...and instead ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"
Ok. No. It's not.
Prostitution is most often a choice. People have the right to make their own decisions. Forced prostitution is illegal servitude (prostitution is a symptom of the actual issue) and should be dealt with as such.
There are so many Moral Avengers in our society it sickens me. Let people do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as people are not depriving others of their constitutionally-given rights the rest of us have no damn business telling them what they can and cannot do - if anything, that infringes on THEIR rights. Morality, religious or otherwise, is as broad as the number of individual interpretations and should not be used as the basis for laws which infringe on an individuals right to choose for themselves.
Although I generally agree with you on the overall point, I must quibble with this particular statement.
There are a few things that the First Amendment does not protect and certain forms of hate speech is undoubtedly one of them. Although it is legal to have any viewpoint you choose, it is not necessarily legal to speak certain things publicly. Inciting riots or threatening another individual with physical harm are good examples of speech which is not covered by the First Amendment. Privately however, the First Amendment likely does cover these; a fine line perhaps but an important one nonetheless.
I dont want to hate on Americans, but seriously, you...
So don't asshat. The silent majority of us aren't pissing into the wind. Get over it is right but don't be a douche and lump us all into a single category, thanks.
The hell it isn't asshat. I quit my job and started a graphic design and web development company on the very day in 9/2008 that the stock market fell 600+ points.
I have a family and a mortgage, am self-educated with a high-school diploma and a recovering alcoholic with 11 years sobriety. Although its been super tough, my business is still here, about to celebrate 2 years, and is growing.
Those who can't/don't make it are victims of life being life in a dog-eat-dog world. The fact that I am making it against all odds and statistics is a testament to the greatness of the US and the reality of the American Dream (which absolutely still exists).
Just because an individual (you or anyone else) in this country doesn't make it doesn't mean the system doesn't work - it means that individual was either in the wrong place at the wrong time and should try, try and try again until they make it, or they simply don't have what it takes to be competitive. Our society gives equal opportunity but that doesn't mean we're all capable.
Complaints about US capitalism shine brilliant light on an individual's inability, not the system's. It's called hard work and not giving up and it works out for the majority that play the game well. The alternatives (such as socialism) are worse in reality than in real life, thanks.
Social programs are good, Socialist Government experiments fail to provide the opportunity and innovation a system like ours creates. It may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than pretty much any other system out there so far.
It's just as sad that so many asshats in our society file frivolous lawsuits making it more difficult for legit complaints to be taken seriously.
Corporate does not automatically equal lack of accountability. The bigger companies become the more difficult it becomes to manage false claims vs. legit ones. Using bad PR is a great resource to help a company perform better in the future.
Obviously news organizations are searching for a new news-gathering model. Perhaps one would be to not print the news direct-to-the-public but offer it to others to do. For example, instead of NYT printing a public newspaper or website, the business model changes to delay release of news articles by 12 or 24 hours and instead offer immediate access news at a premium to any organization wanting it in advance. Essentially, split the industry in two - news gatherers and news suppliers.
Journalists would have renewed incentive to break a story since it would be gold for 24 hours and only sold to organizations willing to pay to break it. I know throttling of news stories is a touchy subject for the public, however this idea isn't far from how things used to be - you had to wait until the news was printed before consuming it.
The industry issue, as far as I can see, is scarcity of time. It used to be time was a forced constraint due to current technology. It seems to me the only leverage news organizations have anymore is to use time to slow down the process (or at least until time travel is developed). A variation of this concept may be the direction news organizations need to migrate toward.
Point #1: There is no porn here. The women depicted, even with a blackout bar, are obviously wearing bikini tops. The blackout bar is an obvious attempt at misleading.
Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.
Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.
Ever consider the DoD may have been infiltrated by vagina/rectal-track-happy Martian's? Perhaps a change toward Martian's in government control is a positive thing? Just a thought...
I am not a Muslim, nor am I religious in any way (personally I find all religions to be backward, generally). That said...
Many posters in this thread have comments about how wacky, insane, stupid, backward, prehistoric, etc. all these Muslims are. Can we at least stop giving insightful mod points to folks providing blanket statements about one of the largest religious community's on earth? Such broad statements about any single large group of people is not intelligent let alone insightful, generally.
Not all Muslims are extremists and not all Muslims care about South Park and what they parody. Many of the blanket comments I've read here are akin to how "black people are" and other discriminatory comments. I am certain most of these comments are not intended to come of discriminatory, but it seems we need a little bit more care in choosing our words in these cases.
Violent Muslim extremists are the ones to be called out here, not the entire Muslim community. Violent Muslim extremists deserve to have parody's of Muhammad shoved up their arse's with their own AK's. Let's at least call out who deserves this kind of rhetoric and not discriminate against 1.57 billion of the world's population.
I'm pretty sure if all Muslim's are violent extremists there won't be much left of any society after Eric Cartman farts and claims Muhammad is speaking through him.
From a consumer perspective this feels right. Unfortunately its not that simple.
The purchased device (as in hardware) is yours perhaps but you certainly (and voluntarily) gave up freedom at time of purchase in regards to the software loaded on the device. The terms and conditions of your software purchase explicitly state you have a license and are bound by the terms of that license.
Don't like it? It's a free market! Vote with your wallet and don't purchase devices with software that limit you and/or make you a criminal. You say there isn't one? Well, sounds like a market waiting to be tapped... get on it!
I'll be impressed with 3D when the technology lets me focus (and subsequently, blur surrounding elements) on what I want to focus on so my vision isn't forced into the director's "focus-box". Currently, its a gimmick that doesn't improve much, is tiresome after the first couple times, and will destroy a film if poorly implemented.
Thank you for a balanced perspective. The number of people in a supposedly intellectual society who are still unable to widen their view to the realities of this kind of terrible occurrence makes me sad.
From the video alone, there is absolutely no way for anyone to make a fair judgment or come to any conclusion. If a crime has indeed been committed those responsible should be punished. But a rush to judgment based solely on this is absurd.
In a room crowded with pitch-forks, torches and a lack of constructive thought processes - of which there is far too much of these days - your statement is a breath of fresh air for those of us looking for intelligent perspective. It is appreciated.
But there is another flaw in your argument. Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least). Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message. She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him. She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...
I agree with you up until this point.
Without a confidentiality agreement between the two private parties (Bob and Alice), information divulged by Alice to Bob is done so of her own accord and with no expectation of privacy. Bob has every right to reveal its content to anyone he chooses. There is a reason NDA's exist. The only way this argument flies is if there is an explicit legal binding between Bob and Alice to keep information pertaining to... whatever... private.
Because real choice doesn't exist. As an unsatisfied Comcast customer I cannot get broadband or television that competes in speed/price because they have a monopoly on the market in my area. It doesn't matter if the public is wise to it or not. Without viable alternatives at competitive prices I am stuck with Comcast as long as I want the type of services they provide.
Alternatively I am not at all thrilled about a Comcast/NBC merger and hope it dies a fiery, hellish death. And because its the right thing to do I am confident some jackass receiving a kickback will ensure its survival.
...until society sees the eventual benefits of a fantastic technology which allowed pure electric vehicles to fully replace traditional combustion engines.
In the global picture, the world is more complex than that. This isn't the same thing as subsidizing a product or industry in which we are already enslaved (*cough* big oil...).
Just because someone gets rich from taxpayer money doesn't mean the action won't benefit us. Even if the company fails, their efforts have potentially ushered-in a new era which will benefit us all. That effort should be nurtured and encouraged; period.
Lol. The Spider Man trilogy, as a whole, stands as one of the worst of the decade. Spider Man 4, if you can use Spider Man 3 as any gauge, would've been the biggest turd Hollywood's put out in a long while and I'm not so sure even Toby's star-power could recover.
Ignorance is expensive. Mind-numbingly simple isn't the issue and is in the eye of the beholder (I'm not a physics genius and I'm sure I'm a complete idiot to many). If 'just make it work' is worth $150 to someone then what's the problem?
Sure, you could say the service COULD be less expensive but the consumer is the one who sets the price in the end. People pay for a perceived value. I wouldn't pay $150 for this kind of service because to me its highway robbery - then again, I'm not ignorant to this issue and can do the work myself.
As a small business owner I do understand the value of doing business however and the more you know about who, what, when, where or how the less expensive things are.
On the flip-side - selling a service that does the opposite of what it claims is false advertising and, last time I checked, illegal.
The App Store is full of bogus reviews - its taken this long for Apple to boot someone? WTF? There are a huge number of apps with 1-star reviews along with an equal number of 5-star, "this sweet app is awesome!!!" reviews mixed in. When reviews are that polarized it is glaringly obvious which developers are paying for positive reviews in order artificially inflate their ratings amidst the plethora of negative responses.
Honestly, the App Store needs a better rating system; one which flags apps who have blatantly polarized ratings/reviews.
When push comes to shove survival of the fittest rules all. When it comes down to the wire of being able to support yourself and provide for your family, morality is far less a consideration than providing is. Simply put, like it or not, morality is in the eye of the beholder and nature doesn't give a rat's ass how you FEEL about anything.
Company's that don't treat their employees like valued assets will discover it is the very foundation of their business which will turn on them when they need them most. The old-boys-club (or woman's club nowadays) can fall to ruin under the pressure of a survivalist-economy just as quickly as they can layoff a $30k worker in HR rather than cut $100k+ executive pay or bonuses by 1% in order to help keep that worker and their company strong.
No loyalty or sense of community = no loyalty or care of the communities well being.
With apple, though, it is different. Their anti-consumer moves are so shiny...
Bull. Apple is evil, granted, but their rise isn't because the masses flock to shiny, polished, gemstones. It's because their products have a history being user-friendly and bringing the power of traditional tech-only gadgetry to those who either can't or won't learn a more complex device.
I use all the mainstream platforms out there, in my work, on a daily basis. They've all got their pitfalls and suck in their own way. However, my iPhone, as a consumer device capable of doing most of the consumer-related things I want from such a device, freakin' rocks — jailbroken or not. And I am certainly not one who generally cares about shiny/polished. My complaints with my iPhone are 99.99% directed towards the telecom industry.
If Apple borked my iPhone by a) hijacking my device and pushing advertisements to my phone or worse b) forced me to interact with said advertisements, you can bet your ass the damn thing would end up in the trash.
Now, on the flipside, if Apple can implement such an action (although I don't see how seeing as how the first FF plugin I install is adblock) in a way that is non-intrusive and doesn't disrupt the joy in using a device then, who cares? Advertisements aren't inherently anti-consumer and are perfectly reasonable on the whole — anti-consumer only exists when consumers don't have a choice. As far as available devices are concerned, nobody can claim the iPhone is the only option available. The market is quite anti-competitive, as a whole, however it stems almost entirely from the telecoms; not device manufacturers.
So, write your congressmen and the FCC and tell them to turn our mobile providers into utilities and stop their collusion practices because that's where your complaint should be. Apple couldn't compete if they implemented forced advertisements in a world where mobile provider choice was on the side of consumers.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite the same thing...
Then why ask? Those of you who can't tell the difference between parody and hate need to go back to grade school. This is basic and obvious folks.
...and instead ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"
Ok. No. It's not.
Prostitution is most often a choice. People have the right to make their own decisions. Forced prostitution is illegal servitude (prostitution is a symptom of the actual issue) and should be dealt with as such.
There are so many Moral Avengers in our society it sickens me. Let people do what they want to do in the privacy of their own homes. As long as people are not depriving others of their constitutionally-given rights the rest of us have no damn business telling them what they can and cannot do - if anything, that infringes on THEIR rights. Morality, religious or otherwise, is as broad as the number of individual interpretations and should not be used as the basis for laws which infringe on an individuals right to choose for themselves.
...this will clog up the casual encounters section...
Great point! Cause it's not completely overrun by spammers already as it is *rolls eyes*
And your point is... what exactly?
His shtick is funny and has more truth in it than O'Reilly/GB's festering mouth(s) could ever dream of.
...the fact you can speak anything...
Although I generally agree with you on the overall point, I must quibble with this particular statement.
There are a few things that the First Amendment does not protect and certain forms of hate speech is undoubtedly one of them. Although it is legal to have any viewpoint you choose, it is not necessarily legal to speak certain things publicly. Inciting riots or threatening another individual with physical harm are good examples of speech which is not covered by the First Amendment. Privately however, the First Amendment likely does cover these; a fine line perhaps but an important one nonetheless.
Na, its just one way. You know, a gift of human generosity.
No...
Yes. You are both correct.
I dont want to hate on Americans, but seriously, you...
So don't asshat. The silent majority of us aren't pissing into the wind. Get over it is right but don't be a douche and lump us all into a single category, thanks.
The hell it isn't asshat. I quit my job and started a graphic design and web development company on the very day in 9/2008 that the stock market fell 600+ points.
I have a family and a mortgage, am self-educated with a high-school diploma and a recovering alcoholic with 11 years sobriety. Although its been super tough, my business is still here, about to celebrate 2 years, and is growing.
Those who can't/don't make it are victims of life being life in a dog-eat-dog world. The fact that I am making it against all odds and statistics is a testament to the greatness of the US and the reality of the American Dream (which absolutely still exists).
Just because an individual (you or anyone else) in this country doesn't make it doesn't mean the system doesn't work - it means that individual was either in the wrong place at the wrong time and should try, try and try again until they make it, or they simply don't have what it takes to be competitive. Our society gives equal opportunity but that doesn't mean we're all capable.
Complaints about US capitalism shine brilliant light on an individual's inability, not the system's. It's called hard work and not giving up and it works out for the majority that play the game well. The alternatives (such as socialism) are worse in reality than in real life, thanks.
Social programs are good, Socialist Government experiments fail to provide the opportunity and innovation a system like ours creates. It may not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than pretty much any other system out there so far.
It's just as sad that so many asshats in our society file frivolous lawsuits making it more difficult for legit complaints to be taken seriously.
Corporate does not automatically equal lack of accountability. The bigger companies become the more difficult it becomes to manage false claims vs. legit ones. Using bad PR is a great resource to help a company perform better in the future.
That's not sad, it's just life.
Obviously news organizations are searching for a new news-gathering model. Perhaps one would be to not print the news direct-to-the-public but offer it to others to do. For example, instead of NYT printing a public newspaper or website, the business model changes to delay release of news articles by 12 or 24 hours and instead offer immediate access news at a premium to any organization wanting it in advance. Essentially, split the industry in two - news gatherers and news suppliers.
Journalists would have renewed incentive to break a story since it would be gold for 24 hours and only sold to organizations willing to pay to break it. I know throttling of news stories is a touchy subject for the public, however this idea isn't far from how things used to be - you had to wait until the news was printed before consuming it.
The industry issue, as far as I can see, is scarcity of time. It used to be time was a forced constraint due to current technology. It seems to me the only leverage news organizations have anymore is to use time to slow down the process (or at least until time travel is developed). A variation of this concept may be the direction news organizations need to migrate toward.
Point #1: There is no porn here. The women depicted, even with a blackout bar, are obviously wearing bikini tops. The blackout bar is an obvious attempt at misleading.
Point #2: The senator obviously opened something which he immediately closed. This has happened to everyone who has ever used a computer. You are sent something, you open it, and it turns out to be something not-safe-for-work.
Point #3: For those saying he should be doing his job, you are all guilty. Everyone, admittedly or not, has read email on their mobile device in a meeting or has, at one time or another, thought about something other than work while on the clock. To suggest that because this guy is a senator that he should be super-human to something of which we are all guilty is complete flamebait.
Good grief, cut the guy some slack.
Ever consider the DoD may have been infiltrated by vagina/rectal-track-happy Martian's? Perhaps a change toward Martian's in government control is a positive thing? Just a thought...
I am not a Muslim, nor am I religious in any way (personally I find all religions to be backward, generally). That said...
Many posters in this thread have comments about how wacky, insane, stupid, backward, prehistoric, etc. all these Muslims are. Can we at least stop giving insightful mod points to folks providing blanket statements about one of the largest religious community's on earth? Such broad statements about any single large group of people is not intelligent let alone insightful, generally.
Not all Muslims are extremists and not all Muslims care about South Park and what they parody. Many of the blanket comments I've read here are akin to how "black people are" and other discriminatory comments. I am certain most of these comments are not intended to come of discriminatory, but it seems we need a little bit more care in choosing our words in these cases.
Violent Muslim extremists are the ones to be called out here, not the entire Muslim community. Violent Muslim extremists deserve to have parody's of Muhammad shoved up their arse's with their own AK's. Let's at least call out who deserves this kind of rhetoric and not discriminate against 1.57 billion of the world's population.
I'm pretty sure if all Muslim's are violent extremists there won't be much left of any society after Eric Cartman farts and claims Muhammad is speaking through him.
2 cents.
From a consumer perspective this feels right. Unfortunately its not that simple.
The purchased device (as in hardware) is yours perhaps but you certainly (and voluntarily) gave up freedom at time of purchase in regards to the software loaded on the device. The terms and conditions of your software purchase explicitly state you have a license and are bound by the terms of that license.
Don't like it? It's a free market! Vote with your wallet and don't purchase devices with software that limit you and/or make you a criminal. You say there isn't one? Well, sounds like a market waiting to be tapped... get on it!
I'll be impressed with 3D when the technology lets me focus (and subsequently, blur surrounding elements) on what I want to focus on so my vision isn't forced into the director's "focus-box". Currently, its a gimmick that doesn't improve much, is tiresome after the first couple times, and will destroy a film if poorly implemented.
Thank you for a balanced perspective. The number of people in a supposedly intellectual society who are still unable to widen their view to the realities of this kind of terrible occurrence makes me sad.
From the video alone, there is absolutely no way for anyone to make a fair judgment or come to any conclusion. If a crime has indeed been committed those responsible should be punished. But a rush to judgment based solely on this is absurd.
In a room crowded with pitch-forks, torches and a lack of constructive thought processes - of which there is far too much of these days - your statement is a breath of fresh air for those of us looking for intelligent perspective. It is appreciated.
But there is another flaw in your argument. Bob cannot go and post an email that Alice sent to him on Facebook (well, legally at least). Even though Alice doesn't have 4th amendment rights over Bob's copy, she still does hold copyright over the message. She granted him an implicit license to read the work when she sent it to him. She did not grant a license to show that email to anyone else...
I agree with you up until this point.
Without a confidentiality agreement between the two private parties (Bob and Alice), information divulged by Alice to Bob is done so of her own accord and with no expectation of privacy. Bob has every right to reveal its content to anyone he chooses. There is a reason NDA's exist. The only way this argument flies is if there is an explicit legal binding between Bob and Alice to keep information pertaining to... whatever... private.
Because real choice doesn't exist. As an unsatisfied Comcast customer I cannot get broadband or television that competes in speed/price because they have a monopoly on the market in my area. It doesn't matter if the public is wise to it or not. Without viable alternatives at competitive prices I am stuck with Comcast as long as I want the type of services they provide.
Alternatively I am not at all thrilled about a Comcast/NBC merger and hope it dies a fiery, hellish death. And because its the right thing to do I am confident some jackass receiving a kickback will ensure its survival.
...until society sees the eventual benefits of a fantastic technology which allowed pure electric vehicles to fully replace traditional combustion engines.
In the global picture, the world is more complex than that. This isn't the same thing as subsidizing a product or industry in which we are already enslaved (*cough* big oil...).
Just because someone gets rich from taxpayer money doesn't mean the action won't benefit us. Even if the company fails, their efforts have potentially ushered-in a new era which will benefit us all. That effort should be nurtured and encouraged; period.
Its about progress; not perfection.
Lol. The Spider Man trilogy, as a whole, stands as one of the worst of the decade. Spider Man 4, if you can use Spider Man 3 as any gauge, would've been the biggest turd Hollywood's put out in a long while and I'm not so sure even Toby's star-power could recover.
Just to play devil's advocate here:
Ignorance is expensive. Mind-numbingly simple isn't the issue and is in the eye of the beholder (I'm not a physics genius and I'm sure I'm a complete idiot to many). If 'just make it work' is worth $150 to someone then what's the problem?
Sure, you could say the service COULD be less expensive but the consumer is the one who sets the price in the end. People pay for a perceived value. I wouldn't pay $150 for this kind of service because to me its highway robbery - then again, I'm not ignorant to this issue and can do the work myself.
As a small business owner I do understand the value of doing business however and the more you know about who, what, when, where or how the less expensive things are.
On the flip-side - selling a service that does the opposite of what it claims is false advertising and, last time I checked, illegal.
Just my 2 cents.
The App Store is full of bogus reviews - its taken this long for Apple to boot someone? WTF? There are a huge number of apps with 1-star reviews along with an equal number of 5-star, "this sweet app is awesome!!!" reviews mixed in. When reviews are that polarized it is glaringly obvious which developers are paying for positive reviews in order artificially inflate their ratings amidst the plethora of negative responses.
Honestly, the App Store needs a better rating system; one which flags apps who have blatantly polarized ratings/reviews.
When push comes to shove survival of the fittest rules all. When it comes down to the wire of being able to support yourself and provide for your family, morality is far less a consideration than providing is. Simply put, like it or not, morality is in the eye of the beholder and nature doesn't give a rat's ass how you FEEL about anything.
Company's that don't treat their employees like valued assets will discover it is the very foundation of their business which will turn on them when they need them most. The old-boys-club (or woman's club nowadays) can fall to ruin under the pressure of a survivalist-economy just as quickly as they can layoff a $30k worker in HR rather than cut $100k+ executive pay or bonuses by 1% in order to help keep that worker and their company strong.
No loyalty or sense of community = no loyalty or care of the communities well being.
With apple, though, it is different. Their anti-consumer moves are so shiny...
Bull. Apple is evil, granted, but their rise isn't because the masses flock to shiny, polished, gemstones. It's because their products have a history being user-friendly and bringing the power of traditional tech-only gadgetry to those who either can't or won't learn a more complex device.
I use all the mainstream platforms out there, in my work, on a daily basis. They've all got their pitfalls and suck in their own way. However, my iPhone, as a consumer device capable of doing most of the consumer-related things I want from such a device, freakin' rocks — jailbroken or not. And I am certainly not one who generally cares about shiny/polished. My complaints with my iPhone are 99.99% directed towards the telecom industry.
If Apple borked my iPhone by a) hijacking my device and pushing advertisements to my phone or worse b) forced me to interact with said advertisements, you can bet your ass the damn thing would end up in the trash.
Now, on the flipside, if Apple can implement such an action (although I don't see how seeing as how the first FF plugin I install is adblock) in a way that is non-intrusive and doesn't disrupt the joy in using a device then, who cares? Advertisements aren't inherently anti-consumer and are perfectly reasonable on the whole — anti-consumer only exists when consumers don't have a choice. As far as available devices are concerned, nobody can claim the iPhone is the only option available. The market is quite anti-competitive, as a whole, however it stems almost entirely from the telecoms; not device manufacturers.
So, write your congressmen and the FCC and tell them to turn our mobile providers into utilities and stop their collusion practices because that's where your complaint should be. Apple couldn't compete if they implemented forced advertisements in a world where mobile provider choice was on the side of consumers.
my 2 cents.