Okay, I guess I didn't make my reductio ab absurdum clear enough. No, I don't really think phone sex companies should be busted for prostitution. But you are paying for sexually explicit communication over the phone, which you pertty much get for free from cyber sex. And if cyber sex = adultery, ie on the same level as actual intercourse, then couldn't it follow that phone sex could be construed as a form of prostitution?
My point is that while I would consider phone/cyber sex unfaithful, I don't think it is on the same level as actually sleeping with another person.
As for the definition being antiquated, take it up with Webster's. It's from one of their 1996 editions.
Seems to me that while cybersex might be unfaithful, it doesn't quite match the definition of adultery, "sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband." (Websters)If it is adultery, then should we start busting phone sex companies for prostitution?
Gee, thanks. Seeing the humor behind this makes phrases like "crispy, oven-fresh Jews!" and "packing Jews into gas-chambers!" real knee-slappers!
Something tells me that any humor in this post is pretty much overshadowed by it utter lack of taste. Guess I'm just overly sensitive.
11223 said, "In ages past, philosophers, thinkers, novelists, and writers all had the ability to have their works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution."
So those philosophers, thinkers, etc. never had patrons? Never had rich clients protecting them from the holders of the opposing views? Money has ALWAYS played a part--its human nature. Why else do you think capitalism is so successful at encouraging new technologies?
As for the audience, what do you think the internet is, other than a very inexpensive way to distribute information to a large audience? An hour in an internet cafe is considerably cheaper than a printing press was 300 years ago...
True, things now aren't perfect. They never have been. But in terms of freedom to express one's views, you'd have to be pretty myopic to think we've gone downhill over the past few centuries...
>
When you're running a business, efficiency is pretty damn important. And let's face it, video games are a business. This is a good thing. Nationalized institutions are notorious for putting out "one-size-fits-all" solutions for everything. Without that business aspect, no competition, which leads to both fewer products and inferior ones.
As for the video-games-as-art idea, when was the last time you played a video game and thought "Wow, this video game really makes me proud to be a human being"? I've thought that listening to music, viewing a painting, reading a book, watching a movie, etc... but NEVER playing a video game. Until I do, I won't classify video games as art.
Hmm, nationalization seems to have so worked well for everything else its been tried on. It seems that while every country in the world is trying to cut its nationalized/state-owned enterprises, America is one of the few where a sizable (read Green Party/Nader voters) think that it is such a good idea to nationalize. Not to rant, but working for a non-profit organization, I must say that if my organization is as inefficient as it is, I can't even begin to imagine what those SOEs/nationalized industries are like...
BTW, if I totally missed the sarcasm in the original post, please hit me.
If ever there were an unholy marriage, it was the frenzied coupling of venture capitalists and dotcom entrepeneurs. It had to end sometime, and now is a good a time as any.
Isn't it amazing that now the bubble has burst, the same pundits who predicted the "Long Boom" are just falling over themselves to declare that the past few years were an anomoly?
Check out CNBC sometimes. You'll be amazed at all the analysts who "saw this one coming" and "knew that the bubble would burst."
Like most talking heads, Katz has an amazing ability to leap from one speeding bandwagon to another.
Slashdot Mirror
Microspeak: Competition = 'Stagnation' Inovation = 'Undermining' Campaign Donations = 'Educating'
Okay, I guess I didn't make my reductio ab absurdum clear enough. No, I don't really think phone sex companies should be busted for prostitution. But you are paying for sexually explicit communication over the phone, which you pertty much get for free from cyber sex. And if cyber sex = adultery, ie on the same level as actual intercourse, then couldn't it follow that phone sex could be construed as a form of prostitution? My point is that while I would consider phone/cyber sex unfaithful, I don't think it is on the same level as actually sleeping with another person. As for the definition being antiquated, take it up with Webster's. It's from one of their 1996 editions.
Seems to me that while cybersex might be unfaithful, it doesn't quite match the definition of adultery, "sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband." (Websters)If it is adultery, then should we start busting phone sex companies for prostitution?
Oh shit. I better go hide my Cheech and Chong collection. Come to think of it, I don't think most of that was simulated...
Gee, thanks. Seeing the humor behind this makes phrases like "crispy, oven-fresh Jews!" and "packing Jews into gas-chambers!" real knee-slappers! Something tells me that any humor in this post is pretty much overshadowed by it utter lack of taste. Guess I'm just overly sensitive.
11223 said, "In ages past, philosophers, thinkers, novelists, and writers all had the ability to have their works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution works disseminated over a wide base to people who didn't already agree with the ideas. That's no longer the case when the media controls the distribution."
So those philosophers, thinkers, etc. never had patrons? Never had rich clients protecting them from the holders of the opposing views? Money has ALWAYS played a part--its human nature. Why else do you think capitalism is so successful at encouraging new technologies?
As for the audience, what do you think the internet is, other than a very inexpensive way to distribute information to a large audience? An hour in an internet cafe is considerably cheaper than a printing press was 300 years ago...
True, things now aren't perfect. They never have been. But in terms of freedom to express one's views, you'd have to be pretty myopic to think we've gone downhill over the past few centuries...
> When you're running a business, efficiency is pretty damn important. And let's face it, video games are a business. This is a good thing. Nationalized institutions are notorious for putting out "one-size-fits-all" solutions for everything. Without that business aspect, no competition, which leads to both fewer products and inferior ones. As for the video-games-as-art idea, when was the last time you played a video game and thought "Wow, this video game really makes me proud to be a human being"? I've thought that listening to music, viewing a painting, reading a book, watching a movie, etc... but NEVER playing a video game. Until I do, I won't classify video games as art.
Hmm, nationalization seems to have so worked well for everything else its been tried on. It seems that while every country in the world is trying to cut its nationalized/state-owned enterprises, America is one of the few where a sizable (read Green Party/Nader voters) think that it is such a good idea to nationalize. Not to rant, but working for a non-profit organization, I must say that if my organization is as inefficient as it is, I can't even begin to imagine what those SOEs/nationalized industries are like... BTW, if I totally missed the sarcasm in the original post, please hit me.
Isn't it amazing that now the bubble has burst, the same pundits who predicted the "Long Boom" are just falling over themselves to declare that the past few years were an anomoly? Check out CNBC sometimes. You'll be amazed at all the analysts who "saw this one coming" and "knew that the bubble would burst." Like most talking heads, Katz has an amazing ability to leap from one speeding bandwagon to another.