I like Japan's more than ours. They seem to always get the flashier layouts. Damn Japan. lol Oh well.
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3628/desktopvr3.jpg I'm goin' old school.
Yes. If the power source/support systems are unplugged from the outlets, and then destroyed, there'd be no-more internet. Just computers. And USB drives. Btw, that is a great episode. That was my favorite Angel in the series. :]
That's true, but that's based on the assumption we're all completely dependent on the monetary system to begin with (which we sadly are). It does have some effect, but it doesn't solve the problem in its entirety. And that's what I was getting at. I know, I agree with you. I'm simply saying the society allows for the possibility. That is the problem. Of course you shouldn't take it. But they do. Why? Because it is there and they "want" to (for whatever reason). I don't care if it is right or wrong at this point, it's there, it is taken, and that is the problem. Yeah, but WHY do you think they take the option of prostitution? They take it because it is there and the influences of their life allow them to simply take it, whether by force or because they want it. And technically it is your fault for making the decision, I agree. But when we get down to the real roots of it, it's a product of the system. Simply because we made it. Haha. The whole understanding is that prostitution, rape, murder, and theft are because of monetary incentive. If you don't have money, a woman will resort to selling herself. If you see a car and you like it, you steal it. Why? You can't afford it. Money not a factor, you see a car you like, you can just go and get another one. And if someone steals your car, you can just go get another one as well, on top of any material items you lost. It isn't an issue without money. In the society, no problems would occur unless the items in question are worth something of significant value. And through that perspective, why even steal it if it's free? Murder and rape can bel allowed the proposition that money doesn't always involve (or if anything, significantly less than the other types of crimes). But in cases like marriage, custody, and other financial gain or advantage, it occurs there. So even if -this- particular set of problems doesn't completely go away, a vast majority will be gone. And most of the people who do this generally grew up in low-income environments, ghetto, etc.. So they realize that stealing is their method of confection for material items and that reflects in how they act towards people; in a "do what I say" or "I get what I want" attitude. So yes, wouldn't completley disappear, but significantly declined. People behave much differently when they aren't threatened their conditions of living and money. In that case yes, because it is applied in a practical sense. But using the same logic, someone could view not taking drugs as a stupid or bad action. Such as pharmaceuticals. The "bad" drugs (whatever that means) carry a health risk, as to any other pill or drug. The only thing that differs is the amount you take to help yourself. Counter to overdosing. But they might not view that as wrong. On a physical level it's clearly not a smart choice, but that doesn't mean it is bad or wrong. Exactly. True. But then why do we still have prostitution? If it isn't forced and everyone understood that, then why do we still have it? It's because maybe you grew up in an environment that said "hey, this is possible." The source produces this. It doesn't make sense to say it'd be gone simply because the source alters it. The source has to be altered, then the conditions change, and then the amount of said action will increase or decrease (in this case, we want it down). Who says so? If people already see actions as right and wrong, and it changes from person to person, then where does the standard lie? It only lies in the decision widely believed by the social system. Yes, he will think it's fine. But you don't. Who's right? The one who is on the society's side, because you know what is better for the society itself. But if the parents are poor or not quite up to par with money income, those types of conditions produced that child. He THINKS it is okay, but you don't. No one is right or wrong. You simply need to think of what is the wiser choice in terms of "does it even matter?" And even that will be up in the air for interpretation. Of course the murderer shouldn't be let off. You should examine what allowed for this behavior and solve it that way, instead of getting punished by the system. We allowed this to happen simply by having our system. That isn't to say it will go away indefinitely, but if you ever hope to alter perception on what makes it okay or not, you need to try to reduce the amount of it. If everyone was a murderer and rapist and thought it was okay, then anyone not doing raping or murdering would think you were insane. Why? Because the vast majority of the social consciousness doesn't agree with that logic. The "parting from the pack" attitude is what I'm getting at with this. If society didn't teach them, what did? People? Well people are a result of the society, and all those people are influenced by the society as well. Ultimately it was the system that gave them this idea. So to them it is a feasible option.
Yeah.. this probably will fail. I did realize how much I go on youtube though. I should have gone on more than 10 times today, but I didn't 'cause I'm busy. I think I've become dependent on youtube. D:
Too late now. Rules of the internet void all necessities for the Death Note.
Eh, to each his/her own. If you've been with someone since you were 13, and you're now 15 or 16, surely you might decide to have sex... and in that case, the reasons are likely to be well enough. Usually I'll say any age under 16 isn't a smart time to have sex... but it really depends on the reasons.
Now, I like books... not sure about you guys, but recently, I got a really good book I've been wanting to read for quite a while. While reading, I get tired, so I fall asleep.... or I get really into my pillows... and just lay their for a while. There's also many other kinds of books I read. Such as art books. Mega Man seems to be a good one I think. http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/9817/img0400iv8.jpg The most impressive pyramid of cans I've ever made. Not that great, but hey, Scrubs is in the background. <:
George Carlin is better.
Of course, I agree entirely. But the fact is, it is there. If money did not exist, and likewise, the entire monetary based economic structure, prostitution wouldn't exist. Because that's what a prostitute needs: money. To survive. Not a smart move, obviously, but a choice taken nonetheless. And any time this opportunity can be given and utilized by those (possibly) not smart enough to see past the discrepancies of how society allows you to do this, it's just another reason why making a law saying it's banned, will do nothing. And in that fashion, the very foundation of prostitution is around simply because society allows it (but at the same time, trying to avoid/get rid of it). Which doesn't work, as explained before. Of course. I agree entirely. But the choice is still taken, simply because it is there, and some people find reason to want to do it. Explained this before... It allows the conditions to exist for prostitution to be a way to survive. The societal system, that is. Well, to some degree, yeah. A law essentially is an attempt by people to prevent corruption and flaw in the society. When a law is passed, that is irrefutible proof a portion of the social structure has failed. If the system was perfected and allowed people to be 100% prosperous, law wouldn't be needed, because everyone would be satisifed and understand their objectives in what they wanted to pursue, and likewise, wouldn't care about money at all. While this is present today, to some degree, we still get small percentages of people (lower class, you could call them...) cut short by the chain. People who fight for income. And that's the understanding of how prostitution is here. If it is bad and immoral, I can agree with that, and the method of solvency is finding why this it is even there in the first place. The society makes it wrong, not the act of prostitution itself. It is simply a choice, and I really don't consider choices right and wrong... just whether they are effective or not, or true or not. In a sense, yes... and the way it is thought to be okay is provoked by the system we live in, which revolves around money almost entirely. The reason could be wrong, yes, and so could the method... but they are biproducts of the source, as expained before. Very true. It just takes someone willing to grasp the concepts for themselves, instead of being spoon-fed. That's a good thing then. lol Then it makes sense you feel the way you do about prostitution. Yes, exactly. The physical seeing of what is right and wrong, mean and nice, will certainly be astranged (in the case of an action, rather than the thought of an action interpreting the reasoning). There is a difference in the action taking place in your example, but think about the reasoning behind it, and what may have led the person to the point of wanting to include himself or herself into that act. It isn't good or evil, it is a product of that person's extrapolations on what he's already learned from existing interpretations on good and evil. The same applies to prostitution: what allowed this type of behavior to take place? What happened in the woman's or man's life that led them to think that selling themselves for sex was okay? If that is understood, the whole meaning of it being bad/evil is void, because they might think it's completely fine. Murder and rape, as well. Though on an off-topic note, donating 100 bucks to a charity could be seen as evil to some who know more about the monetary system... because they are including themselves, in their opinion, into a corrupt system of differential advantage (the monetary system, that is). The cause is good, the problem can never be completely fixed, however. That's a reasoned moral view, which makes sense... You seemed a little t'd off. lol I was referring to the fact that a lot of the time, not everyone, but indeed the vast majority of people, are given influences that make their decisions and limitations on how moral and immoral are interpreted. Either subliminally by the society (which the proof is staggering on this), or through influence on others (which, too, have been somehow influenced by a society... so it's simply a duplication that can go bad or good, in the sense of how they saw it in the first place by the knowledge they had at the time). Everybody is susceptible to this in some form or another... for instance, the pledge of allegiance. A song and tool used for children to know to make them appreciate the values and customs of the USA's society, without them fully knowing the reason behind it. They get it at a young age and know it until they die because it was given to them at an age before they could question it, and either did or didn't question it through their life. Which is how prostitution works. A lot of women will see it or do this behavior, and not realize the implications: the whole society has taught them to do this without them even knowing it, because it is how they need to survive... (assuming their other options are limited, or that's what they actually wanna do...eck...).
Hmm maybe I misrepresented that idea. What I meant was, a person who works in an office has to have -some- kind of job. If he doesn't, he will never be able to support himself as a human, and he won't be able to live. Prostitution is the same way. Sure, you can choose what you want to do, but this is irrelevant when it comes down to it, because either way you look at it, the society is making them do something in order to live. This is dangerous, because it warrants the possibility of prostitution. If you don't want prostitution, get rid of the system, or try and solve the problem by analyzing the conditions that make it appear. I understand why you think it is immoral, prostitution, that is. But so is working in any job. Rather, it isn't immoral, you are simpy taking action in a corrupt practice by serving a job that you might or might not want to do in order to live. Because all jobs do is get you money, and all money comes from a bank, and ends up in the bank. The financial system is thus the issue here, not prostitution, because it allows the possibility of jobs, and from that, we get possibilities of jobs like prostitution. So, really, the jobs themselves are not the same. The purpose is the same, however, and that is to live and support yourself. But if the system causes you to do that, things like prostitution will always happen. If it is wished to be gone, conditions need to be looked at which warrant it, and we need to fix the problem. Simply saying it is immoral and trying to convince people of that, might not be enough. But if we observe it on a more objective approach, it might make it more understandable. In a sense, yes, because society has allowed the emergence of that job. When prostitution was first made illegal, it wasn't because it was "wrong," (though that is true on some level, I suppose, arguably) it was because it is a portion of the social system that has failed. And if prostitution is bad and wrong, then the system that created it must also have to have some responsibility. If not, then it being "immoral" or "wrong" wouldn't be possible. That would be an empty distinction at that point, or simply made up all together, for there isn't a foundation to base it off of (imaginary, in other words). Yes, it does show a failed mechanism in society. I think I answered that above already, though. It didn't need to be added because I wasn't looking at it from the same perspective you were, I think. I'm not sure if I missed it or subconsciously included it without even realizing it. But since what I'm saying is on such a broad scale (the entire system, not just prostitution), it seems to fall into place. True. Very true. Yes, but I was saying it was fabricated. Their reasonings for banning prostitution doesn't make sense. If it made sense, it would have been gone by now. Putting up a sign (or law, in this case) and saying it isn't legal won't solve anything. That isn't even a solution. You are essentially saying, "Hey, don't do this, or you'll get punished." That just shows how much more the society fails to truly try and solve the problem of prostitution. Obviously it takes more than that, I suppose. Of course reality will show it is bad, because going around sleeping with people for money (or any other form of exchange or reason) is essentially pointless. The only reason it is done is to gain money. People look past that because they say they are "sick." They aren't sick, they are mislead by the society. Hence, a failed solution and a failed structure to prevent this type of behavior. Lol, yes, it is the issue, but what I meant was the conditions to allow prostitution to be a feasible form of exchange for individuals warrant the very practice to be immoral. If money wasn't a factor, it wouldn't make sense to begin with. You're right... xD The only difference is money. Which is (unrealized-ishly) morally, and socially wrong. You didn't say that. I was making a generalization for understanding. Of course it isn't everyone, I never implied that, in case that's what you thought. It just so happens that is the happily-accepted majority opinion... at least from what I've seen. Hmm then I probably didn't read it as fully as I should have. It just looked like two opposing assertions in a sentence. You said "I never said it was wrong because it, 'Just is.' I said it was wrong because it is." Then a reason came after it... I couldn't tell what you were trying to say. Mah bad. Yep. That was the point he was making before. Which if you see religion as a negative aspect, I see how that is possible to be thought by the individual. Religion promotes less thought, which seems to be a point in the argument. Which shows people aren't shown to really look at things to understand them, but just to simply do them. Nope. They differ from person to person. The only thing that makes them have seemingly foundationed value and meaning is the wide-spread understanding and assumed thought of what "evil" is. It's a philosophical interpretation, and almost always applies to a religious context only. And since society is "one nation under God," it makes sense as to why the entire society has a focused idea of what evil is. Truth might be, I think, it could count as anything... but in the end, there is no difference, when you take both perspectives into account. Hmm I can't seem to find it. If isn't too much trouble, a copypasta would be fine. Well, it's God's ideal's, that's why I tried to take a whack at it. -failureee at whackage- If I seem mocking, I apologize. I'm probably not going to even address him at this point anymore. lawl
I meant, give me the moral difference between a job of Prostitution and working in the office. There is no practical difference because both are corrupt behaviors. An office man is confined to labor, which is a direct link to problems in the societal structure itself. It is a forced behavior in order to survive. Prostitution, as well, is the same fundamental symptom of this scarcity of money, forcing the individual to submit to some form of self-degradation (much like office work) in order to gain money to survive. Both are essentially the same thing at the very core. I'll go into more detail on that, if you want. Yes, I agree, it does hurt communities in that way. But it isn't prostitution that is the bad thing. That's just a symptom of the real problem: the social structure has warranted this because it is the desperation to survive (gain money, as mentioned earlier). It's the fastest solution in the woman's opinion, much like the office man who submits to his other form of labor: because he has the credentials necessary for it. And, sure, a prostitute might not have credentials, however, physically, they can take advantage of what they have. And, in my opinion, it isn't degrading only to the woman, but the entire social populace. It shows a failed operation of society taken advantage of (labor, work, etc). And of course it's degrading to the family. That's obvious. In fact, it's worse than that because two parties are involved. I didn't mention it because it didn't need to be added. >__> And when it comes to sex, is it ever emotionally healthy? Prostitution is seen as a negative activity entirely, by politics, so why even suggest the health of it? And actually, the ideals the man feels towards prostitutes is felt beforehand 90% of the time, and they are a product of their upbringing and environmental conditioning. These are bad only because some previous entity warrants them as such, also. They can't just simply be bad because someone (even God) says so. A consideration is much different from truth. Consideration is the act of getting there, whereas your truth is what has already been fabricated by your personal belief. Don't get me wrong, society and the public can be negatively affected by prostitution. But prostitution is hardly the issue. It's something much deeper than that. Morally, I suppose, I'm going to agree for now that prostitution is bad. But that is only because the conditions say so. Hmm, I can agree with that. True, not every person who sleeps around is a prostitute. But remember, the main form of exchange in that is money. Which brings up the question of: why does that all the sudden change everything? The overall goal is the same: pleasure. And for whatever reasons they may be. Right and wrong won't matter there, imo. Just a thought. Uh, k. Seems like you're contradicting yourself, is all. I mean a religious preaching, for example. The method of transference of these moral understandings are done with certain reasonings, and that is mostly from religion. What he was saying was how if religion wasn't involved, it could be just as effective. There is no standard, that is the point I was making. Yours as well. It's in all of us. It's subliminal, but overall, we are all conformed in some way in are understandings. Perhaps not so much on this site, of course. And don't worry, I wasn't being patronizing towards the topic of God. I use it loosely this way in order for it to have more meaning. It isn't meant to be negative at all.
21 7 times 3. I mean, zero.
Why do you feel that way? Did you decide that's how you really feel, or did religion tell you that, and so you heard it so much and conditioned yourself by it so much that now it's basically truth to you? Blasphemy, sacred action, marriage, sex, these are all incredibly objective (some subjective) things. I don't see why we need to even talk about it.
I am laughing so hard at this thread. TheMuffinMan, Beat and Sorcerer_Jenkins have made my day. Sex isn't even THAT important. It's almost pointless. We do it because we can do it. It's that simple. It's a great experience for some, and a ****** one for others. It's stupid how controlling you need to act towards this, imo, S_J.
Stop bumping old threads, guys. It's ridiculous.
Give me a moral difference. I'm curious. I can't follow your logic on that. It's considered wrong because it IS wrong? What makes it simply wrong? Your opinion? Or a vast majority opinion? And on what basis does that immediately make it irrefutable? I know plenty of people who sleep with more than one person and are 1) fine people, 2) smart people, some religious, actually, and 3) stop using God as a claim for morality. Morality is so subjective, it's essentially like replacing the word with God, since you seem to intertwine the two words so loosely. I say that because you say "it just is," with no proof, no explanation, other than "God." I don't think that applies to the teachings themselves... just the method of expression. =/ Lol, they might as well be interchangeable. They are so subjective my eyes and brain are about ready to bleed. >_> Incidentally, the entire debate is void because of how subjective this thread is, which is being debated over societal understandings that have been shoved into our brains... so in a sense, we're all completely off and biased no matter what. I love it.
Vertigo, your avatar is ridiculous. :] I'm thinking I'm going to be gone during those days anyway... so really, it doesn't matter to me much. Still, if something significant happens, I'm going to be quite excited. : D I enjoy this kind of thing. lulz.
There's no freedom of speech in a comparative manner. Context, m'dear.
1. Whatever. As if there aren't enough in Public school systems as it is? lmfao xD 2. It'd be odd, I guess, I never really see it too often. I wouldn't care though. To each, his own. 3. Tetris is a piece of electronic entertainment. I can't see how that or any other game is evil... even the things in the game, actually. It's a subjective perception.
