Kamala the hypocrite

[TV and credit cards]

Maybe that's because backpage has been demonstrably used to sell the services of victims of sex trafficking, including victims who are underage.

In some cases, yes. But vast majority of ads are for consenting adults. Instead of using Backpage as a resource to go after actual traffickers, that law punished all sex workers who have been using the site.

I guess hiding behind free speech ends when you promote the trafficking of minors.

 

[laughing dog]

We all know why she made that statement. The problem is that it is a statement that invokes a general principle, a principle she herself is violating when the choice is question is something she disagrees with.

She made the comment in reply to the President's SOTU where he made a plea to ban late term abortions. The problem is with people who take it out of context to make it a general principle.

Since Kamala Harris is a politician, I am sure anyone can find some issue in which she is a hypocrite. But this particular instance is not an example of hypocrisy.

 

[Derec]

I guess hiding behind free speech ends when you promote the trafficking of minors.

Backpage did not "promote trafficking of minors". Backpage is a place where individuals can post ads. Most sex work related ads were for consenting adults, a small minority was for underage girls. But Backpage should not be held responsible for this any more than Craigslist should be held responsible for some people getting robbed trying to buy or sell stuff through that website.

 

[Derec]

She made the comment in reply to the President's SOTU where he made a plea to ban late term abortions. The problem is with people who take it out of context to make it a general principle.

She invoked a general principle. She made an argument that late term abortions should not be banned because "politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies". That is a general principle which she violates on issues she thinks are wrong, like consenting adults exchanging money for sex. I guess she believes consenting adults should only exchange sex for political positions.

Since Kamala Harris is a politician, I am sure anyone can find some issue in which she is a hypocrite. But this particular instance is not an example of hypocrisy.

Of course it is. You are just being obtuse.

 

[Elixir]

You are just being obtuse.

Yabut, at least he can spell "Kamala".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can we get to where there is hypocrisy? It seems a bit ridiculous to take a position on abortion and go all carte blanche with it and apply it to the rest of the world. After all, Derec's own position is only based on self-interest and not about the rights of others.

 

[laughing dog]

She made the comment in reply to the President's SOTU where he made a plea to ban late term abortions. The problem is with people who take it out of context to make it a general principle.

She invoked a general principle. She made an argument that late term abortions should not be banned because "politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies". That is a general principle which she violates on issues she thinks are wrong, like consenting adults exchanging money for sex.

You admit that tweet (which is limited in space and is not a vehicle for philosophical expositions) is a response to abortion. You have provided no evidence that she means this as a general principle. So either you are being incredibly obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess hiding behind free speech ends when you promote the trafficking of minors.

Backpage did not "promote trafficking of minors".

People may be operating from different premises than you. That does not make them hypocrites.

 

[Toni]

I guess hiding behind free speech ends when you promote the trafficking of minors.

Backpage did not "promote trafficking of minors". Backpage is a place where individuals can post ads. Most sex work related ads were for consenting adults, a small minority was for underage girls. But Backpage should not be held responsible for this any more than Craigslist should be held responsible for some people getting robbed trying to buy or sell stuff through that website.

Derec, Backpage specifically DID promote trafficking of minors. Backpage DID specifically provide boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young.

Backpage did NOTHING to ensure that those whose services were being advertised, whose services were being used to fund the existence of Backpage, whose services were being used to PAY Backpage were in fact, willing participants and of legal age. It's called due diligence and Backpage not only did not perform due diligence, but actively helped to promote sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors.

 

[Toni]

She made the comment in reply to the President's SOTU where he made a plea to ban late term abortions. The problem is with people who take it out of context to make it a general principle.

She invoked a general principle. She made an argument that late term abortions should not be banned because "politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies". That is a general principle which she violates on issues she thinks are wrong, like consenting adults exchanging money for sex. I guess she believes consenting adults should only exchange sex for political positions.

Since Kamala Harris is a politician, I am sure anyone can find some issue in which she is a hypocrite. But this particular instance is not an example of hypocrisy.

Of course it is. You are just being obtuse.

Derec, you are not helping yourself here or anywhere by characterizing any sexual relationship as prostitution. It may be your personal frame of reference but it is not how most of the world works. As has been pointed out previously, politicians often help many others in their careers, with or without any particular sexual favors being exchanged. Willie Brown, in fact, has named a number of individuals whose careers he helped advance. Sure you you are not arguing that his help was done in exchange for sexual favors for anyone else. Just Kamala Harris, right? Because she's a black woman who is running for President so you must do whatever you can to tarnish her by insinuating that she prostituted herself---something you claim to have no problem with if it pertains to YOU receiving services--but instead, you attack her for prior relationships rather than attack her ideas. That's on you, not her, Derec. You are the one who looks not so great.

As far as prostitution being about a woman being free to do what she wants with her body: my understanding is that most of prostitution involves the clients paying for the privilege of using the prostitute's body as the client chooses. I would wager that if it were up to the prostitute, she'd be much happier to just take the money without anybody touching anybody's bits and pieces.

 

[Derec]

You are just being obtuse.

Yabut, at least he can spell "Kamala".

About the only thing he got right.

 

[Derec]

Can we get to where there is hypocrisy? It seems a bit ridiculous to take a position on abortion and go all carte blanche with it and apply it to the rest of the world.

The argument in the tweet is that restrictions on late-term abortion are wrong because "politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies". Kamala Harris is a politician who is fond of telling women (and men) what to do with their bodies when it comes to consensual paid sex.
It's hypocrisy per se.

After all, Derec's own position is only based on self-interest and not about the rights of others.

Not true. Sure, it would benefit me if the prohibition of sex work was abolished, but that doesn't mean that I do not care about the rights and well-being of sex workers as well.
And note that nobody is faulting a gay person for advocating for gay marriage. Or a woman of reproductive age for advocating for legal abortion. Even though their advocacy is in their own self-interest.

 

[Derec]

You admit that tweet (which is limited in space and is not a vehicle for philosophical expositions) is a response to abortion.

Yes. But you mistakenly think that makes it not hypocrisy when it's precisely this that makes it hypocrisy. She is invoking a general principle "politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies" but she only applies it to a narrow issue she happens to agree with, while thinking that she as a politician should be telling women (and men) what to do with their bodies on other issues.
That's textbook hypocrisy.

You have provided no evidence that she means this as a general principle.

The evidence is the sentence she wrote. That is an expression of a general principle. It's really not that difficult to understand.

So either you are being incredibly obtuse or intellectually dishonest.

That would be you.

- - - Updated - - -

People may be operating from different premises than you. That does not make them hypocrites.

Of course people may. But she put the premise into the tweet explicitly. And it contradicts her well-known position on sex work. That's where the hypocrisy lies.

 

[Derec]

Derec, Backpage specifically DID promote trafficking of minors. Backpage DID specifically provide boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young.

Please provide some evidence for this rather bold claim. Preferably from a source that does not think that sex work and human trafficking are one and the same. I have used backpage before, and have not seen any underage ads. As far as they exist, they must be quite rare.

Backpage did NOTHING to ensure that those whose services were being advertised, whose services were being used to fund the existence of Backpage, whose services were being used to PAY Backpage were in fact, willing participants and of legal age. It's called due diligence and Backpage not only did not perform due diligence, but actively helped to promote sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors.

Before FOSTA was passed the legal standard was that web sites were not responsible for user submitted content such as ads. It would be cost-prohibitive for backpage to screen all ads.
That's why previous attempts by Kamala and others to shut down backpage were not fruitful by the way.

 

[Derec]

Derec, you are not helping yourself here or anywhere by characterizing any sexual relationship as prostitution. It may be your personal frame of reference but it is not how most of the world works. As has been pointed out previously, politicians often help many others in their careers, with or without any particular sexual favors being exchanged. Willie Brown, in fact, has named a number of individuals whose careers he helped advance. Sure you you are not arguing that his help was done in exchange for sexual favors for anyone else. Just Kamala Harris, right?

She was 20-something who had sex with 60-something Brown, but I am sure that had nothing to do with what he could do for her career, appointing her to posts and whatnot. Not at all.

Because she's a black woman who is running for President so you must do whatever you can to tarnish her by insinuating that she prostituted herself---something you claim to have no problem with if it pertains to YOU receiving services--but instead, you attack her for prior relationships rather than attack her ideas. That's on you, not her, Derec. You are the one who looks not so great.

Please. It has nothing to do with her being a "black woman" (half-black really). I dislike her, but certainly not because of her skin color but because of her illiberal positions. And I've attacked her ideas plenty, in this thread and otherwise. You ignore all my idea-related posts and latch onto one time I pointed out her likely "lay-to-play" arrangement with Brown.

As far as prostitution being about a woman being free to do what she wants with her body: my understanding is that most of prostitution involves the clients paying for the privilege of using the prostitute's body as the client chooses.

It involves a woman (or man) choosing to perform sexual services for money. It is quintessentially using one's body. And unless somebody is forced, it is using one's body the way he or she chooses. And politicians who advocate prohibiting people from using their bodies as they see fit are hypocrites if they go around claiming that politicians should not be telling people how to use their bodies.

I would wager that if it were up to the prostitute, she'd be much happier to just take the money without anybody touching anybody's bits and pieces.

And a plumber would be much happier to just take your money without touching your pipes and toilet. But that's not how doing a job one is hired for works.
And just because a plumber would rather get paid without doing the work, if given a choice, does not mean it was not his choice to pursue work as a plumber.

 

[Toni]

She was 20-something who had sex with 60-something Brown, but I am sure that had nothing to do with what he could do for her career, appointing her to posts and whatnot. Not at all.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/sen-...arried-man-used-launch-career-mostly-fiction/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php

And I certainly helped with her first race for district attorney in San Francisco. I have also helped the careers of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and a host of other politicians.

So you are insinuating that Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein and all the other politicians slept with Wilie Brown? BTW, Brown was very well known as someone who slept with a lot of women.

Kamala Harris is an obviously intelligent, well educated and ambitious woman. She was already into her career when she and Brown had a relationship. I'm not sure why it is that you believe that she only was interested in Brown for what he could do for her career or that she could not advance her career without Brown.

Please. It has nothing to do with her being a "black woman" (half-black really). I dislike her, but certainly not because of her skin color but because of her illiberal positions. And I've attacked her ideas plenty, in this thread and otherwise. You ignore all my idea-related posts and latch onto one time I pointed out her likely "lay-to-play" arrangement with Brown.

Illiberal---isn't that the term that conservatives except where it comes to wanting to be able to fuck prostitutes without fear of legal consequences call actual liberals?

The only likelihood in the lay to play as you so....winningly liked to term it is because you cannot conceive of any relationship between a man and a woman that doesn't involve an exchange of money. That's on you and your personal limitations.

As far as prostitution being about a woman being free to do what she wants with her body: my understanding is that most of prostitution involves the clients paying for the privilege of using the prostitute's body as the client chooses.

It involves a woman (or man) choosing to perform sexual services for money. It is quintessentially using one's body. And unless somebody is forced, it is using one's body the way he or she chooses. And politicians who advocate prohibiting people from using their bodies as they see fit are hypocrites if they go around claiming that politicians should not be telling people how to use their bodies.

Oh, I don't agree at all. And that is a really big 'unless' re: someone being forced.

And a plumber would be much happier to just take your money without touching your pipes and toilet. But that's not how doing a job one is hired for works.
And just because a plumber would rather get paid without doing the work, if given a choice, does not mean it was not his choice to pursue work as a plumber.

True story: I needed to hire someone to replace a part on my oven. The repairman (independent guy) made the repair and while waiting for the heating element to heat so that he could verify that it was working correctly, he looked around and asked what else I might have that he could do. He didn't want to waste my $ by sitting around doing nothing. He pulled out my refrigerator and pulled off the back and cleaned out the coils which I had never done. I had only cleaned what was easily accessible from the front of the bottom of the fridge. The plumber quickly made the repair that I needed and since there was a basic hourly charge, looked around for any other small thing he could do as well. Both made certain to clean up after themselves as completely as anyone would have wanted. The plumbers and electricians I know would be insulted if anyone suggested they were not providing everything the customer was paying for and then some.

Some people take pride in their work and enjoy it.

 

[Toni]

Derec, Backpage specifically DID promote trafficking of minors. Backpage DID specifically provide boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young.

Please provide some evidence for this rather bold claim. Preferably from a source that does not think that sex work and human trafficking are one and the same. I have used backpage before, and have not seen any underage ads. As far as they exist, they must be quite rare.

Backpage did NOTHING to ensure that those whose services were being advertised, whose services were being used to fund the existence of Backpage, whose services were being used to PAY Backpage were in fact, willing participants and of legal age. It's called due diligence and Backpage not only did not perform due diligence, but actively helped to promote sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors.

Before FOSTA was passed the legal standard was that web sites were not responsible for user submitted content such as ads. It would be cost-prohibitive for backpage to screen all ads.
That's why previous attempts by Kamala and others to shut down backpage were not fruitful by the way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-website-officials/?utm_term=.d2fe7b608d61

Backpage, in addition to hosting thinly veiled ads for prostitution since 2004, was accused of hosting child sex trafficking ads on its site and even assisting advertisers in wording their copy so they didn’t overtly declare that sex was for sale, federal investigators allege. In a remarkable three-paragraph admission in his federal plea agreement, Ferrer wrote that “I conspired with other Backpage principals … to find ways to knowingly facilitate the state-law prostitution crimes being committed by Backpage’s customers.”

Ferrer pled guilty.

 

[Derec]

https://www.truthorfiction.com/sen-...arried-man-used-launch-career-mostly-fiction/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Sure-I-dated-Kamala-Harris-So-what-13562972.php

Reads like apologetics.

So you are insinuating that Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein and all the other politicians slept with Wilie Brown? BTW, Brown was very well known as someone who slept with a lot of women.

How much help did they get compared to Kamala? It is one thing to support a fellow Democrat in an election, quite another to appoint a lawyer to positions in government while the two of you are fucking. Sounds like conflict of interest at the very least, and quite possibly a quid pro quo.

Kamala Harris is an obviously intelligent, well educated and ambitious woman.

All true. Doesn't mean she didn't also fuck a 60-something year old man to help her further those ambitions.

She was already into her career when she and Brown had a relationship. I'm not sure why it is that you believe that she only was interested in Brown for what he could do for her career or that she could not advance her career without Brown.

What do you think she found particularly attractive about Brown?

Illiberal---isn't that the term that conservatives except where it comes to wanting to be able to fuck prostitutes without fear of legal consequences call actual liberals?

First of all - I am not a conservative. And Kamala is not an "actual liberal". She is liberal on a few choice things - abortion for one. But she is against people using their bodies in a way she objects to. That makes her illiberal - opposed to freedom of others. Men and women should be able to offer sexual services for money and men and women should be free to take them up on it. To suggest that government needs to prohibit that is illiberal.

The only likelihood in the lay to play as you so....winningly liked to term it is because you cannot conceive of any relationship between a man and a woman that doesn't involve an exchange of money. That's on you and your personal limitations.

Many relationships are commodified, especially when there is a big age difference (think Anne Nicole Smith and the old geezer). Perhaps all relationships are commodified to at least some extent. That has nothing to do with my personal limitations; it's the reality.
Now, why are commodified relationships ok as long as exchange is not overt?

Oh, I don't agree at all. And that is a really big 'unless' re: someone being forced.

You simply assume all these women are being forced. That's an unjustified presumption.

True story: I needed to hire someone to replace a part on my oven. The repairman (independent guy) made the repair and while waiting for the heating element to heat so that he could verify that it was working correctly, he looked around and asked what else I might have that he could do. He didn't want to waste my $ by sitting around doing nothing. He pulled out my refrigerator and pulled off the back and cleaned out the coils which I had never done. I had only cleaned what was easily accessible from the front of the bottom of the fridge. The plumber quickly made the repair that I needed and since there was a basic hourly charge, looked around for any other small thing he could do as well. Both made certain to clean up after themselves as completely as anyone would have wanted. The plumbers and electricians I know would be insulted if anyone suggested they were not providing everything the customer was paying for and then some.

Yes, I have had very accommodating providers too, that went over and beyond. At the same time, there are lackluster plumbers and electricians as well. Again, these professions are not that different, no matter how much you try to imply that there is some sort of ontological difference between sex work and any other kind of service work.

Some people take pride in their work and enjoy it.

Including sex workers.

 

[Derec]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-website-officials/?utm_term=.d2fe7b608d61

Backpage, in addition to hosting thinly veiled ads for prostitution since 2004, was accused of hosting child sex trafficking ads on its site and even assisting advertisers in wording their copy so they didn’t overtly declare that sex was for sale, federal investigators allege. In a remarkable three-paragraph admission in his federal plea agreement, Ferrer wrote that “I conspired with other Backpage principals … to find ways to knowingly facilitate the state-law prostitution crimes being committed by Backpage’s customers.”

Ferrer pled guilty.

Nothing in that article says that Backpage "specifically provide[d] boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young". It talked of Backpage helping advertisers word ads such that it is not explicit that sex was for sale, but that is not the same thing at all.

Again, you, just like Kamala Harris and other illiberals, keep conflating sex work in general with not just trafficking but also trafficking of minors. That is ridiculous on its face.

Ferrer was persecuted by an illiberal government waging war on sex that the politicians in question have moral problem with. How is that different than criminalizing gay sex and then going after the executives of Grindr?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. But you mistakenly think that makes it not hypocrisy when it's precisely this that makes it hypocrisy. She is invoking a general principle

That is your unsubstantiated assertion. This is not difficult to understand. Repeating an unsubstantiated assertion does not make it true or valid.

You admit her tweet (not a paragraph or a letter or philosophical essay)responding to the President's request for legislation outlawing late term abortions. There is no logical reason to assume she is invoking a general principle at all. You have failed to make a convincing case of hypocrisy in this instance and will continue to be unconvincing until you make a substantiated case Ms. Harris did invoke a general principle instead of responding to a specific situation and nothing else. While you are entitle to promote your opinion that she is a hypocrite on this issue, your opinion does not make it a fact. Nor is anyone required to take your opinion as gospel.