A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
(1) Evolution
(2) Separation of Church & State
(3) Civil Rights

New to your side at least.

So you admit the Dem game plan of leaving terrorists entire countries to make plans to blow up our office buildings goes back to early clinton era.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you admit the Dem game plan of leaving terrorists entire countries to make plans to blow up our office buildings goes back to early clinton era.

No. I leave that to the neo-cons and current Afghanistan. Thank god we got rid of those WMDs...I mean thank god for...DEMOCRACY!

Where in the World is Osama bin Laden?

Someone has to have done a Where's Osama* book by now. Right?

*Where's Waldo

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Article on woman losing benefits for refusing to work as prostitute.

I find this issue really interesting. I actually agree that, if prostitution is legal, it should be no more refusable than other objectionable jobs w/r/t unemployment bens. I am particularly moved by the statement of the brothel-owner, that she pays her taxes like any other employer and should have access to the same public services as other employers (particularly given German employment taxes). I also am curious to check out german bars, since they are apparently indistinguishable from brothels. However, I'm not really comfortable with making a woman work as a prostitute to avoid losing benefits to which she is otherwise entitled. I'm not entirely sure where my dysfunction is, but I have been having some fun over the last few days considering it.

Time for my counterfactuals: (i) A committed ethical vegan refuses to work at a meat-packing plant. (ii) a man refuses to work as a prostitute. (iii) An orthodox Jew refuses to work at a pork abattoir. (iv) The committed vegan refuses to work as a waiter at a saussage-house. (v) the committed vegan is one because he is a buddhist. (vi) a hypochondriac refuses to work as an orderly in a TB ward. (vii) a strict muslim refuses to take a job that would force her to work with non-related men in contravention of her religion (I don't know if this is ever applicable, but it is irrelevant for these purposes). (viii) Wiccan refuses to work at an evangelical church as a Sunday school teacher. (ix) woman refuses employment as a surrogate mother. (x) Our stalking horse: woman refuses work as prostitute.

My initial gut reaction is to find the following to be unacceptable job refusals: (i (but not v)), (ii), (iv (v or not v)), and (vi). (x) and (vii) are both right on the border, but I wouldn't require them to do it.

I think this shows (a) an assumption that society should perhaps make certain concessions to enable people to adhere to religious beliefs, moreso that other ethical beliefs (which I admit makes no sense at all), (b) a belief that women's morality is more important to protect than men's (which does make some sense since I think western (and most other) cultures punish women deemed immoral more severely than men, and often consider a wider collection of behaviors to be immoral for women), and (c) that I think segregation of the sexes, whether religious or not, is stupid.

Maybe I'm saved here by the fact that women aren't actually being forced into prostitution - they are free to choose not to engage in prostitution. They will merely be expected to accept the consequences of their self-imposed limitations, just like someone who objects to mucking out stables, serving meat or working with people of the opposite sex. I've long held that children who object to dissecting the frog should refuse to do it but live with the F. Society isn't required to make it painless to stick to your personal moral code, though sometimes it may be in society's benefit to do so with certain moral positions (yes, that was my whistleblower safe-harbor).

Maybe my objection is really that, just as I don't feel that one person's morality should be forced on another (by, say, criminalizing porn), I don’t feel that … well, the other's morality should be forced on the first person in the other direction, either. But I don't know how you square that with determining whether one receives social benefits to which one is otherwise entitled based on engaging in morally or ethically objectionable activities.

Then again, I am one of those libertarians who think prostitution should be legal and unemployment benefits shouldn't exist, hence alleviating the potential problem.

ed for crappy spelling

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"They don't stand for anything? Really? Not even the 10 Leadership Bills that they unveiled last week as the centerpiece of their legislative agenda? Or did you just not take the time to look?"

I don't know what a "leadership bill" is, but a bill is not a new idea. You obviously don't know what 's in those bills either.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Article on woman losing benefits for refusing to work as prostitute.

I find this issue really interesting. I actually agree that, if prostitution is legal, it should be no more refusable than other objectionable jobs w/r/t unemployment bens. I am particularly moved by the statement of the brothel-owner, that she pays her taxes like any other employer and should have access to the same public services as other employers (particularly given German employment taxes). I also am curious to check out german bars, since they are apparently indistinguishable from brothels. However, I'm not really comfortable with making a woman work as a prostitute to avoid losing benefits to which she is otherwise entitled. I'm not entirely sure where my dysfunction is, but I have been having some fun over the last few days considering it.

Time for my counterfactuals: (i) A committed ethical vegan refuses to work at a meat-packing plant. (ii) a man refuses to work as a prostitute. (iii) An orthodox Jew refuses to work at a pork abattoir. (iv) The committed vegan refuses to work as a waiter at a saussage-house. (v) the committed vegan is one because he is a buddhist. (vi) a hypochondriac refuses to work as an orderly in a TB ward. (vii) a strict muslim refuses to take a job that would force her to work with non-related men in contravention of her religion (I don't know if this is ever applicable, but it is irrelevant for these purposes). (viii) Wiccan refuses to work at an evangelical church as a Sunday school teacher. (ix) woman refuses employment as a surrogate mother. (x) Our stalking horse: woman refuses work as prostitute.

My initial gut reaction is to find the following to be unacceptable job refusals: (i (but not v)), (ii), (iv (v or not v)), and (vi). (x) and (vii) are both right on the border, but I wouldn't require them to do it.

I think this shows (a) an assumption that society should perhaps make certain concessions to enable people to adhere to religious beliefs, moreso that other ethical beliefs (which I admit makes no sense at all), (b) a belief that women's morality is more important to protect than men's (which does make some sense since I think western (and most other) cultures punish women deemed immoral more severely than men, and often consider a wider collection of behaviors to be immoral for women), and (c) that I think segregation of the sexes, whether religious or not, is stupid.

Maybe I'm saved here by the fact that women aren't actually being forced into prostitution - they are free to choose not to engage in prostitution. They will merely be expected to accept the consequences of their self-imposed limitations, just like someone who objects to mucking out stables, serving meat or working with people of the opposite sex. I've long held that children who object to dissecting the frog should refuse to do it but live with the F. Society isn't required to make it painless to stick to your personal moral code, though sometimes it may be in society's benefit to do so with certain moral positions (yes, that was my whistleblower safe-harbor).

Maybe my objection is really that, just as I don't feel that one person's morality should be forced on another (by, say, criminalizing porn), I don’t feel that … well, the other's morality should be forced on the first person in the other direction, either. But I don't know how you square that with determining whether one receives social benefits to which one is otherwise entitled based on engaging in morally or ethically objectionable activities.

Then again, I am one of those libertarians who think prostitution should be legal and unemployment benefits shouldn't exist, hence alleviating the potential problem.

ed for crappy spelling

STP?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't know what a "leadership bill" is, but a bill is not a new idea. You obviously don't know what 's in those bills either.

I know you're not a litigator, but you're the one with the burden of proof here. I'm sure that I could find out what's in those bills fairly quickly, but I don't need to look at them to conclude that the Democrats are not without ideas. You, on the other hand, are arguing that there's no there there, but can't be bothered to look.

eta: It took me about four minutes to find this, and that was while making small talk with a bunch of Canadians on a conference call.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know you're not a litigator,

You're the guy who isn't bothered by the other side playing hide the ball on discovery, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You're the guy who isn't bothered by the other side playing hide the ball on discovery, right?

Hank, my clients understand that this is a new world now. We don't worry about "documents" and "testimony" and "facts" and things like that. While the other side is litigating about discernible reality, that's not the way we're doing business anymore. When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're taking discovery about that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can litigate about too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank, my clients understand that this is a new world now. We don't worry about "documents" and "testimony" and "facts" and things like that. While the other side is litigating about discernible reality, that's not the way we're doing business anymore. When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're taking discovery about that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can litigate about too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

Today's media understands the world as well. They learned from the Administration's, and CBS', profound mistake of "presenting evidence," as in each case that evidence may turn out to be wrong, or at least disprovable.

No, today's media understand the limits of evidence, and the power of ..... inFLECTion?

Does Hank spend his spare time pleasuring GOP contributors? Sure, there may be little evidence for those who haven't looked for it, but the reeeeeal value lies in asking the question. For about 5 weeks or so. Then we'll let the public decide.*





















* (c) 2005 Steven Colbert, TDS

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I know you're not a litigator, but you're the one with the burden of proof here. I'm sure that I could find out what's in those bills fairly quickly, but I don't need to look at them to conclude that the Democrats are not without ideas. You, on the other hand, are arguing that there's no there there, but can't be bothered to look.

eta: It took me about four minutes to find this, and that was while making small talk with a bunch of Canadians on a conference call.

That's what I thought. Ty, it's very unlike you to post and back something before you've thoroughly vetted it. Perhaps all those losses to Hank have taken their toll?

I counted 1 new idea there. What did I miss?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I counted 1 new idea there.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

7-0.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong.

7-0.

I said they haven't had 3.

87-7-10.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I said they haven't had 3.

87-7-10.

Maybe so, but before that, you said: "The fillibuster appears to be the only new idea coming out of the 'party of change' these days."

Better change that to 86-8-10.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe so, but before that, you said: "The fillibuster appears to be the only new idea coming out of the 'party of change' these days."

Better change that to 86-8-10.

3 is the operative number for the disagreement. The above is rhetoric.

88-7-10

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank, my clients understand that this is a new world now. We don't worry about "documents" and "testimony" and "facts" and things like that. While the other side is litigating about discernible reality, that's not the way we're doing business anymore. When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're taking discovery about that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can litigate about too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

with so many of you out of office, I guess you've the time.....