|
Niche marketing, specific roleplaying, I think this is a good fucking business.
|
On August 03 2011 01:33 ToxNub wrote:
I hope to one day grow up to be a sugar daddy. What do you want to be doing when you are 50+? Gardening? Watching wheel of fortune? I don't know about you, but I want to be plowing college girls.
No seriously, I posted a thread seeking info on escorts if you check my history.
When I'm 50+ I'd rather enjoy some gardening tbh. If you're in your 20's and feel like you have to have sex with 20 year olds to make your life worth living it's sad enough, but if you're in your 50's and still have that same mindset, it's pretty much pathetic. I would just go shoot myself if I found myself in that situation.
|
On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms.
How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
|
On August 03 2011 03:07 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms.
also i don't think its called exploitation. these are college students or grads. they are of legal age AND well educated and informed. they are willing participants. college education is not a human right. if they can not afford it, they can quit school.
why is college education not a human right? Should it be? The fact is we didn't always think that being free from slavery was a human right. Free access to healthcare wasn't always considered a human right (and still isn't in some places!). Hell, free primary/secondary education wasn't always considered a human right, but now it is in most places-- why the artificial divide at the end of secondary education?
i too graduated a few years back. and as a guy, selling my body for money wasn't an option. not had i considered it anyways. instead i've made my choices and lived within my means. there are cockroaches and centipedes in the place i am renting right now and there is no toilet paper in the bathroom. but hey, its a tough economy.
Its a tough economy for everyone but the top 2%-- highest average corporate profits since... forever. Record income growth continues for the top 2%. Think about that. 1. no further comment. 2. it is true that our definition of human right changes and varies greatly. nonetheless, in today's society and norms, college education is considered a privilege not a right. 3. as always in history of mankind, being in the top 2% is always good. whether you are a billionaire in today's world or a nobility member in feudal times, being at top is always good. regardless of the time period we can always climb to the top if we play our cards right and we can always fall from the top if we play our cards wrong. being poor means you have fewer options in hand but it is always up to us to make best use of those options or throw it away in vain.
1. ok.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential?
|
|
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 03 2011 03:01 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:55 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Automation of labour has not dissolved or even lessened this class divide, which suggests that its an issue with the way society is structured, not with any problem of there being too much work. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society. Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else. BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all. Why do you assume that there must be a division of labour with some people having to do 'dirty work' (i.e. labour, non-creative, non-managerial work) and others being able to do comfortable relaxing work (or creative work), and make all the decisions. The most hypothetically efficient way of running an organization would be to maximize the computational/creative power of that organization, but the current means of dividing labour essentially ignores all creative/computational power of any but the top management. Under a more participatory framework, you eliminate the need to divide work into 'dirty' vs. 'clean' (or whatever) and also maximize the potential of the organization. Unfortunately this results in a reduction of agency by those who are currently in management/top tier positions, who also happen to be the people who have the most control over an organization, so its not something that can just happen. Lots of co-ops use a participatory framework however, with pretty beneficial results. The tendency to assume there needs to be this kind of divide in society stems from outdated notions of efficiency that are based on a paradigm that a priori assumes the societal relations outlined above, but this is more a means of propagating power than an actual descriptive/analytical account of a society and a means to structure it.
There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
|
Russian Federation266 Posts
On August 03 2011 03:02 ondik wrote:
How is a girl finding a rich guy who ends up buying all kinds of things to her different from this?
Actually I always found amusing how it's perfectly normal for a girl to date a guy just because of good look, but if she dates a guy just because he's powerful and wealthy, she's automatically a whore. Anybody of this opinion care to explain it to me?
I don't think it's the case actually. It's generally accepted that for men their social status and income is more important than their looks for purposes of being successful in sexual life. This debate is based mostly on the hypocritical idea that if a girl dates a guy because he's rich and she can live at his expense it's OK, but if he pays her in cash it's terribly awful and immoral thing.
|
On August 03 2011 03:13 Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:41 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:36 dybydx wrote:On August 03 2011 02:19 Blazinghand wrote:
I find it interesting that the title of this thread is "Girls using wealthy men to pay off loans" and not "Wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid" Although numerous women have noted that this isn't, in their eyes, prostitution, they're get exploited for sex by due to economic circumstances. In a better world, something like this would never happen because a college-educated person would have access to a job to pay off the loans themselves. The OP's title is derived off of the Huffington Post's title, which says the girls using sugar daddies, not the other way around. if you want to blame the semantics, blame Huff Post. That's essentially the point-- there is a normative force in the way these ideas are propagated towards putting agency on the girls as the ones 'causing' the situation, rather than the fact that wealthy men in reality have more agency. A title like 'wealthy men using indebted girls to get laid' would technically be more appropriate if we care about things like being accurate, but it would likely be open to criticism for being sensationalist, as it goes against these implicit norms. How is this appropriate? The girl posted a thread that said she's seeking to give such services, didn't she? she ASKED for a sugar daddy >.> they just came to her. Proactive girls, and title reflects that
So you're arguing that an indebted girl without a full education and no current prospects for lifelong employment has more agency than a middle-aged man who makes a million dollars a year and has a lifetime of business/personal contacts who are also within the absolute upper echelons of society?
Alright, well what can I say, I suppose I disagree. I don't think this warrants further discussion.
|
On August 03 2011 03:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:01 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:55 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Automation of labour has not dissolved or even lessened this class divide, which suggests that its an issue with the way society is structured, not with any problem of there being too much work. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society. Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else. BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all. Why do you assume that there must be a division of labour with some people having to do 'dirty work' (i.e. labour, non-creative, non-managerial work) and others being able to do comfortable relaxing work (or creative work), and make all the decisions. The most hypothetically efficient way of running an organization would be to maximize the computational/creative power of that organization, but the current means of dividing labour essentially ignores all creative/computational power of any but the top management. Under a more participatory framework, you eliminate the need to divide work into 'dirty' vs. 'clean' (or whatever) and also maximize the potential of the organization. Unfortunately this results in a reduction of agency by those who are currently in management/top tier positions, who also happen to be the people who have the most control over an organization, so its not something that can just happen. Lots of co-ops use a participatory framework however, with pretty beneficial results. The tendency to assume there needs to be this kind of divide in society stems from outdated notions of efficiency that are based on a paradigm that a priori assumes the societal relations outlined above, but this is more a means of propagating power than an actual descriptive/analytical account of a society and a means to structure it. There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor.
You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized.
You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities?
Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it:
http://www.newint.org/ - new internationalist magazine. good stuff.
http://www.zcommunications.org/ - a huge website/organization/magazine/community
http://www.tao.ca/ - web hosting
http://a-zone.org/members/ - an office building which houses participatory organizations/companies
http://ramwools.com/ - a wool/yarn collective
|
On August 03 2011 03:04 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:09 stokes17 wrote:On August 02 2011 17:47 Piledriver wrote:
I hope to god that I never meet such a girl in my life. Their moral bankruptcy is absolutely astounding, and such a person wouldn't probably think twice before lying about her past. Disgusting creatures, unworthy of being called human beings. And dehumanizing your fellow man makes you?..... Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:11 Regulate140 wrote:
This is terrible but seems like it will only get worse with the cost of education in the United States and the bad job prospects coming out of school. Honestly, I think this is going to create some serious issues down the road. We are going to have a whole generation of females and eventual mothers that have had to sleep with old decaying men just to fund their way through school. Things like this will scar somebody for life and it can't be good for the moral fabric of society. all based on the implication that sex is morally wrong and shameful, instead of natural.
What's shameful is that young students are coming out of school with what is practically already a mortgage worth of student debt that they have no way of paying back because the job markets is just no there. These kids enter the world being slaves to their own debt and in this case, young attractive women are having to resort to selling their body to rich old men in order to pay off their student loans. It's quite sad actually.
|
How is this any different than the status quo?
|
|
|
On August 03 2011 03:13 caradoc wrote:
1. ok.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential?
2. unlike some other rights (ie freedom of speech, religion etc), education has to be paid for. teachers and professors will not work for free. this means government needs to collect taxes. unfortunately, taxation introduce a huge can of worms. some problems relate to the government, ie corruption. some problems relate to the citizen, ie tax evasion.
college education is particularly expensive to finance, since it usually requires financing another 12 yrs of prior education also. often, government is faced with other more demanding priorities like making sure affordable food, running water and electricity is available.
3. equality is a double edged sword. perfect equality and perfect inequality is usually considered bad. somewhere in between would be ideal. being at the bottom of society, we have no real chance of changing the system. our best shot is to play our cards better and smarter than our neighbors.
|
On August 03 2011 03:27 Regulate140 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:04 BlizzrdSlave wrote:On August 03 2011 02:09 stokes17 wrote:On August 02 2011 17:47 Piledriver wrote:
I hope to god that I never meet such a girl in my life. Their moral bankruptcy is absolutely astounding, and such a person wouldn't probably think twice before lying about her past. Disgusting creatures, unworthy of being called human beings. And dehumanizing your fellow man makes you?..... On August 03 2011 02:11 Regulate140 wrote:
This is terrible but seems like it will only get worse with the cost of education in the United States and the bad job prospects coming out of school. Honestly, I think this is going to create some serious issues down the road. We are going to have a whole generation of females and eventual mothers that have had to sleep with old decaying men just to fund their way through school. Things like this will scar somebody for life and it can't be good for the moral fabric of society. all based on the implication that sex is morally wrong and shameful, instead of natural. What's shameful is that young students are coming out of school with what is practically already a mortgage worth of student debt that they have no way of paying back because the job markets is just no there. These kids enter the world being slaves to their own debt and in this case, young attractive women are having to resort to selling their body to rich old men in order to pay off their student loans. It's quite sad actually.
I agree with you on the fact that there is a viable analogy to 'debt slavery' and that from my (outsider) perspective these guargantian student loans are a very bad situation. Also, consider that as a society, we want to protect certain of our members because they are not rationally- or emotionally developed or mature enough to make judgements of their own concerning what they do. Children growing up in our society are protected from becoming addicted to alcohol for instance, and from being abused by predators (not meaning to invoke some kind of variation on Godwin's Law here, just comparing it to a more extreme example with similar basis).
Now to approach the issue from such a perspective, imagine you are 18 years old, you are about to finish high school and have to make a choice for the field of study for a future carreer. You have little to none practical life experience to fully foresee your future, and look for something that holds a promise of future financial stability. You do research into different educations and colleges to the best of your limited capabilities, and your parents and everybody around you (perhaps even the rest of society passively) tells you 'a college degree is a guarantee to a successful future'. How can you expect them, with their parents and the rest of society pushing them towards an expensive college degree, to have the judgmement and life experience nessecary at 18 years of age to make the correct choice, at risk of eventually ending up in massive debts without any good means to pay them back? A lot of people at age 18 will just not have the life experience nessecary yet to judge this situation fully for themselves and are too prone to influences from their environment. Hell, I know for sure that I didn't have my shit straight enough for foreseeing something like that at 18, and I'm glad I didn't have the risk of falling into such a 200k Euro 'pitfall'. That is why imo, either there needs to be some sort of protection against things like this happening on such a massive scale, or a major societal change in the way that college degrees and job prospects are presented towards potential future students (by society and parents alike).
On the other hand, what I don't nessecarily agree with is putting them as a group in the victim role because of the means they choose to employ to get out of this situation. It is my suspicion that a certain quantity of the college students who practice this just use it as a cheap alternative to work that takes a lot more time. What I would find interesting to see is how male students (who likely won't fall into this group) and other female students with 'regular' jobs deal with the issue of these reticulously high student debts, and use that as a point of reference as to whether or not these female students have a viable enough alternative to pay off their debts.
|
Effectively and perhaps temporarily skirting the fine line of prostitution laws.
Not that prostitution should be illegal anyways. I do not see a problem with two consenting adults doing these kind of transactions.
|
What some people don't seem to realise, is that it's never impossible to get a job, ever. I've had to find small jobs to make ends meet loads of times, and if you're ready to let your pride go and be a slave for catering businesses, people who run around selling vegetables in various small markets, working at the local grocery store, and all this for a measly pay, then you'll always be employed.
I myself have done all of these when I needed to.
These girls love it, they get paid ridiculous bucks to run around five star hotels and nice restaurants with an above average interesting person, sex him and leave.
Not only do they get paid around 80x my small grocery store salary per hour, but they have the choice between both, and they took decisions alone.
If anything, I feel they're lucky to have the luxury to have this option in life, especially being able to choose, pick, make the guy wait, and then put out.
It's all been done before, it'll happen long after we die, because when there's demand, there's supply.
Ps: if I could bang a cougar for 1000 bucks a night, I'd do it every night for two months during my summer break, no joke.
|
On August 03 2011 03:50 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:13 caradoc wrote:
1. ok.
2. I consider it a right that is being denied. If a critical mass of people share this belief, then it becomes a de facto right, as is true of all the other examples I cited. That's how things change. My purpose in espousing these ideas in a logical way is to show how seemingly small twists in the way we perceive the world have huge effects on society in the long run. You can actually make a difference by changing your perception of things because your perception and worldview subtly affects all subsequent interactions you have in the future. Again, by saying 'in OUR society, its like this', you're simply normalizing the situation-- you're eliminating the possibility to view the current situation is in fact undesirable.
3. This is a simplification. If you have 1000 people, and they all 'play their cards' perfectly, not all of them will reach 'the top'. A more interesting question would be is this a desirable state of affairs? Do we want a society with extreme inequality or should we aspire for one which doesn't waste human potential? 2. unlike some other rights (ie freedom of speech, religion etc), education has to be paid for. teachers and professors will not work for free. this means government needs to collect taxes. unfortunately, taxation introduce a huge can of worms. some problems relate to the government, ie corruption. some problems relate to the citizen, ie tax evasion. college education is particularly expensive to finance, since it usually requires financing another 12 yrs of prior education also. often, government is faced with other more demanding priorities like making sure affordable food, running water and electricity is available. 3. equality is a double edged sword. perfect equality and perfect inequality is usually considered bad. somewhere in between would be ideal. being at the bottom of society, we have no real chance of changing the system. our best shot is to play our cards better and smarter than our neighbors.
2) One could make an argument that freedom from slavery costs money too. I see that you didn't even touch my mention of primary/secondary education being a human right. Should we revert to slavery and start charging for primary/secondary education because that wouldn't cost money? You don't need to educate me on taxation. If you think that you're better off believing we should have to pay exorbitant amounts of money for education, then by all means believe this, but as someone who argues on the basis of consistency, your position is problematic and inconsistent.
3) Nobody made any arguments like those you are referencing. I'm not sure what this is responding to. You're also essentially arguing that since we are a society of cannibals, we'd best eat our neighbour first. This type of argument leads to extinction.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 03 2011 03:24 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:15 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 03:01 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:55 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Automation of labour has not dissolved or even lessened this class divide, which suggests that its an issue with the way society is structured, not with any problem of there being too much work. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society. Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else. BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all. Why do you assume that there must be a division of labour with some people having to do 'dirty work' (i.e. labour, non-creative, non-managerial work) and others being able to do comfortable relaxing work (or creative work), and make all the decisions. The most hypothetically efficient way of running an organization would be to maximize the computational/creative power of that organization, but the current means of dividing labour essentially ignores all creative/computational power of any but the top management. Under a more participatory framework, you eliminate the need to divide work into 'dirty' vs. 'clean' (or whatever) and also maximize the potential of the organization. Unfortunately this results in a reduction of agency by those who are currently in management/top tier positions, who also happen to be the people who have the most control over an organization, so its not something that can just happen. Lots of co-ops use a participatory framework however, with pretty beneficial results. The tendency to assume there needs to be this kind of divide in society stems from outdated notions of efficiency that are based on a paradigm that a priori assumes the societal relations outlined above, but this is more a means of propagating power than an actual descriptive/analytical account of a society and a means to structure it. There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor. You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized. You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities? Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it: http://www.newint.org/ - new internationalist magazine. good stuff. http://www.zcommunications.org/ - a huge website/organization/magazine/community http://www.tao.ca/ - web hosting http://a-zone.org/members/ - an office building which houses participatory organizations/companies http://ramwools.com/ - a wool/yarn collective
Thanks for the links. As far as my own situation, I'm not unhappy because of the work I do. My supervisor asks for my ideas and opinion regularly and I do a variety of things. I'd just rather be doing something else rather than a drawing in autocad, report on road condition, building inspection, design analysis - or using things from my previous jobs - serving tables, making food, cleaning, or making change.
Question though, if everyone is going to participate in 'mundane' actives, doesn't that mean everyone has to spend some of their time not 100% utilizing their abilities?
|
On August 03 2011 04:06 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 03:24 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 03:15 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 03:01 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:55 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 02:27 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 02:24 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:57 caradoc wrote:On August 03 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:On August 03 2011 01:43 caradoc wrote:
I've got nothing against prostitution, but I have everything against a society where the imbalance of resources/power is so great that people do things to survive that they would not morally engage in otherwise.
I have friends that wanted to try prostitution for fun, and did it for a fair amount of time afterwards too because it was interesting and the money was decent. I think thats awesome. But the article references the girl felt "dirty" afterwards and "wanted to just get it over with". --> This is another manifestation of imbalances in society that should not exist in the first place. There are many, many jobs that people take out of desperation, not just prostitution. And lots of people hate their job, so, imo, using that as the standard just doesn't work. Hell, I'm working a job I wouldn't have taken otherwise if I didn't need money to live in society. Are you happy with it? No. So do we want a better society where that doesnt happen? Yes. Therefore shouldn't we investigate the sources of power imbalances in society? That seems logical. My point stands. Automation of labour has not dissolved or even lessened this class divide, which suggests that its an issue with the way society is structured, not with any problem of there being too much work. Am I happy with what? That I have to make money to be able to sustain the luxuries that I currently have? Of course not. In my perfect world I would wake up when I want, do whatever I want, and have whatever I want, all for free. Unfortunately, I there's a thing called reality where you have to have something valuable to able to do that. As a result, I work. And, up until now at least, I have not found something that will pay me for something I genuinely enjoy doing. When you find someone who will pay me to browse TL/watch TV/ect then I will genuinely enjoy my work. Until then, my work preference is the lesser of available evils. You just sound angry. Essentially I could rephrase your post by saying "there is no way for me to exercise my creativity in a way that would contribute to the world. I just want to watch TV and read TL, that's it". But if you had all the free time in the world to do what you really wanted, then I'm sure you would think of something-- as it is I can totally understand-- I've been in jobs that suck all of my time and energy too, so that when I get home, I don't want to think, I just want to sit down and watch tv and read stuff as well-- I totally hear where you're coming from. I just happen to think that there are better ways to organize society that doesn't result in this. Calling the current situation 'reality' just normalizes it. History shows us repeatedly that paradigms and ways of structuring societies are never permanent. Today's 'reality' is not always 'reality', and tomorrow's reality is determined by ideas in today's society. Until the day we can program machines to do our tasks like cooking, cleaning, inspecting, ect, ect, there will always be jobs that are required to be done by people who'd probably rather not do that. It's the reason I think it's ridiculous to think that it's reasonable/possible for society to exist where we're all highly educated with high paying jobs that we enjoy. There has to be someone to do the dirty work. They probably don't want to do that dirty work either, but it's the best way they have to make money and support themselves. I don't know of any society system where these jobs don't exist and the people doing them wouldn't rather be doing something else. BTW, I'm an engineer who, more or less, enjoys his job. But if it came down to a job I enjoy, or no job at all, I'm pretty sure I would choose no job at all. Why do you assume that there must be a division of labour with some people having to do 'dirty work' (i.e. labour, non-creative, non-managerial work) and others being able to do comfortable relaxing work (or creative work), and make all the decisions. The most hypothetically efficient way of running an organization would be to maximize the computational/creative power of that organization, but the current means of dividing labour essentially ignores all creative/computational power of any but the top management. Under a more participatory framework, you eliminate the need to divide work into 'dirty' vs. 'clean' (or whatever) and also maximize the potential of the organization. Unfortunately this results in a reduction of agency by those who are currently in management/top tier positions, who also happen to be the people who have the most control over an organization, so its not something that can just happen. Lots of co-ops use a participatory framework however, with pretty beneficial results. The tendency to assume there needs to be this kind of divide in society stems from outdated notions of efficiency that are based on a paradigm that a priori assumes the societal relations outlined above, but this is more a means of propagating power than an actual descriptive/analytical account of a society and a means to structure it. There has to be division of labor. You can't specialize and do specific, important tasks if you also have to know how to do a bunch of other unrelated stuff. It's the whole 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Though, I'd really like to see some examples of co-opts that don't have traditional division of labor. You can still specialize in a specific task but relegate general duties to everyone, and at the same time allow decision making to be collective, rather than centralized. You yourself mentioned being an engineer, but also implied being somewhat unhappy with your job at times-- I would take this as evidence that you're not utilizing your own specialization/creativity 100% of the time either, and need to engage in other duties that do not fully maximize your own potential. Could you see your organization being somewhat better off if it had a means to utilize or even consider your own ideas as possibilities? Here are some examples of organizations with a more participatory structure. Theres actually a fairly significant international movement (not a singular entity) towards the ideas inherent in it: http://www.newint.org/ - new internationalist magazine. good stuff. http://www.zcommunications.org/ - a huge website/organization/magazine/community http://www.tao.ca/ - web hosting http://a-zone.org/members/ - an office building which houses participatory organizations/companies http://ramwools.com/ - a wool/yarn collective Thanks for the links. As far as my own situation, I'm not unhappy because of the work I do. My supervisor asks for my ideas and opinion regularly and I do a variety of things. I'd just rather be doing something else rather than a drawing in autocad, report on road condition, building inspection, design analysis - or using things from my previous jobs - serving tables, making food, cleaning, or making change. Question though, if everyone is going to participate in 'mundane' actives, doesn't that mean everyone has to spend some of their time not 100% utilizing their abilities?
Well, the thing is, at an ideological level, a division of labour equates ones position (or even salary) with ones abilities.
Mundane activities need to be done. Organizing things in a participatory way maximizes peoples talents and creativity. Who is to say that ones abilities are not being utilized when one spends 5 minutes helping everyone clean up at the end of the day? Its not just ones tidying abilities, but ones coordination/communication that also gets utilized.
Besides, there is something to be said for the benefits that everyone helping clean out the trash, for example, has on workplace morale and cohesion. In a way, organizing it in such a way further increases creativity since the entire workplace culture becomes collaborative in all aspects. The benefits gained from people not feeling divorced from decision making, far outweighs any negatives that I can think of.
|
On August 03 2011 03:04 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:09 stokes17 wrote:On August 02 2011 17:47 Piledriver wrote:
I hope to god that I never meet such a girl in my life. Their moral bankruptcy is absolutely astounding, and such a person wouldn't probably think twice before lying about her past. Disgusting creatures, unworthy of being called human beings. And dehumanizing your fellow man makes you?..... Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 02:11 Regulate140 wrote:
This is terrible but seems like it will only get worse with the cost of education in the United States and the bad job prospects coming out of school. Honestly, I think this is going to create some serious issues down the road. We are going to have a whole generation of females and eventual mothers that have had to sleep with old decaying men just to fund their way through school. Things like this will scar somebody for life and it can't be good for the moral fabric of society. all based on the implication that sex is morally wrong and shameful, instead of natural.
Wtf? Please cite where the posters you quoted said sex is evil. Cos I'm pretty damn sure they said (respectively) Being a whore is wrong and being pigeon holed into being a whore is wrong.
Didn't see any puritanical beliefs in either of their posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
