[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/R9K/ - Robot - 9000

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1675899577676.png ( 1.06 MB , 899x899 , 1675712250463509.png )

 No.1502[View All]

I don't even think it should be illegal for any moral reason, or, because I think it is degenerate. I think it is bullshit women get to get by only on their looks and their pussies. They should get a job like the rest of us.
88 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.1927

>>1921
>Yeah we'll leave health to people who understand biology and medicine, and of course the patients that get their health adjusted, injecting politics into health is a terrible idea.
yes, social sexual health has nothing to do with politics lol

>We're not going to control the sex-life of people either
<Except for all the cases where we are
I would leave it to the socialist society to decide what it wants and doesn't want to control, lib

>You think you're going to relieve social tensions and create cohesion by forcing women into public sex duty? Are you kidding me ?
Maybe you should go check your eyesight or your head mate, you seem to be struggling with comprehending simple sentences.

>This is an archetypal argument of liberals that do not want to change the status quo in it's substance only seeking to change the appearances.
You telling me that liberals advocate for a public prostitution service run by the government?

I'm pretty sure liberals want to keep prostitution out of the public sight exactly because of the same reasons as you.

After all, modern feminist theory is one of the points of convergence for leftoid and libs.
>>

 No.1928

File: 1679161179872.jpeg ( 263.89 KB , 618x359 , stfu_lib.jpeg )

>>1898
bruh just get some bitches irl. basic social skills required.
It will only waste resources of what the state should actually be doing, such as investing in education, health, public transport, quality of water people drink, social inclusion, investing on the poor participating in the economy, etc etc etc etc.
this is also bad because, the least state you have, the more fash police you'll need/or have consequentially.
and doing that will just shrink the state and waste its resources into things that won't help make people live better. thus requiring more police, since the state won't be doing its part anymore to maintain order by making everything good for people.
and we all know what police actually do to people in secret
torture. fuck the police. and no, it's not 'police brutality' americans, call it by the real name, i.e. torture.
>>1920
exactly, well said!
>>

 No.1929

>>1928
>bruh just get some bitches irl. basic social skills required.
it's not about individuals "getting bitches"

it's about social phenomena
many married men also go to prostitutes

>It will only waste resources of what the state should actually be doing, such as investing in education, health, public transport, quality of water people drink, social inclusion, investing on the poor participating in the economy, etc etc etc etc.
Again. We are talking about a wealthy society with already high standard of living.

If it decides that it needs public prostitutes, who are you to stop them?

>this is also bad because, the least state you have, the more fash police you'll need/or have consequentially.
what? how is more government means more police, retard?

>and doing that will just shrink the state and waste its resources into things that won't help make people live better. thus requiring more police, since the state won't be doing its part anymore to maintain order by making everything good for people.
what the fuck are you even talking about you absolute brainlet? what "order"?

>and we all know what police actually do to people in secret
police most likely would be some conscripted service or just drones
>>

 No.1930

>ussr
<productive/unproductive

thats a nice one
>>

 No.1931

>>1930
what, you didn't know that soviet economists divided all the industries into productive and unproductive? lol
>>

 No.1934

>>1930
According to the classification of branches of the national economy adopted in the USSR, all branches of the national economy were divided into two spheres: the sphere of material production and the non-production sphere[51].

The following branches of the national economy belonged to the sphere of material production:

Industry
Agriculture
Forestry
Fisheries
Transport and communications
Construction
Trade and catering
Logistics and supplies
blanks
Information and technical service
Operations with real estate
General commercial activities to ensure the functioning of the market
Geology and exploration of subsoil, geodetic and hydrometeorological services
Other activities in the sphere of material production

The following sectors of the national economy and activities were classified as non-production sphere:

Department of Housing and Utilities
Non-productive types of consumer services for the population
Health, physical culture and social security
public education
Culture and art
Science and scientific service
Finance, credit, insurance, pensions
Management
Public associations
Extraterritorial organizations and bodies
>>

 No.1935

>>1557
Read a fucking book you moron. A commodity is something that is *produced* to be exchanged at market for a profit. Women do not produce their vaginas they are born with them.

>>1549


>No, it is what defines the mean of production. For fuck's sake, can you at least keep up with your own bullshit?

>Karl marx literally defines proletariat as those with nothing to sell but their own labor power

>Dumb ass anarkiddies cope and seethe over it.

Also in order to define sex as a commodity you would also have to define women as productive forces.

>You made a claim about the means of production, and that's what the means of production are. Look, you being unable to keep up with your own iditotic points is not an argument.

But women are none of those things you fucking dumb faggot, lmao, holy shit. You aren't even making an argument here and still you arrogantly project that you are correct because you are a simp infested with feminist ideology. Jesus Christ, pigeon chess…

People are not means of production. Read literally any economic text book.

>Source?

Have you been on the internet recently?

>Another term you don't understand

Another argument you have not made.

>hat is 100% what it is

Do you not understand what "production" means?

>You have no argument, and you lose.

Whatever helps you sleep at night transhumanist.
>>

 No.1936

>>1558
They have never clearly read any economic text, or, marx for that matter and yet they want to prance around the thread like they know what they are talking aboult. Hilarious.

The major issue with behavior like this is it confuses people into believing things that aren't true who don't know any better.
>>

 No.1937

>>1839
>Why? For many young and healthy men it's the only way they can get sex due to the way things are at the moment.
>>1839
>Why? For many young and healthy men it's the only way they can get sex due to the way things are at the moment.
>>1839
>Why? For many young and healthy men it's the only way they can get sex due to the way things are at the moment.


You really need to read marx and stop getting your ideology from "leftist" tumblr.
>>

 No.1938

>>1929
Prostitution also degrades social foundations and com modifies relationships between people. No prostitution is fucking gross.
>>

 No.1939

>>1938
>Prostitution also degrades social foundations
only when it's done for profit

>and com modifies relationships between people
you repeating this like a broken record doesn't make it true

what "commodification" in a planned economy?
was healthcare "commodified" in ussr too?
>>

 No.1940

>>1938
>NOOOO! PROSTITUTION BY ITSELF IS GROSS! IT JUST IS OKAY!
<*tips 100$ on onlyfans*
the curious peculiarities of an over-sexualized puritan capitalist mind

there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution as a social activity

no, it's not "degrading" if it's provided as a public service

it's only "degrading" in your mind because of your puritan biases, just like sex itself was "degrading" to people like you a couple of centuries ago
>>

 No.1941

>>1936
Do you have an argument?
>>

 No.1943

>>1910
>>1925
>I've been to a brothel before
I find it so hard to take you seriously simply for this reason. What is wrong with you?
>>

 No.1944

>>1939
>Here's your 2 minute handjob ration for the month, comrade
>>

 No.1945

>>1943
>What is wrong with you?
What? Where do you think an ugly male is supposed to get sex?

>>1944
Better than 0 minutes lol. Tho I was thinking more about going on a date than just sex.
>>

 No.1946

>>1945
Hopefully a hot and feminine but smart wife. That's the sort of socialism I want.
>>

 No.1947

>>1941
Yes retard

>>1935

It's right here feel free to respond
>>

 No.1948

>>1939
If your talking about a higher stage of communism prostitution won't exist specifically because there is not commodity production.

READ UYGHA READ
>>

 No.1949

>>1945
Define ugly; I have literally no front teeth and I pull some pretty hot bitches.
>>

 No.1950

>>1948
>If your talking about a higher stage of communism prostitution won't exist specifically because there is not commodity production.
Nah.
It will exist if the society decides it so.

>>1949
>Define ugly
not sexually attractive

>I have literally no front teeth and I pull some pretty hot bitches.
Well, and I don't pull any. So it's prostitution for me.

Anyway, your personal tangent is irrelevant to the point I was making. I'm not here to discuss my sexual life.
>>

 No.1951

File: 1679257319174-0.jpg ( 281.02 KB , 1080x1053 , IMG_20230320_031944.jpg )

File: 1679257319174-1.jpg ( 284.71 KB , 1080x1314 , IMG_20230320_031911.jpg )

Mao also understood that under socialism, women are property of the working class via the proletarian state.
>>

 No.1952

>>1947
I don't see a relevant argument.
>>

 No.1953

>>1950
Nah.
It will exist if the society decides it so.


How will it exist if markets do not exist for exchanges to be made?
>>

 No.1954

>>1952
Yeah ok, whatever you say.
>>

 No.1955

File: 1679261753969.jpeg ( 33.97 KB , 612x612 , tfw brainlet leftoid.jpeg )

>>1953
>How will it exist if markets do not exist for exchanges to be made?
Maybe you should read a couple of posts above to find out..
>>

 No.1957

>>1955
>Bro just like read the thread.

I started this thread faggot.
>>

 No.1962

U all theorylets.

Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.

So prostitute is not productive, but a porn actress is.
>>

 No.1963

>>1962
Armaments industry makes time-durable goods, but it is not productive.
>>

 No.1964

>>1963
Ok smartass, that is the only exception because it produces means of destruction.
>>

 No.1965

>>1964
Cope.

Porn industry produces means of moral destruction.
>>

 No.1966

>>1965
Holy shit spooked retard. Means of CAPITAL destruction. "Morals" are not capital.
>>

 No.1967

>>1962
source: missing
proof: none
>>

 No.1968

>>1967
Read a book niqqa
>>

 No.1972

>>1967
learn about what surplus means and then use your one last brain cell to deduce what it would mean to accumulate surplus and what type of constraints this accumulation process would impose on the time-dimensional characteristics of said surplus
>>

 No.1973

File: 1679328562546.webm ( 1.56 MB , 1920x1080 , 1674440196080558.webm )

>>1972
>organic fruit only lasts two days
>therefore it is impossible for organic grocery stores to accumulate surplus for more than two days
holy shit, you have never read marx, have you?
the point of a commodity is that:
1. society finds it useful (use value)
2. it represents labor (value)
3. can be, and was meant to be, traded (exchange value)
the "durability" or some other physical characteristic of the particular commodity is irrelevant for the purpose of accumulation. this is to say, because of point (3), you can trade an ephemeral commodity (the organic fruit) for a durable commodity, gold for example
>>

 No.1974

>>1966
Normally I agree with this but pornography and such has turned out society into a superficial nightmare where people are commodities and any meaningful relationships have been destroyed. So no fuck porn. Amateur porn isn't so bad but industry porn should be illegal
>>

 No.1975

File: 1679345949621.jpeg ( 144.62 KB , 1280x720 , lmao.jpeg )

>>1973
>organic fruit only lasts two days
time-durability doesn't mean that it is time indefinite retard

it only means that the product of labor can exist separated from a direct producer for SOME PERIOD OF TIME

>holy shit, you have never read marx, have you?
I've read marx, I just don't agree with everything he said

>1. society finds it useful (use value)
>2. it represents labor (value)
>3. can be, and was meant to be, traded (exchange value)
So… ultimately what you're saying is that if something turns a profit - it is productive? I got you fam..

gambling "service" has a "use value" to gamblers and it turns a hefty profit

Ergo - gambling is productive!
Behold! The superiority of dogmoid Marxism!
>>

 No.1976

>>1975
No you haven't. This isn't about agreements but you must explain why you disagree with how Marx defined a commodity and why you think you have a better interpretation.
>>

 No.1978

>>1976
>you disagree with how Marx defined a commodity
define what kind of "commodity" gambling industry is selling

bring one example of a "commodity" that is not time-durable
>>

 No.1979

>>1978
Here's a wild thought.

Maybe an 18th century author shouldn't be the final word on understanding the dynamics of the 21st century economy
>>

 No.1981

>>1979
yes, instead the final word should belong to the 19th century author..
>>

 No.1982

>>1981
<Nah bro. Capitalism evolved after Marx.

Lenin summarized this development in 'Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism.'

Since then, it hasn't evolved at all.

Hence, that's the final word on political economy.
>>

 No.1991

>>1978
The gambling industry isn't selling a commodity faggot wtf are you dumb?
That's the whole point. It's called fictional capital or in modern economics: Speculation. Everything Marx said is still applicable today and you aren't witty or edgy for thinking otherwise.
>>

 No.2007

>>1991
>Everything Marx said is applicable today, except a huge chunk of the modern economy doesn't fit into his description of capitalism as a system based on the production of commodities
Makes sense
>>

 No.2029

>>2007
>Gambling is a huge chunk of the modern economy.
You have to go back.
>>

 No.2030

>>2007
He does gambling not 'fit' into what he said? Lmao.
>>

 No.6642

no, also it is already legal in the case of most monogamous, heterosexual marriages

it is also completely unprosecuted-by-choice in the case of sugar babies on websites like seeking arrangements

the entire reason seekingarrangements isn't prosecuted but prostitution is is just an attack on casual sex, that's it. some judges even explicitly admit to this in rulings.
>>

 No.6643

also soliciting camgirls nominally breaks solicitation of adult sex in numerous US states, especially when 2 women are on the other end performing sex acts. I am not aware of a single male ever getting arrested for soliciting virtual prostitution without trafficking involved, even though it is nominally illegal
>>

 No.6644

>>6643
and by virtual prostitution I mean paying two women across the global to have sex on cam, and those women being free agents who chose to sell their services

Unique IPs: 17
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome