On May 19, 2009, at 5:13 PM, raghu wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, ravi <[email protected]> wrote:
This thread has already yielded new information and proved
its worth to me ;-).
Likewise. I had no idea that the prevalence of exploitation in the sex
industry was even controversial before this exchange.
It is not so much that the prevalence of exploitation in porn/
prostitution is controversial but that some have adopted a particular
counter-critique based on an arguably small set of counterfactuals.
The sort of reasoning seems to follow this line:
Claim A: X is a Y.
Counter-argument B: I know M who is an X but not Y. Therefore no X is Y.
The counter-argument B's soundness rests entirely on interpreting
Claim A to imply "for all X", which is a sort of universal
quantification that is not available or meaningful outside Mathematics
(or perhaps some parts of Physics).
Another aspect of this exchange I find very fascinating is the
tendency to look at every activity from the one-dimensional
perspective of labor theory. This leads to some frankly absurd
oversimplifications e.g. comparing sex work with factory labor.
Indeed.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
