AzureWolf

I think it is nice to have these types of holidays. I see them as a chance to be beyond the norm, to do something extra special, even if you already consider everyday a special day. Hey, it can always be extra special. =P

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]People who lend their trust to the "religion of science" are making sound assumptions about the nature of science and the community's consensus. They assume that scientists have examined the phenomena in question with great rigor and strenuousness, and because of this their words carry more weight. They assume that these scientists are far more qualified to speak on the topic, and that they probably know more than a person who reads in a book "God made it" and believes it. The fact of the matter is scientific investigation is far more rigorous than that of untested belief, and as a result believing in the "religion of science" is far more relevant than believing "the bible said it".[/QUOTE]I understand that they have some basis, but you have to understand that these "qualified scientists" are just a modern version of church figures. Their word holds more weight just like "enlightened people" did in the past. Hwang Woo-suk managed to fake his whole data, be accepted by everyone and the "great rigor and strenuousness" of the scientific community gave him the green. Hell, if he didn't come forth BY HIMSELF, we'd still be singing praises of him. If we didn't question anything in the name of science, we'd still have the fiasco that was Alchemy. Sure, it's not "the bible said it," but is EXACTLY like "the Pope said it."[QUOTE]I mean, you've never researched in-depth (I assume) your brain's physical properties and processes; you've never read the studies and original findings and decided for yourself. So instead you assume that what neuroscientists say is probably closest to what is "right". Humans just operate that way, and to call it ignorant doesn't make much sense.[/QUOTE]Actually, I have. Maybe not MINE per say, but the brain's physical properties and processes, and yes, I not only read how they found this stuff out, but I'm REQUIRED to know. I guess "the magic" of neuroscience goes away when you do know, because honestly, it's not all that impressive - or conclusive for that matter. I won't go into the fiasco that was Phrenology either. And I actually disagree with many neuroscientists. In fact, for Alzheimer's, I sided with the Tau protein bandwagon, which was the second-most accepted cause of the disease at the time. While there has been no winner yet, recent solutions (or just things that delay the onset) have targeted the formation of tau bridges, and have had great results. Yes, there have been drugs and solutions targeting beta-amyloid, but they have not been as impressive as of late. I know not every person needs to know or has time to know, but if they accept something as unquestioning fact when it is indeed "just a thought," you have to wonder if there's even a point of being an "independent thinker" if you are just going to modernize blind faith. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with blind faith, but if you're going to have blind faith, don't pretend it's something else just to be hip and different. I have no problem with faith, but I do have a problem with people in denial of their faith, religious or otherwise. I have religious faith, and like ZeitGeist, I question it just as I do science. Yet both of my beliefs in science and religion have faith.[QUOTE]About "they could probably both be wrong" ... I don't see how this is relevant. I mean certainly, all our conceptions of physics and science could be totally wrong, [i]but it's the best we have[/i]. The fact is evolution has been studied, and there is a ridiculous volume of research and data on the subject documenting it. Intelligent design and/or creationism, on the other hand, is untested theory and holds about as much credence as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you want to believe and chalk it up to "a matter of faith," I've got absolutely no problem with it. But to attempt to level science and belief on the basis of "science could be wrong" seems shortsighted to me.[/font][/QUOTE]I'm guessing this isn't about anything I said, but I just wanted to talk about Intelligent Design. It's a funny thing, because there's a conundrum in evolution: how does evolution know what is a good adaptation and a bad one? Obviously, bad ones die off and aren't passed on, but since their genes aren't passed on, what warns the survivors that it's a "bad adaptation?" So, some think observed failure also affects evolution. Otherwise, evolution's rate of progress would be much much slower. Statistically, we'd mess up more as we evolved better, but that hasn't been the case. Evolution appears pretty streamlined. I think ID was created to fill in that conundrum. It's not a satisfying explanation, but it is an interesting one. It's different from creationism, though. @MistressRoxie This is just a side note, and your points are valid and I have no argument with them. But just so you know, a theory is a "testable" explanation of an observed phenomenon. Theory of Gravitation is actually a misnomer then, because no one can explain gravitation yet. Law of Gravitation would be more accurate, because a law is just an observed phenomenon. "All objects attract" is an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain how or why all objects attract. Currently, we've got crazy, multi-dimensional, ethereal things like Bohr molecules in quantum physics as an "explanation," and until CERN or Fermi prove its existence, it's just really awesome science fiction mumbo jumbo. Just throwing that out there. =P

Evolution is wrong, just like abortion, and kitteh pr0n. And just so you know, the so-called "independent thinkers" merely follow the religion of science: whatever is said in the name of science is believed without question to them. Because "studies show" or "some study of which I understand and know no details of" were done. As a person who is forced to actually read and digest this BS, I am astonished at how ignorant this generation is. It's worse than those who blindly follow religion, seriously.

[quote name='TwistedChick']Now the wierd one - for about the last twelve years, I figuartively "see" every word I hear anyone say. So, if you're talking to me, I visualize each word as you speak. I see the shape, the way the vowels flow. Depending on how you stress the word, it may be italicized or bold. I see punctuation, drop-downs for new trains of thought. You get the picture. You also get how it can be distracting at times and therefore a hinderance. If too many people are carrying on conversation around me, I get overwhelmed. For this reason, I prefer to be in smaller groups, not so much enjoying parties with dozens of people. There are other people with this "gift". One woman was even published reporting that she sees [I]different colors[/I]. If I had to name a color, it would black. Oh, and pretty much it's always in Times New Roman. I don't know why, so don't ask. It can come in handy. I rarely, if ever, can't properly spell a word. I mean I've been seeing it spelled for over a decade. And in my family, I get quite the plethora of terms set before my eyes. Since I've begun learning some Japanese, I now see most Japanese words spelled out in romaji. And because I've taken some Spanish, I see that too. Any other language just rolls off and I don't visualize it. If there's a word I [I]don't[/I] know how to spell, it kind of sticks out at me, as if it were flashing, perhaps. So far, I haven't actually met anyone that shares this quirk with me. With a little research, we discovered it's linked to a mild form of OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder, for you non-Monk fans). Oh well. Mystery solved.[/QUOTE]Sounds more like that condition Dagger taught us all about: [U][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia]Synesthesia[/url][/U], but doesn't look like any of the particular ones listed in the wikipedia article.

120 wpm! Hahaha! FTW! Nah, it's around 100 when I'm not really focused and I don't have what I'm going to write down. When I'm focused, have what I need to write in front of me, then I easily go 120+ every time. In short, writing essays, memos, and business letters, I'd be an awesome secretary. IMs/chatting... not so much, haha. Uhm... I can do one full one-handed chinup with my left hand (meaning from straight arm, to chin over bar). Oddly enough, I can only hold a one-handed handstand with my right hand. I haven't played a fighting game in ages, but I used to get in "the zone" frequently (that's when everything seems like it's moving slowly so you can respond to even your opponent's fast attacks - not the same as anticipating or guessing). I played Assassin's Creed recently, which has AI fighting at least, and I seemed to have lost it (or the game engine just sucks, not sure). Even though I'd like to be the opposite, I can get lost in my own world and not notice even the most obvious things. I'm not detail-oriented or observant. I'm absent-minded and can pretty much ignore a person in a conversation. Like, three of us could be talking, and if he bored me enough, I could involuntarily ignore (REALLY IGNORE) the person, not even have a clue he's there. I know/comprehend/read three languages, but I can only speak one (english, if you were wondering, lol).

IMO, dating is cool, but there's a time and a place for it. I think that's the crux of what people who aren't into dating are saying. High School? For some, maybe, but let's face it, it's a weak substitute for college. HS, everyone has the same background, same "interests," it's not really about finding what you truly like, just going with the flow of where you are. NOW college, that's where you meet that annoying foreign exchange student, Asians from California, that chick from the arbitrary state that no one cares about, etc. That's when you are exposed to several things and a really diverse populace, such that you can actually find out what you like and not just follow everyone else. And still for some, college is more about grades than dating, and so sometimes that's still not the right time and place.

There are actually a number of things you can do. You can hook up a computer to the modem and make the computer send out a wireless connection. This is known as a ad-hoc/peer-to-peer network, for instance. It's not all that hard, but I've never had snappy results as with a router... You could also have your computer as the extension if you have two short ethernet cables. Same as wireless p2p actually, but faster. I'm sure you can find a really cheap router if you wanted, though, and it'd probably not be much more expensive than a really long ethernet cable.

Are you sure you have wifi and are not just getting some neighbor's signal? I always do. I had to change the channel to 2 because my connection kept getting dropped, not with my laptop but with weaker things like cellphones and the PS3. I don't know what the hell he uses, but his signal strength is stronger than mine! In my own home! Your internet connection will always be connected to a modem by wires, and the modem will be connected to the router by wires. If you find the modem and can't find a router, then check the brand and the name of your modem and find out if it's an "all-in-one" sort of thing like Semjaza said." Otherwise, TRY accessing 192.168.1.1 in your browser and see what happens. Doesn't hurt to try, right? PS: I just realized I might have wrote something that may be the problem without realizing it. If it is your wifi, then maybe like my PS3, the connection keeps getting knocked off because of interference. I know, it doesn't happen with your computer (didn't happen to mine either), but I guess the wifi receptor in the gaming systems is weaker? Try changing the channel to something like 2 or 3. SIDENOTE: Oddly enough, even though this is fixed, I noticed that my PS3, upon connection, manages to knock my internet offline for a moment before everyone is back up and running. I'm blaming my router for this, but dunno really.

Relationships are about compromise. Sure, she might have overreacted, or you probably never got the hint that she just wants some alone phone time (or a little bit of both, which is usually the case). Apologize and tell her you will be more receptive in the future, and also ask her to voice her concerns if it seems like you are being callous. I disagree with Neuvoxraiha about arguing about little things. I think it is perfectly normal and the best way to iron out the kinks in a relationship before something big comes along.

[quote name='Sandy'][IMG]http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/SamSandy/omakuva28.png[/IMG] But I'm getting a haircut next week. XP[/QUOTE] OMG, in that photo, you look like my gym teacher! But with better hair! And I thought my gym teacher was the epitome of cool in the first place. O_o

I think PC world did a good wrapup of 2007 laptops. Check out these two links: [url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/123678-1/article.html[/url] [url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136649-page,1-c,notebooks/article.html[/url] In a nutshell, most laptops should be able to play games decently well with the advent of core 2 duo and pernyn (sp?) processors. If your laptop has that (preferrably the latter, but either is fine), you will be able to run most games that predate these processors' arrival. I am actually looking the opposite way and looking for a general-purpose laptop. I've had my eye on the EEE PC, but until I'm able to sell my macbook pro, I'm not going to buy another laptop. I have a $500 Dell desktop, and I just really need something simple for mobility. MBP is great, but I don't use all it's power. Funny thing is, I can't find anyone willing to pay a reasonable price just because I have Tiger installed and not Leopard. The OS is $129, so why do people expect me to cut the standard price for a used MBP by $500 or more?

I have an old comic fan who is trying to get into manga. He's interested in urban settings and styles, so it'd be great if anyone had strong recommendations for a gateway, urban manga. Big bonus if you actually read said manga. =P

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Oi. She did. Trust me. It was pretty inane. And if someone calls you names, deal with it. Don't be the sniveling retard that "politely" asks not to be called names right after throwing veiled derogatory statements. I hate having to mentally label people like that.[/QUOTE]I would, but then the failed abortions make comments like this.[QUOTE]Indeed?[/QUOTE]Quite. I too hate labeling mentally, so I just don't do it. And it's only inane because you poorly interpreted what I said. Sure, maybe what I wrote was hard to understand, but based on the rest of your post, I'm going to say you misinterpreted my post so it's easier to rebut.[QUOTE]This is not only a gross overextension of her argument, but also an attempt to throw the mantle of illogic back to her. [I]Very[/I] insulting.[/QUOTE]Ok, sure, [i]maybe[/i] I'll buy that, but then the following demonstrates you have no clue what I said.[QUOTE]Killing—or more precisely, [I]murder[/I]—is [B]illegal[/B] based on the moral bias that people have a right to life. It's like an extreme version of theft; you as a murderer have taken a life that does not belong to you. I understand what you were attempting to say, but you picked the complete wrong example to do so, and in doing so only showed that [I]your[/I] reasoning was flawed. If you think now to look at the death sentence as a glorified form of murder for rebuttal, think again. One who has committed murder has stolen a life, and they must repay their theft. Since life cannot be restored under any circumstances, the murderer's life is forfeit so the debt can be filled. If the murderer's life is spared, it is mercy. If not, it is fair justice.[/QUOTE]Wow, what a waste. I have no clue why you explained your reasoning and stance on an unrelated topic. I made that example to make a single point. Read, and read really hard, PLEASE: If Aaryanna_MOM dismisses a person's position because it is based on assumptions, then she is a hypocrite if [insert extreme example that everyone would disagree with]. I don't see how you using more assumptions (what is fair justice, theft is wrong, right to life, necessity for balance, need for justice, need to repay) shows my flawed reasoning. If anything, all you did was prove it![QUOTE]Overextension. She said consent was a factor; she said nothing about its necessity.[/QUOTE]Wrong, because she dismissed my stance because it was based on an assumption. THIS WAS MY ENTIRE AND ONLY POINT. I don't know how much longer I need to stress this to get that through. [QUOTE]I think you realized your overstep there, as evidence by: But this is a cop out. Allow me to use one of your extreme examples. She jumps off a cliff, and everyone else jumps off a cliff..... :animesmil Just because others are assuming does not rationalize nor authorize you to do so. Your argument there was wasted breath.[/QUOTE]THAT IS MY POINT. Don't try to twist my stance and then act like you are taking the opposing side. You are proving me through and through. I'm willing to admit I'm a bad writer, maybe I don't get my point across, but this is almost exactly what I have been saying! I don't agree with the examples I made - no one does, which is why I used them! Two wrongs don't make a right, but at least the person who is wrong should be consistent. Elaboration below if you are still not following.[QUOTE]True. And you do. But do not degrade the original issue, which in her (and [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachmaninoff[/COLOR]'s) case was only with the clarity of [URL="http://www.otakuboards.com/showpost.php?p=802042&postcount=45"][COLOR="Blue"]your post here[/COLOR][/URL]. You seemed to take their confusion as a direct attack on you, and it was not so. I also wish to know what the devil you meant, because I have not yet seen any posters indicating that they feel prostitution necessary. Don't defend. Clarify.[/QUOTE]You keep trying to peg me and label me, but you keep failing. With the exception of your post I'm addressing (the only reason I'm replying in the first place after having login trouble), I haven't been confused or saw anything as a direct attack (although your post manages to do both to me). Again, as far as that post goes, people keep indicating extreme conditions, how people are forced into it. All I said is that the problems will be exacerbated if it's legalized. [QUOTE]I hope you take her advice, because from the tone and direction of your posts thus far, it does not appear that you have yet done so.[/QUOTE]Oh? [QUOTE]Indeed? Although I understand that you are attempting to prove that setting precedent would eventually lead to a hands-tied system, your intermediate steps are hidden from me, and so I cannot currently agree with you. Spell out your logic—and by "spell" I mean in finite detail, as if you were rationalizing every step of a mathematics proof—so that I may follow it.[/QUOTE]Puh-lease. Everything is written out. Read it like a mathematical proof instead of trying to use semantics and trying to change my stance and you'll see my point clearly. Hell, just read the last two sentences of what you quoted! And read them for what they are.[QUOTE]Perhaps you should brush up on your knowledge of reasons for entering prostitution. They run the gamut, from forced labor to a means to make money to an escape from typical occupations to a history of sexual abuse to an attempt to shame one's parents. Some were raised in the lifestyle. There have been several instances of research done on the subject, even extending to Victorian women. While I agree that there is equal burden of proof, I sense that you used it more to escape having to prove your own argument, instead of advocating that she prove hers as well. I know hers can be. Can yours?[/QUOTE]Perhaps you should either stop agreeing with me and acting like you are disagreeing, or make some mathematical proof of how you are disagreeing with me. Use finite detail, every quanta, word for word. As far as I can tell, you are confusing my examples for my stance. Without all the bells and whistles, here it is: [B][i]I do not agree with making prostitution legal. It will promote the problems that make people turn to it. Even if people choose it not out of desperation but by choice, it's promoting the wrong ideas (going into what "wrong ideas" pertains to is unrelated to anything you addressed).[/i] That is it. Aaryanna_MOM dismissed my stance (just the legalizing it part) because she said it's based on my assumptions. The meat of your posts and Aaryanna_MOM's focus only on this part, which is ridiculous. Why? Because her stance is based on assumptions too! So I used a very black & white law to demonstrate all laws are assumption-based. Why should the one for prostitution be any different? Capiché yet?[/B] Why this has promoted pages of posts instead of just one is beyond me.[QUOTE]From what I have seen of you so far, you rely heavily on logical overextensions, emotion, and condescension to make your voice heard. This method in no conceivable way is beneficial to you, and only makes those you argue against less likely to even consider listening to you. I singled you out just now for this reason alone, though I have thoughts for others as well.[/QUOTE]From this post alone, I can see you depend on semantics, and rewording your opponent's statements so there are meanings in there that weren't there originally. This is beneficial to you, because it frustrates your opponent, makes them waste time restating what they have said before, hoping for some slip up. Eventually, your opponent will give up trying to make you understand or listen to you because rewriting the same thing a fourth time would be a complete waste of time. Frankly? I'm singling you out for your rude writing and trying to twist my wording. I'm mimicking you below for the same reason.[QUOTE]I don't really mind if you feel the need to fight me on this, but I hope you at least take a step back and think before you do so. I sense you are capable of being a formidable opponent ... just not with your current habits. -A[/FONT][/QUOTE]Indeed? Ditto to you. @Aaryanna_MOM I never said you were for statutory rape. You were clear enough. You said there were no laws about it that are strongly pursued, and I showed one that was. That was all. I feel I was very logical, but you overreact way too much to continue arguing with. My extreme examples are to make points, but you go crazy at the sight of them and their implications. I know you don't agree with them, that's why I use them to show you why I disagree with what you said, and why you should disagree with it too. I have no interest in listening to you further either if you can't realize this.

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Don't be a jackass and make such silly assumptions as to what my idea of an ideal world would be. Nor make silly claims that I'm assuming too much and not looking logically at this either.[/QUOTE]Please don't call me names. Instead of getting offended, just consider what I say. I'm not trying to be insulting. [QUOTE]Morality in law requires careful consideration and that includes determining if you are stepping over the line and forcing your ideals on others. Murder doesn't even come close and you know it. There's a huge difference between someone choosing to go and pay someone for sex or to chose to go and murder someone. The first involves some level of consent if it is two adults where the second usually involves taking away someone's life when they would not have consented to such a thing. It's painfully clear which one is a true problem.[/QUOTE]This is my point. I used an extreme example to show why your reasoning was flawed. You are STILL assuming people have the right to life, and STILL assuming consent is necessary. You're "forcing your beliefs on someone else." You see my point yet? Of course I'm making assumptions, but so are you. So is everyone else. I can and will voice my opinion of prostitution and what should be done about it. Just like you, right now, voiced your opinion of murder and what should be done about it. Nevermind it's based on so many assumptions (because that's ok). Just because people's views on prostitution are considered "assumptions" doesn't mean it should be left alone, because that would mean EVERYTHING should be left alone. Capiché? [QUOTE]Lets start with sex out of marriage, it happens and quite a few people see absolutely nothing wrong with it or they probably wouldn't do it. We have laws against it but they aren't even seriously pursued, ever wonder why?[/QUOTE]Actually, we do. It's called "underage rape." A married 16 year old can have sex, but an unmarried can't. What about it? You wouldn't believe how dangerous it is to even kiss a 16 year old. In the NJ-NY region, it is "seriously pursued." There's even a whole TV series on it, lol.[QUOTE]One can also argue that we've never had a real system with good regulation to see if that were really true, so lets stop whining about it being degrading, stop accusing others of having ideals that they don't and really look at it logically here. You could start by following the link to Wiki that Rach provided as it has links to different things on the history of prostitution in Nevada.[/QUOTE]I hope what I stated above makes things clearer for you. [QUOTE][B]EDIT: [/B]You modified your post while I was responding so I didn't get to this part.Again, don't make silly assumptions as to my intent or as to what I think about man-made laws. I never once said that the laws were 100% objective and I see nothing wrong with working on the assumption that we should try for equal rights. Stop assuming that I'm saying we should or couldn't do anything. I'm trying to say it's important to look at what others think instead of selfishly thinking only our own views are correct.[/QUOTE]I didn't say you said "we should or couldn't do anything." I'm saying your line of reasoning inevitably leads to that conclusion. You see nothing wrong with using one assumption and not the other because you have designated yourself the arbiter to what assumptions are acceptable and which ones are not. Do you see why that's messed up? You can't dismiss what I say simply because it's based on assumptions, because what you say is too. That is the point I've been trying to stress. [QUOTE]Also, you have missed my point, I was saying you're arguing that they wouldn't do it if they had the choice and I'm saying that until that actually happens, neither one of us really knows. So that argument against it is silly since neither side can prove their point. You can't prove they would chose something else and neither can I. You can't claim equal burden of proof when neither party can prove their claims. It's an empty argument at that point.[/QUOTE] This makes no sense. Of course I can claim equal burden of proof since neither party can prove their claims. That's what it means!

[quote name='Lunox'][font="trebuchet ms"] I guess, pull a Dahl, hit him with the frozen tuna, cook it, and invite the police officers who come to investigate to eat it for dinner. [/font][/QUOTE]O_O That's... twistedly crazy. And a good idea. How did he sound on the phone, though? Was he accusatory or did it sound more like he was trying to figure out where he got his burning itch from? Like, maybe he's just calling EVERYONE he's slept with to find out why he has an STD now. O_o

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Your opening paragraph still made no sense. Also, please give actual examples of a place where it isn't done because they actually have equal-paying options. Until that actually happens to say that no one would actually chose such a job if given the choice of doing something else, is inaccurate. I'm assuming you meant to say that it wouldn't be chosen if they did have other options. You're also still making the assumption that because you or I think it's degrading, it must therefore[I] be[/I] degrading. That's stepping into morals and forcing your beliefs on someone else. And not to burst your bubble, but the perception that people are forced into it is also misleading. Yes people are forced into it, but there are also plenty of people who actually chose to do it. It's a nice sentiment to think that no one would actually chose such a profession, but that's simply not true.[/QUOTE]Ok, so in your ideal world, killing should not be illegal, because it's based on a moral bias that people should have the right to life. All laws are based on bias and some morality, whether it is yours or mine or someone else's. Some people believe that they are superior to others and therefore have more rights and the right to kill others. You are assuming too much and not looking more logically at this. Either you assume nothing and allow everything, or you can admit that laws actually are based on morality. If anyone is assuming anything, it is you. You have to accept that man-made laws are not 100% objective, or your assumptions that people should have equal rights should be thrown out the window too. Ultimately, with your line or reasoning, we could do nothing and say nothing. You're going too far with it, seriously. And as far as going into it willingly, you can't hold me to a double standard. You don't have proof that people would go into it if they have other equal options. There's no job that has such high pay for such low qualifications. So, again, you have to hold yourself to your standards. The burden of proof is on both sides, but don't think it's only on mine.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']What's confusing is your post, no one has said it was [I]necessary[/I]. About the only thing that comes close is the implication in Aaryanna_Mom's post where she was talking about the aspect of better regulation being required [B]IF[/B] it became legal. Not quite the same thing as saying prostitution is necessary. It would help if you would actually quote who was saying it was necessary because I don't see anyone even coming close to saying that here. lol[/QUOTE]That was just my opening paragraph and pointing out one of the many reasons why this thread is making less and less sense. The rest of my post is about something people do when they have no other choice or "this is their best choice" because of their situation. People are forced into it, and no one has proven that it's a choice that isn't done when they don't have equal-paying but less degrading options.

None of this thread makes any sense to me. It's getting worse now. "Prostitution is necessary?" What the hell? If it's necessary because people are in poverty or extreme circumstances and not in a situation they can make a choice, how does that support the notion that it should be legalized? It's only necessary because of other problems. So instead of addressing those problems we should promote them more by legalizing prostitution? Again, what the freakin' hell? Prostitution is not necessary. Poverty is not necessary. Extreme duress is not necessary. They exist, yes, but they are not good things to be promoted. You promote one, you promote the others. Sure, maybe we'll never be rid of these things entirely, but we should be trying to minimize them and the effect they have on the world. I'm not saying legalizing prostitution is opening Pandora's box, but it will entice pimps and the like force people with pretty daughters or pretty girls into prostitution by putting them in an "extreme" situation. That's just one of the many effects of legalizing it.

[quote name='Retribution']It's certainly resourceful. Everyone deals with their personal circumstances, and prostitution can be a way out of (or a way to cope with) an undesirable life. If a girl is physically attractive, but failed out of school, she is resourceful if she acknowledges her body as a potential (and, indeed, the most effective at this point) means of accruing wealth and uses it to that end. She uses what she has to make money, essentially.[/QUOTE]Have you seen prostitutes? Most of them are god-ugly. Every girl's body, no matter how ugly (including transvestites), has "potential." You could say that's subjective, but the diversity of looks among prostitutes makes me believe this isn't a particularly choosy job. About it being resourceful: How does prostitution require any significant, beyond-the-normal-person-out-of-the-box thinking? It's just the opposite: it's bloody obvious. Read your own statement: most effective (aka most money) = most logical decision. lol, I think most people go for a job that pays the most if they can choose. Sounds like you are saying it's a last-resort. Something desperate people do. Something worth doing when circumstances call for such extremes. I'm saying this extreme doesn't exist in the US (but it does exist in other countries, and I acknowledge that). The only excuse for prostitution here is you are too lazy.[QUOTE]I never stripped you of your right to have an opinion. However I do find it presumptuous of you to think you have some obligation to impress upon others [i]your[/i] vision of how [i]their[/i] life should be lived.[/QUOTE]You have yet to prove how you are allowed to impress your vision and I'm not. Unless you honestly think we shouldn't stop people from - say - committing suicide or suffering from addiction, then you're being a hypocrite. If you actually believe we shouldn't interfere at all in personal decisions whatsoever (which IMO is ridiculous), then we disagree on a fundamental level, making it beyond the scope of the discussion.[QUOTE]I get the general impression that you are not concerned for the well-being of prostitutes, but see it as a morally bankrupt enterprise. Speaking in broad terms, I doubt you are truly worried for the welfare of prostitutes. In this sense, when I say "don't worry about them" I mean "let them live their life" (to be simple). Although semantics are fun, I'm not really interested in being painted an apathetic man.[/QUOTE]In the states, prostitution is "morally bankrupt." And I care about other people, not the act of prostitution. Don't confuse the person for the service. Ironically, semantics are important, since you are trying to paint me as an apathetic person using them.[QUOTE]I'm not glorifying prostitution, nor do I find it respectable, sry m8. Granted, I do find the business to be utterly degrading and personally repulsive. And as previously stated, I do worry that lack of regulation could easily lead to a tacit support of human trafficking.[/QUOTE]This part just confuses me. If you think it's degrading and repulsive, why should it be made legal? That would make it harder for people to find respectable jobs and prostitution more enticing. It's already so easy to fall into it, and making it legal will make even more desperate people go towards this bloody obvious choice rather than look for better solutions. Prostitution ads and the like? No thank you. Prostitution schools? Gross... Again, in the states, there is always a better way to get the money you need, whatever your needs/desires/goals (of course, if you are struggling, be smart about where you live, don't expect five-star hotels every night and living expenses and even education are doable). Finally, you do know that prostitution is not easy to get out of, right? Even if you willingly leave, you attract stalkers and obsessed clients who will create trouble and stress for you long after you leave. Unfortunately, this is "part of the job" and not something you can arbitrarily omit. If you think prostitution is ok, you imply that being stuck in it when you go in willingly is ok. I know you don't, but you have to realize that is an unremovable consequence and a burden no one should have. @SunfallE: yeah, there are jobs that require no skill/etc, but the money gap between them and prostitution is unacceptable. I have no qualms with those jobs, but those too are not quite as impressive, and consequently don't pay as much. That's why I dislike prostitution so much, because if that gets you so much money, so should these hardworking jobs. I guess I was imagining my utopian system, where tasks that don't need special skills or talent would be automated and people can redirect their energies towards things they are good at and enjoy. Also, I'm glad you can tell the difference between telling people what they should do and forcing people into what they should do, even if you disagree with it. I think it's important to note that I'm not saying we put guns on people's heads and tell them they *can't,* but simply shouldn't. Yeah, I know you disagree, but it's still cool you know the difference. I think it's like drugs, though (drugs and prostitution, lol). You are taught in school to avoid them, but kids still have the choice to try them or not. Most of said drugs aren't legal, and neither is prostitution. I like it that way. Let's keep it that way. That's my stance. You are right about the abandoning schools part, though. While I don't know any stats or true effects about it becoming legal, there are signs of what might happen. It is legal elsewhere, and was legal in more places in the past. Mail-order brides are not all girls who cannot get an education. A lot even come with college degrees nowadays. Finally, I think everyone's morals and views should be expressed, not forced. I don't know why you do not want to openly make a stance on the subject. I think more input from more people gives better insight (well, more *intelligible* people). It lets others adjust their views, think about topics. For example, I thought about Retribution's statements, and I don't think we disagree at all about what prostitution is and what its effects are. I think we just disagree on what should be done about it (i.e., his "live and let live" vs my "die f###ing die"). @ssj chic: I didn't mean it's easy in that sense. I know it has a great psychological toll. That's the reason I don't think it's a profession that should be legalized or made ok. If those aspects of the job somehow didn't exist, it wouldn't be a bad thing. But the nature of the job is inextricably linked with that, and why it shouldn't be legalized.

[quote name='Retribution']So? Doesn't this make it a good move for people lacking education and qualification? I see it as a very resourceful way to survive within a capitalist system. If you look good enough and are good enough at what you do, why not get paid if people are willing to give you cash for your "good or [i]service[/i]".[/QUOTE]I wouldn't call it resourceful. Easy? Yes. Resourceful? Hardly. Resourceful implies some sort of... use of intellect. You know, something that requires thought or at least imagination. Cavemen were doing it way before these "resourceful" prostitutes of our age figured it out, and nevermind that you'd be hard-pressed to prove cavemen lived in a capitalist environment. You are welcome to defend prostitution, but don't raise it up as "going up against the man." It's sex for money, plain and simple. It's not a statement about capitalism.[QUOTE]But if they want to do that, who are you to tell them they can't make a living the easy way? Worry about yourself; don't pay any mind to people who make short-sighted fortunes through easy means.[/QUOTE]Then who the hell are you to tell them they can? If I don't have a right to an opinion, neither do you. I am not beneath you. Don't use that cop out. Seriously. People worry about others. I worry about my family and friends, and even strangers. So do millions of others. If you think your logic does not apply to something like feeding the starving children of the world but does apply to something like prostitution, go back to your hypocritical statement: who are you to decide what aspects of a person's life others should help with and shouldn't help with? I'd go further, like say you aren't a fan of democracy, but you get my point. That "Worry about yourself: don't pay any mind to people..." is not something I agree with.[QUOTE]Hey, if they choose that life then it should be theirs to have. My only reservation is if they don't willfully choose prostitution and are intimidated/blackmailed into it.[/QUOTE]Never said anything to the contrary. Will I stop people from living that type of life? No. Will I judge them for it and think of them less? Yes. I'm entitled to my opinion. You can glorify prostitution all you want, but anyone with an iota of intelligence doesn't find it respectable. Even looking past that it's sex, the fact that it requires no talent/ability/intelligence/anything makes prostitution just not all that impressive. Let's be honest with ourselves for a minute: if we really thought prostitution was God's gift to the workforce, I think many more men and women would not attend school and just settle for this easy way out. The reason they don't is it's not a respectable job, not something you put on your resumé, and not something that should be done in the first place. Keep in mind I don't think people who do prostitution are dumb people or people who can't get better jobs. I think the "profession" or act of prostitution is dumb and degrading. If a person decides to do that instead of something else, I disagree, and while I will think less of them, I won't conclude they are retards or unable to make good choices in life. I mean, hey, I took the easy way out and went to an in-state school that offered full tuition instead of going out of state. People thought less of me for it, but they still thought I am capable of making good decisions.

I think Bender would agree with me that, like smoking, prostitution is cool. Why else would they put it in a cool video game like GTA? For us to imitate and know what is cool. Duh. Get with the program. Prostitution, or "the world's oldest profession" as someone most likely will call it (sorry to kill your buzz, whoever), is not ok by my book even consensually. While I'm sure the thousands of commenters on sex blogs like Confessions of a College Callgirl would beg to differ, I just see it as lame. There's no requirements, no education, no technique, no training, etc. It's promoting a bad idea or way to make easy-earned money, IMO. You can think I am a person who lazed through his college degrees (and you'd be right), but that doesn't make prostitution any less wholesome. I applaud those who look for the harder way out, don't give up their bodies, work for $2 an hour or whatever to reach whatever goals they have, because they realize that nothing worth having will come easy. Also, c'mon, what type of life, no matter how consensual, will you be committing yourself to? There's really no reason to - in the US - to resort to prostitution. Money is everywhere. You just need to know what you want to get at it.

[quote name='Dagger']That said, I'm not much of one for resolutions. Why wait until New Year's to decide on getting something done if it was that important in the first place? ~Dagger~[/QUOTE]C'mon, what other time of the year is procrastination so celebrated? I mean, can you really procrastinate by getting drunk and wasted out of your mind the day before a final? No, didn't think so. Don't ruin this Holy Day for the college procrastinators, you. =P (j/k, but this is actually how I feel about New Year's resolutions: glorified procrastination tool)

I think you are missing the depth of their statements. Indifference is the worst, cruelest thing you can do to a human being. You completely shun their relevance and existence. Ergo, love is just the opposite, where you worship their relevance and acknowledge their existence far more than any other emotion allows. The rest of the emotions/feelings/whatever are just gradients in this spectrum. When you hate someone, they still have acknowledgement from you. You still do "something" towards them. There is a connection, even if it is a bad one. Indifference is no connection. Love is complete connection. Sort of like that... There's a famous saying... Something about it's better to feel a pin prick than to feel nothing at all? Someone help me out here?

[quote name='ssj chic']Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you must get worked up (pissed off). People differ in opinions, that's life.[/QUOTE]... O_o ...it... was a joke. Indifference is a behavior, AND there's a member named indifference. Get it? Ah man, my jokes suck. (fail)

[quote name='ssj chic']I personally believe the opposite of love is actually indifference.[/QUOTE]Yeah, that member pisses me off too. =P