kelpdiver 2 #51 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuotethe answer would be yes That's odd, I've never heard of anyone ... Quoting out of context and answering to that false statement is a lot easier, isn't it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #52 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteThat's what you get when you install democracy in foreign countries! it's what you get if you make prostitution legal. Right, alcohol and cigs are ok, but not prostitution - it's the Devil's carnate... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #53 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteI had no idea prostitution was legal in Germany; what kind of sick people would legalize that? I have no problem with legalized prostitution. My take on individual liberty is such that I think a woman should be able to choose whether or not she provides such services. Her body, her moral system, it should be her choice. That said, I have a serious problem with the thought of a woman being pressured into such a job. My suspicion however, is that the people who are quoted in that article are alarmists simply crying wolf. Blues, Dave Don't you realize that the right ignores the ole, "you can't legislate morality" stuff? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #54 February 2, 2005 Quote>my morals say that prostitution is wrong. I agree. I also think that relying on welfare is wrong, that defending guilty people is wrong, that not taking responsibility for yourself is wrong, and that smoking is wrong. However, I also realize that other people feel differently than I do, and that's OK - I wouldn't want to "ban smoking" or anything like that just because my morals don't match theirs. ...that defending guilty people is wrong... But guilt/innocense isn't realized until after the defense... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #55 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoting out of context and answering to that false statement is a lot easier, isn't it? Well you changed the context from "reality" to "imaginary"... You made a statement that was supposedly based on reality: QuoteBut we had a lot of good IT workers in the Bay Area out of work for a year - we didn't give them the choice of fucking for their rent, or getting nothing. and I asked you questions regarding that reality... QuoteWere they given the opportunity to stay on unemployment infinitely, until the perfect IT job came up? Did some of them have to take less than ideal (non-IT) jobs to get by for awhile? but then you answered me with a response based on some made-up world... (meaning you didn't actually answer either one of my questions) QuoteIn this world that you and others would seem to prefer, the answer would be yes...unless they were young and female and therefore capable of being a working girl. Oh well, not much point in continuing that discussion if we can't keep it in the context of "reality"... I'm not really interested in your imaginary world that you've somehow concluded that others would prefer (where men can draw unemployment infinitely, but women immediately have to take a job as a prostitute if they are unemployed - wow, talk about twisting things around...). The reality is that there are jobs out there. The government doesn't force you to get a job. LIFE forces you to get a job, or at least to figure out how to take care of yourself. As an adult, it's your responsibility; it's not society's responsibility to take care of you. Getting money from unemployment for a whole year is a pretty damn good deal; asking for more than that (in most cases) means you're expecting other people to take care of you rather than taking responsibility for yourself. (IMO) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,588 #56 February 2, 2005 QuoteBut guilt/innocense isn't realized until after the defense... I didn't see a little smilie or anything there. Legal guilt or innocence, yes. But, ya know, deeper down there is a fact of whether or not someone committed a particular act. After all, if Jane Doe is judged innocent of having murdered her husband John, and no one else is convicted, does that mean he comes back to life? Didn't think so. Sometimes guilty people get off. Sometimes innocent people are convicted. Just because the law says someone did something doesn't mean they actually did. That's why it's important to get it right. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #57 February 2, 2005 QuoteI'd have absolutely no problem with that. But we had a lot of good IT workers in the Bay Area out of work for a year Maybe they were to spoiled to get a job at Taco Bell to tide them over till a job they really wanted came along? Cry me a river already..... QuoteAnd sorry, the threat of welfare lost makes it less then voluntary. That's what happens when idiots start thinking welfare is some sort of right, rather than a "favor" to help someone stay on their feet for a short time.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #58 February 2, 2005 QuoteWow, forcing people to take responsibility for themselves, what a concept. Don't make me wash your mouth out with soap young lady!---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #59 February 2, 2005 QuoteDon't make me wash your mouth out with soap young lady! No! Not the soap again! I prefer the belt... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #60 February 2, 2005 I'll be right over..... Where do you live again?---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #61 February 2, 2005 QuoteWhere do you live again? Probably not too far from you... But you better be careful... I'm a lot meaner than I look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoting out of context and answering to that false statement is a lot easier, isn't it? Well you changed the context from "reality" to "imaginary"... Quote so say that. Don't alter my statement to something that you can more readily challenge. Quote The reality is that there are jobs out there. The government doesn't force you to get a job. LIFE forces you to get a job, or at least to figure out how to take care of yourself. As an adult, it's your responsibility; it's not society's responsibility to take care of you. Getting money from unemployment for a whole year is a pretty damn good deal; asking for more than that (in most cases) means you're expecting other people to take care of you rather than taking responsibility for yourself. (IMO) See again the problem is that you and others are focusing on the wrong detail. This topic is not about whether or not someone should collect UI for more than a year. Or at all. The question is should UI benefits be cancelled if a person refuses to take a dangerous or immoral job. Say she had been out of work for 2 months instead of 12+ - does your sense of moral outrage change? It's not quite real world, since the true situation is apparently rather different. Work with what we were given. Though if as someone suggested, men would also be inducted into the trade as bottoms, the unfairness part would go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #63 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'd have absolutely no problem with that. But we had a lot of good IT workers in the Bay Area out of work for a year Maybe they were to spoiled to get a job at Taco Bell to tide them over till a job they really wanted came along? Cry me a river already..... Taco Bell wages aren't going to tide anyone over in this part of the world. And if your concern is about taxpayer money, you probably come out behind insisting such people work multiple minimum wage jobs to tide by, rather than do some retraining so they can again pay $2-3000/month in taxes. and that misses the fact that few employers are interested in hiring grossly overqualified candidates that will leave as soon as something better comes along. That was the big problem until the tech scene reached a new equilibrium. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Shotgun 1 #64 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell you changed the context from "reality" to "imaginary"... so say that. Ok, sorry... I was just playing (being an ass)... I'll cut it out now... I understand what you're saying (I think), that this could hypothetically be a problem... and I say "hypothetically" because we don't know if this story is even true or not... So to keep it from becoming a problem, I think the ideal solution would be to have some sort of stipulation (if it's not already there) in the law(s?) regarding the unemployment system - which says that jobs in prostitution (and whatever other jobs we deem to be dangerous or of moral question) cannot be offered to people through this system. Probably not a perfect answer, but most things don't seem to have perfect answers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kelpdiver 2 #63 February 2, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'd have absolutely no problem with that. But we had a lot of good IT workers in the Bay Area out of work for a year Maybe they were to spoiled to get a job at Taco Bell to tide them over till a job they really wanted came along? Cry me a river already..... Taco Bell wages aren't going to tide anyone over in this part of the world. And if your concern is about taxpayer money, you probably come out behind insisting such people work multiple minimum wage jobs to tide by, rather than do some retraining so they can again pay $2-3000/month in taxes. and that misses the fact that few employers are interested in hiring grossly overqualified candidates that will leave as soon as something better comes along. That was the big problem until the tech scene reached a new equilibrium. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #64 February 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteWell you changed the context from "reality" to "imaginary"... so say that. Ok, sorry... I was just playing (being an ass)... I'll cut it out now... I understand what you're saying (I think), that this could hypothetically be a problem... and I say "hypothetically" because we don't know if this story is even true or not... So to keep it from becoming a problem, I think the ideal solution would be to have some sort of stipulation (if it's not already there) in the law(s?) regarding the unemployment system - which says that jobs in prostitution (and whatever other jobs we deem to be dangerous or of moral question) cannot be offered to people through this system. Probably not a perfect answer, but most things don't seem to have perfect answers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
