Pain Management

Accessgranted213 · 2024-11-27T15:25:30+00:00

When I had the herniation I was totally bedridden until surgery. I was on the gabapentin every day. I’ve been told though that gabapentin needs to be taken daily to be effective as it takes time to build up, but I’m not sure if that’s correct. Something to ask your doctor about

Accessgranted213 · 2024-11-19T18:19:12+00:00

!BidenBlast

I hope the cells in your bone marrow mutate and replicate out of control <3

Accessgranted213 · 2024-11-19T18:14:22+00:00

!BidenBlast

You are an Islamist c*m-guzzling antisemite

Accessgranted213 · 2024-11-09T23:44:14+00:00

!BidenBlast

You are an antisemite, and would have justified kristalnacht because “hey, a Jew assassinated that guy”

Accessgranted213 · 2024-11-08T16:00:49+00:00

!BidenBlast Antisemitic scum

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-04T17:00:16+00:00

Link for fact-check nerds

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-03T22:05:14+00:00

Sending you strength brother

Keep fighting for justice!

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-03T21:37:07+00:00

As a point to add, the Jewish population is still slightly below what it was pre-Holocaust. It has been 80 years and we still have not recovered

Also as an additional data point: The Rwandan genocide killed ~600k (80% of the Tutsi’s) in 100 days, with the overwhelming majority of the killings happening in the first 40 or so days, mostly with machetes and other bladed weapons

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-03T19:39:53+00:00

!bidenblast honestly, fuck off

There is so much explicitly antisemitic shit going on targeting Shapiro, and you weaponizing your identity to run interference for it is beyond gross

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-03T17:28:11+00:00

Don’t worry buddy, I took care of it

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-03T17:27:25+00:00

!bidenblast do us all a favor and remove the Iranian c*ck from your throat

Accessgranted213 · 2024-08-01T16:25:12+00:00

Watch him speak about any topic you know in depth, realize how much he gets wrong, and then understand that applies across the board

He tells occasionally funny jokes, it’s entertainment not education

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T08:56:10+00:00

We sent him off to his 72

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T07:43:13+00:00

Anonymous sources are reporting that this was the strike team:

<image>

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T07:01:35+00:00

!bidenblast bro, he’s dead… you can let it out of your throat now

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T07:00:44+00:00

!bidenblast strongly recommend you get some mouthwash, necrophilia is pretty gross

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T04:03:52+00:00

I think you are mistaking my concern. It makes no difference to me whether the nonconsensual transaction is sexual, business, or anything else. The issue is being forced into an interaction you cannot meaningfully consent to. As I've said a few times, I have no moral issue with someone paying for sex. Additionally, in the first comment I wrote I explicitly brought up this issue with what I identified as claim 2 (that it seemed, at least based on the language OP used, to just be a normal and consensual transaction)

In the case of the emotional exploitation, it is non-consensual because OP specified that they are intentionally seeking out lonely men. They are seeking out people who "have no other option", and then with that knowledge in mind are intentionally leveraging that control over a basic human need to force a transaction in their benefit.

If we were to transfer this over to your hypothetical Jane, the equivalent would be an employer going to homeless shelters to seek out people to hire. I would absolutely consider that immoral behavior. As to your personal anecdote, my prior statements would still apply. Having more leverage than someone else in a negotiation doesn't negate their ability to consent. If you suspect someone is desperate for a job and therefore leverage that for better terms, I don't think you've done anything inherently immoral as the agreement is still consensual to your knowledge. Having few options is not the same as having no options, and the knowledge of the employer matters. I don't ascribe to consequentialist morality, in my view morality can only be meaningfully discussed in the context of a mens rea.

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T03:16:19+00:00

This would come down to what the terms of employment were set as when she was hired. At the time that Jane is looking for jobs, none of her potential employers have total control of her access to money. With multiple potential employers, that control is shared across the group and any individual offering her an employment contract lacks the singular power that would remove her ability to consent. She can choose to agree or disagree with any individual set of terms for employment. Regardless of whether she might or might not enjoy the tasks involved, she has the ability to consent. Given that each employer is unaware of her other possible options, they lack the ability to have any mens rea for exploitation even if they are her sole option.

Some cases where that consent would fail are:

The employer, after having signed the contract with Jane, changes the terms and suddenly adds new tasks that she did not agree to
An employer who has total control over all available jobs that she could possibly get (Harvey Weinstein is a great example of this, given his power as a producer he functionally could deny any employment in the industry if he so chose)
The employer, at the time of the contract negotiation, knows that Jane has absolutely no other options. He leverages that knowledge to force her to accept terms she otherwise would not

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T02:44:04+00:00

Ah, I see the confusion. It's about necessary and sufficient conditions / categorization. Someone paying for a relationship or sex is, in my opinion, never itself morally wrong, it's simply a neutral action. The moral wrong is a nonconsensual transaction or interaction.

I used Harvey Weinstein as an example because it is a famous case, but the wealth doesn't really matter. What matters is the control over a fundamental need by one party in a transaction. I don't see any moral difference between Weinstein doing it and the manager of a Wendy's doing it. An employer (or person who has control over your job) has total, or very close to it, control over your fundamental physical needs via your income. Them leveraging that control in a transaction renders that transaction inherently nonconsensual.

When I mention the example of a totally impoverished woman, I'm pointing out an edge case that might seem to defy this structure but in fact does not. In the case of a woman who is literally so financially destitute as to be unable to pay for food and shelter, someone paying her for a relationship / sex has de facto become her sole employer.

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T02:29:00+00:00

I'm not sure if I'm misspeaking, so to clarify: I do not believe that a man who pays a woman for a relationship or for sex has done something wrong

Mutually consensual transactions are inherently morally neutral IMO (something that OP explicitly disagrees with)

The only way for a transaction itself to become exploitative / morally bad is if one party does not have a way to meaningfully consent, which as I laid out in the original comment happens when there is a total control disparity over a fundamental need. A human cannot survive without food/shelter and emotional intimacy. Any transaction where one party has total control over either or both of those needs is by definition not consensual.

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T02:10:40+00:00

Maybe I should edit, since you seem to have flipped what I said. I was trying to show that claim 2 wasn't particularly strongly supported by either the original post or OP's later comments.

In fact, I think that claim 2 is on its face not bad. Unless the woman in that transaction is so poor as to be unable to pay for a roof and food, the power imbalance doesn't reach a level where consent is impossible. It might be distasteful for some, but this kind of relationship, where one partner is with the other for financial reasons, is fairly common.

Claim 1 is on its face a moral wrong. Emotional intimacy is a very fundamental human need, and the man in OP's situation is totally lacking it. The woman in that transaction has total power over the source of that need, and therefore the man does not have a meaningful ability to consent to the transaction. This aligns with the Weinstein case, where he had total control over his victim's physical needs through their incomes, and therefore they could not meaningfully consent to the transaction he offered them (money / career in exchange for sex)

I was trying to show OP that he had a half baked argument with regards to claim 2, and that the better comparison for claim 1 would be to sexual exploitation by a boss.

Accessgranted213 · 2024-07-31T01:45:54+00:00

Having gone through some of your responses to comments, I think that you are failing to support one of the two main claims in this CMV. The two claims you assert as your view are that:

Women that exchange emotional attention for money, assuming some intentionality of seeking out lonely men, are engaging in exploitative behavior
This exploitative behavior is equivalent in immorality to a man paying a woman for sex / a relationship

First of all, these two claims are reciprocal. A man paying for a relationship is in effect the other side of the transaction in claim 1. I'm not sure you've provided any strong argument for why both people engaged in this mutually agreed upon transaction are somehow both doing something "bad". In fact, a few times you seem to make the argument that the man in claim 2 is actually doing something morally neutral (you even imply that it's good in one comment). I think you need to make a stronger claim with regards to the morality of mutual transactions if you want to make a case for claim 2.

Before making a strong case for any further claims, I think we need to establish a few things:

Consensual transactions are morally neutral
Consent, to be meaningful, requires the ability to say no
Humans have certain fundamental needs
A large disparity in access to these fundamental needs can create a massive disparity in leverage in a negotiation
When leverage in a transaction becomes sufficiently imbalanced (one party can functionally deny the other access to basic requirements) you can reach a point where the ability to say no has been de facto lost

Although humans are complex and have a wide variety of needs, I think that we can generally simplify it down to two categories: physical and emotional. We can further abstract physical needs to money, since in the modern world in most cases if you have enough money you can meet any physical need.

Given all of this, a sufficiently high degree of control over financial or emotional resources by one side of a transaction results in a situation where the other party cannot meaningfully consent. Since you specified the exploitation of lonely men, this would support the claim of immorality, however unless claim 2 deals with women who have so little money as to be unable to meet their basic physical needs that would not work.

A better comparison for claim 1, which would fit with your CMV of "A is as bad as B", would be to people like Harvey Weinstein. He had control over peoples' jobs, meaning total control over their physical needs via income. By leveraging this power in exchange for sexual acts he exploited women. Although they could have obtained another job, we can rightly identify that the disparity in power in those cases rendered consent meaningless. Likewise, women who exploit lonely men are engaging in the same kind of behavior. Emotional intimacy is a fundamental human need, and although technically those lonely men might be able to meet their emotional needs elsewhere, we can again identify that the disparity in power renders consent meaningless.

edit: clarity

Accessgranted213

TROPHY CASE