This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 798081 8283 ... 270
2401
« on: May 31, 2016, 11:48:24 AM »
Nature discourages devotion to one partner in terms of pure fucking and making babies Oh, I didn't realize that was what you were getting at. I guess you're right, but I would argue that it's the transcendental intelligent human response to prefer quality over quantity. You raise your own kids well, instead of having children with many partners and being unable to raise them all.
That's pretty much the reason. Anthropologists believe our ancestors gravitated towards monogamy because it allowed the hunter fathers to devote more food and protection to a single child, which lead to our species developing larger, more energy-intensive brains (our adolescence period is significantly longer than most animals). OT: Love is pretty crazy. Love really isn't that excited feeling you get when you first start dating someone, it's a long-lasting feeling of comfort and devotion to another person.
2402
« on: May 31, 2016, 08:39:21 AM »
2403
« on: May 31, 2016, 08:24:00 AM »
There's no way it's legit. It'll be a clone, or some flashpoint-esque shit, or some brainwashing from getting his youth back by the cosmic cube, etc. That, or they're trying their damnedest to make Rhodes the new Cap.
They're trying to make War Machine the new Cap? What?
I would have expected more along the lines of Wilson than Rhodes.
My mistake, I meant Wilson. Rhodes sometimes fills in as Iron Man.
2404
« on: May 30, 2016, 10:13:40 PM »
That's a shame (and also a given), but we still need to have it.
Even though smarter policies could use the same amount of money (or significantly less) and benefit more low-income students and generally be more effective?
I guess it depends on what those smarter policies would be, and how they could possibly manage to do that without some sort of glaring catch. I don't have a great imagination, so help me out.
Just like it mentions in the article, increased funding for low income-targeted grants would see more federal money going to people that need it, rather than disproportionately benefiting people that can more easily pay for college. As far as I'm aware, Bernie hasn't placed these stipulations on his plan.
2405
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:42:38 PM »
That's a shame (and also a given), but we still need to have it.
Even though smarter policies could use the same amount of money (or significantly less) and benefit more low-income students and generally be more effective?
2406
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:25:43 PM »
Parents were irresponsible, charges shouldn't be filed, and shooting the gorilla was the best option.
2407
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:10:30 PM »
And the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.
We're not writing legislation; all I wanted to do was see if you'd admit that this isn't so black and white.
I never said it was. The point is to protect people's freedom of choice. Being coerced, whether you know you are or not, isn't a choice. And it's not true consent.
So...we understand each other.
2408
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:04:23 PM »
And the solution isn't to violate human rights and prohibit the act in general. There are alternatives.
We're not writing legislation; all I wanted to do was see if you'd admit that this isn't so black and white.
2409
« on: May 30, 2016, 09:02:00 PM »
Nah, I like me.
2410
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:51:47 PM »
There's no way it's legit. It'll be a clone, or some flashpoint-esque shit, or some brainwashing from getting his youth back by the cosmic cube, etc. That, or they're trying their damnedest to make Rhodes Wilson the new Cap.
2411
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:47:05 PM »
I don't understand what you think is hypothetical about this.
A subordinate can consent to a manager in some cases.
A subordinate is also unable to consent to a manager in other cases.
In most cases, it's completely inappropriate for a manager to date a subordinate because of the difficulty in consenting due to an imbalance of power. If this is hard to imagine, just think about the cop/suspect dichotomy.
2412
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:39:23 PM »
There is a way to know...this is a hypothetical situation. It's really not...there are countless cases of sexual abuse by superiors in the workforce, or teachers in academia. You're basically denying that someone's judgment could ever be impaired by someone's authority. In your logic, it's morally wrong for an employee and employer to consent to sex, even though it's more than possible in reality. If a husband and wife opened a business together, and the wife was the employer of the husband, does it all of a sudden become morally wrong for them to fuck?
Obviously not, and I've already brought up my own example of that.
2413
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:32:11 PM »
There is a difference between coercion and consent. What if the employee was the one pushing for sex? Nope, that's illegal, too.
It's the same premise; without an existing platonic relationship, there's very little basis for true consent. Even if the employee was positively consenting, there's no way to distinguish whether they're influenced by the manager's position. This concept is the basis of every fraternization law in existence, and is the cornerstone of the argument against services like this. http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/28/12/2593.shortesearch suggests that many sexually victimized women do not acknowledge their unwanted sexual experiences as assaults. The majority of the research on this topic has focused on rape acknowledgment; however, this pattern holds true for other forms of sexual assault as well. The present study examined differences among university women with acknowledged, unacknowledged, and no histories of sexual assault. Relevant groups were compared in terms of current psychological distress, the situational factors of the assault, and the labeling of the assault. Similar to studies examining only rape, acknowledged victims of sexual assault reported clearer refusal, the experience of a more forceful assault, and more intense resistance against the perpetrator. Unacknowledged victims were more likely to endorse a prior romantic relationship with their assailant and a more recent assault. The great majority of women who endorsed an unwanted sexual experience also reported they were intoxicated at the time.
2414
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:24:45 PM »
If an employer asks their employee to have sex with them, there is nothing prohibiting them from saying no. At all.
This is just factually untrue, and there's documented evidence of a victim's inability to distinguish when an abuser is taking advantage of them, like in an imbalance of power (or money, in this case).
2415
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:14:51 PM »
But we're talking hypotheticals here. You're saying that an employee who's in love with their boss, truly wants to date them or have sex with them, is legally prohibited from doing so because we have to protect them, out of the kindness of our hearts. That's wrong. No, I'm not. I'm talking about the general immorality of a person in a position of power leveraging that power for sex or an otherwise intimate relationship with a subordinate. I'm talking about the thousands of examples of managers being fired for abuse of power, or cops being fired for getting sexual favors from suspects, or the president being impeached for fucking an intern. And that person is more important than the person who's too weak-willed to say no to their boss.
See my first question. I'm saying -- or telling you -- that leveraging power makes consent basically impossible; it's not the subordinate's weak will, it's the inability to make a competent, consensual decision in the face of that bias. I dated my wife for 4 years before I got a management position and she was directly under me; that's not what I'm talking about.
2416
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:06:45 PM »
The employee has every right to say no
I'll restate the question: do you deny the fact that consent -- morally and legally -- is rarely possible when being leveraged by power or money?
2417
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:04:32 PM »
that dany speech was cringe
I want her to sail to Westeros and see her "army" completely annihilated by knights and armor. No dragon-ex-machina.
2418
« on: May 30, 2016, 08:00:52 PM »
If it's consensual.
Are you completely ignorant of the legal and moral ramifications of the affect of asserting power over subordinates on consent? Do you not have even an inkling of how that applies to this particular instance, or that money is very capable of replacing power in these examples?
2419
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:58:25 PM »
This isn't a business. could be easily regulated
You recognize that it's intangible as a business, and yet you say it's easily regulated. There's no incorporation, no legal basis for the woman's income, no legal precedent for this, and it's not -- as you keep asserting -- simple prostitution. The closest it amounts to is some hybrid of indentured servitude and prostitution.
2420
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:48:38 PM »
I'd say Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, too. Its sequel is one of my favorite DS games.
2421
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:36:32 PM »
these girls are basically dating somebody who they know only wants them for sex. If they get hurt its their fault.
Okay, so you're admitting that there's ostensibly no way to regulate this business and that it's very open to abuse? Hey Class, should bosses be legally allowed to fuck their employees? Or teachers/students? Presidents/interns? Cops/suspects?
2422
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:25:56 PM »
licensed businesses with proper security and protocols it would be fine.
What does this even mean? A business would monitor their entire lives 24/7 and make sure the client isn't abusive? The article describes it as "prostitution light", but it's far more significant than prostitution because it involves a continuous relationship (and sometimes cohabitation) instead of just sex. Prostitution can (and is, in some places) regulated. Stripping is regulated. Porn and cam work is regulated. Also, sugar daddying isn't illegal. It would only be illegal if they were explicitly exchanging money for sex, which isn't the case. There's basically no way to regulate it without forcing it to become prostitution.
2423
« on: May 30, 2016, 07:03:25 PM »
It's ripe for predation and abuse, and unlike other sex work it's completely unable to be regulated.
2424
« on: May 30, 2016, 11:35:24 AM »
Yeah but "increased funds for grants targeted at low-income families" just isn't as flashy as "free college tuition everywhere for everyone".
2425
« on: May 29, 2016, 07:44:04 PM »
Clinton is a sexual predator for using his position as president to fuck an intern, and I imagine it wasn't an isolated incident
but
fucking teenagers isn't pedophilia.
2426
« on: May 29, 2016, 09:52:49 AM »
>Arya I'm kinda wondering when she's going to do anything relevant or important, because her entire arc has felt like cleverly-disguised filler.
2427
« on: May 29, 2016, 09:16:07 AM »
Spoil it for me like one of your french girls.
2428
« on: May 29, 2016, 09:07:40 AM »
tbh "non-gender" just means they don't identify with the social norms of either gender. Yeah, it's a little silly and snowflake-status, but in the grand scheme of things it really has no impact on anything. It's largely just an outlet for young people to express their identity just like anyone else.
Criticism like this only validates it.
2429
« on: May 28, 2016, 08:22:58 PM »
Texans are a very confused people.
TEXAS: Am I a lesbian? / Am I cool? / Am I a sociopath? / How does sex work?
2430
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:00:37 PM »
Weapon and vehicle skins aren't content.
Pages: 1 ... 798081 8283 ... 270
|
Show Posts
