Kamala the hypocrite

[Derec]

That is your unsubstantiated assertion.

I've substantiated it.

This is not difficult to understand.

That's what I said. However, you nevertheless have great difficulties understanding anything.

Repeating an unsubstantiated assertion does not make it true or valid.

Claiming something is unsubstantiated does not make it so.

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.

You labor under the misconception that this is somehow supporting your position. It does not.

There is no logical reason to assume she is invoking a general principle at all.

Except that she clearly did. Explicitly so.

Nor is anyone required to take your opinion as gospel.

I have explained my reasoning. You are obstinate for the sake of being obstinate, as usual. There is no point of trying convince you, as you are a stubborn as a mule.

 

[laughing dog]

I've substantiated it....

No, you have not. You have assert that she is using it as general principle. Stomping your foot and saying "Cuz I say so" is not substantiation. Your reasoning is based on the premise that she invoked a general principle. Your premise is unproven. And there are good reasons to doubt its validity. We disagree about its validity.

You have had plenty of time to come up with something other than "Cuz I say so" which indicates, as usual, you have nothing but your assumptions. Which is ok, as long as you understand that. But instead of admitting your premise is an assumption not a fact, you engage in obstinate obtuse obsfucation. Why a supposedly intelligent and intellectually honest poster would do so, I cannot fathom, but I suppose you have your reason(s).

 

[Toni]

Reads like apologetics.


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.

Since both parties deny any quid pro quo and since Brown was renowned for having relationships with a large number of women, you are the one who needs to prove your point, which seems predicted on the fact that Kamala Harris has had a successful political and professional career. And presumably a mutually satisfactory relationship with someone who seems to know how to get along well with women and enjoys their company.

Jealous.

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.

Your evidence seems to be based on your prejudice and your imagination. Brown is apparently a charming man. He's had lots of relationships with lots of women.

What do you think she found particularly attractive about Brown?

He seems to be intelligent and charming. Why do you suppose he helped Gavin Newsom and other politicians?

First of all - I am not a conservative.

Sure you are on most issues.

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.

I don't see it that way. I see it as being interested in ensuring that girls and boys and women are not sexually exploited as far too many are. She's hardly the only person who has those objections.

That makes her illiberal - opposed to freedom of others.

il·lib·er·alDictionary result for illiberal
/i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.
"illiberal and anti-democratic policies"

Not really the same thing. What you really mean is that she is against something you are for. But most people don't believe that any adult should be able to do anything they wish with their body. We don't allow people to sell their organs, for instance. This is not only a matter of ensuring the health and wellbeing of both donor and recipient but also helps prevent the exploitation of poor people who might otherwise risk their own health by selling organs. We do not allow women to sell unwanted infants and we closely regulate how a surrogate mother may be compensated. Again, to prevent exploitation and to minimize health risks. We do not allow people to simply decide to have their leg amputated for no reason other than because they want to. Again: health and well being concerns come into play. And so on. We limit what kinds of drugs people can put into their bodies and under what circumstances and what quantities. We would not allow someone to sell the rights to filming their self immolation. The list goes on. We do not allow people to do anything they choose with their bodies.

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.

No, it's inconvenient for you and for some other people. But again, there are overriding concerns about the health and wellbeing and tremendous potential for exploitation that exists in every single model of prostitution found on this planet.

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?

Why do you have this world view? It's not one that I share.

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.

You assume that few are being forced. That's an unjustified presumption and one that is without merit.

What percentage of forced prostitution is OK with you?

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.

That's not true at all. There are tremendous differences in the types of work and the types of contact and the dangers inherent in each of those jobs. For one thing, an electrician is unlikely to contract hepatitis or HIV or another STI through his or her work. A plumber is not likely to experience violence or threats of violence in his or her work. Those are very real threats that prostitutes face on a daily basis.

Some people take pride in their work and enjoy it.

Including sex workers.

They'd be stupid not to claim that.

 

[Toni]

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?

Let me post that quote for you again:

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.”

I bolded the part that you seem to gloss over.

Ferrer pled guilty. So he disagrees with your assertion.

 

[Derec]

No, you have not.

I have. That you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend it is not my fault.

You have assert that she is using it as general principle.

I do not assert it, it is there explicitly.

Stomping your foot and saying "Cuz I say so" is not substantiation.

Neither is stomping your foot and refusing to admit an obvious fact a refutation.

Your reasoning is based on the premise that she invoked a general principle. Your premise is unproven.

The general principle is right there in the tweet.
"Politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies" is a general principle. It does not even mention abortion even though the tweet is well short of Twitter's 288 character limit.

And there are good reasons to doubt its validity. We disagree about its validity.

Big surprise. You disagree with me on whatever I say in a Pavlovian fashion.

You have had plenty of time to come up with something other than "Cuz I say so" which indicates, as usual, you have nothing but your assumptions.

I gave you my reasons. It does not require much elaboration. The tweet is general, but Harris does not think it should apply to areas she personally wants to meddle in what people (including women) do with their bodies. That is hypocrisy per se and if you don't see it, there is no helping you.
I certainly won't be voting for Kamala. If she is the nominee, I am voting for the coffee guy of somebody like that.

 

[Derec]

Since both parties deny any quid pro quo and since Brown was renowned for having relationships with a large number of women, you are the one who needs to prove your point, which seems predicted on the fact that Kamala Harris has had a successful political and professional career. And presumably a mutually satisfactory relationship with someone who seems to know how to get along well with women and enjoys their company.

It's predicated on the fact that he was 30 years older than her and on him appointing her for positions . That's fishy. It does not prove q-p-q of course, but it does raise suspicions.
Him having relationships with many women does not prove things one way or another, of course. Many of these women could have been seeking quids or quos as well.

Jealous.

Sure. I'd love to be connected enough I could bed attractive 20-something women when I am 60.

Your evidence seems to be based on your prejudice and your imagination. Brown is apparently a charming man. He's had lots of relationships with lots of women.

But were they charmed by him, attracted to him qua him or attracted to him qua the position he held. That's the question and the fact that he bedded a lot of young women does not answer it.

He seems to be intelligent and charming. Why do you suppose he helped Gavin Newsom and other politicians?

Well, he wasn't sleeping with Newsom to my knowledge. Appointing a person to state government positions you are in a sexual relationship with is a conflict of interest. And just because you help somebody inappropriately does not mean you never help people appropriately.

Sure you are on most issues.

Actually I am quite liberal on most issues. Gay marriage? Sure. Abortion? Fine in most cases. Weed? Legalize it. Public transit? We definitely need more if it. Carbon tax? Bring it on.
I am not what passes for "liberal" these days: abolish ICE, Green New Deal, 70% tax rate, affirmative action etc. In fact, I am more truly liberal than you or Kamala when it comes to rights of people to use their bodies as they see fit.

I don't see it that way. I see it as being interested in ensuring that girls and boys and women are not sexually exploited as far too many are. She's hardly the only person who has those objections.

I am also interested in ensuring that "girls and boys are not sexually exploited". Those who force people into involuntary servitude (for sex or otherwise) deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But what does that have to do with persecuting consenting adults? What does it have to do with shutting down websites that enable sex workers to more safely find custom?

il·lib·er·alDictionary result for illiberal
/i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.
"illiberal and anti-democratic policies"

Dingdingdingdingding.

Not really the same thing. What you really mean is that she is against something you are for.

No. She opposes people doing what they want to do with their bodies. She couches it as efforts to fight human trafficking, but she is against the freedom of people to engage in sex work in general.

But most people don't believe that any adult should be able to do anything they wish with their body. We don't allow people to sell their organs, for instance.

You really should have a very good reason to prohibit adults to do something with their bodies. An extreme example where there is good reasons should not be used to justify government prohibition of more innocuous human behaviors. Sex work is more like weed - no good reason to prohibit it.

I am not against reasonable regulation for purposes of health and safety. We are talking here about a blanket prohibition that you and Kamala Harris are supporting.

No, it's inconvenient for you and for some other people. But again, there are overriding concerns about the health and wellbeing and tremendous potential for exploitation that exists in every single model of prostitution found on this planet.

Simply not true. Just because you disagree with sex work morally does not mean there good reasons to ban it. You sound like a pro-lifer who claims that abortion rights are all about convenience of having consequence-free sex.
You and Kamala Harris with your moralizing about sex you personally find objectionable are much closer to abortion opponents than you would ever admit.

Why do you have this world view? It's not one that I share.

What world view?

You assume that few are being forced. That's an unjustified presumption and one that is without merit.

It very much has merit.

What percentage of forced prostitution is OK with you?

Difficult question to answer. What percentage of forced labor in agricultural industry is OK with you? Just because there is some abuse of workers exists is not a reason to criminalize consenting adults. Prosecute abusers, not people not doing anything wrong.

That's not true at all. There are tremendous differences in the types of work and the types of contact and the dangers inherent in each of those jobs. For one thing, an electrician is unlikely to contract hepatitis or HIV or another STI through his or her work. A plumber is not likely to experience violence or threats of violence in his or her work. Those are very real threats that prostitutes face on a daily basis.

There are many jobs where one can get injured or even killed. We do not ban construction or commercial fishing. We do not say "people needing money should not risk their lives simply so you can have the convenience of fresh fish". We understand that adults can decide for themselves what profession they pursue and what kind and level of risk is acceptable to them.

You want to treat sex work qualitatively differently than any other work. Why?
Not to mention that sex workers would be safer if sex work was not pushed into the black market, and even more so now that BP is banned due to efforts of Kamala Harris and other illiberals.

They'd be stupid not to claim that.

And you'd be stupid to assume they all must hate it just because you would hate it.

 

[Derec]

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?

Let me post that quote for you again:

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.”

I bolded the part that you seem to gloss over.

I did not gloss over it. Note the "and". That separates two claims. Yes, they were accused of having (very few) underage ads. And they were accused of assisting advertisers in wording ads (all ads, nothing to do with age) do that sex was not overtly offered. That is standard practice in the US. Since sex work is banned, ads have to at least thinly veil the extent of services offered. But that has zero to do with underage prostitution. It has zero to do with your claim that BP "specifically provide[d] boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young". The WaPo article does not back up that claim of yours. Not even a little bit.

Ferrer pled guilty. So he disagrees with your assertion.

One has nothing to do with the other. He never admitted to anything you are claiming.

 

[Toni]

Let me post that quote for you again:

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

I bolded the part that you seem to gloss over.

I did not gloss over it. Note the "and". That separates two claims. Yes, they were accused of having (very few) underage ads. And they were accused of assisting advertisers in wording ads (all ads, nothing to do with age) do that sex was not overtly offered. That is standard practice in the US. Since sex work is banned, ads have to at least thinly veil the extent of services offered. But that has zero to do with underage prostitution. It has zero to do with your claim that BP "specifically provide[d] boilerplates for adverts that clued in clients looking for underage girls that the girls were too young". The WaPo article does not back up that claim of yours. Not even a little bit.

Ferrer pled guilty. So he disagrees with your assertion.

One has nothing to do with the other. He never admitted to anything you are claiming.

Derec: “new in town,” “Lolita,” “Amber Alert,” and so on. Even I know exactly what those words were indicating. Please don’t insult my intelligence. I’m certainly giving you credit for being able to look at hard, inconvenient facts.

 

[laughing dog]

I have. ...

You have assumed the premise - she applied a general principle - to construct your argument. Your premise is arguable. The contradiction of you admitting the tweet is in response to the President's call for the outlawing of late term abortions while denying that could be the context of the tweet is glaring obvious. And your implicit insistence of treating a tweet as if it is a carefully crafted treatise is also arguable. Finally, your argument wrongly assumes that any action to reduce sex trafficking of underage minors is an attack on all sex workers All of which make your argument unconvincing.

Ms. Harris may very well be a hypocrite on this matter, but you have failed to produce a convincing argument to date.

I realize this will not stop you from persisting in foisting your disrespectful and ill-formed opinons about women onto this forum. The OP title is a dead givaway to the animus you have towards women - "Kamala" instead of Ms or Senator Harris.

You are really only fooling yourself.

 

[Derec]

Derec: “new in town,”

New it town means just that. People move. A woman can be 30 and be new in a town.

“Lolita,” “Amber Alert,” and so on.

Personally I have not seen any ads with such keywords. And you have no evidence BP helped people with coming up with such terms. Your WaPo article certainly does not contain any such claim, as the only reference to coded language was to the necessity of concealing nature of services offered, not to age.

Even I know exactly what those words were indicating. Please don’t insult my intelligence. I’m certainly giving you credit for being able to look at hard, inconvenient facts.

Again, new in town does not mean underage. The other two are pretty obvious of course, but WaPo article does not back up your assertion that BP management was involved with such language, and I personally have not seen any ads using it. Have you?

 

[Toni]

New it town means just that. People move. A woman can be 30 and be new in a town.

Personally I have not seen any ads with such keywords. And you have no evidence BP helped people with coming up with such terms. Your WaPo article certainly does not contain any such claim, as the only reference to coded language was to the necessity of concealing nature of services offered, not to age.

Even I know exactly what those words were indicating. Please don’t insult my intelligence. I’m certainly giving you credit for being able to look at hard, inconvenient facts.

Again, new in town does not mean underage. The other two are pretty obvious of course, but WaPo article does not back up your assertion that BP management was involved with such language, and I personally have not seen any ads using it. Have you?

Derec, you aren't dumb. Please don't treat me as though I am dumb. Such tactics and more were widely reported during the case against Backpages.

I understand that you have a personal stake in all of this but it's a lot less personal or important than what happens to all those underage girls who have no choice about being prostituted.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/backpage-ads-sex-trafficking.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFM66ygJut0 or https://abcnews.go.com/US/daughters-sale-young-american-girls-sold-online/story?id=39350838

Instead of reporting someone who was seeking to prostitute too young girls, Backpage did this: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/9/sex-site-trafficked-in-minors-but-removed-underage/

https://www.expressnews.com/news/lo...ing-in-San-Antonio-Underage-girl-13445851.php

https://www.abccolumbia.com/2016/05...w-young-american-girls-are-being-sold-online/

Seriously, Derec, just google underage girls and backpage. It's really disgusting and heart rending.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I think there is evidence that backpage was promoting trafficking of minors and I think maybe you are having issue with the word "promoting."

 

[laughing dog]

Seriously, Derec, just google underage girls and backpage. It's really disgusting and heart rending.

That and the actual facts still pale in comparison to inconvenience that closing of Backpage caused to some prostitutes and those seeking to hire them to the eyes of people who feel like Derec. After all, some sex trafficking of underage minors should not make it more difficult for some people to literally get their rocks off.

 

[Elixir]

I bet that if a liberpublican had said it, Derec would be telling us all about how super correct it is that politicians should not tell women what to do with their bodies. Unless, of course, that same liberpublican opposed some sort of sex slavery...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

If it was easy for the johns to tell then the cops could also tell. Having them all in one place would help catch them. Forcing bad guys into hiding isn't the same thing as getting rid of them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And yet another thread devolves into Derec's issues with sex.

 

[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.

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.

If it was easy for the johns to tell then the cops could also tell. Having them all in one place would help catch them. Forcing bad guys into hiding isn't the same thing as getting rid of them.

You will get no argument from me that not nearly enough is done to put a stop to the exploitation of minors and unwilling sex workers. It is a conundrum though: allow a publication to blatantly profit from the rape of children so that those exploiting the children can be better caught? Or stop that revenue stream for that business, knowing that other avenues will inevitable be opened. In my area, police periodically conduct stings online of those who wish to have sex with underage girls. Somehow it’s never boys. It’s implausible that there is no market for boys. Or for small children. There certainly are enough who are arrested for sexually abusing children within their circle of family and friends—although they rarely get sentenced to any meaningful time. Plea deals are usually reached, supposedly due to the very young age of the victims.

As horrifying as it is to write this, I don’t believe that we will ever eliminate the sexual exploitation of children. I don’t think that is justification for allowing businesses to profit from it.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

If it was easy for the johns to tell then the cops could also tell. Having them all in one place would help catch them. Forcing bad guys into hiding isn't the same thing as getting rid of them.

Since the shutdown of Backpages was not instantaneous, do you have a link to law enforcement using Backpages (while it was in operation) to shut down anyone?

 

[Patooka]

And yet another thread devolves into Derec's issues with sex.

It did start with criticism of an elected woman of colour. The only thing this thread lacks is blanket generalizations of moozlims and it would hit all the buttons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You will get no argument from me that not nearly enough is done to put a stop to the exploitation of minors and unwilling sex workers. It is a conundrum though: allow a publication to blatantly profit from the rape of children so that those exploiting the children can be better caught? Or stop that revenue stream for that business, knowing that other avenues will inevitable be opened. In my area, police periodically conduct stings online of those who wish to have sex with underage girls. Somehow it’s never boys. It’s implausible that there is no market for boys. Or for small children. There certainly are enough who are arrested for sexually abusing children within their circle of family and friends—although they rarely get sentenced to any meaningful time. Plea deals are usually reached, supposedly due to the very young age of the victims.

As horrifying as it is to write this, I don’t believe that we will ever eliminate the sexual exploitation of children. I don’t think that is justification for allowing businesses to profit from it.

I think you have your priorities very screwed up here.

I care more about victims harmed, you seem to care more about stopping the business from profiting.

And I doubt the police conduct stings about little kids for the simple reason that I doubt it's easy enough to find them that a sting is practical. There's no way you could market little kids on something like Backpage--if your customers understood what you were offering there would be plenty of people who understood but found the situation unacceptable and would tell the police. Thus you have to be sure of your audience before letting them know what you have on offer.