all of the reasons people take Adderall, which afaik doesn't have any truly "medicinal" value, it just straightens out peoples brains). I'd agree that opiates shouldn't be legal short of strict use in medical care, but I think amphetamines have enough recreational value with a low enough risk involved that we should be allowed to use them as we see fit (with proper guidance).
It's similar with Psilocybin etc., there is a clear medical purpose to them, but there is also a clear recreational value to them. Mushrooms were responsible for me coming to understand my place in the universe, you could say. There is a potential for abuse, but there is also a potential for great benefit when used correctly.
The reason porn pays is because so few woman are willing to give up their dignity for the sake of temporary cash flow. If everyone did porn, people would be making scraps.
Pornography is not a scarce commodity.
not anymore its not, which is why very few make money.
There is a lot of pornography available. It is not a scarce commodity.
What is your point?
Your original comment:
You're making a basic supply and demand argument. As supply goes down (i.e. becomes scarce) and assuming demand remains constant the cost will increase.
If you're selling apples. And 100 people want apples. The price you charge will fluctuate depending on how many apples you have. If you have 10 the cost goes up. If you have 1,000 the cost goes down.
My argument is pornography is not scarce. Meaning there's a lot of it available (on the market) so I disagree with your assessment as to why "porn pays"