We all laughed and found it silly when the Israeli court found a guy guilty of rape because he told his sex partner he is Jewish instead of an Arab. But at the same time people, to a various degree, expect disclosure of certain information in sex - and sometimes even such disclosure is required by law (e.g. in case of HIV), often in ways that are rather inconsistent and/or hypocritical.
So I wanted to start a discussion what characteristics one should be required/expected to disclose before engaging in consensual sex.
Gender, communicable diseases, and whether you're over the age of consent.
What's their opinion on limited overs cricket. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2012, 02:46:42 PM
What's their opinion on limited overs cricket. :bowler:
so... she's not getting any unless she can explain the Duckworth-Lewis rule?
Quote from: Viking on January 14, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2012, 02:46:42 PM
What's their opinion on limited overs cricket. :bowler:
so... she's not getting any unless she can explain the Duckworth-Lewis rule?
No, just no 2nd helpings. Marriage would be on the table if she could explain that. :D
Great, another I-wanna-discuss-something-homoey-in-my-life-but-I'll-disguise-it-as-a-topic-even-though-everybody-knows-what-an-attention-whore-I-am Martinus thread.
Yes Marti, he should tell you if he's positive if you've asked him, even if he doesn't want to, before you fuck him.
OK?
Credit history.
Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2012, 03:35:49 PM
Credit history.
Yeah you wouldn't want the credit card merchants bouncing payment. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Gender, communicable diseases, and whether you're over the age of consent.
Basically this.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 03:20:10 PM
Great, another I-wanna-discuss-something-homoey-in-my-life-but-I'll-disguise-it-as-a-topic-even-though-everybody-knows-what-an-attention-whore-I-am Martinus thread.
Yes Marti, he should tell you if he's positive if you've asked him, even if he doesn't want to, before you fuck him.
OK?
Yeah, Marty might as well come clean. He should tell his partners he has herpes and what ever else he picked up in the meantime.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 03:44:01 PM
Yeah, Marty might as well come clean. He should tell his partners he has herpes and what ever else he picked up in the meantime.
Meh, as much of a homohore as he is, I think Marti is rather conservative in his approach to the wilderness of homosex. After all, he doesn't even do anal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Gender, communicable diseases, and whether you're over the age of consent.
I was hoping someone might bring this up. Why gender and not. say, ethnicity? Or plastic surgeries? Or religious views? Or marital status?
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 03:49:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Gender, communicable diseases, and whether you're over the age of consent.
I was hoping someone might bring this up. Why gender and not. say, ethnicity? Or plastic surgeries? Or religious views?
Put it the other way. I can see why gender matters. Why would ethnicicty, plastic surgeries or religious views matter when you're just having sex?
Ethnicity? Plastic surgery? WTF?
Lying to get sex is what makes us human. So disclosure should be limited to stuff that can get me hurt but not include stuff that is embarrassing. So...
- communicable disesases
- if this intercourse might be of non-legal status
- if should would rather not have sex
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 02:34:41 PM
So I wanted to start a discussion what characteristics one should be required/expected to disclose before engaging in consensual sex.
Propensity to get fat later.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
Gender, communicable diseases, and whether you're over the age of consent.
Age and diseases, yes. I've wondered if anyone has ever tried to sue a minor for fraud after being accused or convicted of statutory rape when they were misled as to the age of the putative victim.
I'm less convinced about biological gender. Caveat emptor. :P
To be honest, I am not really convinced by any of these.
Sex (btw, I think people mean "sex" when they talk about "gender" here - otherwise it makes no sense) is the easiest - as Ide points out, caveat emptor. If you are attracted to that person, there's no real rational argument why the fact that they had a sex change (or are just pretending to be of a different sex) should be more important than the fact they are wearing a wig or had their breast enlarged. And since consent can be withdrawn at any time, again I don't see any interest worth protecting here by requiring such a disclosure. So yeah, no reason there (and kinda disappointed Sheilbh fell in with the trans-panic crowd).
Age is also an easy one, but for different reasons - a minor cannot validly consent to having sex, so expecting/requiring an age disclosure from a minor is likewise baseless.
The communicable disease one is the most difficult one, imo, but there's a lot of problems here to arrive at a consistent policy. There are lots of diseases one can get from having a sexual encounter (or other form of contact) with another person, and many of them are, ultimately, more dangerous than HIV, so should all of these be disclosed or do you draw a line somewhere? And what about situations where disease transmission is unlikely (e.g. protected sex with a HIV-infected person, or oral sex with someone suffering from Hep C)? Not to mention in many cases (e.g. HIV), a treated person is much less likely to infect another person than an untreated, unaware person - so why should we effectively penalize the former for knowing about his or her disease (by requiring a disclosure), while we are not requiring frequent checks from people to find out if they are diseased in the first place (i.e. there seems to be a duty of care inconsistency somewhere here plus it also creates a disincentive for a person who thinks he or she might be diseased to get themselves checked - since until they know, they are not bound to disclose anything, right?) Not to mention, a reasonable person should take into account that the other person may be diseased, at least in chance encounters, and use protection, rather than rely on a disclosure. So ultimately for me this is also a case of caveat emptor.
That's why you shouldn't have sex with anyone until you love them, and they love you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 05:20:37 PM
That's why you shouldn't have sex with anyone until you love them, and they love you.
:D
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:05:31 PM
Age is also an easy one, but for different reasons - a minor cannot validly consent to having sex, so expecting/requiring an age disclosure from a minor is likewise baseless.
I don't see how those follow at all.
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Not lethal for about 10% of Europeans. Man, white people have it all.
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
Oh, that's a good one.
But only if you plan on being reckless anyway, I suppose.
Quote from: Drakken on January 14, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Hepatitis C is much more dangerous and easier to get.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 03:45:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 03:44:01 PM
Yeah, Marty might as well come clean. He should tell his partners he has herpes and what ever else he picked up in the meantime.
Meh, as much of a homohore as he is, I think Marti is rather conservative in his approach to the wilderness of homosex. After all, he doesn't even do anal.
I'm a hypochondriac. I'd die of fright if I engaged in unsafe sex. :P
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
It's similar to the disease one. If you trust a person enough to rely on his or her word, no formal disclosure is necessary. If you don't, you should use protection because you should not rely on his or her word alone.
Not to mention (correct me if I'm wrong as this is not my forte), does not a woman always know if the man is using protection? Because I see no reason why what she does with her body should be of a concern to him, so I see no reason why she should disclose to him she is on a pill - if he does not want to have a child, he should use a condom. Period.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 03:20:10 PM
Great, another I-wanna-discuss-something-homoey-in-my-life-but-I'll-disguise-it-as-a-topic-even-though-everybody-knows-what-an-attention-whore-I-am Martinus thread.
Yes Marti, he should tell you if he's positive if you've asked him, even if he doesn't want to, before you fuck him.
OK?
See, you misread my intentions completely. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility - if you decide to have sex with someone, then barring some extraordinary circumstances (e.g. that person has a weird disease that will kill you within 10 seconds from the moment you touch his or her skin) one should be prepared to face the music and protect oneself from such consequences as one does not wish to suffer. It seems this board is full of communists, however, who believe people should be protected from themselves.
Btw, it's not for the first time, that I get the impression heterosexual people are much more careless and risk-taking in their sexual encounters.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 14, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Hepatitis C is much more dangerous and easier to get.
Both are farily manageable these days. The most recent HepC protease inhibitors (telaprevir, boceprevir) are highly effective. We're never going to "cure" either HIV or HepC, but viral loads can be brought down to undetectable levels.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:45:56 PM
It seems this board is full of communists, however, who believe people should be protected from themselves.
Which wouldn't be necessary if people weren't such fucking morons.
Quote from: Fate on January 14, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 14, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Hepatitis C is much more dangerous and easier to get.
Both are farily manageable these days. The most recent HepC protease inhibitors are highly effective. We're never going to "cure" either HIV or HepC, but viral loads can be brought down to undetectable levels.
Are you sure? I thought HepC is much more lethal.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 05:49:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:45:56 PM
It seems this board is full of communists, however, who believe people should be protected from themselves.
Which wouldn't be necessary if people weren't such fucking morons.
The education is out there, easily accessible. If someone wants to ride the thunder instead and have an unprotected sex with someone they just met, I think he or she has just himself or herself to blame.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:42:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
It's similar to the disease one. If you trust a person enough to rely on his or her word, no formal disclosure is necessary. If you don't, you should use protection because you should not rely on his or her word alone.
Not to mention (correct me if I'm wrong as this is not my forte), does not a woman always know if the man is using protection? Because I see no reason why what she does with her body should be of a concern to him, so I see no reason why she should disclose to him she is on a pill - if he does not want to have a child, he should use a condom. Period.
Well, a woman wouldn't know if a guy had had a vasectomy, or was simply sterile. But as far as condoms go, they really shouldn't be your primary means of birth control--they're more of a backup.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: Fate on January 14, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 14, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Hepatitis C is much more dangerous and easier to get.
Both are farily manageable these days. The most recent HepC protease inhibitors are highly effective. We're never going to "cure" either HIV or HepC, but viral loads can be brought down to undetectable levels.
Are you sure? I thought HepC is much more lethal.
Yes, I'm sure. After 4-5 years of treatment 75-95% of people infected with Hepatitis C will have a "sustained response." This is medical jargon to say that they're aren't technically cured (as they will always have the virus), but they are asymptomatic. A certain number will relapse once treatment has stopped, but the progression of the virus can be halted.
Quote from: Fate on January 14, 2012, 05:49:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:39:43 PM
Quote from: Drakken on January 14, 2012, 05:30:44 PM
None is more dangerous than HIV, Mart. Advances in treatment hasn't made it less lethal, they just lenghtened life expectation with somewhat normal lifestyle (the important word here being somewhat) and a little less pill-guzzling.
Hepatitis C is much more dangerous and easier to get.
Both are farily manageable these days. The most recent HepC protease inhibitors (telaprevir, boceprevir) are highly effective. We're never going to "cure" either HIV or HepC, but viral loads can be brought down to undetectable levels.
I wonder how the modified T-cell study is going. Apparently they're not done yet.
QuoteAges Eligible for Study: 18 Years and older
Genders Eligible for Study: Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
Well, no shit.
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:42:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
It's similar to the disease one. If you trust a person enough to rely on his or her word, no formal disclosure is necessary. If you don't, you should use protection because you should not rely on his or her word alone.
Not to mention (correct me if I'm wrong as this is not my forte), does not a woman always know if the man is using protection? Because I see no reason why what she does with her body should be of a concern to him, so I see no reason why she should disclose to him she is on a pill - if he does not want to have a child, he should use a condom. Period.
Well, a woman wouldn't know if a guy had had a vasectomy, or was simply sterile. But as far as condoms go, they really shouldn't be your primary means of birth control--they're more of a backup.
Other than for disease prevention, I don't see the point.
This is actually a serious question--do people really just routinely pop off inside women they're having sex with? If so, why? They took sex ed, right? They know that correct pill usage is impossible to visually confirm and requires a degree of trust you would be unlikely to evince in any other situation, right?
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:45:56 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 03:20:10 PM
Great, another I-wanna-discuss-something-homoey-in-my-life-but-I'll-disguise-it-as-a-topic-even-though-everybody-knows-what-an-attention-whore-I-am Martinus thread.
Yes Marti, he should tell you if he's positive if you've asked him, even if he doesn't want to, before you fuck him.
OK?
See, you misread my intentions completely. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility - if you decide to have sex with someone, then barring some extraordinary circumstances (e.g. that person has a weird disease that will kill you within 10 seconds from the moment you touch his or her skin) one should be prepared to face the music and protect oneself from such consequences as one does not wish to suffer. It seems this board is full of communists, however, who believe people should be protected from themselves.
... you of all people here call others communists :rolleyes:
btw, I agree, you never know so you should be prepared and suffer consequences. And people just lie.
"Of all people." Martinus, a leftist? Unless having quasi-sex with dudes is enough to make you leftist these days, no.
I'm not a Marxist, but I am centre-left when it comes to economy. My position can be best described as soc-liberalism.
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:48:34 PM
Btw, it's not for the first time, that I get the impression heterosexual people are much more careless and risk-taking in their sexual encounters.
ok
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough deliberate aristocratic affectation to completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough aristocratic tendencies that completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
The moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
I have a lot of disdain for the poor and uneducated unwashed masses. That does not mean I cannot hold leftist views on how the state and economy should be organized. The first is a gut reaction, the second is a thought-out policy.
It's like someone who finds gay sex disgusting but supports gay rights - that does not make him a homophobe or a conservative.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
......
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough deliberate aristocratic affectation to completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
OOOOOOO! DO ME!
Wait, that didn't come out right.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
"Of all people." Martinus, a leftist? Unless having quasi-sex with dudes is enough to make you leftist these days, no.
Unfortunately gays politically active are lefties most of the time, and imho they just shoot gays feet. ;)
Quote from: MartinusI have a lot of disdain for the poor and uneducated. That does not mean I cannot hold leftist views on how the state and economy should be organized. The first is a gut reaction, the second is a thought-out policy.
It's like someone who finds gay sex disgusting but supports gay rights - that does not make him a homophobe or a conservative.
You can't really have a deep disdain for the poor and be a leftist. You can disdain the existence of an underclass, but not its members, if that makes sense. Leftism is generally about recognizing that people are not entirely responsible, perhaps not in large part responsible, for their economic station, and that luck, including circumstance of birth, plays a major part, i.e. the market cannot allocate rewards and punishments entirely justly.
If you do believe the market's outcomes are just, but still wish for a social safety net, that just makes you a smart rightist.
The more acceptable strains of leftism have also historically been about civil freedoms, I guess. But from an American point of view, you've not exactly championed civil liberties on a wide front.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
i.e. the market cannot allocate rewards and punishments entirely justly.
Is there anyone/anything that can do better? :lmfao:
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough deliberate aristocratic affectation to completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
OOOOOOO! DO ME!
Wait, that didn't come out right.
Well, I would do everybody. (Lol. -_- ) Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion. And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
Quote from: szmik on January 14, 2012, 07:22:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
i.e. the market cannot allocate rewards and punishments entirely justly.
Is there anyone/anything that can do better? :lmfao:
Allied Mastercomputer.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough deliberate aristocratic affectation to completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
OOOOOOO! DO ME!
Wait, that didn't come out right.
Well, I would do everybody. (Lol. -_- ) Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion. And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
Where do I stand?
Quote from: szmik on January 14, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
"Of all people." Martinus, a leftist? Unless having quasi-sex with dudes is enough to make you leftist these days, no.
Unfortunately gays politically active are lefties most of the time, and imho they just shoot gays feet. ;)
Yeah, that's what I mean. Martinus is a member of a lobby for equal rights--this is not a slam, there's nothing wrong with this. This isn't exactly the same as actually advocating for broad civil liberties, which he has attacked in the past (e.g., the excesses permitted by the freedoms of religion and speech we have in the U.S., which cannot be done away with without damaging those freedoms, bother him).
Quote from: The Brain on January 14, 2012, 07:33:55 PM
Where do I stand?
Girl I didn't ask to the cotillion.
I dunno. You too often come off as apolitical, except when it directly affects you. I'd say center-right, as I want to think you don't hold much truck with the Swedish welfare state, and you fear its coercive powers.
Advocacy of nuclear power is traditionally associated with the right, but I think that's only because a lot of my fellow leftists (not here, I mean in general) are retarded.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
You can't really have a deep disdain for the poor and be a leftist. You can disdain the existence of an underclass, but not its members, if that makes sense. Leftism is generally about recognizing that people are not entirely responsible, perhaps not in large part responsible, for their economic station, and that luck, including circumstance of birth, plays a major part, i.e. the market cannot allocate rewards and punishments entirely justly.
The latter does not follow from the former.
I agree that people are not entirely responsible for their economic station and want the system to improve that, but at the same time recognize that people of low economic station generally tend to be more uncultured, smelly, dirty and disagreeable. I find such people aesthetically displeasing and intellectually not challenging. Worse still, they tend to fall to religious manias and are more often than not homophobic.
As I said before, I think in the modern day people too often confuse personal preference with political and ideological worldview. You can be disgusted by gay sex or annoyed by effeminate gays' demeanor, but that does not make you a homophobe. You can find ebonics grating or black chicks unattractive but that does not mean you are a racist. You can find Jews donning a silly hat and bowing to a wall or refusing to eat bacon to be rather retarded ,but that does not make you an antisemite. You can think the homeless are smelly and be repulsed by the religiousness of the poor, but that does not make you a conservative.
I think political correctness has created this insane expectation that people are supposed to like each other and if you have a problem, on the level of pure personal preference/aesthetics (that does not translate into your political views or business decisions etc.) with someone else, this means there is something wrong with you and it should be corrected.
Quote from: szmik on January 14, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 06:48:02 PM
"Of all people." Martinus, a leftist? Unless having quasi-sex with dudes is enough to make you leftist these days, no.
Unfortunately gays politically active are lefties most of the time, and imho they just shoot gays feet. ;)
That's only because the right is often violently and insultingly homophobic. In countries where the right stopped being like that (even if only at a skin-deep level), like the UK or the Netherlands, you immediately have many openly gay politicians espousing right wing ideas about the economy, immigration etc.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 06:10:41 PM
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:57:14 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 05:42:47 PM
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Not that Marti would care about this one, but for casual heterosexual sex, birth control usage.
It's similar to the disease one. If you trust a person enough to rely on his or her word, no formal disclosure is necessary. If you don't, you should use protection because you should not rely on his or her word alone.
Not to mention (correct me if I'm wrong as this is not my forte), does not a woman always know if the man is using protection? Because I see no reason why what she does with her body should be of a concern to him, so I see no reason why she should disclose to him she is on a pill - if he does not want to have a child, he should use a condom. Period.
Well, a woman wouldn't know if a guy had had a vasectomy, or was simply sterile. But as far as condoms go, they really shouldn't be your primary means of birth control--they're more of a backup.
Other than for disease prevention, I don't see the point.
This is actually a serious question--do people really just routinely pop off inside women they're having sex with? If so, why? They took sex ed, right? They know that correct pill usage is impossible to visually confirm and requires a degree of trust you would be unlikely to evince in any other situation, right?
Hence, backup.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
I've always thought of you as a centrist with enough deliberate aristocratic affectation to completely bar any left appellation, hyphenated or not.
The only real center-left that comes to mind immediately is Joan. He has ridiculously rich person traits too, but doesn't wear them on his sleeve.
Then the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
Monger is actually an Ent, so does not count much in human affairs.
OOOOOOO! DO ME!
Wait, that didn't come out right.
Well, I would do everybody. (Lol. -_- ) Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion. And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
Close enough. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: MartinusI have a lot of disdain for the poor and uneducated. That does not mean I cannot hold leftist views on how the state and economy should be organized. The first is a gut reaction, the second is a thought-out policy.
It's like someone who finds gay sex disgusting but supports gay rights - that does not make him a homophobe or a conservative.
You can't really have a deep disdain for the poor and be a leftist.
Isn't that essentially the worldview of the classic limousine liberal?
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: MartinusI have a lot of disdain for the poor and uneducated. That does not mean I cannot hold leftist views on how the state and economy should be organized. The first is a gut reaction, the second is a thought-out policy.
It's like someone who finds gay sex disgusting but supports gay rights - that does not make him a homophobe or a conservative.
You can't really have a deep disdain for the poor and be a leftist.
Isn't that essentially the worldview of the classic limousine liberal?
I don't think so. I think there's a distinction between empathy and contempt.
Edit: Although, hell, being around poor, uneducated people again has actually aroused about as much contempt in me than empathy. But this is from firsthand interpersonal experience as opposed to looking at ants from an ivory tower--and also because I feel some of them hold me in contempt and thus they started it. :P
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 07:53:03 PM
Hence, backup.
Doesn't really answer the question though. Do most people fear, and reasonably fear, a loss of control?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
I demand to know how fucking crazy I am.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2012, 08:16:36 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
I demand to know how fucking crazy I am.
I said already.
QuoteThen the moderate left is Jacob, Zoupa and Sheilbh, the radical left is me and Mihali, and the chaotic evil left is CdM.
;)
That works.
Quotechaotic evil left is CdM
Or in nerd terms, Vecna.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 14, 2012, 08:24:14 PM
Quotechaotic evil left is CdM
Or in nerd terms, Vecna.
LOL, holy shit that's old school, man.
Quote from: dps on January 14, 2012, 07:58:28 PM
Isn't that essentially the worldview of the classic limousine liberal?
Not at all. There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.
I think Marti is the person I most disagree with on almost every subject :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 08:57:07 PM
Not at all. There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.
Which explains why limousine liberals were so offended by Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 09:08:42 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 08:57:07 PM
Not at all. There's no contempt on the part of a champagne socialist (our equivalent), they're just from a different class background.
Which explains why limousine liberals were so offended by Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" comment.
Limousine liberals knew he was referring to Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument, albeit in a clumsy way. Why would that offend anyone?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 09:10:51 PM
Limousine liberals knew he was referring to Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument, albeit in a clumsy way. Why would that offend anyone?
Because you just made that up. :D
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 09:11:55 PM
Because you just made that up. :D
What do you mean?
Edit: And the Clintons did try to make that play, so at least they were 'offended'.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Well, I would do everybody. (Lol. -_- ) Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion. And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
Center-right: Yi (for now, he drifts up and down the spectrum), Malthus. Moderate right: Ed, Berkut, Barrister Boy, Habbaku, dps, derspeiss, crazy canuck, OvB (sober). Radical right: OvB (intoxicated), Strix. Schitck right: Neil, Slargos.
Ahem, you seem to forgot someone.
Anti-Yi left.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 09:15:39 PM
What do you mean?
I mean I've never heard of Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument and I doubt most (if any) limousine liberals have either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 10:00:51 PM
I mean I've never heard of Thomas Frank's nuanced and rather considered argument and I doubt most (if any) limousine liberals have either.
Well that you've not read it doesn't say much, but it's probably part of the reason why you're not a limousine liberal.
The book itself was basically suggested that the white working class used to be leftwing, the right used cultural issues - like God, guns and gays - as a different populist strategy. So they captured that vote. Rural areas that were once bastions of progressive politics, like Kansas, started voting for a party that went against their economic self-interest. It attracted a lot of attention and spent 18 weeks in the NYT bestseller list. It is probable that a significant number of limousine liberals read it. I think it's almost certain Obama did, I think he's explicitly cited it.
If they didn't then it was widely disseminated through the liberal blogosphere. Especially in response to Obama's comments.
Krugman wrote a column on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ex=1366171200&en=3e6cf2aa5e0536b5&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
HuffPost interviewed Franks about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/thomas-frank-on-obama-not_n_96528.html
Andrew Sullivan called it 'the Thomas Franks argument': http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/04/the-red-blue-divide/218055/
Larry Bartels, a more straightforward lefty than Franks, and a critic of Franks' work wrote an article about the comments advancing his own argument: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html
All of which indicates that this idea was swishing round the left-wing that reads blogs and enjoys the NYT, which I'd suggest is a better definition of limousine liberal than someone who's left-wing but contemptuous of the poor. So I think most of the limousine liberal left either thought the remarks referred to Franks, or read someone who made that connection, or spoke with someone who did. I think they probably thought the words were poorly chosen and inartfully expressed. I don't think they felt anything offensive was said.
It's worth noting the right noticed the Franks connection too. Some found that entirely offensive such as Canadian mentalist, Mark Steyn: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120805672535010747.html
The WSJ were at least relatively interesting in their article on it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120805672535010747.html
Ooh, Krugman.
Quote from: Sheilbhof which indicates that this idea was swishing round the left-wing that reads blogs and enjoys the NYT, which I'd suggest is a better definition of limousine liberal
I'm a limousine liberal? Well, well. Who knew?
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 10:23:11 PM
I'm a limousine liberal? Well, well. Who knew?
I didn't say either definition works :P
I want to be a limousin liberal. Though I suspect that term was concocted to allude to Jews.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 10:23:43 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 10:23:11 PM
I'm a limousine liberal? Well, well. Who knew?
I didn't say either definition works :P
Quiet boy. I have to get my top hat on before I go to the Rainbow Room for my dinner with Rockefeller.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 09:57:34 PM
Anti-Yi left.
I think people read to much into Yi's anger at me. I just do what to him what he does to everyone else.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 10:14:51 PM
<snip>
OK, that book about Kansas, right? I've heard of that. Don't necessarily agree with his premise though.
And it's still a little difficult to reconcile a belief that the white working class clings to their guns and religion with holding them in esteem.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 10:34:04 PM
I think people read to much into Yi's anger at me. I just do what to him what he does to everyone else.
Ask yourself this question: if I do whatever it is I do to everyone else, why are you the only one who stalks me from thread to thread?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 10:57:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 10:34:04 PM
I think people read to much into Yi's anger at me. I just do what to him what he does to everyone else.
Ask yourself this question: if I do whatever it is I do to everyone else, why are you the only one who stalks me from thread to thread?
Dude, there's like 50 of us here. We almost all post in every thread.
You're also the only one that didn't like my taxonomy of them. Raz: contrary. :angry:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 14, 2012, 10:53:52 PM
OK, that book about Kansas, right? I've heard of that. Don't necessarily agree with his premise though.
And it's still a little difficult to reconcile a belief that the white working class clings to their guns and religion with holding them in esteem.
Well now we're arguing about Obama's comments, not about limousine liberal contempt.
For what it's worth I don't think this quote is terribly contemptuous. I actually think it's quite sympathetic:
QuoteYou go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 11:02:47 PM
You're also the only one that didn't like my taxonomy of them. Raz: contrary. :angry:
Apperently I'm stalking everyone here. :D
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
I find talking politics or religion on the interwebs is like having sex with a nymphomaniac.
At first it's great, torrid fun. Then it becomes an exhausting, chafing grind. And in the end you realize there'll never be a mutually satisfactory conclusion.
Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't like. <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 14, 2012, 11:08:43 PM
Well now we're arguing about Obama's comments, not about limousine liberal contempt.
I'm trying to argue that by not taking offense at Obama's comment, limousine liberals demonstrated their lack of esteem for the working class.
QuoteFor what it's worth I don't think this quote is terribly contemptuous. I actually think it's quite sympathetic:
QuoteYou go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
[/quote]
That's patronizing, which is a variation on contempt.
Malthus and Martinus are center-right? :yeahright:
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:29:22 PM
Well, I would do everybody. (Lol. -_- ) Bearing in mind that I'm bound to forget some folks so don't be offended like I asked some other girl to the cotillion. And some of you just don't talk politics enough for me to know where you stand.
At least I was included. ;)
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 14, 2012, 07:33:55 PM
Where do I stand?
Girl I didn't ask to the cotillion.
I dunno. You too often come off as apolitical, except when it directly affects you. I'd say center-right, as I want to think you don't hold much truck with the Swedish welfare state, and you fear its coercive powers.
Advocacy of nuclear power is traditionally associated with the right, but I think that's only because a lot of my fellow leftists (not here, I mean in general) are retarded.
True. And I also fear thunder and abnormally tall people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 12:29:28 AM
That's patronizing, which is a variation on contempt.
Patronising isn't even on the same emotional scale as contempt, far less a variation of it.
However I don't even thinik the ideas behind what Obama's saying are that patronising. As I say he expressed it really, really poorly. But Franks' ideas don't seem really that different from any of the pop-sociology books that David Brooks writes, it's just they're about a different class.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 11:53:06 AM
Patronising isn't even on the same emotional scale as contempt, far less a variation of it.
It's on the same psychological scale. I think you're not capable of thinking for yourself so I treat you like a child.
Okay. I'd put contempt with disgust and scorn, not treating like a child.
But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 02:02:21 PM
But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.
Because it's based on the premise that certain people are irrational.
I agree with Yi. :huh:
Quote from: The Brain on January 15, 2012, 04:14:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on January 14, 2012, 07:38:42 PM
Quote from: The Brain on January 14, 2012, 07:33:55 PM
Where do I stand?
Girl I didn't ask to the cotillion.
I dunno. You too often come off as apolitical, except when it directly affects you. I'd say center-right, as I want to think you don't hold much truck with the Swedish welfare state, and you fear its coercive powers.
Advocacy of nuclear power is traditionally associated with the right, but I think that's only because a lot of my fellow leftists (not here, I mean in general) are retarded.
True. And I also fear thunder and abnormally tall people.
Sweden is perhaps not the best place for you. :(
I don't think patronizing behavior is the same as contemptuous.
You can have contempt for someone's intellect and you can have contempt for someone's morals. Contempt for intellect + good wishes = patronizing (patronization??)
I've always thought of contempt as requiring some actual malice.
Me too. Though I would say patronizing would too.
Fair enough. I was using contempt as a antonymn for esteem. Can you esteem someone who you think is irrational?
I suppose. We both find each other irrational from time to time; I hope you still hold me in some esteem. :(
I think the word you are all looking for is "condescension".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 02:02:21 PM
But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.
Because it's based on the premise that certain people are irrational.
Personally I'd go further. All people are irrational.
But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?
Rationalism is over rated. Nobody really engages in it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 02:02:21 PM
But I still don't see why subscribing to one analysis of why certain people vote against what seems to be their economic self interest is patronising.
Because it's based on the premise that certain people are irrational.
Personally I'd go further. All people are irrational.
But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?
I think what Yi is contesting is the claim that the Republican party serves the financial interests of the working class less than the Democratic party does.
Seems to me that if the Republican party is in fact acting against the interests of blue collar workers (in spite of its own rhetoric), then the Frank explanation makes sense. Republican blue collar workers aren't necessarily being irrational, they just place cultural and social issues above economical ones; or they've been misled on economic issues.
On the other hand, if the Republican party does in fact serve the interests of blue collar workers better than the Democratic party then Frank's argument can be seen as insulting because it dismisses blue collar Republican's (in this case correct) analysis of their own economic interest as ignorant.
I guess the Democratic party would be served better by consistently making the case that they serve blue collar interests better rather than to wonder why parts of the working class decide to vote against their own interest.
That's fair, but that's a different argument. I'm assuming that a limousine liberal would believe that Republican policies hurt the poor and the Democrats help them. I think that's one of the reasons they are liberals (and to an extent the Franks argument could be read to cover them as well).
So the argument that the Republicans help the poor and the Franks argument is insulting may well be true, it's certainly arguable. But I don't think it indicates limousine liberal contempt for the poor, because I don't think they believe it.
Franks uses the example of Kathleen Sebelius as a politician who focussed, in Kansas, on school funding, healthcare and the economy. She won. I think she was first Democrat governor for years. So as you say, that's what he argues Democrats need to do in red states.
They weren't offended by Obama's bitter comments because they weren't contemptuous.
Yes, that's a seperate argument.
But I thought we were talking about the working class Shelf. You switched it to the poor.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:13:37 PM
But I thought we were talking about the working class Shelf. You switched it to the poor.
Read as working class then :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 06:15:49 PM
Read as working class then :)
I don't take exception to the Frank's argument because I think Republicans are throwing so much free money at the working class, but because the benefits that Democrats legislate are tailored for very specfic constituencies. A working class woman can't afford to take six months of unpaid maternity leave; that's tailored for upper middle class professional women. Similarly Democrats are very good at scratching the backs of Big Labor, but that doesn't do squat for some guy who's not in a union.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 04:56:21 PM
But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?
I never said it was. But Obama thinks that their real concern is dying middle American industry and they are clinging to guns and religion and beaner hate as a coping mechanism.
Quote from: Jacob on January 15, 2012, 05:43:41 PM
I think what Yi is contesting is the claim that the Republican party serves the financial interests of the working class less than the Democratic party does.
Amazing how even college educated types like Yi still fall for that.
QuoteSeems to me that if the Republican party is in fact acting against the interests of blue collar workers (in spite of its own rhetoric), then the Frank explanation makes sense. Republican blue collar workers aren't necessarily being irrational, they just place cultural and social issues above economical ones; or they've been misled on economic issues.
Misled to a degree, but they do place a premium on cultural issues over common sense for foetuses, fags and niggers.
QuoteOn the other hand, if the Republican party does in fact serve the interests of blue collar workers better than the Democratic party then Frank's argument can be seen as insulting because it dismisses blue collar Republican's (in this case correct) analysis of their own economic interest as ignorant.
I guess the Democratic party would be served better by consistently making the case that they serve blue collar interests better rather than to wonder why parts of the working class decide to vote against their own interest.
Because as long as the GOP hammers home--and the Dems allow it--the concepts of: liberals=commies, unions=bad/guns=good, and that their lot in life will be improved when we send all those dirty Mexicans back to Africa, it's not going to sink in that voting for people who only care for the wealthy, deregulation and the elimination of government, and would hate you if they knew you is not in your best interests.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:19:59 PM
A working class woman can't afford to take six months of unpaid maternity leave; that's tailored for upper middle class professional women. Similarly Democrats are very good at scratching the backs of Big Labor, but that doesn't do squat for some guy who's not in a union.
Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers. Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:25:36 PM
Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers. Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.
How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:25:36 PM
Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers. Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.
How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?
Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:32:09 PM
Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.
Not your weakest response ever, but probably in the top 20.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:34:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:32:09 PM
Unfortunately for her, the GOP has successfully cock-blocked all Democratic efforts to make me.
Not your weakest response ever, but probably in the top 20.
:lol: I thought you'd appreciate that one.
It's her company, man. I'm just the customer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:24:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 15, 2012, 04:56:21 PM
But, why is voting on cultural or social issues irrational?
I never said it was. But Obama thinks that their real concern is dying middle American industry and they are clinging to guns and religion and beaner hate as a coping mechanism.
Read the quote again. He says the communities have had economic problems, they've been failed and let down by their government for decades. Their unsurprising response has been to turn to certainties (Gods and gun) and against what takes those jobs away (trade and cheap labour). This isn't a coping mechanism it's an entirely rational response to change. That's not a controversial analysis. You may disagree with it, but it's not earth-shattering.
I think it's similar to the reasons people think Labour voters are more likely to turn to the BNP than Tories. It's pretty reasonable.
On the other point, that's an interesting idea. But I would note that some states, all Democrat strongholds, do have mandatory paid maternity leave and it was supported - though not enacted - by Sebelius, who is Franks' model. So perhaps that is a way to go.
I have no reasonable response to your last post on clinging Shelf. Nolo contendere. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:25:36 PM
Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers. Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.
How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?
I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".
The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.
If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2012, 12:28:56 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 15, 2012, 06:25:36 PM
Sounds like both those examples are victims of their soulless, Godless employers. Shame the government can't force them to take care of their employees.
How many months of paid maternity leave do you provide your cleaning lady?
I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".
The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.
If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.
I think the argument is that employment benefits ought to be something provided by individual employers at their discretion, not government programs in the first place.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2012, 12:28:56 AM
I think that's a pretty weak counter-argument, Yi. It's up there with the "well, if Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes why doesn't HE just voluntarily give all his money to the government".
The issue isn't that individuals should choose (or not) to be extra charitable; the issue is how society is structured. Whether a cleaning lady should get 6 months' maternity leave or not should not be down to whether she happens to have a particularly nice or nasty employer. Whether Seedy can, individually, afford to pay for someone whose services he contracts to have 6 months maternity leave is neither here nor there when it comes to determining the legislative and regulatory framework that governs maternity leave.
If you want to argue that we can't (or shouldn't) afford to provide maternity leave that's one thing, but the argument that individuals should attempt to implement government programs unilaterally is pretty weak.
I think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.
Seedy has a choice, as do all employers. He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless. Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.
Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed? Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not. Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2012, 01:51:57 AM
I think the argument is that employment benefits ought to be something provided by individual employers at their discretion, not government programs in the first place.
No, Yakie had it right. I'm making a consistency argument. If Seedy judges companies negatively for their actions, he should do differently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 02:03:05 PMI think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.
Seedy has a choice, as do all employers. He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless. Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.
Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed? Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not. Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.
Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution. The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2012, 03:18:04 PM
Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution. The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.
And until that solution was achieved the organizers of the Underground Railroad chose to try and improve the lives of individuals. They certainly never said "oh, if only the government were to force me to shelter runaway slaves the world would be so much better, but as things stand I'm helpless." Social justice is ostensibly about improving people's lives. If you improve one person's life that's a net increase in social justice.
Should individal states (or provinces) not pass social justice legislation because that's not a comprehensive solution? Should countries not do so because there are still people outside their borders who don't benefit from this "solution?"
God bless Languish sex-threads.
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 03:37:16 PM
God bless Languish sex-threads.
We prefer arguing the toss to, well, tossing ? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 03:35:09 PMAnd until that solution was achieved the organizers of the Underground Railroad chose to try and improve the lives of individuals. They certainly never said "oh, if only the government were to force me to shelter runaway slaves the world would be so much better, but as things stand I'm helpless." Social justice is ostensibly about improving people's lives. If you improve one person's life that's a net increase in social justice.
Of course individuals should do what they think is right, to the best of their ability, but that is separate from how society should be organized.
Your argument suggests that abolitionists who did not personally help slaves escape prior to nationwide abolition where hypocrites whose argument against slavery should be dismissed. I don't think that flies. It's a cheap rhetorical trick, no more.
QuoteShould individal states (or provinces) not pass social justice legislation because that's not a comprehensive solution? Should countries not do so because there are still people outside their borders who don't benefit from this "solution?"
No, of course not. That's orders of magnitude different from suggesting that individuals attempt to voluntarily pay down the deficit or provide social benefits that are properly in the purview of the state.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2012, 03:18:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 02:03:05 PMI think this is a pretty weak rebuttal.
Seedy has a choice, as do all employers. He can pay what the market is bearing for house cleaning, in which case he has to judge himself as soulless and Godless. Or he can do the right thing, the socially just thing and pay a lot more.
Why did organizers of the Underground Railroad not wait for slavery to be outlawed? Because they believed that one slave being set free was still a net good even if millions of others were not. Just like the life of Seedy's cleaning lady would improve.
Nonetheless, the solution to slavery was not the Underground Railroad. Admirable as it was, it was a patchwork ad-hoc solution. The solution to the problem of slavery was abolishing the practice through legislation and reinforcing that abolition through concerted government action.
Yeah, it's kinda funny that Yi would make himself vulnerable with such an obvious argument.
And for the record, the Underground Railroad went much further than the equivalent of giving to charity - it was actively "stealing" other people's "possession". The equivalent of what Yi is advocating would be "if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves." Too funny.
Quote from: Jacob on January 16, 2012, 04:04:21 PM
Of course individuals should do what they think is right, to the best of their ability, but that is separate from how society should be organized.
Your argument suggests that abolitionists who did not personally help slaves escape prior to nationwide abolition where hypocrites whose argument against slavery should be dismissed. I don't think that flies. It's a cheap rhetorical trick, no more.
I would not accuse an abolitionist who sat out the Underground Railroad of hypocrisy because participation in the Underground Railroad entailed serious risks that they were not asking anyone else to take.
I do accuse Seedy of hypocrisy because he's demanding that others bear costs that he himself is not willing to bear.
QuoteNo, of course not. That's orders of magnitude different from suggesting that individuals attempt to voluntarily pay down the deficit or provide social benefits that are properly in the purview of the state.
We were talking about imposing burdens on private companies, not the state.
I don't understand your point about orders of magnitude. Is there some number below which action is pointless? It's only worthwile for Seedy to give his cleaning lady paid maternity leave if he employs a couple hundred?
As an aside, I don't agree with the "Warren Buffet should pay down the deficit" argument. If he acts unilaterally there is a free-rider problem. The same is not true of Seedy giving his cleaning lady paid maternity leave.
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2012, 03:47:13 PM
Quote from: PDH on January 16, 2012, 03:37:16 PM
God bless Languish sex-threads.
We prefer arguing the toss to, well, tossing ? :unsure:
Hush, Treebeard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2012, 04:27:06 PM
I do accuse Seedy of hypocrisy because he's demanding that others bear costs that he himself is not willing to bear.
:lol:
Then I don't want to hear shit from you about future US military action, because you refuse to purchase any F/A-18s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2012, 06:48:34 PM
:lol:
Then I don't want to hear shit from you about future US military action, because you refuse to purchase any F/A-18s.
:mellow:
I've pitched in on F/A-18s.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2012, 05:17:54 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 16, 2012, 06:48:34 PM
:lol:
Then I don't want to hear shit from you about future US military action, because you refuse to purchase any F/A-18s.
:mellow:
I've pitched in on F/A-18s.
And I've pitched in on maternity leave.
Figuratively, of course.
Disclosing whether you're just interested in exchanging bodily fluids or expecting a call the next week would be useful to know. Also references from previous lovers as to skills and stamina. And a list of icky things you might see if you can get away with while your partner's half-asleep.
Quote from: Brazen on January 17, 2012, 08:23:03 AM
Disclosing whether you're just interested in exchanging bodily fluids or expecting a call the next week would be useful to know. Also references from previous lovers as to skills and stamina. And a list of icky things you might see if you can get away with while your partner's half-asleep.
Julian Assange should have consulted with a lawyer and you for some advice before his 'encounters'. :ph34r: *
* because there's probably a conspiracy involve, isn't there ?
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2012, 08:41:33 AM
Julian Assange should have consulted with a lawyer and you for some advice before his 'encounters'. :ph34r: *
* because there's probably a conspiracy involve, isn't there ?
Discussing the Assange case with my girl friends, we decided the only difference between what he is alleged to have done and what every bloke tries is the fact the we don't sleep with anyone worth any money in court or from the tabloids.
Quote from: Brazen on January 17, 2012, 08:48:36 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2012, 08:41:33 AM
Julian Assange should have consulted with a lawyer and you for some advice before his 'encounters'. :ph34r: *
* because there's probably a conspiracy involve, isn't there ?
Discussing the Assange case with my girl friends, we decided the only difference between what he is alleged to have done and what every bloke tries is the fact the we don't sleep with anyone worth any money in court or from the tabloids.
I like how you friends chop down both men and women to the lowest common denominator. :P :cheers:
Quote from: Brazen on January 17, 2012, 08:23:03 AM
Also references from previous lovers as to skills and stamina.
Agreed.
Quote from: Brazen on January 17, 2012, 08:48:36 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2012, 08:41:33 AM
Julian Assange should have consulted with a lawyer and you for some advice before his 'encounters'. :ph34r: *
* because there's probably a conspiracy involve, isn't there ?
Discussing the Assange case with my girl friends, we decided the only difference between what he is alleged to have done and what every bloke tries is the fact the we don't sleep with anyone worth any money in court or from the tabloids.
you two need to find better men :P