|
On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws?
College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.)
If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
|
On August 02 2011 23:15 energeist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:40 GreEny K wrote:On August 02 2011 21:37 Casta wrote:On August 02 2011 21:34 GreEny K wrote:On August 02 2011 21:30 Diks wrote:On August 02 2011 21:25 Klaus1986 wrote:
Prostitution should be 100% legal. Two consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want. If by consenting you mean forced to do it by need, then no... Have you read the article ? About that girl feeling dirty after doing that shit ? You have some weird definition of consentment my friend... That's one instance, have you seen Las Vegas call girls? Trust me, they don't need to be out there doing what they do. The problem is that the girls don't want to be prostitutes, they just want to get their degree and pay their bills. They do it out of necessity in some form or another. Complete bullshit. How do other people pay for their bills? These wanna be whores are just idiots, who take the easy way out. How did women pay for their schooling before this all started? The good old fashioned way, they worked through school and took out loans which they paid off later. Just like everyone else. So they're idiots for paying off their debt faster? Cool story, bro. There was an opportunity for them and they seized it.
I don't know who is the bigger idiot. The old fucks that are actually putting up with this, or the whores that are willing to do this. Paying off their debts faster? Ok, I'm gonna go sit on a corner and have people pay me for sex and "companionship", oh wait... That's illegal and people get arrested for it.
|
On August 02 2011 23:31 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:18 Sobba wrote:On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution? Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it. Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it. I don't think "Forced" is the right word, here.
The term is wage-slavery.
|
On August 02 2011 23:45 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws? College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.) If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
That's it in your country (and to a lesser degree everywhere else) because the system is keeping poor people poor, and stupid people stupid. It's an aristocratic bullshit-system.
|
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business or anyone's business. So long as they are not harming anyone else with their actions, then it being illegal is a farcical imposition of outdated and oppressive values. We have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body and getting uppity over it and calling them whores is pathetic projection.
|
United States552 Posts
I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
|
On August 02 2011 23:45 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws? College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.) If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans.
Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH != success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
|
On August 02 2011 23:52 j0k3r wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:45 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws? College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.) If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans. Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton.
Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%.
|
On August 02 2011 23:57 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:52 j0k3r wrote:On August 02 2011 23:45 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws? College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.) If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans. Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton. Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%.
because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
|
I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the US who doesn't thing that going "thug" is the next greatest thing ends up going to college, so almost everyone has student loans. I don't know where all this bullshit about college being for the elite is. Even if you have a college degree you're still very unlikely to start out with a 6 figure job, or even reach one.
|
On August 03 2011 00:01 BlackFlag wrote:
because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
college is fast becoming the new high school.
Although most college degrees nowadays mean nothing.
BArts, BSci, BComm, etc are musts to enter further studies or fields.
|
On August 02 2011 23:18 Sobba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution? Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it.
I could say the same thing for almost every single job on earth. Except maybe progamer ^_^
|
On August 02 2011 22:24 Cyx. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 22:18 JustPassingBy wrote:
If she cannot afford a college and is not good enough for a scholarship,
then she can always chose not to go onto a college. Again 'unable to afford college' is a bit of a mislabel. 'Unable to immediately afford college' is at the same time more accurate and less disheartening.
Well, I am just calling the system for what it is. :-/
|
I signed up to be a sugar baby. Hopefully all my time in the gym has paid off :D
|
Studying in USA looks very expensive if it forces prostitution :s In Belgium you pay around 1.5k /year.
|
On August 03 2011 00:09 Perseverance wrote:
I signed up to be a sugar baby. Hopefully all my time in the gym has paid off :D
They operate in Japan too?
|
On August 03 2011 00:13 Cosmos wrote:
Studying in USA looks very expensive if it forces prostitution :s In Belgium you pay around 1.5k /year.
I think it's around 10-30k/year over there ? depending where u go.
|
On August 02 2011 22:50 dakalro wrote:
From some of the amounts of debt and some personal experience it's nowhere near because they're poor or want to pay off school loans. It's purely a choice to have or to maintain a certain lifestyle. To be able to go out to the most expensive clubs, spas, trips, designer clothing. And they don't exactly get forced with a certain person, it's a choice and is closer to marrying someone for money than prostitution.
At least that's the default here.
So much this.
I could easily get a job out of college to afford my substantial student loans. I couldn't get a job that allows me to live the high life AND pay off these loans. So i'll live in a crappy apartment for a few years, not going out very much. Oh well, its the price I pay. I'm the first generation in my family to go to college after high school, so I didn't expect it to be easy.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On August 02 2011 23:48 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:31 Nightfall.589 wrote:On August 02 2011 23:18 Sobba wrote:On August 02 2011 23:11 Nizaris wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with prostitution as long as both are willing. Oldest profession isn't goin anywhere.
Only interesting thing is, how is this not considered prostitution? Very very few becomes prostitutes purely outa free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus alot of these women are basicly forced into it. Very very few people work at Wal-Mart purely out of free will. Usually its a question about money, and thus a lot of the people working at Wal-Mart are basically forced into it. I don't think "Forced" is the right word, here. The term is wage-slavery.
There is no such thing, it exists only in your Marxist dictionary.
On August 02 2011 23:50 TwoToneTerran wrote:
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business or anyone's business. So long as they are not harming anyone else with their actions, then it being illegal is a farcical imposition of outdated and oppressive values. We have no right to tell someone what they can and can't do with their body and getting uppity over it and calling them whores is pathetic projection.
Exactly, any activity that doesn't cause direct harm to people who didn't consent to take part in it should be legal.
On August 03 2011 00:01 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 23:57 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 23:52 j0k3r wrote:On August 02 2011 23:45 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:59 TheGlassface wrote:On August 02 2011 22:46 meadbert wrote:On August 02 2011 22:28 harhar! wrote:
college should be free anyways, the american system is even shittier then the german one. Free for who? Someone pays. If the government pays that just means less money that can be spent on other social programs. I see no reason to cut benefits on the poor to subsidize the future upper class of America. Student loans exist for a reason. You can take your income which is already going to be twice that of someone without college and give 20% to student loans and still come out way ahead. Eleven pages and THIS is what we get to. If you think education only serves for an "upper class," then you have absolutely no idea how poverty works in the first place. The fact that you place emphasis on student loans and the debtor system shows this even further. Holy helll @ this entire thread. The bottom line is how is this getting around prostitution laws? College only mostly serves the future upper class. The way it works in my state is almost everyone applies to UNC. Then the 10% that are already the smartest, most hardworking and most likely to succeed are accepted. Their tuition is then mostly paid for by the state. Meanwhile, the other 90% who were rejected because they were deemed unlikely to succeed are now even more unlikely to succeed and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay for the education of their elites through a higher tax rate and less funding for K-12 which mandatory (up till age 16.) If education is universal, then by all means let the state pay for it, but if it is a luxury reserved for an elite that can get through the application progress then let those elite pay for it from their future wages through student loans. Come on now don't be disingenuous, UNC has far greater than 10% acceptance -- it's 31.6%. The other 70 odd % will go to other schools they applied to after all. Nobody applies to one college... and it's widely accepted that university education is not "better" per se at a well known school if you're a hard worker. And if you define success by merely monetary gain I don't know what to say.. let's just put it this way, UNC, NYU, UMICH =! success nor does Harvard, MIT, Princeton. Fair enough, but if everyone applied to UNC the acceptance rate would be far below 10%, and still only about 30% of Americans have college degrees and those 30% gain great advantage from those degrees. I see no reason why disadvantaged 70% should be forced to subsidize the advantaged 30%. because 100% should have a college degree. No less.
And if that's the case college degree would mean even less than finishing high school now does. Well, it's almost how it is in some countries with easily available higher education. Just because people are very unequal in their abilities and attitude to studies and work.
On August 02 2011 23:50 IntoTheBush wrote:
I guess if you have money to blow do it on a young college girl that will forget you after you die from a heart attack during sex. Just goes to show how mainstream entertainment is causing the youth and young adults in the United States to have less and less self-respect. This is why my fiance is Brasilian, she has morals but is still sexay lol
What does it have with self-respect? If I give up on obsolete and not objectively justified ethical values, why should I respect myself less?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
