It sounds like you have a problem with extramarital sex in general, not just prostitution. I've been married for seven years, and my wife and I have an open relationship. We're not swingers, we're polyamorous. It's not like we're rushing about like sex crazed weasels fucking nything we see, but when we find people we are attrcted to and connect with, it's nice to be able to be honest with each other. Our open relationship has made our partnership stronger.
I was involved in polyamory for several years before marrying my wife, going to weekly discussion groups, intimate massage groups, and dating both singles and couples. I have seen fewer real relationship issues in polyamory circles than in straight relationships. People in straight relationships have a ton of different and unspoken expextations. People in polyamorous relationships know we need to communicate and negotiate every step of the way.
I disagree that all prostitution or pornography degrades the subject. I've been friends with sex workers who have honestly helped their clients come to grips with deep seated sexual issues, who felt respected in their work. I've seen married couples and dating singles treat sex in a far more dysfunctional manner. I also disagree as to cause and effect: the only truly harmful thing about extra-marital sexx is the stigma that people like you propogate.
You have no right to force your personal views of morality on me or anyone else. I've considered the evidence, from people like you and in my own personal experience and I can say for a fact that you are wrong. Extramarital sex, done with openness, honesty and hopefully a little affection, is not immoral. It does not harm the self or others. I am in no way lacking in conscious insight into my sexuality, having discussed it with friends and professional therapists. I know what I do is not harmful or wrong, and I thoroughly reject your holier than thou moralizing.
People like you are the ones destroying the moral fabric of our society, not prostitutes.
A fax machine's UI is far more user friendly to novices and beginners alike. Is there some reason we don't design GUIs to mimic the fax machine? This, to me, is a substantial failing in modern UI design. Right, so you're sayng we'll have to dial 9 before we open or print any documents?
Neither one of us have drawn any kind of causal influence between societal healthiness and prostitution, good or bad. I just asked if you had any other reasoning besides "because I say so" and it appears you don't. Not only that, you can't even express what you consider to be 'unhealthy' about prostitution. So, I will do your work for you and bring up all possible complaints against prostitution.
1. Issue: VD Answer: The same as for free sex, use a damn condom
2. Degradation/Objectification of Women Answer: This is because prostitution is considered immoral and dirty. If it were an honored role, and women had the power to control it for themselves, it wouldn't cause any sort of degredation
3. It breaks up families Answer: so does any kind of lying or cheating, whether or not there's money involved. Don't blame prostitution, stop lying!
You got any other concerns? I'll be happy to address them.
Sure, ancient greece isn't the best example, but at least I provided one. Perhaps you could provide something to back up your assertions? What exactly is unhealthy about prostitution? Is it the act itself, or the dishonesty brought about by its current status?
Yes, I have some unhealthy behaviors. I don't need to justify them to myself or anyone else, though. And I don't count any part of my sexuality among them, as I've never done anything illegal, immoral, dishonest, or destructive for sex, yet I still manage to get plenty. How about you?
Got anything to back up the opinion that prostitution is inherently harmful? You know that in ancient Greece, prostitution was carried out by sacred priestesses, right? And marriage itself is just an accepted form of prostitution where a person trades sex for security. Prostitution is no more harmful to the prostitute, the customer, their friends and families or their society than any other kind of sex. In fact, just as with drugs, much of the purported harm comes from the criminalization of the thing, not the thing itself.
I suspect you have some rather odd and romantic ideas about sex in general.
No, THIS is an ad for the book:
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Head First! Apply directly to the SQL!
Head First! Apply directly to the SQL!
HEAD FIRST! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE SQL!
Okay, I didn't say it was a good ad for the book...
Whatever sentinent life showed up here a long time ago basically said "return to the ship and nuke the site from orbit" And umpteen million years later, instead of water dwelling arthropods with no technology, who can't even support their own weight on dry land, they've got to deal with a horde of vicious hairless monkeys with nukes of our own. They're probably kicking themselves right now, assuming their anatomy allows such a feat.
Erowid.org is a good place to start. If you live in a state that has medical cannabis clubs, you could check with them. That's how I learned about it. I did computer security for a club in San Francisco. They did a great job educating their members, most of whom, contrary to the common myth, had never smoked pot for recreation. In fact, we had a PhD ethnographer doing a study on our patients, and he found that 80% had either HIV, cancer, or Hep C.
Cannabis has a ton of psychoactive components that synergize with each other. I've tried 100% pure THC, extracted using a flash column. It doesn't get you very high in any normal sense, whereas 80% pure THC will knock you on your ass. CBD and CBN both make you 'stoned' as opposed to high. They are better pain killers and appetite enhancers, but tend to make you groggy and apathetic. THC tends to make people 'high' as in goofy and talkative. Sativa heavy strains have less CBD and CND, while indica strains have more. This makes sense as indica was bred and used as a painkiller in the middle east for thousands of years.
As a matter of fact, what sort of superiour intelligence, which could get here, I think the article implies they might be bacteria, and they drifted here. But the real question isn't "Are aliens living among us?" The real question is, "how do they taste?"
There are two separate questions here. Why was it made illegal in the first place, and why is it still illegal? It was made illegal for several reasons. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was the start. A brilliant piece of legislation, it mandated punishments for selling pot without a license. To get a license, one needed to have pot, which was illegal without the license. No one could possible comply with the law.
Three different factors influenced the passing of the law. First, the major pharmaceutical companies, which had all been cheerfully selling cannabis based remedies for years, had developed new patented drugs which commodity cannabis competed with. Next, it threatened profits from DuPont's new material, Nylon, discovered two years earlier. Remember "Hemp for Victory?" It also threatened profits from Hearst's vast timber holdings, as it makes a much better and cheaper paper than wood.
Finally, there was the prohibition issue. Prohibition created a vast Federal police machine, which was loath to see its power diminished with the end of alcohol prohibition. This also explains why it is still illegal. The police and prison guards' unions are among the largest and most powerful in the country. It's estimated that we would have to cut our police and prison budgets by 80% if we legalized cannabis.
I think it has more to do with people in business, rather than government, benefiting from people who have no critical thinking skills. Look at the history of public education. In frontier days, our schools taught people to be critical thinkers because that's what a frontier demands. With the advent of industrialization, the robber barons knew they needed educated specialists who couldn't put two and two together outside of their area of expertise. Obviously, people who could put two and two together would realize how important they were, and how utterly unimportant the robber barons were. So these early industrialists made massive donations to the public school system, with the caveat that the money would go towards buying their textbooks and teaching their lessons. And thus we have things like the four food groups including dairy separate from other protiens, even though most adults can't properly digest milk.
Come on. Really. What kind of idiot marketer sends in stories like this to Slashdot? We know what happens. First, you get derided mercilessly for trying to sway us with your ridiculously transparent attempt at marketing. Then, the real experts come out and poke holes in everything you've said. Then everyone else chimes in with better (and often free) alternatives. You and your company end up looking like buffoons, and your product ends up looking like utter garbage.
You may think you're pulling one over on the editors, and maybe you are. But you aren't pulling one over on us, and I think after all these years, the editors know this. So, just don't. Unless your product or service is absolutely bulletproof people here are more likely to shoot it full of holes than rush out and buy it.
It's not duplicity of thought. You just lack understanding. One does not need a creator to imagine a human spirit. In fact, the idea of a creator adds nothing to the idea of the spirit. It just marks an artificial stopping point in the quest for answers: What did it? Creator did it! What made Creator? Don't go there! Dumb.
Eastern religions have a better word for it: suchness. That is just so, as it is. The idea of spirit relates more to the idea that things are more than the sum of their parts (due to the interaction between the parts, nothing more) than to the idea of some arbitrary creator.
Human rights are just a social construct that may be revoked at any time whether or not there is a Creator. If this were not true, and there were a creator, then society would be perfect. So either there is not creator, and/or rights are just a social construct. The reason they are not revoked more frequently is because they make sense to individuals. You watch my back, I'll watch yours. It's an idea that even wolves and cows comprehend.
The only thing the idea of a creator might do for you is to give you some hope to hold on to when bastards are infringing your rights: at least the big dude in the sky will kick these bastards in the nuts when they die. The fact that adult human beings still hold on to this fantasy when it provides them with nothing but illusionary hope is rather humorous.
Hmph. Are you seriously saying that Sol isn't acceptable in English? Because I've been hearing it used all my life. Plus, one has to say, "The sun." Few proper names take the definite article. Plus, "Sol" is four characters shorter.
Man this thread is boring and pointless. You say potato, I say potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Anyway, Sol or the Sun both are perfectly acceptable. You know why I like Sol? It's four characters shorter than "the sun." That simple.
Hmm, you know, I just took it for granted that scientists call it that because science journalists tend to call it that at least as often as they call it the sun. And 'Sol' means 'Sun' in Latin, and scientists love to use Latin. It also means sun in most Latin derived languages, so even if there are no English speaking scientists who call it sol, there are many scientists who have no other word for it.
Nice choice of words. Sony invades our privacy and we have 'tantrums.' I suppose those villagers in Bhopal were just having 'tantrums' too. Sony's actions were wrong because they damaged us. Therefore, we damaged them back, and they listened. What WoW is doing is similar to what Sony did. People had the same low opinion of the common person back then, too. They thought just as you do now, "no one who matters cares," and look what happened.
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it sure sounded like you were saying that a kind of dog-eat-dog social darwinism is right and natural, and that businesses should not be concerned with morality, only profit. If that is not what you were saying, I apologize.
I've been here since Chips & Dips. The reason I keep coming back is because, in general, people here respect intelligence. If you haven't noticed that, maybe it's because you don't have anything people here respect. Sure, there are dumb-asses here, but that happens anytime you get enough people together. They generally aren't tolerated. And 'doesn't agree with my pet political, philosophical, scientific, or social theories' is not the same as 'anti-intellectual.'
And we'll just call you 'person' rather than calling you by your name. A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us. In any language used by creatures living on planets, there will be a word for 'sun.' But 'Sol' will still be unique. When we have colonies on Mars, what will the people living there be referring to when they say, "The moon has just risen?"
And 'we' do not call our sun, 'the sun,' except in English. Stop being so parochial, I mean, don't you think we should be referring to it in Chinese or something, to be fair? There is nothing pompous about calling it 'Sol.' Except to anti-intellectual types, and I wouldn't think they'd frequent a place like Slashdot.
You can not derive what is right from what is. Our current business climate may not place much stock on what is right or good, but that does not mean that is how things should be, or how they will be in the future. Besides, by expressing our opinions on what is right and wrong (and backing those opinions up with our wallets) we give business valuable feedback about the things that influence our purchasing decisions. You don't see Sony putting rootkits on CDs anymore, do you? Morality could be an important part of the business world if we made it so, and the first step is talking about it.
People who dismiss notions of morality and embrace a purely 'practical' world view frighten me. Especially frightening are those who try to get others to embrace their amoral world view. Fortunately, we live in a society where sociopaths like you are not yet entirely in control. I'm guessing that you have your own ideas about right and wrong (What I like is right, what I don't like is wrong. Am I right?), you just don't want anyone else having the power to force consensus views of right and wrong (rape, murder and theft are wrong, etc.) on you. Let me guess, your moral calculus is limited to "What are my chances of getting away with it?" and your philosophical position on morality is predicated on the idea that if you can get everyone else to give up conventional ideas of right and wrong, you'd stand a better chance of getting away with whatever the hell you want to.
1 computer for gaming 1 computer for everything else And one computer to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?
Seriously though, I have a Shuttle XPC for gaming and a laptop for everything else. Gaming is the only reason I have a desktop at all, and the Shuttle is still very portable for LAN parties and such.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like you have a problem with extramarital sex in general, not just prostitution. I've been married for seven years, and my wife and I have an open relationship. We're not swingers, we're polyamorous. It's not like we're rushing about like sex crazed weasels fucking nything we see, but when we find people we are attrcted to and connect with, it's nice to be able to be honest with each other. Our open relationship has made our partnership stronger.
I was involved in polyamory for several years before marrying my wife, going to weekly discussion groups, intimate massage groups, and dating both singles and couples. I have seen fewer real relationship issues in polyamory circles than in straight relationships. People in straight relationships have a ton of different and unspoken expextations. People in polyamorous relationships know we need to communicate and negotiate every step of the way.
I disagree that all prostitution or pornography degrades the subject. I've been friends with sex workers who have honestly helped their clients come to grips with deep seated sexual issues, who felt respected in their work. I've seen married couples and dating singles treat sex in a far more dysfunctional manner. I also disagree as to cause and effect: the only truly harmful thing about extra-marital sexx is the stigma that people like you propogate.
You have no right to force your personal views of morality on me or anyone else. I've considered the evidence, from people like you and in my own personal experience and I can say for a fact that you are wrong. Extramarital sex, done with openness, honesty and hopefully a little affection, is not immoral. It does not harm the self or others. I am in no way lacking in conscious insight into my sexuality, having discussed it with friends and professional therapists. I know what I do is not harmful or wrong, and I thoroughly reject your holier than thou moralizing.
People like you are the ones destroying the moral fabric of our society, not prostitutes.
Neither one of us have drawn any kind of causal influence between societal healthiness and prostitution, good or bad. I just asked if you had any other reasoning besides "because I say so" and it appears you don't. Not only that, you can't even express what you consider to be 'unhealthy' about prostitution. So, I will do your work for you and bring up all possible complaints against prostitution.
1. Issue: VD
Answer: The same as for free sex, use a damn condom
2. Degradation/Objectification of Women
Answer: This is because prostitution is considered immoral and dirty. If it were an honored role, and women had the power to control it for themselves, it wouldn't cause any sort of degredation
3. It breaks up families
Answer: so does any kind of lying or cheating, whether or not there's money involved. Don't blame prostitution, stop lying!
You got any other concerns? I'll be happy to address them.
Sure, ancient greece isn't the best example, but at least I provided one. Perhaps you could provide something to back up your assertions? What exactly is unhealthy about prostitution? Is it the act itself, or the dishonesty brought about by its current status?
Yes, I have some unhealthy behaviors. I don't need to justify them to myself or anyone else, though. And I don't count any part of my sexuality among them, as I've never done anything illegal, immoral, dishonest, or destructive for sex, yet I still manage to get plenty. How about you?
Here's George's take on the Ten Commandments
Got anything to back up the opinion that prostitution is inherently harmful? You know that in ancient Greece, prostitution was carried out by sacred priestesses, right? And marriage itself is just an accepted form of prostitution where a person trades sex for security. Prostitution is no more harmful to the prostitute, the customer, their friends and families or their society than any other kind of sex. In fact, just as with drugs, much of the purported harm comes from the criminalization of the thing, not the thing itself.
I suspect you have some rather odd and romantic ideas about sex in general.
Head First! Apply directly to the SQL!
Head First! Apply directly to the SQL!
HEAD FIRST! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE SQL!
Okay, I didn't say it was a good ad for the book...
Erowid.org is a good place to start. If you live in a state that has medical cannabis clubs, you could check with them. That's how I learned about it. I did computer security for a club in San Francisco. They did a great job educating their members, most of whom, contrary to the common myth, had never smoked pot for recreation. In fact, we had a PhD ethnographer doing a study on our patients, and he found that 80% had either HIV, cancer, or Hep C.
Cannabis has a ton of psychoactive components that synergize with each other. I've tried 100% pure THC, extracted using a flash column. It doesn't get you very high in any normal sense, whereas 80% pure THC will knock you on your ass. CBD and CBN both make you 'stoned' as opposed to high. They are better pain killers and appetite enhancers, but tend to make you groggy and apathetic. THC tends to make people 'high' as in goofy and talkative. Sativa heavy strains have less CBD and CND, while indica strains have more. This makes sense as indica was bred and used as a painkiller in the middle east for thousands of years.
There are two separate questions here. Why was it made illegal in the first place, and why is it still illegal? It was made illegal for several reasons. The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was the start. A brilliant piece of legislation, it mandated punishments for selling pot without a license. To get a license, one needed to have pot, which was illegal without the license. No one could possible comply with the law.
Three different factors influenced the passing of the law. First, the major pharmaceutical companies, which had all been cheerfully selling cannabis based remedies for years, had developed new patented drugs which commodity cannabis competed with. Next, it threatened profits from DuPont's new material, Nylon, discovered two years earlier. Remember "Hemp for Victory?" It also threatened profits from Hearst's vast timber holdings, as it makes a much better and cheaper paper than wood.
Finally, there was the prohibition issue. Prohibition created a vast Federal police machine, which was loath to see its power diminished with the end of alcohol prohibition. This also explains why it is still illegal. The police and prison guards' unions are among the largest and most powerful in the country. It's estimated that we would have to cut our police and prison budgets by 80% if we legalized cannabis.
I think it has more to do with people in business, rather than government, benefiting from people who have no critical thinking skills. Look at the history of public education. In frontier days, our schools taught people to be critical thinkers because that's what a frontier demands. With the advent of industrialization, the robber barons knew they needed educated specialists who couldn't put two and two together outside of their area of expertise. Obviously, people who could put two and two together would realize how important they were, and how utterly unimportant the robber barons were. So these early industrialists made massive donations to the public school system, with the caveat that the money would go towards buying their textbooks and teaching their lessons. And thus we have things like the four food groups including dairy separate from other protiens, even though most adults can't properly digest milk.
Come on. Really. What kind of idiot marketer sends in stories like this to Slashdot? We know what happens. First, you get derided mercilessly for trying to sway us with your ridiculously transparent attempt at marketing. Then, the real experts come out and poke holes in everything you've said. Then everyone else chimes in with better (and often free) alternatives. You and your company end up looking like buffoons, and your product ends up looking like utter garbage.
You may think you're pulling one over on the editors, and maybe you are. But you aren't pulling one over on us, and I think after all these years, the editors know this. So, just don't. Unless your product or service is absolutely bulletproof people here are more likely to shoot it full of holes than rush out and buy it.
I'm starting to like you. I think I just dislike opinionated know-it-alls because I am one... You have a great weekend too!
It's not duplicity of thought. You just lack understanding. One does not need a creator to imagine a human spirit. In fact, the idea of a creator adds nothing to the idea of the spirit. It just marks an artificial stopping point in the quest for answers: What did it? Creator did it! What made Creator? Don't go there! Dumb.
Eastern religions have a better word for it: suchness. That is just so, as it is. The idea of spirit relates more to the idea that things are more than the sum of their parts (due to the interaction between the parts, nothing more) than to the idea of some arbitrary creator.
Human rights are just a social construct that may be revoked at any time whether or not there is a Creator. If this were not true, and there were a creator, then society would be perfect. So either there is not creator, and/or rights are just a social construct. The reason they are not revoked more frequently is because they make sense to individuals. You watch my back, I'll watch yours. It's an idea that even wolves and cows comprehend.
The only thing the idea of a creator might do for you is to give you some hope to hold on to when bastards are infringing your rights: at least the big dude in the sky will kick these bastards in the nuts when they die. The fact that adult human beings still hold on to this fantasy when it provides them with nothing but illusionary hope is rather humorous.
I may not agree with you about much, tj, but I surely agree with you on this. I actually got a little misty eyed...
Hmph. Are you seriously saying that Sol isn't acceptable in English? Because I've been hearing it used all my life. Plus, one has to say, "The sun." Few proper names take the definite article. Plus, "Sol" is four characters shorter.
Man this thread is boring and pointless. You say potato, I say potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Anyway, Sol or the Sun both are perfectly acceptable. You know why I like Sol? It's four characters shorter than "the sun." That simple.
Hmm, you know, I just took it for granted that scientists call it that because science journalists tend to call it that at least as often as they call it the sun. And 'Sol' means 'Sun' in Latin, and scientists love to use Latin. It also means sun in most Latin derived languages, so even if there are no English speaking scientists who call it sol, there are many scientists who have no other word for it.
Nice choice of words. Sony invades our privacy and we have 'tantrums.' I suppose those villagers in Bhopal were just having 'tantrums' too. Sony's actions were wrong because they damaged us. Therefore, we damaged them back, and they listened. What WoW is doing is similar to what Sony did. People had the same low opinion of the common person back then, too. They thought just as you do now, "no one who matters cares," and look what happened.
Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it sure sounded like you were saying that a kind of dog-eat-dog social darwinism is right and natural, and that businesses should not be concerned with morality, only profit. If that is not what you were saying, I apologize.
I've been here since Chips & Dips. The reason I keep coming back is because, in general, people here respect intelligence. If you haven't noticed that, maybe it's because you don't have anything people here respect. Sure, there are dumb-asses here, but that happens anytime you get enough people together. They generally aren't tolerated. And 'doesn't agree with my pet political, philosophical, scientific, or social theories' is not the same as 'anti-intellectual.'
And we'll just call you 'person' rather than calling you by your name. A sun is a type of thing, Sol is the name of the sun that happens to be closes to us. In any language used by creatures living on planets, there will be a word for 'sun.' But 'Sol' will still be unique. When we have colonies on Mars, what will the people living there be referring to when they say, "The moon has just risen?"
And 'we' do not call our sun, 'the sun,' except in English. Stop being so parochial, I mean, don't you think we should be referring to it in Chinese or something, to be fair? There is nothing pompous about calling it 'Sol.' Except to anti-intellectual types, and I wouldn't think they'd frequent a place like Slashdot.
You can not derive what is right from what is. Our current business climate may not place much stock on what is right or good, but that does not mean that is how things should be, or how they will be in the future. Besides, by expressing our opinions on what is right and wrong (and backing those opinions up with our wallets) we give business valuable feedback about the things that influence our purchasing decisions. You don't see Sony putting rootkits on CDs anymore, do you? Morality could be an important part of the business world if we made it so, and the first step is talking about it.
People who dismiss notions of morality and embrace a purely 'practical' world view frighten me. Especially frightening are those who try to get others to embrace their amoral world view. Fortunately, we live in a society where sociopaths like you are not yet entirely in control. I'm guessing that you have your own ideas about right and wrong (What I like is right, what I don't like is wrong. Am I right?), you just don't want anyone else having the power to force consensus views of right and wrong (rape, murder and theft are wrong, etc.) on you. Let me guess, your moral calculus is limited to "What are my chances of getting away with it?" and your philosophical position on morality is predicated on the idea that if you can get everyone else to give up conventional ideas of right and wrong, you'd stand a better chance of getting away with whatever the hell you want to.
1 computer for everything else And one computer to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?
Seriously though, I have a Shuttle XPC for gaming and a laptop for everything else. Gaming is the only reason I have a desktop at all, and the Shuttle is still very portable for LAN parties and such.