Prostitution

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='AzureWolf']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.[/QUOTE]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.

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.

As much as I find prostitution distasteful, at the same time, as an adult I have to recognize when I am going too far by assuming if such an act truly is demeaning to the parties involved. In other words, there is a time when one grows up and starts to accept that others see things differently than they do. Just as they also accept that fact instead of moaning and whining and attempting to make others choices for them.

Now lets stick to comparisons of the morality surrounding sex instead of pulling in comparisons so out of whack that they can't possibly be the same. 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?

How about being gay or lesbian? Should we attempt to force people like that to never have sex either? The main difference between those and prostitution is that they exist and happen usually without some form of payment happening for the encounter. And again, even though there are laws against it, as a society we are moving away from criminal punishment. The laws against being that way in Utah are pretty much never enforced because the law is impractical and silly.

Each one of them is something I consider wrong because of moral issues instead of a clear cut case of how degrading, damaging or harmful it is to society. Just as people can argue that prostitution or sexual practices bring in more crime, drugs and other potential problems. 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.

[B]EDIT: [/B]You modified your post while I was responding so I didn't get to this part.[quote name='AzureWolf']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]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.

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.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR="#004a6f"][quote name='DeathKnight'][color=crimson]I disagree with your naive simplicity, lol.[/color][/QUOTE]And what is so naive about that statement?. I simply said that having a safe city is good, and therefore we should strive for it. But the laws and regulations we implement to make a city safe are of course a complex issue. We want to keep our citizen's safe, but not at the cost of our rights and freedoms. In addition, the right and freedoms we are given are also a complex issue.

[quote name='lea']Out of curiosity, if say a government was to legalize something like prostitution and have strict health regulations on it, how would it make a city dangerous? How would it make a city less safe?[/QUOTE]I wasn't trying to make a connection between prostitution and its effect of the safety of a city in that post. I was simply acknowledging the fact that some of our laws don't always tie into morality.[/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[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!

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='AzureWolf'] 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.[/QUOTE]I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure she's referring to adults who are of consenting age and yet are not married, not statutory rape. ;) Utah along with many states have old out of date laws that can mean anyone who is not married and has sex, especially certain types or certain situations, could be in trouble with the law even if they are consenting adults.

I think this is the heart of the problem with the debate between the two of you, both of you are looking for and on some level finding the extreme in the others arguments leading to the statement of [I]'your wrong'[/I] instead of seeing the general point the other is making here. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I think the issue has been made way to complicated. Before you argue morals or ethics you have to be able to answer one simple question: why is an act that is perfectly legal between two consenting adults unable to be bought or sold if both parties are consenting adults?
[/color]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Oi.

[quote name='AzureWolf']Please don't call me names. Instead of getting offended, just consider what I say.[/quote]
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]I'm not trying to be insulting.[/I][/QUOTE]
Indeed?
[QUOTE][I]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.[/I][/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.

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][I]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.[/I][/QUOTE]
Overextension. She said consent was a factor; she said nothing about its necessity.

[QUOTE][I]If anyone is assuming anything, it is you.[/I][/QUOTE]
I think you realized your overstep there, as evidence by:
[QUOTE][I]Of course I'm making assumptions, but so are you. So is everyone else.[/I][/QUOTE]
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][I]I can and will voice my opinion of prostitution and what should be done about it. [/I][/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][I]I hope what I stated above makes things clearer for you.[/I][/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][I]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.[/I][/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][I]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![/I][/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?


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.

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]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Goodness, Allamorph already covered this for me but seriously as both Aaryanna_Mom and Heaven's Cloud are trying to get you to see AzureWolf, looking at the issue without the ethics and morals is a good way to try to see to the heart of the problem over whether or not prostitution should or should not be legalized.

The bottom line is that if properly regulated and controlled, the risk of STD's is next to nothing for the customer. Also, just as Aaryanna_Mom and Rachmaninoff were pointing out it's a good idea to actually read up on the issue in Nevada. There is much there showing how the legalization suffers from not being adequately set up, just as there is stuff there showing that there is no rampant cases of STD's spreading as a result of legal brothels.

In the end, the objection to prostitution comes down to nothing more than a moral and ethical objection to what other consenting adults are doing. I find it ironic that you're telling an active Christian, in this case Aaryanna_Mom that she's not being logical when she's actually thinking outside the narrow [I]ethical and moral[/I] objection to prostitution.

Unless you're referring to the illogical stance of actually thinking outside the herd mentality that so many religions have of never questioning what they are taught or having tolerance for those who see differently. If that's the case, then you are correct her behavior is indeed[I] illogical[/I]. [/COLOR]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

Hmmm... only a few points to cover here since it seems that Allamorph covered it already.

[B]One[/B] - As Beth said, and it seems I did not clarify this, but I was referring to laws that pertain to consenting adults. I'm not even going to touch the unspoken implication that I would be [I]okay[/I] with '[I]underage rape[/I]' as you put it. Mainly because I was not clear enough.

[B]Two[/B] - Did we mention that Allamorph covered the utter illogical nature of your argument? Sailing in and going on a rant about people saying prostitution is necessary, when they had not, and then attacking my stance instead of clarifying your own? As Allamorph said this is making it less likely that I'll even consider listening to you.

[B]Three[/B] - Prem, in regards to your signature, even I am not above getting annoyed and calling someone a name. Mind you, it usually does take having someone illogically turning your statement into a vision of a world that accepts murder. And then claim it's [I]your ideal world[/I] on top of that. :rolleyes:

[B]Four[/B] - Crystia, I thank you for seeing what I was trying to do. Perhaps it takes being outside of religion like you are to even see that. I spent most of my life blindly following all that I was taught and all it did was close my eyes and allow me to shun others who are different instead of allowing me to look at distasteful practices and at least try to understand them. And by distasteful I am of course referring to acts that are considered immoral. That is also part of why I absolutely refuse to stand against homosexuality anymore.

[AzureWolf]

[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.

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="1234"][QUOTE]Three - Prem, in regards to your signature, even I am not above getting annoyed and calling someone a name. Mind you, it usually does take having someone illogically turning your statement into a vision of a world that accepts murder. And then claim it's your ideal world on top of that. [/QUOTE]

I removed it, I was just really shocked that you said that. You seemed like the kind of person who wouldn't resort to that, so I decided to highlight it because it seemed different. Sorry if you were offended in any way by it ebing in my sig.

Anyways, I think prostitution shouldn't be illegal, it's two adults making an offer, besideds it not like they are raping each other. But on the other hand with it being illegal it sort of lowers the STD rate among that thing. But have you ever heard of those legal whore houses? They are a whopping punch to your wallet, but really, instead of comitting soemthing illegal, just go to one of those places.[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

[quote name='AzureWolf']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).[/quote]

Here lies a big problem with your argument: you assume that the "wrong ideas" are worthy of laws slowing their spread but neglect to even mention them. And whose to say that your ideas are right to begin with(or that this issue is so black and white)?

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="1234"]I removed it, I was just really shocked that you said that. You seemed like the kind of person who wouldn't resort to that, so I decided to highlight it because it seemed different. Sorry if you were offended in any way by it ebing in my sig.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]You misunderstood me Prem... I was not offended, I was merely explaining that even I get annoyed at times. I rarely call anyone names, but I'm certainly not perfect. ;) Also, did I miss something here? I grew up with the understanding or rather seeing that word used in the context of someone really being like the animal.

Stubborn and balking even though the path before the creature is clear, in this case, my point was clearly made and I didn't appreciate it being tossed back in an illogical manner that made no sense whatsoever. If there's another usage or rather it's evolved to mean more than that, I can't help you there. Honestly, Allamorph covered it better than I did.