On the contrary, the submitter can (a) leave that company and be bloody clear about why, (b) tell us here and now by posting in this thread who the company is, which will add weight to his objections and (c) get confirmation of replacement hosting companies policies on this matter in writing.
If you're saying there's not much he or she can do to stop them technically with a hosted solution (co-lo is different), then you are right. But there are certainly actions here that should be taken.
OP - post here and tell us which company this is, please.
Yes - you've put it well. And this is part of the nobility of Rorschach. He never and will never accept that the ends justify the means. Even as the others are trapped by Ozymandias into his unwitting accomplices, even knowing that he will be killed in simply trying to oppose Ozymandias, he insists that crime must be punished.
The delusion of ends justifying the means is the article of faith that there are ends.As John points out brilliantly: "nothing ever ends."
I saw it all the time growing up. Boys were given boys toys and shied away from doing 'girl things.' Girls were given girl toys and led towards doing more stereotypically girlish interests. In every little way, boys and girls seemed to be led in different directions, whether it was suggestions of careers or selecting school options. Now if you want to make the case that it's less so with young children currently being raised, then that might be so and I would love it to be so, but the GP is most certainly not talking bullshit in my experience. Do you honestly think there isn't cultural reinforcement from adults on the perceived gender roles?
Re:Can Oscar's be given posthumously?
on
Batman Discussion
·
· Score: 1
That's a well-placed comment. The two characters are, in some ways, light and dark interpretations of a similar principle. Positive destruction and negative destruction, both archetypal and both avatars of an idea. I like the way you express how you think.:)
Well you've probably seen the film for yourself by this point and can form your own conclusions, but if you haven't, then I can tell you that the Joker is as perfect as he could be. I liked Jack Nicholson's Joker very much. He was an archetype. But Tim Burton's film had a very different feel to this one. Heath Ledger's Joker is scary. Really scary. There's still a real vein of humour in his actions. There are parts that I couldn't help but laugh at, no matter how black the humour was. I understand exactly where you're coming from in saying you liked Nicholson's self-creation of the persona as an artist, but I can assure you that Heath Ledger's performance has all that and more. Plus he really has the weight of plot behind him. In Dark Knight, the Joker is free to really drive the plot and unleash the full force of his personality on Gotham. The results are jaw-dropping.
Watch it without preconceptions and expectations. I understand your analysis, but I have to ask... why so serious?
I also buy my music, but amongst those of my friends who are even remotely tech-savvy, I don't think there are any of them that doesn't download music and movies rather than pay for them. People find it quaint that I choose to pay for my music and films.
I get modded the same way whenever this topic comes up. People keep insisting that there needs to be a new way to sell music, one based on sharing and often on voluntary payments. They neglect that under the current laws, anyone is perfectly able to begin selling their music under such a model. Yet no-one does. What these Flamebait modders are demanding is a change in law to reduce options in the market place by eliminating the possibility of the older business model, thus forcing their model. And they demand this in the perverted name of Freedom.
Now all this said, the point made earlier about proving guilt was correct. This doesn't look like it is the case that someone must prove you guilty before suspending your account. It seems that you must prove your innocence (how?) when you are suspended by your ISP (and realistically, that just means that a program somewhere has decreed you are guilty. Good luck persuading them that their software is incorrect - they probably didn't even write it themselves, just installed something given to them by the *AA). And suspension from the Internet is a ridiculously disproportionate response in any case.
Bad parenting is partly societies fault, though I'd lay the cause elsewhere to you. I'd say it's time. We're far too busy working to pay rent or mortgages or scrimping for a holiday (to recover from our servitude the rest of the year) to have the time for our children or to provide input and criticism of the schools they go to or to keep an eye on all the other things in society that affect them. It takes two working adults now to maintain a lifestyle where the family doesn't feel they are suffering for shortage of money. Children need good parents and part of that is parents that have the time for you.
We're working too hard and the children are suffering.
There's a lot of very good advice here, but the most important of all is to listen to your son closely to see what interests him. For me, prodding away, I had a fascination with memory storage. Arrays in particular stunned me with their beauty and the first programs that I really applied myself to writing were strategy games that were at heart nothing more than 2D arrays that stored types of units, resources etc. Of course the units themselves were arrays. I might have been an odd child, but the thought of all those numbers lined up and structured absolutely thrilled me. Who knows what will really grab your son's attention? Well, actually, only your son does, which is why he most of all, is the one you should listen to.
You don't have to be a great teacher when the pupil is interested. Just try to learn to answer questions at the right sort of level of detail. That's 90% of it when you think about it, it really is.
Perhaps, but there are many elements to programming some of which are perhaps easier to learn than others. Teaching his son to program may benefit from being able to distinguish these elements. My initial suggestion would be to give him Python because this will let him learn the critical elements of program structure and algorithms without getting bogged down in learning the idiosyncracies of a language like C++ (which I do love). For similar reasons, Python will also offer fast return on investment. He'll be churning out programs that do what he wants them to in half the time he would be in C++ or Java.
Of course the most important thing is probably to let him drive the learning for the most part. If he's a bright and technically minded lad, he may appreciate the power and intricacies of C++. He'll need the language sooner or later if he gets involved in many of the big open source projects which would also be a great way to get involved. Things are usually more fun when done as part of a group.
I think there's an even more poignant symbolism about Ozymandias which even he seems to have missed, which is his name itself. Whilst he may have chosen it to compare himself with the great "King of Kings" it is undercut tragically by the famous poem of the same name by Shelley:
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Ozymandias is the most tragic figure in the book, I think. Because he has risen higher than any of them and defines himself by his achievements, he has so much further to fall.
Plus, remember just how twisted the villain actually is. The villain has compassion for the heroes and wants to clue them in. I just hope they leave John's line in "Nothing ever ends" because it actually made me shiver when I read it.
The Watchman was a great work and I was really excited when I read about this film and particularly when I saw it wasn't going to be filled with Big Names. My excitement has dropped a bit now I realised that the director is the same man who did 300. I really hope that it doesn't end up as just a stupid action movie and I also hope they keep the brilliant / sad / uplifting impotence scene. I love that for the part that comes later on. And wow, I've just realised how hard it is to write anything about The Watchman without committing a spoiler. And it's a story that you really don't want to do that with. Spoiler for Wanted? Who cares! But the Watchman... wow, that has some twists!
The final logical step of course, would be to put it back where you found it before he wakes up. Now that would be far better "spying" than just nicking the thing. So maybe it was just stolen.
Counter-arguments would be that if a woman was going to seduce a guy just to steal from him, you'd have seen more things go missing than just a blackberry. And even if the "spy" did want to take the blackberry, stealing other things as a cover would be better. This story is either incomplete or there is some inept work being done here.
The thing is, that would be harder to do because the very acts of photographing yourself working at the homeless shelter, posting them online then producing them at a court case to show how nice you are, makes you look fake. These photos were used for character assassination. For all we know, the individual had spent the previous week alone in his room crying before his friends had dragged him out to console him and someone got a shot of him smiling. We aren't actors in a play and we don't walk around in some static emotional state with a fixed expression all the time. At the gathering after a family members funeral we were very sad and yet there were moments where people laughed and reminisced. We even played with the children quite energetically. If someone had come along and snapped a photograph at the right moment, they could show us laughing and having fun instead of grieving, but anyone there would have felt the overall experience as something else. People are complex.
This was character assassination and if this is how law is practiced in the USA and your judges are swayed by it, then your legal system needs some serious work.
You should read my posts a little more carefully before you start bandying around words like 'moron.' For a start I'm in the UK where prostitution is legal. We have laws against soliciting on the streets, which is essentially about public decency, and we have strict laws about 'controlling the prostitution of another' which are used to deal with coercion. That's pretty much what you're advocating for your own country (guessing you're in the USA). Take a step back and look at what I was responding to. The OP said "victimless crimes such as prostitution and marijuana." There was a strong implication there and elsewhere that the objection to prostitution was just some trite cultural / religious thing and an implicit belief that prostitution is as harmless as pot. It isn't. For all the high-flown language and principles I've seen flung around in this thread, only in exceptional cases is prostitution something other than exploitation. Exploitation is where the bargaining positions of the two parties are wildly disparate and you can say that one has taken advantage of the other. That is the case with 99.99% cases of prostitution and that is the intent of having a law against it in those countries where it is illegal - to prevent exploitation. When someone is reduced to selling sex, they are automatically considered in such countries to be being exploited.
You make a valid argument for legalisation of prostitution (although it doesn't apply to me as we already have that over here), but there are also arguments for it to be illegal that do not make someone a "moron" for making those arguments. A law against prostitution is based on the absolute that your body is not a commodity that can be sold. It works on the same basis that prevents people selling their kidneys or an eye - to prevent exploitation of the destitute. Same principle.
I responded to an OP who regarded prostitution as being akin to smoking pot. That was naive and ignorant so I explained in detail the reality of prostitution in most places. You responded with an off-hand remark saying that "all employment is trading your body for money" which was stupid. Equating prostitution with a typical job, saying that it's all just trading your body for money, was ridiculous and I responded appropriately in illustrating the very real differences.
Now you've responded with a proper argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, though I think it's rose-tinted and naive. To hone in on the damage to people's relationships with partners as being the harm from prostitution is an odd emphasis when you have the usually much greater harm done to the prostitute themself. And yes - this applies even in countries where prostitution is legal. Even in Holland, prostitution is not a career you go into through normal choice. But you'll notice that I was never advocating criminalisation of prostitution in either of the posts you replied to. You did however get the appropriate response for someone who was dismissive of the suffering the accompanies the activity (not crime) of prostitution, as did the OP. When you're discussing this subject, you might want to consider your words a bit more carefully in future.
So offer them something better. If they're choosing to do it -- and it is a choice, whatever you may think of the alternatives -- then they clearly don't think there is anything better available, and they are in a better position than you to know what their options are. Take away what they consider to be their best option and you force them to turn to something they consider even worse. Banning specific behaviors, even ones you think of as self-destructive, helps no one. Before you can offer them a way out you need to find out why they've been avoiding the choices you think they should have made.
Let's take a step back from what you think I said and start again from what I actually think. My post was addressed to someone who characterised prostitution as something that harmed no-one, and implicitly likened it to marijuana. Anyone who sees it in those terms is living in a dreamworld. There are people who sell sex for money voluntarily and apparently aren't traumatised by it (though it's never seemed to be the actual case to me in practice). But my post, whilst acknowledging this does happen, was explaining that there very much is a victim in prostitution and that can't be denied when you've witnessed it. That point needed to be made. Your hair splitting of saying that "prostitution" is victimless, is contentious at best. The activity of prostitution has a victim 999 times out of a 1000. By all means tell me about the girl you know who cheerfully sells sex and is perfectly well adjusted and doesn't need to do so, but I don't know of such cases myself. Every time I've come across it, it's been a tragic case.
Prostition is exploitation. In any market, there is an ability to negotiate based on the strength of each others bargaining position, but society places a limit on this, deeming a difference in position too great to be exploitation. When the commodity being sold is access to your own body, society considers this automatically to be a sign that someone is being exploited. It is perhaps not always the case, but it almost always is.
What I didn't say is that the law is good or bad, I offered no opinion on this in the post your replied to. It is complicated and it is affected by enforcement of the law. In the UK cities I have lived in, I've been aware that there's a tacit soft-hand used by the police in general. Everyone knows where the red-light zone is, the police could pick up prostitutes and arrest them easily enough (though not all would be easy to find or to convict), but that doesn't usually happen. It is the pimps that they want.
Prostitution is not actually illegal in the UK. Certain aspects of it are illegal such as soliciting on the street and "kerb crawling" which is where the customer approaches people on the street to buy sex. Doing things through ads, calls, etc. is legal. Brothels are illegal, though definitions are a bit complicated. What is illegal, is basically controlling another person's prostitution. Which is exactly what should be illegal. The laws against soliciting on the street are probably justified as otherwise you couldn't stop prostitutes from operating in all manner of public, family-friendly places. It's essentially a law demanding discretion.
It's not always easy to get a conviction of someone pimping, however. What the laws do sometimes achieve is enabling the police to get a girl out of a particularly bad situation. When you said:
If they're choosing to do it -- and it is a choice, whatever you may think of the alternatives
I am really sorry to say that you are wrong. There are girls in the UK (and probably the USA, I don't know), who are kept prisoner and sold against their will. There are girls who have been told that their families will be punished if they try to escape. To call that a choice and to say that they should pursue an alternative is unfair. And in some cases, you would be asking them to make the choice to end their life.
If you can't see a distinction between sitting in an office and people paying your boyfriend for the privilege of raping you, then I guess you could say they're the same. Clearly figures of speech aren't recognised on/. and I should be as literal and graphic as possible from here on.
*sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
This is Dubai. Notice anything, moron?
On the contrary, the submitter can (a) leave that company and be bloody clear about why, (b) tell us here and now by posting in this thread who the company is, which will add weight to his objections and (c) get confirmation of replacement hosting companies policies on this matter in writing.
If you're saying there's not much he or she can do to stop them technically with a hosted solution (co-lo is different), then you are right. But there are certainly actions here that should be taken.
OP - post here and tell us which company this is, please.
Yes - you've put it well. And this is part of the nobility of Rorschach. He never and will never accept that the ends justify the means. Even as the others are trapped by Ozymandias into his unwitting accomplices, even knowing that he will be killed in simply trying to oppose Ozymandias, he insists that crime must be punished.
The delusion of ends justifying the means is the article of faith that there are ends.As John points out brilliantly: "nothing ever ends."
I hope this film is good.
I saw it all the time growing up. Boys were given boys toys and shied away from doing 'girl things.' Girls were given girl toys and led towards doing more stereotypically girlish interests. In every little way, boys and girls seemed to be led in different directions, whether it was suggestions of careers or selecting school options. Now if you want to make the case that it's less so with young children currently being raised, then that might be so and I would love it to be so, but the GP is most certainly not talking bullshit in my experience. Do you honestly think there isn't cultural reinforcement from adults on the perceived gender roles?
That's a well-placed comment. The two characters are, in some ways, light and dark interpretations of a similar principle. Positive destruction and negative destruction, both archetypal and both avatars of an idea. I like the way you express how you think.
Well you've probably seen the film for yourself by this point and can form your own conclusions, but if you haven't, then I can tell you that the Joker is as perfect as he could be. I liked Jack Nicholson's Joker very much. He was an archetype. But Tim Burton's film had a very different feel to this one. Heath Ledger's Joker is scary. Really scary. There's still a real vein of humour in his actions. There are parts that I couldn't help but laugh at, no matter how black the humour was. I understand exactly where you're coming from in saying you liked Nicholson's self-creation of the persona as an artist, but I can assure you that Heath Ledger's performance has all that and more. Plus he really has the weight of plot behind him. In Dark Knight, the Joker is free to really drive the plot and unleash the full force of his personality on Gotham. The results are jaw-dropping.
Watch it without preconceptions and expectations. I understand your analysis, but I have to ask... why so serious?
Not just the star of the show, but the driving force and theme of the film. An absolute avatar of dark chaos. Brilliant. Utterly.
I also buy my music, but amongst those of my friends who are even remotely tech-savvy, I don't think there are any of them that doesn't download music and movies rather than pay for them. People find it quaint that I choose to pay for my music and films.
I get modded the same way whenever this topic comes up. People keep insisting that there needs to be a new way to sell music, one based on sharing and often on voluntary payments. They neglect that under the current laws, anyone is perfectly able to begin selling their music under such a model. Yet no-one does. What these Flamebait modders are demanding is a change in law to reduce options in the market place by eliminating the possibility of the older business model, thus forcing their model. And they demand this in the perverted name of Freedom.
Now all this said, the point made earlier about proving guilt was correct. This doesn't look like it is the case that someone must prove you guilty before suspending your account. It seems that you must prove your innocence (how?) when you are suspended by your ISP (and realistically, that just means that a program somewhere has decreed you are guilty. Good luck persuading them that their software is incorrect - they probably didn't even write it themselves, just installed something given to them by the *AA). And suspension from the Internet is a ridiculously disproportionate response in any case.
Nah, Boris Johnson's election was unverified so I call into question any laws he institutes.Drink and be merry!
Bad parenting is partly societies fault, though I'd lay the cause elsewhere to you. I'd say it's time. We're far too busy working to pay rent or mortgages or scrimping for a holiday (to recover from our servitude the rest of the year) to have the time for our children or to provide input and criticism of the schools they go to or to keep an eye on all the other things in society that affect them. It takes two working adults now to maintain a lifestyle where the family doesn't feel they are suffering for shortage of money. Children need good parents and part of that is parents that have the time for you.
We're working too hard and the children are suffering.
Wow! That's fun! Thanks for sharing!
There's a lot of very good advice here, but the most important of all is to listen to your son closely to see what interests him. For me, prodding away, I had a fascination with memory storage. Arrays in particular stunned me with their beauty and the first programs that I really applied myself to writing were strategy games that were at heart nothing more than 2D arrays that stored types of units, resources etc. Of course the units themselves were arrays. I might have been an odd child, but the thought of all those numbers lined up and structured absolutely thrilled me. Who knows what will really grab your son's attention? Well, actually, only your son does, which is why he most of all, is the one you should listen to.
You don't have to be a great teacher when the pupil is interested. Just try to learn to answer questions at the right sort of level of detail. That's 90% of it when you think about it, it really is.
Perhaps, but there are many elements to programming some of which are perhaps easier to learn than others. Teaching his son to program may benefit from being able to distinguish these elements. My initial suggestion would be to give him Python because this will let him learn the critical elements of program structure and algorithms without getting bogged down in learning the idiosyncracies of a language like C++ (which I do love). For similar reasons, Python will also offer fast return on investment. He'll be churning out programs that do what he wants them to in half the time he would be in C++ or Java.
Of course the most important thing is probably to let him drive the learning for the most part. If he's a bright and technically minded lad, he may appreciate the power and intricacies of C++. He'll need the language sooner or later if he gets involved in many of the big open source projects which would also be a great way to get involved. Things are usually more fun when done as part of a group.
I think there's an even more poignant symbolism about Ozymandias which even he seems to have missed, which is his name itself. Whilst he may have chosen it to compare himself with the great "King of Kings" it is undercut tragically by the famous poem of the same name by Shelley:
And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
Ozymandias is the most tragic figure in the book, I think. Because he has risen higher than any of them and defines himself by his achievements, he has so much further to fall.
Plus, remember just how twisted the villain actually is. The villain has compassion for the heroes and wants to clue them in. I just hope they leave John's line in "Nothing ever ends" because it actually made me shiver when I read it.
The Watchman was a great work and I was really excited when I read about this film and particularly when I saw it wasn't going to be filled with Big Names. My excitement has dropped a bit now I realised that the director is the same man who did 300. I really hope that it doesn't end up as just a stupid action movie and I also hope they keep the brilliant / sad / uplifting impotence scene. I love that for the part that comes later on. And wow, I've just realised how hard it is to write anything about The Watchman without committing a spoiler. And it's a story that you really don't want to do that with. Spoiler for Wanted? Who cares! But the Watchman... wow, that has some twists!
Mmmm. Good catch!
The final logical step of course, would be to put it back where you found it before he wakes up. Now that would be far better "spying" than just nicking the thing. So maybe it was just stolen.
Counter-arguments would be that if a woman was going to seduce a guy just to steal from him, you'd have seen more things go missing than just a blackberry. And even if the "spy" did want to take the blackberry, stealing other things as a cover would be better. This story is either incomplete or there is some inept work being done here.
The thing is, that would be harder to do because the very acts of photographing yourself working at the homeless shelter, posting them online then producing them at a court case to show how nice you are, makes you look fake. These photos were used for character assassination. For all we know, the individual had spent the previous week alone in his room crying before his friends had dragged him out to console him and someone got a shot of him smiling. We aren't actors in a play and we don't walk around in some static emotional state with a fixed expression all the time. At the gathering after a family members funeral we were very sad and yet there were moments where people laughed and reminisced. We even played with the children quite energetically. If someone had come along and snapped a photograph at the right moment, they could show us laughing and having fun instead of grieving, but anyone there would have felt the overall experience as something else. People are complex.
This was character assassination and if this is how law is practiced in the USA and your judges are swayed by it, then your legal system needs some serious work.
You should read my posts a little more carefully before you start bandying around words like 'moron.' For a start I'm in the UK where prostitution is legal. We have laws against soliciting on the streets, which is essentially about public decency, and we have strict laws about 'controlling the prostitution of another' which are used to deal with coercion. That's pretty much what you're advocating for your own country (guessing you're in the USA). Take a step back and look at what I was responding to. The OP said "victimless crimes such as prostitution and marijuana." There was a strong implication there and elsewhere that the objection to prostitution was just some trite cultural / religious thing and an implicit belief that prostitution is as harmless as pot. It isn't. For all the high-flown language and principles I've seen flung around in this thread, only in exceptional cases is prostitution something other than exploitation. Exploitation is where the bargaining positions of the two parties are wildly disparate and you can say that one has taken advantage of the other. That is the case with 99.99% cases of prostitution and that is the intent of having a law against it in those countries where it is illegal - to prevent exploitation. When someone is reduced to selling sex, they are automatically considered in such countries to be being exploited.
You make a valid argument for legalisation of prostitution (although it doesn't apply to me as we already have that over here), but there are also arguments for it to be illegal that do not make someone a "moron" for making those arguments. A law against prostitution is based on the absolute that your body is not a commodity that can be sold. It works on the same basis that prevents people selling their kidneys or an eye - to prevent exploitation of the destitute. Same principle.
I responded to an OP who regarded prostitution as being akin to smoking pot. That was naive and ignorant so I explained in detail the reality of prostitution in most places. You responded with an off-hand remark saying that "all employment is trading your body for money" which was stupid. Equating prostitution with a typical job, saying that it's all just trading your body for money, was ridiculous and I responded appropriately in illustrating the very real differences.
Now you've responded with a proper argument, and I don't necessarily disagree with it, though I think it's rose-tinted and naive. To hone in on the damage to people's relationships with partners as being the harm from prostitution is an odd emphasis when you have the usually much greater harm done to the prostitute themself. And yes - this applies even in countries where prostitution is legal. Even in Holland, prostitution is not a career you go into through normal choice. But you'll notice that I was never advocating criminalisation of prostitution in either of the posts you replied to. You did however get the appropriate response for someone who was dismissive of the suffering the accompanies the activity (not crime) of prostitution, as did the OP. When you're discussing this subject, you might want to consider your words a bit more carefully in future.
And yes, I do feel strongly on this subject.
Ha ha! At least two people have modded you Flamebait for a simple statement of verifiable fact. Heh! That's... actually, that's not funny at all.
Let's take a step back from what you think I said and start again from what I actually think. My post was addressed to someone who characterised prostitution as something that harmed no-one, and implicitly likened it to marijuana. Anyone who sees it in those terms is living in a dreamworld. There are people who sell sex for money voluntarily and apparently aren't traumatised by it (though it's never seemed to be the actual case to me in practice). But my post, whilst acknowledging this does happen, was explaining that there very much is a victim in prostitution and that can't be denied when you've witnessed it. That point needed to be made. Your hair splitting of saying that "prostitution" is victimless, is contentious at best. The activity of prostitution has a victim 999 times out of a 1000. By all means tell me about the girl you know who cheerfully sells sex and is perfectly well adjusted and doesn't need to do so, but I don't know of such cases myself. Every time I've come across it, it's been a tragic case.
Prostition is exploitation. In any market, there is an ability to negotiate based on the strength of each others bargaining position, but society places a limit on this, deeming a difference in position too great to be exploitation. When the commodity being sold is access to your own body, society considers this automatically to be a sign that someone is being exploited. It is perhaps not always the case, but it almost always is.
What I didn't say is that the law is good or bad, I offered no opinion on this in the post your replied to. It is complicated and it is affected by enforcement of the law. In the UK cities I have lived in, I've been aware that there's a tacit soft-hand used by the police in general. Everyone knows where the red-light zone is, the police could pick up prostitutes and arrest them easily enough (though not all would be easy to find or to convict), but that doesn't usually happen. It is the pimps that they want.
Prostitution is not actually illegal in the UK. Certain aspects of it are illegal such as soliciting on the street and "kerb crawling" which is where the customer approaches people on the street to buy sex. Doing things through ads, calls, etc. is legal. Brothels are illegal, though definitions are a bit complicated. What is illegal, is basically controlling another person's prostitution. Which is exactly what should be illegal. The laws against soliciting on the street are probably justified as otherwise you couldn't stop prostitutes from operating in all manner of public, family-friendly places. It's essentially a law demanding discretion.
It's not always easy to get a conviction of someone pimping, however. What the laws do sometimes achieve is enabling the police to get a girl out of a particularly bad situation. When you said:
I am really sorry to say that you are wrong. There are girls in the UK (and probably the USA, I don't know), who are kept prisoner and sold against their will. There are girls who have been told that their families will be punished if they try to escape. To call that a choice and to say that they should pursue an alternative is unfair. And in some cases, you would be asking them to make the choice to end their life.
Yo
If you can't see a distinction between sitting in an office and people paying your boyfriend for the privilege of raping you, then I guess you could say they're the same. Clearly figures of speech aren't recognised on
*sigh*
Correction - it was stolen from Alan Moore's 'Watchmen.' That, in several ways, is probably the most realistic superhero book ever written.
Yes. That's a pretty good way of putting it.