[josephg]

> I would ask why /you/ are implying to exploit is "wrong". At best that's a very narrow and fairly modernist reading. To exploit someone or something in and of itself has no negative connotations associated with it.

You can die on that hill if you want, but "exploiting someone" has negative connotations in modern colloquial English. If a word doesn't fit what you're trying to communicate, use a different word or you will be misinterpreted.

> exploit (verb): 2. make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand: the company was exploiting a legal loophole. (Oxford Dictionary of English)

[Dalewyn]

As evidenced by "exploit (verb): 2.", you are literally ignoring the /first/ definition of "exploit", which to quote Merriam-Webster[1] is:

>1

>: to make productive use of : UTILIZE

>exploiting your talents

>exploit your opponent's weakness

I would link to the Oxford English Dictionary, but apparently they demand I make an account and/or subscribe so that will have to wait for another day.

You have to go out of your way to associate negative connotations with the word "exploit", so please try again with your premisconceptions.

[1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit

[josephg]

Ok; let me try again without my "premisconceptions" (not a word found in the Oxford English Dictionary, fwiw).

So your earlier comment should be read as:

> All business is about making productive use of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that productive use is within tolerable limits.

... Except then that second sentence doesn't make sense now. If we take out the word "exploit", what are these "tolerable limits" of productive use you're pointing to? The original sentence read as if staying within "tolerable limits" is important to limit the implied harm we're doing by trading.

It reads like a motte-and-bailey argument[1] to me. Like what you're trying to say is this:

> All business is about exploiting ("1. to make productive use of / UTILIZE") someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation ("2. make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand") is within tolerable limits.

When pushed on why you think business is dangerous you fall back on definition 1 of exploit. But then you lean on definition 2 of "exploit" to imply wrongness - "The only question is whether that productive use is within tolerable limits.". Or as another commenter wrote, "Are [workers] actually happy? Or are they exploited? That's the issue."

The blending together of these definitions feels slippery and underhanded. I don't care what word you use. Do you think trade is good or bad? Healthy or unhealthy for the participants?

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

[Dalewyn]

>If we take out the word "exploit", what are these "tolerable limits" of productive use you're pointing to?

Business transactions fundamentally rely on the parties concerned coming to an agreement in order to proceed. If the parties are not in agreement, which is to say if the exploitation (aka the terms of the transaction) is not within "tolerable limits", the business transaction cannot proceed.

Therefore, and I reiterate: All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions. The only question is whether that exploitation is within tolerable limits.

>When pushed on why you think business is dangerous

I have never said nor implied such a thing.[1][2]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34461596

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34462392