Unlike the last page of responses by the new euro posse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Printable View
Unlike the last page of responses by the new euro posse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Pff. Fair drug-use.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to the actual lulsec/anon actions I had previously made comments about :rolleyes: I don't recall making any defensive remarks about bringing down the orlando portal (only that it wasn't terrorism, which you agreed with). The site isn't really a business, so I'm not really sure where the claim of "direct negative monetary impact" is coming from now that you've made it clear you're were only referring to the this webpage being attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You're going to have to unpack that term for me. I'm not familiar with it, a quick google search does not provide clarification, and I don't see where a general-meaning combination of those words intersects with monetive and non-monetive distribution of drugs in a criminal or punitive regulatory context.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Uh, the difference there is that to convict a mafia boss for a murder, you have to prove he ordered it, or at least sanctioned it. Which is why known mafia figures aren't hauled in front of a judge several dozen times a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The other difference being, of course, that mafia bosses usually are involved in decisions about who to kill, but CEOs are usually not involved in the day-to-day actions of low level employees.
So then your answer is, "yes we should extract 17,839 pounds of flesh from the president" (one for each systemic problem in the various agencies that are ultimately responsible to the executive branch).Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I like that answer and I agree with that sentiment, but you need to be aware that this is a standard we don't hold anyone to, and a standard that would make it impossible for anything as large as a big corporation or federal government to function (probably part of the reason I like the idea).
Alright, let's say that's all true and it happens. What about every other news organization in the world? Maybe they don't unintentionally inflict pain on a dead girl's family, but they routinely violate the law to obtain the information they report, and everyone knows it. Should we apply the same standard to them as well? Are we going to haul all of them in front of parliament too? Make all those CEOs account?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Or maybe this is being blown way out of proportion based on the bizarre fetish Brits have with Murdoch, and he's being unfairly blamed for the standard operating procedures and practices of his entire industry.
Wasn't it alleged that he was aware of (and complicit in) the abysmal state of safety and regulatory procedures that led to a major disaster, though? A far cry from being blamed for the actions of a few oil-rig workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
What with the fact that anything internet or tourism related is completely gratis, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Assumptions. I personally doubt that a Mafia boss can handle the details of his "company" so differently to a CEO, he would need 48hours days to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Isn't that the same with Murdoch? That he either new it or didn't have enough control over the work of his company? The comparison is fair because most of the actual work has been subcontracted in both cases.Quote:
Wasn't it alleged that he was aware of (and complicit in) the abysmal state of safety and regulatory procedures that led to a major disaster, though? A far cry from being blamed for the actions of a few oil-rig workers.
Well does having sex have the same legal status as having sex for money? (Answer yes/no)Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Have you ever actually answered a question I asked?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Mafia bosses don't run trans-national corporate umbrella networks with dozens of companies and tens of thousands of employees. At best, they have dozens of criminal underlings and they very much do exert direct control over killings, which are not generally routine (contrary to what you might hear in the media or see in popular culture).Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Or do you have evidence or indications that Murdoch was personally warned of dangerous, systemic problems in one of his subsidiaries which he chose to ignore? That, as I recall, was the allegation against the CEO of BP, and the reason they were forced to take more financial responsibility than just the $25 million dollar limit legal liability they had for that oil spill. Because it wasn't just an accident, but the result of systemic safety lapses and widespread violations of the precautions put in place to prevent such spills, and that executive management both knew about, and encouraged that behavior to increase profits. (Not that it's entirely fair to lay so much of the blame on BP either, but for different reasons.)
It doesn't matter, as you're missing the point. The underlying reason isn't that money is being made, the underlying reason is that "distribution" is seen as a more serious crime than "personal use," for stupid reasons that aren't worth getting into here. They'd face the same elevated charges and penalties if they gave away a large quantity of drugs for free as they would if sold the same quantity and made money.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
But you do have a good point in that since it's illegal (most places) to have sex for money, that consensual agreements are inherently immoral and ought to be banned by the government... though that's probably another thread.
Of course killings aren't daily business, other criminal acts are. And Mafias don't just have a dozen criminals, the ’Ndrangheta has an estimated 44 billions turnover.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
As I remember, he stepped down before any of those claims where proven before court. So why the need of evidence this time?Quote:
Or do you have evidence or indications that Murdoch was personally warned of dangerous, systemic problems in one of his subsidiaries which he chose to ignore? That, as I recall, was the allegation against the CEO of BP, and the reason they were forced to take more financial responsibility than just the $25 million dollar limit legal liability they had for that oil spill. Because it wasn't just an accident, but the result of systemic safety lapses and widespread violations of the precautions put in place to prevent such spills, and that executive management both knew about, and encouraged that behavior to increase profits. (Not that it's entirely fair to lay so much of the blame on BP either, but for different reasons.)
You are speaking about the US here? Just remember, I was just making an example. There are many cases where the motivation (reason) is taken into account in the court.Quote:
It doesn't matter, as you're missing the point. The underlying reason isn't that money is being made, the underlying reason is that "distribution" is seen as a more serious crime than "personal use," for stupid reasons that aren't worth getting into here. They'd face the same elevated charges and penalties if they gave away a large quantity of drugs for free as they would if sold the same quantity and made money.
Well it's legal in most of western Europe, but even then the legal status is different. Again, it is just an example that it does matter if you make something for business or for free.Quote:
But you do have a good point in that since it's illegal (most places) to have sex for money, that consensual agreements are inherently immoral and ought to be banned by the government... though that's probably another thread.
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I had to choose that answer just for the paradoxon it creates
What, now? Some criminal organization has 6 and a half times the population of the planet under its employ? You're going to have to clarify that a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I'm sorry, am I being unreasonable in suggesting that before we destroy a company and drag someone's name through the mud or compare him to Satan, there should be some evidence to support those actions? Yeah, nevermind... imagine how crazy and different the world would be if we actually did that.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I was talking about everywhere, and in the example given of drugs, the profit motivation does not matter. Even in countries where personal use is legal, "distribution" is not, and it doesn't make the slightest difference if that distribution is for sale (profit motive) or if the 4 tonnes of cocaine is given away for free. You only ever see it being sold, though, because people aren't in the habit of just giving away millions of dollars worth of anything without being compensated and not for any legal hostility against making a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
It really doesn't. Laws against prostitution (which are virtually the only example you can find where it's legal only if no money changes hands) are morality laws, designed to punish immoral behavior. The immoral behavior in question is not "making a profit," but rather the act of fucking someone other than one's legal spouse, which is why laws against doing it for free (and even doing it in immoral positions or fashions with one's spouse) were also in place at the same times as laws against prostitution. The US is just "behind the curve" when it comes to legislating the morality of certain natural biological functions. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
AFAIK turnover is UK English for revenue, hope that clarifies that a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Oh, well revenue is not related to the number of people one manages, nor is that even for a single organization (I suspect), so it doesn't really help your trying to compare the managerial responsibilities of a small (in number of people) criminal enterprise with a man who manages dozens of companies and tens of thousands of people. The two are just not comparable.
Not really. Prostitution can be a noun or a verb. Money doesn't have to change hands, but "services" can be traded, all while exploiting a human being during the transaction. It doesn't even have to mean fucking in the way you're using that word, or anything to do with legal spouses, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
The word you're really looking for is "victim", plus how that's defined, and who does the defining. :donkey:
You're fucking joking, right? Give me a break, as I honestly have trouble parsing your intent at the best of times, but you are kidding about this "prostitution = exploitation"/"consensual agreements are victimization" crap... right?
The act of sex for money itself is legal in the UK and I believe most of Europe.
What is illegal in the UK is advertising it, being on the kerbs etc ... but its perfectly legal to (for example) hire an "escort" and if that escort chooses to have sex with you then that's not illegal. If you go to a "massage parlor" and pay her to do so, then that's legal too.
The question was if the legal status was different, not if it is illegal.
You mean it's illegal to star in porn movies?
The legal status is different. Never said it is illegal. Even in some countries it is, in fact, illegal.
No joke, I'm saying the only definition that really matters is "victim". Prostitution doesn't automatically mean there's a victim. Fucking doesn't automatically mean there's a victim. On the other hand, young girls can be "traded" and exchanged as "goods", without any sexual activity whatsoever....it currently happens over oceans and between nations, and even virgins can be caught in the sex-slave trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
And in some countries, women driving a car is illegal. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
The same thing might have a different legal status whether you take money for it or not. Now what does that have to do with women driving cars again? Do they drive a taxi?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Er. It's safe to say that there may be different reasons for restricting prostitution. Sweden is a country full of promiscuous alcohol-abusing pagans that hate getting married, and even the priests have threesomes with their wives and neighbours. Here it's illegal to buy sex, and most of the rationale seems to be based on various interpretations of feminism or on trying to hamper the groups that are traditionally so good at exploiting women. Yes, actual sex-slavery style exploitation, for those of you who're gearing up to set up some straw-man about consensual adults, escorts, blah blah. There are different ways to look at the matter, and it's possible that a reasonable society has a vested interest in curbing behaviour that Cain approves of :p
I like how the Dutchies are always showing off about being enlightened even though Amsterdam's taboo attractions are owned by organised crime. Suckers.
As enlightened as a bum's hole. It's all just condoned, but not regulated. Except for prostitutes themselves of course. They have a War and Peace novel full of regulations. Same with regard to MJ. The way we set it up it's a criminal's paradise. Just legalise it completely with all the strings attached, instead of this half-baked indecisive nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
These are the consequences criminalization, not the consequences of bartering for sexual activity. (Everyone barters for sex... what do you think "dating" actually is?) Johns and hookers don't support sexual slavery and human trafficking, legislative prohibitions (and the moralistic morons who call for it) do.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And in so doing - interfering in completely consensual behavior - these "reasonable societies" force certain types of desperate women to rely on violent criminals (who abuse and victimize them) for protection, because the protection of the courts is denied to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Why is the protection of the courts denied to them in a welfare+ state where it's only illegal to BUY sex?
Same reason I can't sue my drug dealer. :p
An illegal contract is not legally enforceable, which is why anyone who deals in legally prohibited goods or services cannot rely on the courts to enforce their business agreements. So, unlike everyone else, who can go to a judge or governmental agency to enforce such agreements, members of the black market are instead forced to either accept being ripped off, or rely on violent criminals to enforce the terms of their agreements.
While you are right Cain, the problem still exist in countries where prostitution is legal, because most prostitutes are illegal immigrants, they still have no protection of the courts.
Right, but that's the key. It's not sex, or the sale of sex that creates victimization or exploitation of the women (as GeeGee claims), it's that these people are denied protection by the courts.
Prostitution doesn't victimize women, moralizing asshats who ban prostitution do. :downcast: