Difference between Sree and KV - Page 7

Originally posted by: lostloveforever

@KD apologies for my question but needed to understand that before I could address this finally.
You have made some really good points.

I will keep it short and simple. The bolded part is a wrong premise to start with since u are assuming prostitution is entirely linked to human trafficking which isn't the case, easy money plays a big role in that decision wherein the reference to thieves fits in. Legality of an action comes into play only when one is caught, I was talking about individual reaction to pickpocketing or stealing. Since you are already aware that law treats the girls as victims except for solicitation under Indian legal system, your grievance seems to be societal reaction.

The premise that "what's not forbidden is right" is actually a fallacious premise, e.g though adultery is no longer a crime but an adulterer will always be shunned or looked down upon. It brings me to the next question if your sense of judgement is the best available one or people have a right to differ and say that this profession isn't respectable?

I believe people should always have a right to differ. Dissent is necessary for healthy functioning of democracy and societal freedom. Everybody thinks that their sense of judgement is right and the best one. Everyone forms opinon based on their perception of things. I can see why making easy money through prostitution isn't looked upon as respectful by some and why for some it's fine.

Coming to specific event regarding Sree, I am starting with a premise that behavior of Surabhi of winking, throwing kisses, or making sounds to attract attention resembled someone who indulging in such acts, why should this reference be offending? If that's the behavior attributable to a specific group, it becomes offending only when I think that "the reference to the group itself is offensive or demeaning because of their choice of profession". So in a way people outraging have the aforesaid thinking to start with, don't you think so? You may accuse me of stereotyping certain acts to a group, and I accept it, because it comes from movies other visual media.

I totally understand your point it's a profession, but doesn't have legal sanctity in India, and case maybe different else where. I also understand the point that they should not be looked down upon for their choice, whatever their motive maybe. I was only intending to point the dichotomy wherein a person with these biases would be more outraged with this reference than a neural one.

Very good point. Agree.

Conclusions:

1. People have a right to decide or choose for themselves the profession of their choice but that choice is limited by legal and constitutional morality while the former maybe codified the latter may not be. Just because law doesn't prohibit it, doesn't mean it encourages it and terms it a noble profession.

2. People who look down upon this profession will be the ones outraging at even remote reference to this group.

3. The aired video was just a plain simple reference owing to certain attribution of acts, if its demeaning or offensive is entirely one's state of mind.

Originally posted by: Jo_March

Thanks for this discussion. Made me ponder a lot.

Are you by any chance preparing for upsc? 😆