Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 14, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:21:33

Philosophy vs Sex Workers! Listener Debate

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning.
	Well, good afternoon.
	Sorry, everybody.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain out for a little June stroll in the fine Canadian hinterlands.
	And I had a very interesting post.
	It annoyed me, but I'm not sure I was justified in my annoyance.
	So let me sort of read it to you.
	And for those of you who don't know the backstory, I haven't heard.
	The call-in show, which is at the moment, in the premium section of Freedom Inn called Confessions of an OnlyFans Woman, or an OF woman, one of the things I said, and it was kind of in passing, was that one of the problems with sex work is that you are, it's probably not going to make you happy if you gain value out of that which you did not earn.
	It's not going to make you very happy.
	So this woman, she didn't work out.
	She just had a great figure, and she was able to sell that or monetize that online.
	And, you know, I said one of the problems, sort of a passing comment, but one of the problems is you probably aren't going to end up very happy if you profit out of that which you didn't earn, right?
	And so this is what...
	She just had this figure by nature.
	So this person says, you made a good point in your recent call-in with the OnlyFans woman that women shouldn't feel accomplished for making money from selling their images on OnlyFans because they haven't earned their beauty.
	However, as you do well know, IQ is 80% genetic and becomes more genetic as you get older.
	You, Steph, yourself experienced a childhood that would be the model of creating a homeless drug addict living in the street, however you did not become.
	In fact, you became a very successful businessman, both as a former software executive and also now as a self-employed philosopher.
	So despite all the environmental odds being against you, as a poor child living in a home with an absent father and a dysfunctional mother, you achieved great success.
	And your success stems not from your environment, but from your high IQ and your work ethic, because both of which are largely genetic.
	In fact, just as much genetic as women who have big boobs, perfect facial streacher.
	Sorry, perfect facial structure, and a peachy body is also genetic.
	Now, there is some environmental tailoring that can be done, such as going to the gym or working hard.
	However, work ethic is also largely genetic.
	Interestingly, I would in fact argue that a person's physical body is actually less genetically determined than a person's IQ.
	The amount of physical transformation a woman's body can go through from the gym is more extreme than anything a person could go through.
	Jordan Peterson said there's nothing that can be done to increase IQ.
	So the point of all of this backstory is to ask, why do you think women selling photos of themselves is not good?
	Because they haven't earned it.
	They just inherited it like winning the lottery.
	You yourself didn't earn your high IQ in pretty much everything a person does, whether it's work ethic, personality.
	all driven largely by predetermined genetic factors.
	In extreme cases, someone who was born with a high IQ can be totally destroyed by the environment to the point Thus, why would you say that a woman who hasn't earned her beauty shouldn't sell it when you, Steph, haven't earned your higher IQ?
	Does this suggest a bias where you believe intellectual work, though just as much predetermined as a woman's physical appearance, is superior?
	To say OnlyFans work, and does this suggestion instigate any personal reflection in yourself that suggests the reason you are against women selling the body on OnlyFans and the like is because you inherited a high IQ, and as such you have a bias to do work that suits your natural genetic predisposition.
	That's what you acknowledge.
	It is an inconsistent argument to make that women who make money from their genetic disposition is bad because they, quote, haven't earned it.
	So, this was annoying, and it took me a while to sort of figure out why.
	You know, whether this is just or unjust, you can, of course, decide for yourself.
	I'll make the case.
	So, I replied, and I was just kind of, I found the post incomprehensible in a way and annoying.
	Like, I understood the argument, but the emotionality behind it was incomprehensible to me.
	So, I wrote, sorry, risking life and limb to spread peaceful parenting and moral philosophy is the same as selling pictures of your butthole on the internet.
	Do you even hear yourself?
	He wrote, I do not disagree with the claim that peaceful parenting has tremendous value for society.
	Certainly more value than, quote, butthole pics.
	However, you did not make that claim in your conversation with the OnlyFans woman, and that was not the claim I was disputing in my question.
	I was specifically disputing a claim that women haven't earned the ability to make money using the body because it's unearned.
	At one hour thirty of your OnlyFans call and you said, and I quote, I think that we end up happier if we get paid for things that aren't just accidental to us.
	Yeah.
	You then said to the OnlyFans caller, you did not earn your body.
	Again, this is a bad argument because a lot of people put a lot of work in the gym and dieting to get an amazing body.
	So your assumption that OnlyFans women didn't earn their body is in many cases false.
	But I was talking to this woman in particular, by the by, not women as a whole.
	And I did acknowledge that some, I mean, models sometimes diet and exercise a lot, especially bikini models, to maintain their figure.
	She said, I've noticed from my experience at the gym that women who have a great, perfect butt are far more common in the gym than you would expect to find by chance by walking around in random public places.
	I'm certain there is a type of perfect, peachy, ideal female butt that women that have that is largely the result of hard work in the gym, not solely the result because genetics are also involved, of course.
	But an enhanced female butt is certainly the result of hard work in the gym.
	So they didn't even earn that but.
	I mean, if you're saying that every outcome is genetic, then the women didn't earn that either.
	All right.
	He goes on to say, All abilities, whether it is the height of a basketball player, the strength of a bricklayer, the petite stature of a ballerina, or the mental ability of a philosopher, stems from innate unearned genetic factors.
	Thus, a woman has just as much right to sell photos of her butthole as a computer programmer has the right to use your high IQ to earn money.
	That's a total straw, man.
	I never said you didn't have the right to do it.
	I don't know what you're talking about, honestly, at this point.
	You're just all over the place, right?
	So this specific argument you were making in the call-in was a bad argument for all the reasons I've listed herein.
	You could make the argument that tits and ass pics add no value to society, but on the contrary, philosophy and peaceful parenting does.
	However, you did not make that argument in your call-in.
	I was simply pointing out in my question that you used a flawed argument rather than a good argument during a recent OnlyFans woman call-in.
	I think you should add a prelude to your OnlyFans call in to let future viewers know that you presented a bad argument on this specific point.
	It's not a big deal because in a two-plus-hour convo, you can miss...
	However, considering 10% of American women between 18 to 28 are already selling tits and aspects on OnlyFans, you may see it's death as your responsibility to provide a thorough argument as to why women shouldn't do OnlyFans rather than the flawed, unearned argument you presented in your recent OnlyFans call-in and append it to the end of the call-in.
	That's great.
	And then I wrote, she never talked about putting hours in the gym.
	She said she just grew big breasts.
	I also acknowledge that some...
	I was talking about her specifically.
	Did you not follow that?
	So, I found this argument irritating.
	Now, the fact that it's irritating does not at all mean that it's a bad argument.
	Right?
	At all.
	Right?
	I could be irritated, right?
	I mean, let's take the devil's advocate position here.
	perhaps kind of literally, I could be irritated because, So, the fact that I was irritated was interesting to me, and I'm not normally irritated if I'm corrected.
	I normally, I mean, if I've missed something stupid, or said something that's totally against what I'd argue in general, I generally will be irritated.
	I'm not irritated at people who correct me.
	Generally, I appreciate it, and if I've made a mistake, then I would be annoyed at myself.
	So, I was sort of trying to figure out what it was that was annoying to me.
	Just out of curiosity for myself and for this person.
	The contrast, of course, between saying it's not a big deal and then saying, you know, here's three or four pages of argumentation is interesting, right?
	If something's not a big deal, why would you bother with it, right?
	Why would you bother sort of pointing it out or something like that, right?
	It doesn't make a whole lot of sense if something's not a big deal to spend a lot of time.
	Writing and arguing and listening and checking the exact time I said X, Y, or Z, right?
	That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
	So I just sort of wanted to point that out, that there's that kind of disparity.
	Now, he obviously is saying that we have some free will.
	He's not a determinist, because if he was a determinist, he would have no reason to argue against me any more than I would argue with the television set, right?
	That doesn't really make...
	Thank you.
	So then the question is, well, I mean, why is this important to you that you're doing multi-pages?
	And asking why something is important to someone, of course, is not an argument.
	It doesn't rebut anything.
	But it is kind of interesting to figure that out.
	Does his girlfriend do OF or does someone else he knows?
	Like, why is this important?
	If you say it's not a big deal, it's not important, but I should...
	Or I go through some kind of humiliation ritual That prepend something To say I made a bad argument So I'm going to...
	And again, my annoyance doesn't mean squat with regards to the quality of the argument.
	and I just want to share my experience because I have found...
	I have found annoyance or anger to be very helpful in my life.
	It sort of protects me from people who have ill intent, right?
	So, again, just to be clear, the fact that I'm annoyed at this person, let's just call him Bob, the fact that I'm annoyed at Bob doesn't mean that Bob's wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean that Bob It has any kind of ill intent.
	My instincts are telling me that something is quite awry here, and it sort of impels me to dig in deeper and to figure out what, if anything, I could be triggered.
	It's not particularly common with the amount of self-work that I've done and therapy.
	I'm in my late 50s, so I'm not usually triggered much, but it could be.
	It's not impossible.
	Not impossible.
	I generally have an issue, my sort of first issue goes something like this.
	So saying that my work in moral philosophy for the protection of children, the reputational financial career kill shots.
	but saying that the work that I've done in moral philosophy is in the same category somehow as someone who is Are selling butt pics on the internet?
	If that doesn't give you a funny feeling that something's not right, I almost don't know what to tell you.
	Yes, protecting children, promoting the non-aggression principle, trying hard to end wars and exploitation and child abuse and violence of every kind, is in the same general category as selling butt pictures.
	If that doesn't, like if somebody had said, Okay, Steph, this is kind of an odd argument, but I'm trying to figure out how it's incorrect.
	Or, you know, my gut tells me that this is a strange argument, or there's something weird about this argument, that moral philosophy and the protection of children is in the same category in some fashion as selling wizard-sleeved pictures on the Internet.
	Then I would really respect that, because it's like, yeah, I feel the same way.
	Let's see if we can puzzle it out together.
	Now, again, the fact that an argument feels weird doesn't mean that the argument is wrong.
	But an acknowledgement that it feels weird.
	I'll give you another example to sort of try to make this clearer.
	So if someone says to me, murder, I've got an argument that murder is...
	Someone sort of says that case to me.
	Now, if they say to me, well, look, I know that murder is not morally good, but here's an argument that I can't refute.
	Can you help me out?
	And, you know, because clearly murder is not morally good.
	Can you help me out with this argument?
	Because, you know, my instincts rail against the idea that murder is morally good, as they should.
	And so, you know, can you help me out with this argument?
	Then that would be someone that I would respect.
	But if somebody just kind of cold-heartedly blank-faced makes the argument that murder is good, then I have a problem.
	I have a problem with the person's lack of trouble with their own argument.
	So, if he's going to say, Steph, There's a moral or happiness equivalent between the work that you do in protecting children and promoting peace and reason with butthole pictures on the internet.
	And if there's no instinct in that person that says there's something awry with this, then it seems odd, like weird to me.
	I feel like I'm in the presence of an extremely alien mindset that doesn't say, okay, there's something, I can't overthrow this argument, but it troubles me.
	Because it should.
	It should trouble you.
	It should trouble you.
	If you think that murder is good, it should trouble you if you think.
	but whole pictures on the internet are somehow in the same category as the promotion of peaceful parenting, the protection of children, and peace and reason, and so on, you should say, I mean, your conscience, your instincts should tell you, okay, there's something I can't quite overthrow, but it is kind of weird and...
	I mean, if you say the state doesn't exist and the non-aggression principle should apply universally, people feel weird about that.
	That doesn't mean that argument is wrong.
	But you do need to acknowledge that it is a strange argument to make.
	So I just sort of wanted to point that out, that I felt...
	Well, you sat and used your own words against you and so on, right?
	And there's this certainty.
	There's this certainty that he is right, I am wrong, to the point where he's insisting, without the argument even being close to concluding, he's insisting that I put a correction out because he's absolutely certain that I am wrong and that he is right.
	And that coldness, not even noticing the strangeness of the argument, that it's that kind of manipulation, using your own words against you, right?
	Which, you know, if it's valid, it's valid.
	If it's not, then it's just being a bit of a dick, right?
	And this insistence that I put the correction out already, despite the fact that the argument has barely occurred, and I think that the dishonesty.
	I think the telling thing is when he says, look, look, 10% of women 18 to 28, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	It's like, but do you know any of them?
	Why is this personal to you?
	Why does it, A, not matter, and B, you need to put out a correction, Steph, and here's, you know, five pages of argumentation, right?
	These are, I think, not honest.
	If he says, look, my, I don't know, my girlfriend apparently has a history of this, and it really troubles me and bothers me and so on, right?
	There's something that makes it personal, right?
	I mean, I'm pretty clear, right, that one of the reasons I focus on child abuse is I was fairly horrifically abused as a child, so it is both theoretical and personal.
	Why do I promote philosophies that would reduce significantly, or perhaps even eliminate, the possibility of war?
	Well, because my family...
	And my mother's madness was to a significant degree brought about by war and all that occurred in that way.
	So yes, it's personal, and I've been very upfront and honest about that, and so people can place the urgency and the emotional emphasis that I place upon these arguments in context.
	Because if you get the emotional intensity without knowing why, it feels weird.
	Why does it matter to you?
	Why are you putting pages out?
	Why are you demanding a retraction or a correction and so on, right?
	And also, importantly, why are you strawmanning?
	Right?
	Why are you...
	So I never said...
	it does not require the initiation of force in order to be achieved.
	It is a voluntary transaction between two consulting adults.
	However, sex work is a shadow cast by prior violations of the non-aggression principle.
	In other words, just about every sex worker Was viciously abused, often sexually, or neglected as a child.
	Those are necessary but not sufficient conditions for someone to become a sex worker.
	Now, as an adult, sure, it's voluntary.
	However, if it is a shadow cast by prior abuse, it is related to abuse.
	Though itself is voluntary, it is a result of involuntary abuse and neglect as a child.
	So, that is an important aspect of things.
	So, I said you're generally happier if you take pride in things that you have earned rather than things you have inherited.
	Well, sure.
	I mean, this can't be that complicated, can it?
	Really?
	You're going to be more proud of money that you've made rather than money you just inherited, right?
	I mean, if somebody makes a million dollars, you know, through honorable work, that's a good thing.
	That's a positive thing.
	However, if some distant aunt you didn't even know about leaves you a million dollars, then you have no particular right to be proud of that because you didn't earn it, right?
	So I'm not sure How this is remarkably controversial.
	That you can't take pride in that which you didn't earn.
	Okay, so, I mean, this is something I've said for forever and ever I'm in.
	So you're going to be happier in achievements that you've earned rather than accidental characteristics you just happen to have inherited.
	Now, again, I can't imagine in any particular way or reason how this could be considered Controversial at all, but I suppose it is.
	So, because that's relatively uncontroversial, Bob, my interrogator, changes the goalposts, moves the goalposts, and changes the definitions, right?
	So he goes from me saying, you'll be happier if you earn things, rather than, you know, just having your accidental inheritance, you'll be happier if you earn things.
	So then he says, well, there's a morality involved, and then he's saying, That I'm saying people don't have the right to the unearned, right?
	So, saying to someone, hey, you know what?
	You'll probably be happier if you earn money rather than just get given the money, right?
	Now, from that, let's say some distant great aunt you didn't even know about dies and you get a million dollars, right?
	Now, If I say that's not going to make you as happy as if you'd earned the money yourself, am I then saying, A, it's immoral to accept it?
	No, I'm not saying that at all.
	Of course not.
	This is a measure of happiness, not of morality, which I was very clear about, number one.
	Number two, am I saying that you have no right to accept it, that it should be legally barred?
	Well, no.
	This is an argument.
	To a large degree from aesthetics.
	Right?
	You can be miserable doing good, and there can be glee in doing evil.
	So, happiness is not a moral measure.
	In general, we want the most sustainable happiness, which has the most to do with morality, but it is not a moral measure.
	This is a measure of happiness.
	I didn't say she was immoral.
	I didn't say she had no right to do it.
	So when this guy...
	This is an argument from happiness, related to happiness.
	And she's not happy.
	I mean, she, I don't know, I guess you listen to the show.
	But she called me up because, specifically because, she's unhappy.
	So, that's why I was making the argument.
	From happiness.
	Now, we talked a lot about the various reasons why she might be unhappy, and this was one of them, and it's a valid one.
	I didn't say this made her miserable or immoral, or she shouldn't have the right to do it.
	So these are all straw men.
	Now, why do people strawman?
	In general, well, they strawman because...
	And they strawman because they are upset by my argument about you won't get as much happiness from the unearned as you will from the earned.
	So, if for some reason, probably personal, he is upset by my argument Then what he's going to do is he's going to change the nature of my argument, or the content of my argument, to match his own level of upset.
	So when I was talking about IQ, people got upset, and so they had to invent other terms to put me in horrible moral categories.
	Because those horrible moral categories match the level of their upset.
	And this is why people, straw men.
	If the argument is a 2, and this was a pretty mild argument, and pretty uncontroversial.
	If the argument is a 2, but your upset level is an 8, then what you have to do is you have to up the wrongness of my argument to an 8. Otherwise, the emotional nature of your reaction becomes clear to you.
	And you don't want that to happen for whatever reason, for whatever reason, right?
	So, let's have a look in a little bit more detail about what our good friend Bob is trying to argue.
	Okay, so, he's saying, look, IQ is largely genetic.
	Yes, yes, that is true.
	And, of course, as he points out, I've made that argument.
	Many times, when I made that argument, I've cited those experts.
	I interviewed 17 world-renowned experts on intelligence, and this is what they told me, right?
	That's 80% by late teens goes up from there.
	Now, he also said that a hard work ethic is, he said, largely genetic.
	So, what does largely genetic mean?
	Well, I had a quick look.
	And there is no specific gene that has been researched for hard work.
	However, there are traits like conscientiousness and so on that are 40-60% genetic, and they are somewhat related to hard work.
	So, let's say they're half-related.
	To hard work.
	I mean, I don't think anyone's studied it, but we can be generous and say that 50%.
	So we're now talking 20 to 30%.
	The 20 to 30% of hard work is genetic.
	Well, that's not much, frankly.
	That's not much.
	I mean, and it is basically a third.
	of the effect of IQ.
	So the fact that he's conflating these two things, one of which is known with great specificity, which is the 80 plus percent of IQ inheritance, and the other, which has not even really been studied, but we can guesstimate at 20 to 30 percent, the fact that he's conflating these two is dishonest.
	Right, so you'll notice, as I did, of course, you'll notice that our good friend Bob quotes the 80 percent plus, but doesn't quote Any percentages for hard work, which means he's talking out of his ass.
	Right?
	This is your clue, right?
	When somebody has two categories and he says, well, here's one category, 80 plus percent, and here's another category, uh, I'm not going to give you that percentage.
	Well, that's because he doesn't have a good percentage, and that's, again, an emotional argument.
	Now, I, of course, and I don't talk about him much because it's not his issue that I'm semi-famous, but I have a brother.
	My brother grew up, of course, we had a very similar shared environment.
	There were some differences, of course.
	He spent some years in England with relatives, which I didn't.
	And he spent a year in boarding school.
	I went later.
	So we had largely shared environments.
	We could not be more different.
	Honestly, we could not be more different if it was designed.
	So, I have sort of that to work with.
	I, of course, grew up with a lot of very smart people.
	There was a certain kind of brilliance in my cohort.
	I mean, I know this because my friends, I mean, my best friend at the time, one of the best men at my wedding, scored well over 100% on his math tests.
	Ended up starting out doing a math and physics double major in university, and another friend of mine became, two of them became professors, one became a writer, and another one became a lawyer, and just very, very smart people.
	I knew this, of course, to some degree, because the Dungeons& Dragons work that we did was highly creative and innovative, and all of that.
	D&D is kind of like an IQ game in many ways.
	I grew up with very, very smart people, and how many of them became philosophical?
	None.
	None of them, even though...
	But, in my view, without getting into specifics or details, in my view, this person did not become philosophical in any practical sense.
	It remained largely theoretical, While he was skeptical of the virtue of the state, he ended up enthusiastically entering into a career that required extensive state protection and all of that, so it was not particularly practical in his philosophy, to put it mildly.
	So, of the ten friends that I had who had intelligence, And conscientiousness, of course, right?
	You can't do these high-level professions without being conscientious.
	One, me, right?
	So 10% of this highly intelligent, highly motivated group became moral in a way that I would genuinely and deeply sort of process and understand.
	Something's moving in the woods here.
	Let us hope it is but a dear.
	Anyway, so I have other family members, of course.
	I mean, I was fairly close to many cousins and nieces and so on when I was growing up, of which, of course, it's been forever and so I don't know what their current status is, but of the people who were part of my Extended family, I do not know any who became moral and philosophical.
	So if you sort of put me in my extended family, then we're looking at maybe 3%, maybe 5% to my knowledge, which again is limited, who became specifically moral.
	So we've got 10% of my close friends, we've got 3-5% of my extended family, and...
	And I knew a lot of kids because I was in a lot of sports and did a lot of socializing.
	And so of the hundred or so kids, there were three of us, so again, that's 3%.
	Again, the IQ would vary, but, you know, I generally wasn't friends with kids who weren't smart just because of a sort of compatibility issue, so I'm working with some data.
	Now, is this anecdotal?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, it is, for sure.
	For sure.
	But it's not just anecdotal, right?
	Because it's a fairly large sample group.
	So, as far as hard work being genetic, He just uses the weasel term largely.
	He doesn't know.
	Again, maybe there are studies out there I've never come across that have some massive answer as to, but, you know, I think he would quote those, right?
	Wouldn't he?
	I mean, if you're trying to make a case that someone who's into accuracy and validity in his arguments and you're saying you're totally wrong to the point where you need to put a retraction in your podcast, Then wouldn't you gather the data?
	So I'm going to go out on a, you know, not very long limb here, and I'm going to say that this guy has just used the word largely because he doesn't have any data.
	To back up his contention that hard work is largely genetic, we can go at a rough estimate somewhere in the realm of 20% or 30% as a generous estimate that half of conscientiousness is related to hard work.
	Everybody knows really intelligent, lazy people.
	Everybody knows people who are less intelligent but work really hard.
	So, again, these are not arguments against.
	There are always outliers, but it's nowhere near IQ, and it's just kind of putting the two together.
	IQ and hard work do not produce virtue.
	In fact, IQ plus hard work can produce some of the greatest evils known to man.
	People who ran Nazi and Soviet gulags and concentration camps worked really hard to do some of the greatest evils in human history.
	So, saying that hard work and IQ produce virtue Is not the case.
	Now, what I'm saying to this woman is you will feel happier at the things you earn rather than the things you accidentally inherit.
	I mean, I don't really think...
	And I was really talking about happiness rather than morality.
	Now, why was I talking about happiness rather than morality?
	Because I did talk about morals to some degree with her, but also...
	And she was an unhappy woman calling me out of desperation for her misery.
	So I have to identify what will be one of the factors that is making her unhappy, and one of the factors that is making her unhappy is her taking significant financial rewards for that which she did not earn.
	I mean, if somebody were to call me up and say, hey man, I inherited $100,000 out of nowhere, and I'm just not happy, I'd be like, well, I mean, it's not like $100,000 is terrible, but you didn't earn it, and therefore you can't expect it to contribute to your self-worth, your self-esteem, and so on, right?
	So, the fact that I did well, despite having a bad childhood, is not genetic.
	First of all, I had a bad childhood, and I was not doing well until I discovered philosophy.
	I mean, I cheated on a girlfriend, I was a shoplifter for a brief amount of time, and I only stopped that because of fear, not because of any sudden discovery of moral virtue.
	And so the idea that my genetics are just going to lead me to truth, reason, virtue, and happiness is not true at all.
	I also, of course, knew intelligent, young, Men and women who took a decidedly bad path, despite their intelligence, despite the fact that they worked very, very hard.
	So, again, maybe you're a young man, Bob, but I just have a lot of life experience.
	I have a lot of detailed observations.
	I am an observation machine.
	That's why people call me in the call-in shows because they know that I listen and observe very deeply.
	So, again, this is not some magic applesauce that makes me write and everything, but you're going to have to bring some serious data if you want to overturn close to 60 years of very close observation.
	So, if a woman is a fitness model, then, you know, often she was born with a good figure and a good capacity to gain muscle, and that's fine.
	Now, if she works very hard to be a fitness model, Does her workout routines and she looks great and she inspires men and women to exercise and get healthier and so on.
	And she makes good money doing that.
	I would say good for you.
	Now, it's not a moral venture.
	It's a health venture.
	And there's nothing wrong with health ventures.
	I am, in fact, having a nice hike as I record this.
	So I'm not saying there's anything wrong with health ventures.
	But they're not moral ventures, because someone could watch her workout videos because he wants to be a more effective and aggressive mugger.
	He wants to be stronger so that he can grapple people, take their purses, and run away, right?
	So someone can follow her program and use it to do great evil.
	Someone could watch someone's Whereas somebody who watches exercise videos, watches diet videos, and implements them doesn't necessarily mean that they are padding to the virtue of the world.
	They could be, in fact, increasing the misery.
	If it's someone, let's say, who's just a real son of a bitch who screams at people, yells at people, and he diets and exercise.
	To the point where he adds an additional 20 years' worth of misery to the people in his life or in his family.
	Well, is that necessarily adding a huge amount more good?
	No, it's kind of traumatizing people.
	So, again, I'm sure a lot of people do good out of the health that they get, but not everyone.
	Whereas someone who reads Peaceful Parenting and implements it and no longer yells at, hits, intimidates, or neglects his children, like he's doing more good.
	Or he's certainly doing less evil.
	So, you can take pride in that which you have earned, but you will be the most happy if that which you have earned is also moral.
	Right?
	Reason equals virtue equals happiness.
	The equation that Nietzsche identified as Socrates, which I think is a great summary, which I've talked about for 20 years.
	Well, more than 20 years, but publicly for 20 years.
	So, reason equals virtue equals happiness.
	This is Eudomania.
	This is Aristotle's greatest happiness is to be achieved in a life spent in the pursuit of virtue.
	Now, there's two levels of happiness.
	I guess there's three.
	There's three levels of happiness that you can get from virtue.
	One is you're virtuous yourself.
	Two is you increase the virtue of those around you.
	Three, you increase the virtue of the world as a whole.
	And those come with very positive outcomes in terms of happiness, and they also come with great dangers in terms of blowback, right?
	There's no way to increase the virtue in this world without interfering with the interests of some very nasty, malevolent, and evil people.
	And they want to say the old saying in war, right?
	The enemy has his say, right?
	You launch an attack, as just happened, I guess, yesterday with Iran, Israel attacking Iran, and then there'll be some blowback.
	I'm not sure there'll be much, because Iran has driven out high IQ people for decades, but the enemy gets his say, and so you can promote virtue, and if you promote virtue within yourself, it's hard to say that that does much.
	Because you need to also promote virtue.
	Life is a team sport, right?
	And if you're part of a team that's bad at stuff, you're part of a soccer team that's bad at soccer, you becoming better at soccer only increases your team's success marginally because you need to also get other people who are better at soccer, If you're in a choir with a bunch of bad singers and you sing better, it doesn't In fact, it might make it seem more discordant in a way.
	So, to increase, to encourage and increase the virtues of those around you makes your life better as a whole.
	To increase and encourage the virtues of the society you live in makes your life better and worse.
	Right?
	I mean, it's better because you have the happiness of increasing virtue, but you have to be cautious in this blowback.
	And so, it is a complicated deal, but one well worth making, in my opinion.
	So, he said here, your high IQ and your work ethic, both of which are largely genetic, in fact, just as much genetic as women who have big boobs.
	perfect facial structure and PT body is also genetic.
	No, I don't think that's necessarily I remember many years ago playing volleyball with a woman who had a nice figure and she said, this is me.
	I don't even work out now.
	She was playing volleyball, so there was some working out.
	She said, when I work out, it's insane how good I look and actually not great.
	Everyone gets distracted.
	So I'm sure that some fat deposits is some genetics and so on.
	But I think boob size is...
	I mean, potential for boob size.
	I think that's 100% genetic, so it doesn't figure into the other things that you're talking about.
	So, I don't know about...
	I mean, again, if you starve or whatever, right?
	But height is 100% genetic.
	Eye color is 100% genetic.
	IQ 80 +, hard work 20 to 30, as a sort of back-of-the-napkin calculation.
	So, when he says, listen, you shouldn't take pride in your intelligence, well, of course you shouldn't.
	I mean, I've only said that about a million times in the show.
	I don't take any pride in my intelligence.
	I take pride in the use I put my intelligence to.
	Now, notice you'll say that he talks about hard work.
	Let's say, being genetic.
	But intelligence and hard work have no moral characteristics whatsoever.
	You can be very intelligent and highly evil.
	You can be very hardworking and highly evil.
	So, I'm a moral philosopher, which means, of course, I don't take pride in my intelligence.
	With my intelligence and verbal skills, I could have made a fortune in I could be invited everywhere and fated everywhere and praised in the media with the skills that I have.
	And I haven't taken that road.
	Instead of speaking on the steps of Parliament, I wander the woods, talking into a microphone on my own.
	So that's...
	I regret nothing, and I'm very happy with it.
	In fact, I would be miserable if I hadn't made this choice in many ways, although I may not know why.
	So when he talks about intelligence and hard work, he's not talking about virtue.
	Now, he's not a determinist, because he allows for some free will.
	So the fact that I chose modernism Well, moral philosophy, again, I've talked about this before.
	When I first started reading philosophy, I was captivated and excited, and that came from within me.
	However, taking on the topics that I've taken on, as you know, the voluntary family, voluntarism as a political philosophy, and talking about IQ and anti-leftism and so on and criticisms of feminism, these are all very sort of hot.
	Button topics that ended up with, you know, massive media attacks and deplatforming and all kinds of reputational damage and so on, which it's not just me alone that has to deal with that, of course.
	So, that required a specific virtue called courage.
	Now, unless you're going to say that courage is genetic, then I take pride not in my intelligence, not in my work ethic, but in my virtues.
	Because the virtues are earned, in particular because we are raised in a highly corrupt and propagandized society, therefore virtue becomes even harder.
	This was interesting for me when I went both to Hong Kong and to Poland to do my documentaries, I could meet and greet and speak without fear, without the media whipping people up into death threats, bomb threats, and attacking the venues and so on.
	So I would say that when it came to doing Speaking in places like Australia, that required courage.
	I mean, Lauren Southern was attacked on stage.
	So it takes courage to stand up to the media.
	It takes courage to stand up and speak when you can get attacked at any time.
	It takes courage to press on and tell the truth, even though there's bomb threats, death threats, and so on, right?
	So it takes courage for those things.
	In particular, a courage in, say, Poland.
	In Poland, I could speak.
	I was welcomed.
	I toured places and no problems.
	And I remember we did one night where everyone was around shouting philosophical questions at me while I served them drinks in a big bar, which was a fun night.
	So I did not need much courage to speak and meet with people.
	In Hong Kong or Poland, but I did need courage to meet and greet and speak with people in other places where I've given speeches.
	So, the fact that he talks about amoral qualities such as intelligence and hard work and not about virtue itself is interesting.
	Now, is it virtuous to post Naked pictures or videos of yourself for money?
	I would say no.
	Is it evil?
	No.
	It is not a violation of the non-aggression principle, and so on, right?
	But is it moral?
	Right?
	Is it promoting virtue, integrity, honesty, and courage?
	In society as a whole, right?
	I would say no.
	So, for instance, if I was not recording this podcast while on this rather arduous hike, I would be doing something amoral.
	Not amoral.
	It's not moral.
	I'm just going for a hike.
	I enjoy it.
	Is it good?
	Is it bad?
	There's no particular answer to that.
	It's morally neutral.
	Which is one of the categories in my book, University Preferable Behavior, Irrational Proof of Secular Ethics.
	If you haven't read it, you should.
	If you want a shorter version, essentialphilosophy.com, the last third.
	So, if I was just going on a hike, maybe listening to some music, or humming to myself, or just enjoying the peace and serenity of nature, then I would not be adding to the virtue of the world.
	Now, you could make the argument, because I'm generally adding to the virtue of the world, a hike might help me live longer, and so on, have more energy.
	Yeah, but not on the hike directly, I'm not adding to the virtue of the world.
	Now, of course, making the argument that I'm making, hopefully clearing things up in this very interesting and contentious, at least for me, situation, and for the other person too, I think, I am, in fact, adding to the virtue of the world.
	Now, Now, I would say as a whole that that which promotes love is a positive to the world.
	In other words, if people have the experience of loving someone else and being loved by someone else, that adds to the goodness of the world.
	So, the question is, If love is our involuntary response to virtue, if we're virtuous, and by promoting virtue I'm promoting people's capacity to love and to be loved, what does an online pornographer do?
	Do they add to the love that is possible in the world?
	I think the answer to that is fairly clear.
	They do not add to the virtue of the world.
	In fact, they probably add to the secrecy of the world.
	Because if someone went to the gym over lunch and somebody said, what did you do over lunch?
	They all went to the gym and said they're working from home and went over lunch.
	They instead masturbated to pornography.
	They probably aren't going to say that, right?
	And it's a certain amount of, you know, I get that.
	I mean, you go to the bathroom, you don't say that either, but this is sort of slightly different, right?
	So, it adds to the secrecy of people, that which they keep hidden and silent and, you know, are probably somewhat ashamed of, right?
	If someone says, oh, I've been filming you, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Pay me bitcoins.
	Well, I mean, people would be tempted by that because there is a certain amount of shame involved in these things, right?
	So, is somebody who posts naked videos of herself online adding to the virtue of the world?
	Well, why do we have love at all, really?
	We have love because love is what's best for children.
	And so love is foundationally romantic.
	As a periphery, love, in sort of the splash radius, Love also encapsulates friendship, but love is primarily developed for a pair bonding with regards to creating a stable environment for children to grow up in and for culture to be transmitted in and so on, right?
	In the same way that a road is not made for bicycles, but bicycles can use it.
	Love is not made for friendship, but friendship can use it.
	Love is primarily there as a...
	It's what's best for children.
	It's what's safest for children and what's best for the transmission of culture.
	And because culture is transmitted, it then is worth writing down and you get artists and all of that sort of stuff, right?
	I mean, nobody's going to bother with a poem like the Odyssey if nobody's ever going to speak, listen to or read or sing about it ever again, right?
	So, love is for the kids, right?
	It's for the kids, it's for the stability of society and for the benefit of the family.
	So, does masturbation to online pornography promote the stability of the family and the happiness of children, particularly if it's used as an avoidance mechanism?
	To not talk to girls at all, really, or get yourself a girlfriend slash fiancé slash wife slash mother of your children and grandmother of your grandchildren.
	It does not promote that, really, at all.
	In fact, you could argue that it denigrates from that.
	It denigrates that.
	It removes that.
	Diminishes it.
	I'll get the word eventually.
	Trust me.
	So, it does not promote that.
	Let's look at it.
	A little further and a little deeper.
	Why is it that a woman's sexual attractiveness has a man give her money?
	Again, we know the answer to this in general, but just in case you don't, very briefly, men are emotionally primed to give gifts in the same way that birds are emotionally primed.
	To build mating displays and so on, right?
	So, men are programmed to give gifts to attractive women.
	In this way, they show their sensitivity, their reproductive fitness, their capacity for excess resource acquisition, and so on, right?
	And a woman who is interested in a man will accept his gifts.
	And the acceptance of his gifts signals that she is potentially...
	So if you bring a woman flowers and chocolates on Valentine's Day and she accepts them, that signals that she at least is available and doesn't hate you, right?
	And if she's married and you bring her flowers and chocolates on Valentine's Day, Assuming she's happily married, she will say, I can't accept these.
	I'm sorry, I'm happily married.
	I can't accept these gifts.
	So for a man to give gifts, to give resources to a woman he's attracted to, is part of his nature.
	And it has grown to be part of his nature because there wasn't online pornography during our evolution, right?
	So, yeah.
	Now, the gift could be, you know, chocolates and flowers.
	It could be a poem.
	It could be, what's that old line from Dead Poets Society?
	Why is there poetry to woo women, right?
	And also, he may just pick her up in a nice car showing his resources.
	He also may just pay for dinner or pay for drinks or whatever it is, right?
	He's going to give her gifts.
	And that is a down payment on the future labor that she's going to, hopefully, with him, commit to, which is the having and raising of 5 to 10 children.
	So in order to have and raise 5 to 10 children, a woman needs to get 80 to 90% of a man's income.
	She needs to take 80 to 90% of her husband's income.
	Which is why men have the capacity to create excess resources because the men who couldn't create excess resources didn't generally reproduce and therefore they died off.
	So the provision of excess resources as a mating offering to females who the man is aroused by or sexually attracted to or romantically attracted to, that is what men are programmed to do.
	And so if a woman is...
	Because the resources are a down payment on the future female labor of the having and raising of children, of running a household, of Managing cultural transmission and social rules and all that kind of stuff, right?
	So for a woman to offer sexual enticement and receive gifts where there's no possibility of returning children and a household to the man, it's not...
	I sort of have to tread carefully and be delicate here, right?
	Because you're not breaking a contract, right?
	But of course, dating is not a contract, right?
	You don't sign contracts.
	I've taken you out for dinner five times now.
	We have to kiss, right?
	That's not how dating works.
	Dating is an implicit contract.
	Implicit contracts are tricky in the realm of Contracts as a whole, right?
	So, you don't sign a contract to pay for your meal when you go to a restaurant.
	Ahead of time, you don't sign a contract.
	I mean, you sign a contract when you have to pick up your cell phone, if you're entering into a cell phone plan.
	But you don't sign a contract when you sit down in a restaurant.
	There is an implicit contract which says you're going to pay at the end.
	Now, if you dine and dash, even though you haven't signed a contract, you're still liable.
	You don't physically sign a contract when you go to refuel your car, if you don't pay at the pump.
	You're going to fill your car, you're going to go in, and you're going to pay for it.
	That's an implicit contract.
	And there are lots of implicit contracts.
	In the world, right?
	If you're going to a potluck dinner, everyone's supposed to bring something to eat.
	Now, if you show up without anything to eat, and, you know, the host lets you stay or whatever, you're not stealing, but you also haven't upheld your side of the bargain.
	So there are some contracts that are implicit but enforceable.
	If you pump gas and drive away without paying, Then you have broken a contract and you could be charged criminally, even though you didn't sign a contract.
	So, this is an important area of life to understand, that most of life runs on implicit contracts.
	You don't generally, I mean some people do, a few people do, in terms of prenups, but Most times, you're not signing a contract that says, I'm not going to cheat.
	I mean, you make your vows, but not many people seem to take those vows too seriously these days, so this is an implicit contract.
	If you're dating multiple people, when do you settle down into a monogamous relationship?
	I mean, that differs for different people and so on, but certainly if you're sleeping with someone, at least in my day, the implicit contract was, you sure as hell better not be sleeping.
	I mean, for obvious reasons of jealousy and sexually transmitted diseases and potential pregnancies and stalkers and all kinds of stuff, right?
	Don't play the field that way.
	When you sit down with a stranger to play chess, there's an implicit contract that you're both going to obey the rules of chess, right?
	I mean, you get all of this, right?
	Most of life, most of society works on implicit contracts.
	So, the And the more the contract is not known, in many ways, the worse it is to violate it.
	So it's not common knowledge among men that they are programmed to provide resources to attractive women.
	I think most men have this instinct, but...
	So they don't really know the unconscious mechanisms by which they feel compelled or get pleasure out of giving money to online sex workers.
	Because that is a down payment on what is hoped to be a future return of children and a household, a legacy.
	So women who exploit that Innate programming of men, while knowing that there's no chance that the man is going to get children and a family and a household out of her, is that fraudulent?
	Is that immoral?
	Well, it's in the vicinity.
	It's hard to sort of pin it down.
	A woman, let's take another example, a woman who is asked out on a date by a man, who is not at all interested in the man, who will never date him, who will never kiss him, who then goes and takes an expensive meal from the man, is that fraudulent?
	Kind of.
	And it's a little bit more seriously fraudulent because that's more of a direct withholding.
	If a man asks a woman out on a date and she says, listen, I'll go on a date with you, and I mean, I guess I'm happy if you pay, but I'm not at all attracted to you, I'm never going to date you, never going to kiss you, it's never going to happen, right?
	In fact, I'm going to go from a date with you to a date with a guy I really like, and I might kiss him, but I'm not going to kiss you, right?
	Well, that would be honest.
	And I think all but the most cucked men.
	Or perhaps the most optimistic men, which is two sides of the same coin, all but the most cacked men would themselves say, yeah, I'm not going to do that, right?
	If you're not going to date me at all, if there's absolutely no chance of you dating me, then I'm not going to do that, right?
	Thanks, but no thanks.
	So, and they're called, there's booty calls, right, which is one o'clock in the morning, just go have sex and despawn, and then sperm then despawn, and then there is...
	The foodie call is a woman who goes on dates with men she has no interest in just so they'll pay for dinner.
	And, of course, because we live in a kind of quasi-masturbation culture, the man will sometimes just take an attractive woman out so he can fantasize about it later rather than actually have a relationship, which, again, is not exactly bringing children and family and cultural continuation into the mix, so to speak, right?
	Is it fraudulent?
	Is it fraudulent?
	Again, let's look at another implicit claim, right?
	Is it fraudulent for a man to pretend to have more resources than he has?
	Right, this goes back to Sandman from years ago that I think he knew a guy who would go through the garbage in a bank deposit area, like an ATM, until he found...
	And then this guy would talk to women, and then if they weren't interested, he'd just say, well, just call me, and he'd write his number, and then they'd turn it over, they'd see half a million, and maybe they'd call him because he doesn't actually have half a million.
	Now, of course, he's not explicitly saying he has half a million.
	There's just kind of an implicit implication.
	There's an implicit statement that he does, right?
	But he could just say, hey man, I just go through bank receipts for scraps of paper.
	I never told you I had half a million dollars.
	But he's definitely misleading her that way.
	Now, if the woman dates him, because women are programmed to respond to male resources in the same way that men are programmed to respond to female fertility signals and beauty and hips, tip-to-waist ratio and so on.
	If she dates him because she is led to believe that He has a lot of money and then it turns out he doesn't.
	Is that fraudulent?
	Let's say he dates her for a year, uses up a year of her youth.
	She passes by a bunch of other men who have resources, maybe not quite as many.
	Is that wrong?
	Yeah.
	There's an implicit falsification now.
	You could say, of course, and I understand all of this, right?
	And I just want to say, like, this is a multidimensional issue, which is why I'm treading fairly carefully.
	So, if you say, look, Steph, these guys who are, like, sending, you know, $10 a month to women on OnlyFans, they don't believe that they're going to get a wife and kids out of it, so it's not fraudulent.
	They don't believe that, right?
	And I get that, right?
	I get that.
	Now, is it fraudulent?
	If the man thinks he's talking to the woman, but he's not, right?
	This is an army of low-paid guys, you know, typing, pretending to be the woman, or let's say it's AI or something like that.
	So you two can chat with, what's her name, right?
	And then you type with her, but it's not her.
	Is that fraudulent?
	Well, yeah, that's fraudulent.
	Yeah, that's fortunate for sure.
	The men are buying better orgasms.
	If the woman has accepted your gift and you believe that your body is sort of programmed to believe that there's a possibility of a relationship, then I assume you're buying better orgasms because that's how you're programmed.
	And orgasm is one of the biggest motivators in human life, right?
	It's a complex topic.
	I think that women are exploiting a hack in the male biology, in the male mind and neurological system.
	Women are exploiting pre-programmed male desires and preferences to enrich themselves.
	Is it fraudulent?
	It's close.
	Sometimes it is, right?
	If you think you're talking to the girl, but you're not, that's fraudulent.
	Or if it's promoted that you're talking to the girl and you're not, that's certainly fraudulent.
	I did talk many years ago to a fellow who was actually in significant debt to some pretty sinister people because he had gotten involved with an online sex worker.
	Who, you know, said she needed money for X, Y, and Z. Oh, I come and visit you, but I don't have a passport, and my mother's sick, and so on, right?
	Now, that is fraudulent if it's not true.
	Now, I'm not talking legal standards.
	I don't know.
	I'm not a lawyer, right?
	So I can't really speak to that.
	But morally, if you say to a man who's desperate for you to come and meet him, well, I'd come and meet you, but I need 500 bucks.
	To get my passport.
	And you either have no intention of meeting him, or you already have a passport, or at least you have no intention of getting the passport, then that's fraudulent, for sure.
	I mean, you're lying, and you're preying upon his hopes that you would come and visit.
	And then you say, oh, my mother needs $1,000 for health issues, when that's not the case.
	No, that's fraudulent, right?
	I mean, you're just lying.
	So, yeah, implicit contracts, people need to know the truth up front, right?
	And so, if you say to a restaurant, listen, I'm going to order your most expensive items, and I'm going to dine and dash, I'm not going to pay, right?
	Then the restaurant is not going to bring you the food, right?
	They're just not going to bring you the food, for obvious reasons, right?
	Don't want to lose money.
	And so...
	Is it, oh, I've missed you, oh, I've been thinking about you?
	You know, in other words, is there some dangling of hope for a relationship, a family, children, and so on?
	Is that the case?
	Now, of course, if there are, I don't know, what do some of these women have, like a million, ten million, whatever subscribers?
	Of course, like, no individual is going to have any particular chance of Dating and making her his wife or whatever it is.
	So I get all of that.
	People say, well, come on.
	I mean, it's one in ten million or one in a million.
	It's not going to happen, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, is that fraudulent?
	Well, probably not.
	But it's a hack.
	It's a hack.
	It is an exploitation of a pre-built emotional mechanism in no way designed for What is occurring?
	Right?
	We did not evolve with digital online pornography or the ability to send money across the world and have a woman topless thank you for it.
	That did not happen.
	So, is it honorable?
	No.
	It is not.
	And it is, of course, destructive.
	Because people who are addicted to this kind of online spending on Online nakedness are probably not getting quality girlfriends, fiancées, wives, and so on, right?
	That's just not happening.
	So you are, in fact, harming the formation of the family.
	You are harming people's capacity to pair bond.
	You are stuffing them full of secrets and shame.
	It is exploitive.
	And, of course, I get there's no...
	So the men who are sending money to these women are also harming these women because they're being turned into flesh commodities whose only value is TNA and is masturbation fantasies and there's no response to virtue.
	There is only a response to physical markers of fertility.
	It's very R-selected.
	So, I mean, there is a certain amount of anger slash rage towards women that occurs in these transactions.
	It is anger towards attractive women that has men give them money to trap them in a humiliating and denigrating lifestyle.
	So, it is very R selected, it is very...
	Is it a specific violation of the non-aggression principle?
	It is not.
	Do most of the people participating in these transactions have histories of significant neglect, abuse and trauma?
	Yes, they do.
	And so I don't take pride in my intelligence.
	And I don't take pride in my work ethic per se.
	I take pride in the uses that I put my innate gifts towards the promotion of virtue not just in myself, not just in those around me, but in the world as a whole.
	I don't think the same can be said for women posting pictures of their boobs.
	In fact, that can be quite corrupting.
	And of course, also, because men have access now to ridiculous levels of female attractiveness, like the sort of 1 in 10,000 women who make it big on these platforms, men have access and then program themselves through masturbation to respond to such ridiculous levels of female attractiveness,
	that it's like women reading celebrity magazines and thinking that Men of such wealth and talent and attractiveness are somehow available to them.
	It programs men to view normal-looking women as ugly, and it programs women, in the celebrity culture, it programs women to look at average-earning men as piss-broke, as duds, as losers.
	It's just no money, right?
	Forever focusing on the extremes inoculates you against the norm that is probably your lot.
	So in general, and as a whole, I would put this sort of sex work in the realm of aesthetically negative actions.
	So there is virtue, the good.
	There is aesthetically positive actions, which are good for society, good for people as a whole, but can't be enforced through violence.
	Which is things like being on time, being relatively polite and diplomatic and thoughtful and so on, right?
	Aesthetically positive but not enforceable.
	You can't shoot someone for being late, right?
	But you can shoot someone for physically attacking you, assault or attempted murder.
	So there's moral, aesthetically positive, which is around the realm of politeness and thoughtfulness.
	There is neutral, running for the bus, doesn't matter, going for a walk.
	And then there's aesthetically negative, Actions, rudeness, being late, which are not enforceable through force because they themselves are not enforced through force.
	And then there's evil, which is violations of the non-aggression principle and so on.
	Now, where does sex work belong?
	Well, not in the realm of virtue and not in the realm of aesthetically positive actions because it harms society.
	It's an exploitive hack of male and female physiology, but more the male side.
	And prevents love and gives people black-hearted secrets and prevents pair bonding and delays marriage and family and children, which are the primary ingredients of the spread of virtue.
	Most people can spread virtue through family, through having children.
	They don't necessarily have the rhetorical skills and technical abilities to do what I do or other people do.
	So you're preventing people from spreading virtue in the most effective way they can, which is...
	So it's not evil because it does not require the initiation, violations of the initiation of the use of force or fraud.
	Again, it can be fraudulent in some areas if you think you're talking to the woman, but you're not.
	But this kind of sex work is aesthetically negative.
	It's not evil.
	It's not morally neutral, it's not good for society, and it is not the promotion of virtue as a whole.
	So it would fall into the realm of aesthetically negative behavior.
	And aesthetic means it's not evil, it's bad for society, but it does not initiate the use of force or fraud.
	Again, a lot of this online stuff is Fraudulent, but not all.
	And I'm not saying that the woman I talked to was doing anything like that.
	I don't know.
	I'm also not saying that she was showing pictures of her butthole.
	That was just a bit of hyperbole to sort of make the case.
	I don't know what she was doing online other than what she told me, so I don't want to impugn that.
	But, yeah, so it would be squarely and towards the lower end of aesthetically negative actions.
	So, that's...
	In the hierarchy, sort of the five-level hierarchy of values that UPB, University Preferable Behavior, outlines.
	And again, I go into this more into the book.
	It's not violently inflicted upon you, but it is online sex work or sex work as a whole.
	This is shadow cast by earlier neglect and violence, which are two sides of the same coin.
	In fact, neglect is often worse than violence for children.
	It's aesthetically negative.
	It is a shadow cast by severe violations of the non-aggression principle against helpless and dependent children, and it is harmful to society as a whole, and therefore will not bring happiness.
	It harms love, pair bonding, family formation, cultural transmission, children, which is the greatest chance most people have to spread virtue in the world.
	So it is very much at the down and dark end of aesthetically negative actions, but does not.
	Fall into the category of evil unless the aforementioned fraud is occurring.
	So, I hope that clears that part up.
	Yeah, I hope this helps.
	I look forward to continuing the discussion.
	I appreciate the question and the annoyance it brought.
	So, farewell, my friends.
	Freedomain.com slash donate.
	Hey, look at that.
	How about an online worker?
	Freedomain.com slash donate.
	Take care, my friends.

▲