metalslug

Well, you have not yet tipped your hand as to why this poll, or the TV program on the same subject, has caught your interest right now above other options.

Different kinds of circumstances exist in such a business; some of which is, and should be, illegal, and some of which I think is "OK". There is much that can be said about the dark side of prostitution, and how this justifies the laws against it, but I will leave that to others with more knowledge and experience on the matter. I believe it can be "OK" when it truly involves consenting adults in an honest transaction. For a male seeking a short term score, his alternative is to seduce an unsuspecting partner for as long he needs her, ending the "relationship" at his convenience, and disregarding the emotional outcome as she learns that she was merely a physical outlet. To me that can be more unscrupulous than employing a professional, and the monetary costs are often about the same. ...and therein lies the difference in using a professional. He's not necessarily paying for the sex, he's paying her to leave afterwards.

Attached...

I think conscription should be a last resort for any country and I say this as someone who was conscripted into the South African military for 2 years; deployed to defend Namibia against the Angolans, and later in a policing role to enforce the laws of our conservative government of that day. Mandatory conscription gives you a heterogenous mix of cultures and political affiliations, many of whom do not support the ruling party, it's policies and it's military objectives. This makes it a challenge for both the commanders and the recruits to develop patriotism in a cohesive fighting unit. It can create resentment that lasts for years. I'm with kelpdiver and billvon on this. I believe the US military is mostly fine the way it currently is, and if more funds are needed to feed the beast, add a tax. It is important that you have a military that wants to be there. Conscription will not give you that.

...and quite possibly for the last time too. If this report is unequivocally accurate and impartial then what would be your guess as to why the UN secretary general found it necessary to launch a separate inquiry ? This thread should rest for now. If the second report reveals facts similar to the first report then, by all means, flame on.

You can't include him. He lives outside of Pleasantville. We don't go outside of Pleasantville.

Depends entirely on the scruples of the community that you deal with. You'll get 'suckered' eventually. Karma is a concept from Hindu religion and if I start believing in that then I might as well start attending church too.

Oh, don't stop there. By all means include this paragraph too... Let them take both reports to The Hague and see how they stand up to scrutiny. I'm all for justice either way.

How would one define 'simulate' in this context ? Can we not 'simulate' gravity in space using centrifugal motion, in as much as we simulate weightlessness on earth using a parabolic flight path? You might say that we would be simulating the force of gravity and not gravity itself. If so; what defines gravity other than as a force ? By comparison; I've seen flight 'simulators' offer a poorer simulation of flight than the two examples above, so what do you regard as a simulation in this context?

Odd, I don't think any of the presidents mentioned thus far qualify as the worst in our lifetime. I was leaning towards Robert Mugabe, Jacob Zuma, some Asian leaders.... Forgive me for thinking outside the USA box on an international forum. I feel like a heretic now.

I have never felt horny during the actual skydive, in the same way that I've never felt horny during an academic exam, I was always mentally focused on the skydive; situational awareness, dive plan, altitude... I've felt frisky plenty times on the ground though, the DZ environment is very conducive to that.

Ah yes, London should be the new Jerusalem. Curse those Moors and Saracens !

The age of consent in my country is 16, and I agree that it should be that. That's my short answer. The long answer... As parents who raise children from birth, much of what we restrict children from doing is intended for their health and wellbeing; don't run with scissors, don't put your fingers in electrical sockets, don't have sex... If we neglect to apply these restrictions we could well be considered bad parents, resented even by our own children who might live with serious consequences of an unsupervised youth. The grey factor is that people can mature intellectually and socially at very different rates. There are certainly people who have had sex at 16, or earlier, with no regrets at all many years later. It would seem unfair therefore to have imposed a law on those people. Conversely, there are many adults in their 20's and 30s with the intellectual maturity of some 16 year olds. Should these adults be barred from having sex? Author Judith Levine once commented regarding teenage sex; "...it's a great part of being a teenager...you'll never have sex like that again." While I don't endorse all her social viewpoints, I can certainly concur with that one.

Link Agree with it or not, this is apparently the US interest in this man.

My karma ran over my dogma.

Pink Floyd lyrics come to mind here: "Hey teacher, leave them kids alone."

Aren't vampires supposedly cold to the touch ? I'm not sure that would work for me. Maybe a hottub.... I'd probably go with werewolves, but would avoid physical stuff in the moonlight. Reminds me of Twilight's Bella, deciding between bestiality or necrophilia...

It is all too easy to proclaim "we the people", just so long as you're one of "the people". To put things in perspective a bit, in my country; Constitutional law is one of the few things that holds "new" South Africa together. If the law was put to a vote each time here; I believe we would rapidly become a Zimbabwe. Mass seizures of private property and acquittals for some of the biggest criminals that we have. In recent years our courts have overturned countless bizarre and unconstitutional government actions. Just this week, our politically appointed Chief of Police was sentenced to 15 years on corruption charges, with some outcry from a majority demographic who appear to dislike the ruling. Since caucasian interests are now a minority here, we are more grateful than ever for a legal system that can still function to protect them. If, or when, constitutional law no longer functions here then I would be forced to emigrate to a place where the interests of "the people" reflect my own. This is perhaps in keeping with arguments made by some US citizens about their own country; "If you don't like it here, then leave."

It was probably a 5.56 caliber rifle. If so, winsor might have a go at this....

What a bizarre statement, especially in relation to the section highlighted in bold. Even if we were to assume for a moment that the entire statement is true; What does drug usage statistics have to do with incarceration statistics ? AFAIK, drug dealers face harsher sentences than drug users and both crimes are not the only one's that can get a person incarcerated. I can recall at least two recent threads on this forum regarding similar subject matter, both started by you. Are you sure you want to ride this train again ?

If done within the constraints of forum rules, then playing the player is an acceptable option, IMO. A forum member may develop a reputation for good debate, solid facts and logical original thought ...or a distinct lack of any aforementioned combination. This then either taints, or gives credence to, any subsequent opinions expressed on similar subjects.

I'm not defending Mel Gibson's entire rant, especially in the context of the apparent violence surrounding his attitude, but I don't accept that either statement above is automatically sexist. If I were to wear clothing that was, in my wife's opinion, inappropriate or embarassing then she would certainly express that opinion to me (whether unreasonable or not). If I continued to ignore her protests then an outburst and/or separation may well be on the cards. That would be her right to do so. Being sexist has little to do with it. "Calling the shots" on an entire relationship based on money is certainly unfair, but it can depend on what "shots" you're calling. When "making the money" has as much to do with financial responsibility as it does to raw income, then I believe that circumstances exist where a spouse can protest the decisions of another regarding irresponsible financial behaviour. The circumstances I've mentioned above might or might not apply to Mel Gibson's relationships, but I don't have proof either way. I'm just saying...

A little more than 10 years ago, one of my previous employers asked whether I could put "the internet" on a 3.5 inch floppy disk for him, so that he could look up something...

My debate with you is not the ballistic merits of the 5.56x45 over either the 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 for deer hunting or sniping. I too would prefer the larger calibers for that. I do however have a problem with this statement: From your arguments so far I get the impression that you believe that modern military ground combat consists of (or should consist of) lines of marksmen from either side engaging each other with benchrested sniper rifles as though they were on opposite sides of a prepared shooting range. A typical military engagement on the ground does not work like that. Do you suspect that it is just Germans that are lousy marksmen? ...or do you concede the possibility that the average infantry grunt is a lousy marksman? This is one of the reasons why an army cannot field entire companies of marksmen with heavy calibers. Modern ground engagements, and the tactics employed, include a substantial amount of suppressing fire, and the ability for a unit to be able to sustain the attack while operating as light as possible (in terms of ordnance gear) is important. Why else would so much body armor and small arms steel be replaced by kevlar and polymer composites nowadays? There have been a tremendous number of respected veterans and marksmen over many years expressing opinions on various firearms and calibers, in many cases without concurring on many subjects. I am sure I could look up names of prominent figures past and present to support my viewpoint aswell. You should therefore forgive people like me for not accepting Brigadier James M. Gavin, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock or even yourself as having the last definitive word on matters pertaining to modern military ground combat. It is worth noting that it was not just the U.S.A. that switched to 5.56x45 but also the Israelis (with the Galil), South Africa (the R4 and R5), the British (SA80) and quite probably several others. Could they all have been denied the gift of winsor wisdom when making that decision ?

Gawain was responding to winsor's post, as below: Gawain was refering to the 7.62x39 as used in the AK47 (amongst other weapons), as per his comment "I'll take the M4 over an AK any day." The 308/7.62 as used at Camp Perry was almost certainly the 7.62x51 and I am therefore sure that Gawain was not disputing the merits of that caliber.