315 réponses à ce sujet

[eroeru]

android654 wrote...

practically no one uses it anymore.

Yup, that much I knew already.

[android654]

bmwcrazy wrote...

android654 wrote...
You'd lose your minds if you knew a high school teacher recommended to me to read The Story of O when I was 16. Then again, if this is indicative of how you live your lives, you probably don't know what the story is about.

I suppose it is not about the "O" face? 

There are quite a few of those throughout the book.

[bmwcrazy]

android654 wrote...

There are quite a few of those throughout the book.

Sold...

[DarkDragon777]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...


EDIT: This is why Law shouldn't exist at all, deal with your own problems. 

Not sure if serious.....

[android654]

[quote]bmwcrazy wrote...

[quote]android654 wrote...

There are quite a few of those throughout the book.[/quote]

Sold...

[/quote]

The Story Of O[/quote] is considered a literary classic and still holds up despite it being written almost 60 years ago. But it's not for the timid.

[Chromie]

bmwcrazy wrote...

android654 wrote...

There are quite a few of those throughout the book.

Sold...

Buy it now. If you can hande reading about seuxal submission and well a willing sex "slave" you'll enjoy it. Obviously the more conservative types just look away.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Skelter192 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
 Thankfully over here in the UK hate speech is a crime and one racist woman who thought she could say anything she wanted spent her Christmas behind bars as a result.

Well why not just say your from the UK? Obviously we are going to have different opinions especially since I'm American and we are ttalking about something that happened in a American University not sure why your reaching and bringing in racism.  It's perfectly acceptable to be a dick in public, free speech does allow that, it's when it infringes on someone elses right to life and all that it's a problem. Pretty ****ing stupid to be in jail for saying something racist and frankly I'm surprised.

And listen to yourself killing someone to avert more death. How would you even know?

You say that we would obviously have different opinions about this subject because we're both from different countries but that's not true. I'm pretty certain that others who have agreed with me have been American such as yourself. I don't see how having different opinions is based on where we're from.

Also there's a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. 

I brought racism up because the KKK was mentioned and then it was said that it's alright for them to have their view and that they're allowed to have their view and allowed to speak racist remarks. Well the difference between America and England here is that we have the hate speech law which doesn't allow such remarks.

There's no justification for racism so of course it should be punished.

My statement about killing someone to avert more death is reffering to a situation where there could be someone with a gun about to shoot people. If I'm far away from him and I somehow have a gun of course I would fire it to stop him and I would fire it to kill him because even with a wound he might not give up.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 09 mai 2012 - 10:03 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

bmwcrazy wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...
According to Elton you can. 

Elton also lied about being a police officer. You can't trust that man. 

No! I said I was above the law. I'm a MI6 agent. KNOW YOUR FACTS NEXT TIME!


(The alien smiley is meant to symbolize an angry face)

[Chromie]

Elton John is dead wrote...
You say that we would obviously have different opinions about this subject because we're both from different countries but that's not true. I'm pretty certain that others who have agreed with me have been American such as yourself. I don't see how having different opinions is based on where we're from.

Well clearly you just said a woman was put behind bars for saying racist comments I don't remember in recent history that happening here. How would that change our outlook?

Elton John is dead wrote...
Also there's a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. 

 

Hate speech is still protected by freedom of speech at least over here other wise American politics would be completely different thing.

Elton John is dead wrote... 
My statement about killing someone to avert more death is reffering to a situation where there could be someone with a gun about to shoot people. If I'm far away from him and I somehow have a gun of course I would fire it to stop him and I would fire it to kill him because even with a wound he might not give up.

  

/faceplam 

Your just reaching now self defense is something else entirely.

Modifié par Skelter192, 09 mai 2012 - 10:07 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Skelter192 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
You say that we would obviously have different opinions about this subject because we're both from different countries but that's not true. I'm pretty certain that others who have agreed with me have been American such as yourself. I don't see how having different opinions is based on where we're from.

Well clearly you just said a woman was put behind bars for saying racist comments I don't remember in recent history that happening here. How would that change our outlook?

Elton John is dead wrote...
Also there's a difference between hate speech and freedom of speech. 

 

Hate speech is still protected by freedom of speech at least over here other wise American politics would be completely different thing.

I thought you referring to our view about the OP?

And concerning freedom of speech. I guess America and England have different views on that and I support England on this one.

And what are you talking about self defense for? I'm not the one about to be shot since I'm no where near the guy. I can choose to let the guy shoot and have that on my conscience for the rest of my life or I can choose to shot him and save millions of children and adults. 

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 09 mai 2012 - 10:11 .

[DarkDragon777]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

@DarkDragon777


No-one or group should be allowed the power law gives, if law is reformed it's still Law, nope it needs to go out the window.

So you're saying that people should be able to whatever they want, even if it severely harms your version "society" as a whole?

[Chromie]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

@DarkDragon777


No-one or group should be allowed the power law gives, if law is reformed it's still Law, nope it needs to go out the window.

So you're saying that people should be able to whatever they want, even if it severely harms your version "society" as a whole?

Did someone say Dothraki politics?

 

[Mylia Stenetch]

Elhanan wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

I see - so it's not bigoted for people to invoke their personal beliefs to determine when, where, and how other people have sex, but it is bigoted for people to state their opinions to the contrary?

Interesting.

bigotry

noun, plural big·ot·ries.

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.


2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Sorry, but even permissives can show bigotry. And it seems to occur far more often than some will accept.

If those that are offended choose to complain, then they are labled intolerant, but it is often the more permissive one that refuses to see that others may not hold their liberal POV.

Take your politcal lables and throw it out, you are trying to pervert this more and lock this thread cause you do not like where it headed. Sure it may be bursting at the seams with furstration and friction on both sides. You cannot try and call one side of this coin who have been open and accepting on what is being said biggot. 

Taking a firm grasp on this thread you have failed on and trolled worse. You did not rise to the occasion and come out with anything new. You still try to paint the others as soemthing they are not showing once again what I said before you are preaching, or putting your morals and opinions above others, which is pretty big-headed.

So how about the safety of prostitues being in brothels? Don't they have the right to a safe enviroment? Just the same if someone wants to talk about their sexualuty with grown adults they should be allowed to due to the freedoms America has?

[Mylia Stenetch]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

@DarkDragon777 I don't know what you mean but maybe I should explain myself further, No rules, no rulers.

So you want to live in a libertarian society? Not really related to the thread I would say.

[Elhanan]

greengoron89 wrote...

Truly? Because that sounds like you, Elton, Lotion, and some of the others here in a nutshell, to me - but I suppose by accusing the other side of being the same, you absolve yourself of any notion that you're a "bigot" yourself.

It's also funny because you're the person who brought "bigotry" into the conversation in the first place - and now you're throwing around the term "liberal" on top of that. It seems you're looking at this discussion through a pair of political glasses, and not simply for what it is.

I am not certain, but I believe I have used the term 'liberal' once; simply tired of using permissive. Yes, I am so politically minded....

And the reason I brought of bias and bigotry into this discussion, I do not believe it was my posts that attempted to ridicule those of other POV; seems it may have been those that that want to disguise themselves as 'open-minded'. 

Bigotry is not restricted by race, creed, or religious belief; it is an equal opportunistic prejudice.

Modifié par Elhanan, 10 mai 2012 - 12:03 .

[UnstableMongoose]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...
This is all well and good, but the most reasonable statistics suggest that human trafficking for purposes of prostitution increases when prostitution is legalized in a region. Now, I'm not saying our system is perfect, but legalization actually tends to complicate things, or it least it has in such places as legalization has been enacted.

This is not to say that a system of legalization could never be found which protects against the abuses of human trafficking, but as of yet, such a thing does not exist.

To me it is just a begining. He is the one who brought up the issue. While this could cause problem cause mafias a big enough to corrupt gov't and police they will always take the path of least resistance. An example is look at all the strip clubs in Montreal they are all owned my Hell's Angels. So they are the safest place to be but there is so much cocaine that rolls though it there is no control.

There will always be loopholes they will find to increase productivity. Still with proper regulation (I said this again too!) with the legalization it can help curb it and make a safe enviroment for women of the night to work at. It all comes down to regulation and proper planning from the gov't end. I am not saying legalize and walk away calling it done. It is putting in regulations on safety, STIs, taxing, making sure people are paying into the system and keeping a place a heathy enviroment for all.

A fine example of this from where I live. Most drug gangs run pizza shops as a front, why is this? Cause they have the least regulation of all food establishments there is nothing to owning and running one. Also with the easy accessability to university students they make a killing. With proper regulation and standards this would not of happened and made it easier for law enforcement to get them.

Right. As I said, it is theoretically possible for a better system to be found with government planning. But legalizing prostitution is extremely dangerous, and has several parallels that do not match perfectly with drug running.

Legalizing prostitution and making a safer work environment has two competing effects, according to most research on the subject: the first effect is that having a safe and legal environment makes having local workers cheaper and more profitable, decreasing the efficacy and profitability of the slave trade. The contrary effect is that legalized prostitution results in an enormous increase in demand for prostitution, meaning that additional workers must be found from elsewhere, causing an increase in human trafficking.

These effects tend to compete in more or less every area with legalized prostitution. The second one usually comes out ahead, meaning that legalizing prostitution is, in most cases, directly going to cause an increase in human trafficking. As it is the basic market forces of supply and demand driving this dichotomy, it is very difficult to defeat this system, leaving the realistic options of A) leaving the system broken as it is, or providing a safer and legal environment which experience teaches us will probably up-regulate the trafficking of slaves into our country. The option C) of finding a way to fix it without incurring the negative penalties of is unlikely to be reasonably obtained.

That's not even to touch the objectifying effect this can also have on women when they can be pressured into this kind of work in a perfectly legal manner--I'm going to avoid this topic because data on it is less clear, and I'm less sure of my opinions on it as a result.

In any case, my main point is: the attitude of legalization and support of sex-for-profit and public smut is not by necessity a more advanced and mature stance than being opposed to such things--there can be clearly negative consequences to such acts; European countries heralded on the Internet for their attitudes regarding sex tend to have a higher risk of human trafficking per capita than more conservative nations.

This is not to say that there are no advantages to a more relaxed view of such matters, but to point out that the current European stance is by no means deserving of the pedestal such discussions oftentimes put it on.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 10 mai 2012 - 12:14 .

[android654]

UnstableMongoose wrote...
In any case, my main point is: the attitude of legalization and support of sex-for-profit and public smut is not by necessity a more advanced and mature stance than being opposed to such things--there can be clearly negative consequences to such acts; European countries heralded on the Internet for their attitudes regarding sex tend to have a higher risk of human trafficking per capita than more conservative nations.

This is not to say that there are no advantages to a more relaxed view of such matters, but to point out that the current European stance is by no means deserving of the pedestal such discussions oftentimes put it on.

Got to disagree there. It is much more mature to say, "While I wouldn't take part in such a thing, if there is a demand for it, there should be options for that segment of the community. I'm unaffected, since the legality or illegality of the practice wouldn't influence me or those I associate with." As for human trafficking, the elimination of crime is not the goal of legalizing anything, since the issue of crime has been around as long as we've had a society and will exist for as long as we're around. This does however benefit the state by allowing revenue to be collected, decriminalizing  prostitutes and customers alike for something that would be legal if the monetary element was removed and makes an attempt at having regulations for something that is going to exist with or without consent from the masses.

At any rate, it's off-topic since no laws were broken by Dr. Bailey and it would take an absurd interpretation of any law system in the U.S. to try and find something illegal here.

[UnstableMongoose]

android654 wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...
In any case, my main point is: the attitude of legalization and support of sex-for-profit and public smut is not by necessity a more advanced and mature stance than being opposed to such things--there can be clearly negative consequences to such acts; European countries heralded on the Internet for their attitudes regarding sex tend to have a higher risk of human trafficking per capita than more conservative nations.

This is not to say that there are no advantages to a more relaxed view of such matters, but to point out that the current European stance is by no means deserving of the pedestal such discussions oftentimes put it on.

Got to disagree there. It is much more mature to say, "While I wouldn't take part in such a thing, if there is a demand for it, there should be options for that segment of the community. I'm unaffected, since the legality or illegality of the practice wouldn't influence me or those I associate with." As for human trafficking, the elimination of crime is not the goal of legalizing anything, since the issue of crime has been around as long as we've had a society and will exist for as long as we're around. This does however benefit the state by allowing revenue to be collected, decriminalizing  prostitutes and customers alike for something that would be legal if the monetary element was removed and makes an attempt at having regulations for something that is going to exist with or without consent from the masses.

At any rate, it's off-topic since no laws were broken by Dr. Bailey and it would take an absurd interpretation of any law system in the U.S. to try and find something illegal here.

It's off the original topic, but germane to the way discussion was going into the thread.

And you seem to miss my point. Your claim that it's mature is taking the issue in a vacuum and only worrying about whether or not the specific thing is legal. I argue that you can't do this. If you know by case study that legalizing prostitution is almost certainly going to increase human trafficking into your country, ignoring that fact and legalizing it anyway is silent assent to human trafficking. Whether or not legalizing prostitution is the correct move outside of this framework is irrelevant, since the framework exists.

I'm going to open a parallel argument to show you why you can't evaluate political decisions with moral implications in a moral vacuum.

It is a perfectly moral standpoint to have the view that public institutions should not be exposing students to overtly sexual material at a time in their lives when they are likely to engage in sexual behavior that is extraordinarily risky to them--this is the moral basis for "abstinence only" sex education, and as a moral basis it is unassailable. However, the failure of abstinence-only sex ed lies in outside factors in a manner that has nothing to do with the original moral question of whether it is proper for a school to give its tacit assent to sexual relations between its students. Implementing an abstinence-only sex ed course is almost guaranteed to raise rates of promiscuous sex, STIs, and teen pregnancy. This means that it is now immoral to implement an abstinence-only sex ed class because you know that it will greatly harm the students in its tutelage.

These outside factors mean that the abstinence-only/comprehensive debate can not be resolved in a vacuum because of their known effects. Likewise, you cannot take the issue of legalized prostitution in a vacuum because of its known effects. To brazenly legalize it through a decision made without evaluating all factors is essentially a vote of support for the slave trade.

Modifié par UnstableMongoose, 10 mai 2012 - 01:02 .

[Elhanan]

greengoron89 wrote...


Bringing the term "bigotry" into the discussion was pointless in the first place - what, did you honestly think that voicing your opinion on the subject would not be met with any disagreement? Are we all to simply not voice our disagreements because it would be "bigotry" to do so?

Sorry, but no one here is being "intolerant" of your opinion - you're here, you're voicing your opinion, and we are in disagreement over it. If you think that's "bigotry", then I think you need to reevaluate the meaning of the term.

Nope; brought the definition with me; remember? And if the shoe fits....

[android654]

UnstableMongoose wrote...

android654 wrote...

UnstableMongoose wrote...
In any case, my main point is: the attitude of legalization and support of sex-for-profit and public smut is not by necessity a more advanced and mature stance than being opposed to such things--there can be clearly negative consequences to such acts; European countries heralded on the Internet for their attitudes regarding sex tend to have a higher risk of human trafficking per capita than more conservative nations.

This is not to say that there are no advantages to a more relaxed view of such matters, but to point out that the current European stance is by no means deserving of the pedestal such discussions oftentimes put it on.

Got to disagree there. It is much more mature to say, "While I wouldn't take part in such a thing, if there is a demand for it, there should be options for that segment of the community. I'm unaffected, since the legality or illegality of the practice wouldn't influence me or those I associate with." As for human trafficking, the elimination of crime is not the goal of legalizing anything, since the issue of crime has been around as long as we've had a society and will exist for as long as we're around. This does however benefit the state by allowing revenue to be collected, decriminalizing  prostitutes and customers alike for something that would be legal if the monetary element was removed and makes an attempt at having regulations for something that is going to exist with or without consent from the masses.

At any rate, it's off-topic since no laws were broken by Dr. Bailey and it would take an absurd interpretation of any law system in the U.S. to try and find something illegal here.

It's off the original topic, but germane to the way discussion was going into the thread.

And you seem to miss my point. Your claim that it's mature is taking the issue in a vacuum and only worrying about whether or not the specific thing is legal. I argue that you can't do this. If you know by case study that legalizing prostitution is almost certainly going to increase human trafficking into your country, ignoring that fact and legalizing it anyway is silent assent to human trafficking. Whether or not legalizing prostitution is the correct move outside of this framework is irrelevant, since the framework exists.

I'm going to open a parallel argument to show you why you can't evaluate political decisions with moral implications in a moral vacuum.

It is a perfectly moral standpoint to have the view that public institutions should not be exposing students to overtly sexual material at a time in their lives when they are likely to engage in sexual behavior that is extraordinarily risky to them--this is the moral basis for "abstinence only" sex education, and as a moral basis it is unassailable. However, the failure of abstinence-only sex ed lies in outside factors in a manner that has nothing to do with the original moral question of whether it is proper for a school to give its tacit assent to sexual relations between its students. Implementing an abstinence-only sex ed course is almost guaranteed to raise rates of promiscuous sex, STIs, and teen pregnancy. This means that it is now immoral to implement an abstinence-only sex ed class because you know that it will greatly harm the students in its tutelage.

These outside factors mean that the abstinence-only/comprehensive debate can not be resolved in a vacuum because of their known effects. Likewise, you cannot take the issue of legalized prostitution in a vacuum because of its known effects. To brazenly legalize it through a decision made without evaluating all factors is essentially a vote of support for the slave trade.

It comes down to what kind of society it's being applied to. In most Western countries we utilize the ethical theory of Act Utilitarianism meaning that acts (laws) are constructed with the intent of doing the most good for everyone involved. That's the position from which I view almost all issues like this. In this situation, since prostitution exists prior to it's legalization, regulating it is the most humane route since it makes brothels, prostitutes and all employees of that brothel responsible for adhering to the laws. By regulating them, the opportunities for those institutions to engage in illegal activity is compromised since it is seen as highly regulated establishment and have to operate like other establishments have to. Human trafficking would exist with or without prostitution, so it isn't a by-product of prostitution, but a by-product of regulation in law enforcement and regulation of disreputable brothels that engage in the sex trade.

As for the education, this course was taught at the collegiate level, everyone there is an adult and this course was designed entirely around human sexual behavior, so any ethical discussion on what degree of sexuality could be taught is unnecessary. It was meant to supplement the transcripts of future psychologists and the only persons who have a say as to what is taught there is the professor and the heads of the psychology department. Outside opinions have no place there since it isn't a "public" institution in the sense that they are held to the whims of the citizens in the area.