'You don't take a job as a prostitute, we cut your benefits'

[Darth Wong]

both of the latter are insufficient to even pay an average rent in the capital (€500+ per month, minimum), never mind everything else on top of that.

We hear the same bullshit whining from our own welfare recipients, who complain that Canadian welfare is insufficient to pay for rent in Toronto. Here's a solution: if you can't afford it, then don't live in the most expensive fucking city in the country, you whiny freeloading bastards.

All of this doesn't change the main thrust of my arguments, though (assuming we're not talking about Arbeitslosengeld I recipients).

Yes it does; you insist that this is "rape", which is complete bullshit on your part, and you refuse to concede that point. As I said before, it is no more "rape" than a guy who won't pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

As demonstrated by Sebastin's points 3 and 5, it is recognized as a problem there and they are waiting for the courts to strike it down. Were such a situation to rise here (hypothetical, as it is not going to happen anywhere in the near future), it would be handled via legislative change at the Parliament, because it would be quicker.

Precisely, which only increases my suspicion that this woman and her lawyer were spoiling for this fight.

[Rogue 9]

Steve, your definition is bullshit, the law in scotland for example has been specifically changed so that rape is explicitly not defined by violent force because frankly, that doesnt work.

Rape can take the form of violent force, but it can also take the form of abusing those of diminished capacity (for example using date rape drugs) you are the one who is cheapening the term by limiting it to a small section of what is a very serious crime.

Yet nothing you have said actually supports the case that prostitution is rape.
Are you implying that because she is poor she has "diminished capacity"? No you are the one who cheapens an act of brutality.

No, she doesn't have diminished capacity because she is poor; however, she is being extorted into having sex with random men, therefore she is being coerced. Coerced sex is the definition of rape, and if she is unwilling to take the job yet is forced to in order to not starve, she has effectively been forced into prostitution.

[Darth Wong]

No, she doesn't have diminished capacity because she is poor; however, she is being extorted into having sex with random men, therefore she is being coerced. Coerced sex is the definition of rape, and if she is unwilling to take the job yet is forced to in order to not starve, she has effectively been forced into prostitution.

What fucking part of "she won't starve" are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

[Keevan_Colton]

Yet nothing you have said actually supports the case that prostitution is rape.
Are you implying that because she is poor she has "diminished capacity"? No you are the one who cheapens an act of brutality.

My point was simply an objection to the definition of rape you were offering up. You are the one cheapening an exceedingly traumatic act by casting out those sections of it that do not currently conincide with your point.

[Edi]

both of the latter are insufficient to even pay an average rent in the capital (€500+ per month, minimum), never mind everything else on top of that.

We hear the same bullshit whining from our own welfare recipients, who complain that Canadian welfare is insufficient to pay for rent in Toronto. Here's a solution: if you can't afford it, then don't live in the most expensive fucking city in the country, you whiny freeloading bastards.

In Finland you can afford to live on the unemployment benefits if you move someplace to the back of beyond in the middle of nowhere, and the job opportunities in those places are precisely zero. Most of the jobs (as in 90%+) are in the cities (just the four biggest have a total pop of 2 million or more out of the five we have) where the cost of living is higher. The Helsinki area is somewhat more expensive, but the situation is not substantially better in the others. Moving around is also an untenable option for many, because of the scarcity of jobs, cost of moving, difficulty finding housing they can afford and the relatively long distances. Doesn't mean that some people can't do that, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in a more populous country. While distances are longer in Canada, I don't think the other issues are as bad as they are here. Doesn't mean that I disagree with you, but there are reasons why people will not immediately head out to other places and short of forced relocation, there is no easy solution to the problem, and that would be a different can of worms entirely.

All of this doesn't change the main thrust of my arguments, though (assuming we're not talking about Arbeitslosengeld I recipients).

Yes it does; you insist that this is "rape", which is complete bullshit on your part, and you refuse to concede that point. As I said before, it is no more "rape" than a guy who won't pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

Didn't see your previous post, as I we were typing them up at the same time. Yes, it's about how much welfare she should get, and I'm definitely of the opinion that her allotment should not be reduced because she does not want to spread her legs for men she does not know. Were she to take the job, she would have no control over who she would have to do that for if it's her employer dictating the terms of employment and backed up by the government. That's coercive behavior anyway you slice it, and unethical.

If the unemployment agency doesn't like that, maybe they could look up something else for her to do, e.g. a job as a real waitress or even a cleaning lady before they go ahead and slash the benefits, then they would have a rock solid grounding for the decision.

The analogy also doesn't hold up, because in a situation like you describe, the man is not obligated to pay for the dinner, while a government is obligated to give welfare if it has made laws to that effect.

As demonstrated by Sebastin's points 3 and 5, it is recognized as a problem there and they are waiting for the courts to strike it down. Were such a situation to rise here (hypothetical, as it is not going to happen anywhere in the near future), it would be handled via legislative change at the Parliament, because it would be quicker.

Precisely, which only increases my suspicion that this woman and her lawyer were spoiling for this fight.

Well, if it's the first instance of this happening, then it's a good thing it goes to court so they can strike the law down, so I don't see why this would be bad.

[Darth Wong]

In Finland you can afford to live on the unemployment benefits if you move someplace to the back of beyond in the middle of nowhere, and the job opportunities in those places are precisely zero.

Oh puh-lease, you can drive across the whole fucking country in the time it takes me to drive across my home province. I got a job in Toronto while living in Sombra Ontario, a nowhere podunk town of less than 2000 people which was more than four hundred kilometres away. Welfare recipients are experts at whining about their situation and pretending that it's impossible to make do with conditions that working people deal with every fucking day.

The analogy also doesn't hold up, because in a situation like you describe, the man is not obligated to pay for the dinner, while a government is obligated to give welfare if it has made laws to that effect.

But it is not obligated to be more generous than welfare, which is what this woman is demanding. Sorry, but the analogy does hold up, and it is not rape. Not even close. Your rhetoric is still nothing but a mountain of foul-smelling bullshit.

Precisely, which only increases my suspicion that this woman and her lawyer were spoiling for this fight.

Well, if it's the first instance of this happening, then it's a good thing it goes to court so they can strike the law down, so I don't see why this would be bad.

It's bad because it means she probably didn't make a sincere effort to find alternate forms of work, which only further weakens your utter bullshit "rape" claims.

[salm]

Basically, if one runs out of time under ALG I or turns down too many theoretically legit job offers, one can be bumped down to ALG II. That amounts to having to touch your personal savings (insofar as they exceed the 4.1k to 13k Euro exemption, sum based on age, that can't be touched); making do with about 345 Euros a month (in the West, slightly less in the East); having only one "reasonable" car; and having a "reasonable" apartment of no more than 40 square meters for a single person, plus a formula for couples and kids and so forth, with more square meters allowed for homeowners. In theory, the authorities could make one move to a smaller apartment, or sell too flashy a car. Basically, if the authorities haven't screwed up their math, ALG II is supposed to be just enough to get by on while looking for work, and should include basic medical coverage.

you sure that they can only make you move? wikipeida says on Hartz IV:

wer eine zumutbare Arbeit ablehnt, dem wird das Arbeitslosengeld II für drei Monate um 30 Prozent gekürzt. Jede weitere Ablehnung solch einer Arbeit führt zu einer Kürzung um weitere 30 Prozent, durch die Addierung dieser Überschneidungen kann es zu einer Reduzierung von über 100 Prozent kommen, d.h. die Miete wird nicht mehr übernommen und der Betreffende wird obdachlos.

rough translation:
if somebody refuses a reasonable job offer Arbeitslosengeld II will be cut 30% over a period of 3 months. refusing additional offers lead to additional cuts of additional 30 percent. the sum of these cuts can lead to a reduction of over 100% which means that the rent wont be payed anymore and the subject becomes homeless.

source


wikipedia links to an official government source:

jede Ablehnung einer zumutbaren Arbeit führt dazu, dass die Regelleistung für 3 Monate um 30 Prozent <snip>

... Die Minderungen werden bei Überschneidungen addiert, so dass es zu einer Gesamtminderung von 60, 90 und mehr Prozent kommen kann.

Überschreitet die Gesamtminderung die Regelleistung (zum Beispiel bei 4 Ablehnungen), werden die Kosten der Unterkunft und Heizung ebenfalls gemindert. Die Agentur für Arbeit kann dann in angemessenem Umfang ergänzende Sachleistung oder geldwerte Leistung erbringen. Da es sich um zumutbare Arbeit handelt, liegt es im Verantwortungsbereich des Betroffenen, diese Folgen nicht eintreten zu lassen.

[url=http://www.bundesregierung.de/Politikth ... en.htm#neu[/url]]

rough translation:
each refusion of a reasonable job leads to 30 percent cuts of payment
<snip>
cuts are added which means that sum of cuts can be 60, 90 or more percent
if the sum of cuts is higher than the total (original) payment, for example after for refusions, payments for heating and housing are also cut.
the "agency of work" can give payments in form of money or objects.


i don´t know what exactly the last part means, the part about the "agency of work" can give you payments in form of money or objects.

does that mean that you might have to live on the street, like wikipedia claims or does that mean that you´ll get enough to live?

[Darth Wong]

I try not to put too much stock in Wikipedia as a source. Besides, one would have to refuse multiple separate job offers even according to that source in order to reach that level, so that's irrelevant here. But unless Germany lacks shelters, food banks, etc., no one is going to starve.

PS. Of course, that leaves aside the question of whether one can simply accept a 100% cut in unemployment benefits and switch to general welfare.

[Edi]

Oh puh-lease, you can drive across the whole fucking country in the time it takes me to drive across my home province. I got a job in Toronto while living in Sombra Ontario, a nowhere podunk town of less than 2000 people which was more than four hundred kilometres away. Welfare recipients are experts at whining about their situation and pretending that it's impossible to make do with conditions that working people deal with every fucking day.

Sure, they are often good at making excuses and whining. But someone living on welfare cannot possibly afford to have a car here (insurance payments nad gas prices being what they are), and going to Podunk, Nowhere means you need one if you mean to get around and have a job. Thing is, there aren't jobs in the places where you can afford to live here on welfare, except ones that require a high education and give low pay and that have a nationwide shortage of personnel, and the ones that are available, especially the low paying ones are all concentrated in areas wherethe cost of living is so high that the pay is not enough, and most of those are temp jobs anyhow. Given the skills that the majority of unemployed people here have, they are fucked either way. As I noted, there are problems here stemming from a lower population base that Canada doesn't have to the same degree, but it does not invalidate most of your points. Did you miss the part where I said that?

The analogy also doesn't hold up, because in a situation like you describe, the man is not obligated to pay for the dinner, while a government is obligated to give welfare if it has made laws to that effect.

But it is not obligated to be more generous than welfare, which is what this woman is demanding. Sorry, but the analogy does hold up, and it is not rape. Not even close. Your rhetoric is still nothing but a mountain of foul-smelling bullshit.

If you will show me where she is demanding the government give her more generous benefits than she is entitled to I'll be happy to concede. And do you really think the unemployment agency's behavior is not coercive?

Precisely, which only increases my suspicion that this woman and her lawyer were spoiling for this fight.

Well, if it's the first instance of this happening, then it's a good thing it goes to court so they can strike the law down, so I don't see why this would be bad.

It's bad because it means she probably didn't make a sincere effort to find alternate forms of work, which only further weakens your utter bullshit "rape" claims.

Even if she did not make the effort to find alternate work (which is bad), it is a good thing that this case is in court, so they can fix what is an obvious flaw in the system that lends itself to coercive behavior by employers and the agencies.

Edi

[Edi]

Ah, noticed the error I made, about unemployment benefirts vs general welfare. Conceded on that account.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Sure, they are often good at making excuses and whining. But someone living on welfare cannot possibly afford to have a car here (insurance payments nad gas prices being what they are), and going to Podunk, Nowhere means you need one if you mean to get around and have a job.

I made my job interview appointment by telephone. I drove to the appointment, but I could have easily taken a bus. There are solutions to all these problems, but welfare recipients don't make the effort to find them.

Thing is, there aren't jobs in the places where you can afford to live here on welfare, except ones that require a high education and give low pay and that have a nationwide shortage of personnel, and the ones that are available, especially the low paying ones are all concentrated in areas wherethe cost of living is so high that the pay is not enough, and most of those are temp jobs anyhow. Given the skills that the majority of unemployed people here have, they are fucked either way. As I noted, there are problems here stemming from a lower population base that Canada doesn't have to the same degree, but it does not invalidate most of your points. Did you miss the part where I said that?

I missed the part where you conceded that this situation is not "rape"; all I saw was distraction attempts like this one.

If you will show me where she is demanding the government give her more generous benefits than she is entitled to I'll be happy to concede. And do you really think the unemployment agency's behavior is not coercive?

Not if there's a welfare system in place. Anything more than she needs to survive is a handout, not an obligation, and she is not entitled to it by any means, hence it is not coercive to take it away, any more than it would be coercive for a man to refuse to pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

Even if she did not make the effort to find alternate work (which is bad), it is a good thing that this case is in court, so they can fix what is an obvious flaw in the system that lends itself to coercive behavior by employers and the agencies.

Edi

I already stated that if one feels it is a wrong-headed law, it should be addressed. But that does not substantiate or justify your claim that this can be considered "rape".

[Edi]

Sure, they are often good at making excuses and whining. But someone living on welfare cannot possibly afford to have a car here (insurance payments nad gas prices being what they are), and going to Podunk, Nowhere means you need one if you mean to get around and have a job.

I made my job interview appointment by telephone. I drove to the appointment, but I could have easily taken a bus. There are solutions to all these problems, but welfare recipients don't make the effort to find them.

That's true for the great majority. However, a lot of these people here at least have just ended up in a hole where they are too dejected to muster the resources necessary to go for those solutions, and for people with families, uprooting themselves from everything they know can be very difficult. You are resourceful, and a tough bastard to boot, but not everyone is as resilient as you are.

Thing is, there aren't jobs in the places where you can afford to live here on welfare, except ones that require a high education and give low pay and that have a nationwide shortage of personnel, and the ones that are available, especially the low paying ones are all concentrated in areas wherethe cost of living is so high that the pay is not enough, and most of those are temp jobs anyhow. Given the skills that the majority of unemployed people here have, they are fucked either way. As I noted, there are problems here stemming from a lower population base that Canada doesn't have to the same degree, but it does not invalidate most of your points. Did you miss the part where I said that?

I missed the part where you conceded that this situation is not "rape"; all I saw was distraction attempts like this one.

Look, if you really want to be a complete asshole, why don't you just fuck off? When part of the discussion meandered to the topic of welfare recipients and their lack of effort at job seeking and freeloading when they could move elsewhere, I replied to that part separately and said this:

<snip> Doesn't mean that some people can't do that, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in a more populous country. While distances are longer in Canada, I don't think the other issues are as bad as they are here. Doesn't mean that I disagree with you, but there are reasons why people will not immediately head out to other places and short of forced relocation, there is no easy solution to the problem, and that would be a different can of worms entirely.

It isn't my problem that you seem to be unable to discuss separate points separately unless you get full unconditional concessions first.

Not if there's a welfare system in place. Anything more than she needs to survive is a handout, not an obligation, and she is not entitled to it by any means, hence it is not coercive to take it away, any more than it would be coercive for a man to refuse to pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

Did you miss my post above where I explicitly conceded this?

Even if she did not make the effort to find alternate work (which is bad), it is a good thing that this case is in court, so they can fix what is an obvious flaw in the system that lends itself to coercive behavior by employers and the agencies.

Edi

I already stated that if one feels it is a wrong-headed law, it should be addressed. But that does not substantiate or justify your claim that this can be considered "rape".

Given the distinction between the lowest welfare and a level above it, true. It rather neatly follows from that distinction. And as I said, you seem to have missed my concession post above. I typed that about five seconds after the one you quoted, so are you deliberately trying to be an asshole here?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Mike, it doesnt fucking matter whether she will starve or not. The unemplyment office is going to penalize her for refusing to allow people to pauy her for sex. Penalizing someone for not having sex is coercion, which is rape, no matter how you look at it.

It seems a great many of you are missing that point. You are arguing that she may or may not starve for not submitting to work in the sex industry. But the very fact that she will be penalized AT ALL makes this whole thing morally reprehensible, it shocks the concience of any reasonable person.

[Alyrium Denryle]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

[Darth Wong]

That's true for the great majority. However, a lot of these people here at least have just ended up in a hole where they are too dejected to muster the resources necessary to go for those solutions, and for people with families, uprooting themselves from everything they know can be very difficult. You are resourceful, and a tough bastard to boot, but not everyone is as resilient as you are.

I don't think you need to be that resourceful to use the various methods available to you to look for work. And let's face it; I've been allowing you to draw a false dilemma between the most expensive city in the country and absolute podunk nowhere-towns, as if there's nothing in between.

Look, if you really want to be a complete asshole, why don't you just fuck off? When part of the discussion meandered to the topic of welfare recipients and their lack of effort at job seeking and freeloading when they could move elsewhere, I replied to that part separately and said this:

<snip> Doesn't mean that some people can't do that, but it's not as easy to do as it would be in a more populous country. While distances are longer in Canada, I don't think the other issues are as bad as they are here. Doesn't mean that I disagree with you, but there are reasons why people will not immediately head out to other places and short of forced relocation, there is no easy solution to the problem, and that would be a different can of worms entirely.

It isn't my problem that you seem to be unable to discuss separate points separately unless you get full unconditional concessions first.

First you say that this is just a tangent, then you angrily complain that I should have been discussing the tangent rather than wondering why you never admitted your bullfuckery on the "rape" issue? Despite your earlier proud statements that you always explicitly concede a point when it's shown to be wrong? Forgive me for wondering about your blatant bullshit.

Not if there's a welfare system in place. Anything more than she needs to survive is a handout, not an obligation, and she is not entitled to it by any means, hence it is not coercive to take it away, any more than it would be coercive for a man to refuse to pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

Did you miss my post above where I explicitly conceded this?

Yes, actually. Not that you actually admitted anywhere that it was more than a mere "error", and that you were engaging in rhetorical bullfuckery to equate it to rape. Sorry, I don't see why anyone should be able to get away with accusing others of condoning rape and not actually retract the statement rather than making some vague concession of error about differing levels of government assistance.

[Darth Wong]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

Bullshit. It's the difference between saying 'spread your legs and I will stab you" and "spread your legs or I won't buy you that nice leather jacket".

[Alyrium Denryle]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

Bullshit. It's the difference between saying 'spread your legs and I will stab you" and "spread your legs or I won't buy you that nice leather jacket".

Hear that sound? That is the sound of the point wooshing over your head.

You are equating unempoyment benefits with luxury. I can assure you, from personal experience that they are not. They pay for base standard of living unless she has an income from something or other on the side, which I doubt she does. Her already meager(relatively) standard of living will be cut of she doesnt allow random men to have sex with her. And that isnt right. SHe should not be penalized in any way shape or form for refusing that.

Besides Mike, even if your position was logically tenable. Holding over a person's head in exchange for sex is still pretty fucked up, especially if it is as explicit as you just mentioned.

[Darth Wong]

To make an analogy, it is the difference between saying "Spread your legs or I will stab you" and "spread your legs, or I will beat you"

Bullshit. It's the difference between saying 'spread your legs and I will stab you" and "spread your legs or I won't buy you that nice leather jacket".

Hear that sound? That is the sound of the point wooshing over your head.

No, that's the sound of you being an idiot and completely ignoring what I've been saying about entitlement versus survival.

You are equating unempoyment benefits with luxury. I can assure you, from personal experience that they are not.

They are luxury compared with what you are actually entitled to from the government for sitting on your ass and doing nothing, which is only enough to survive.

They pay for base standard of living unless she has an income from something or other on the side, which I doubt she does. Her already meager(relatively) standard of living will be cut of she doesnt allow random men to have sex with her. And that isnt right. SHe should not be penalized in any way shape or form for refusing that.

Are you saying that she deserves more than bare subsistence money for sitting on her ass and doing nothing? Because that's what it amounts to when you characterize it as some kind of inhumane punishment.

Besides Mike, even if your position was logically tenable. Holding over a person's head in exchange for sex is still pretty fucked up, especially if it is as explicit as you just mentioned.

It's not nice; that doesn't make it rape.

[Slartibartfast]

Okay, people, this is ridiculous. Cutting off her benefits because she doesn't want to accept a job is not a punishment. If they don't cut them, she is being REWARDED for not taking it. If there was an exception for prostitution, the government would be actively promoting that people don't accept these jobs, by bribing them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

They are luxury compared with what you are actually entitled to from the government for sitting on your ass and doing nothing, which is only enough to survive.

WHatever happened to sympathy mike?

DId you know that due to systemic problems, 18% of germany's population has no job? This is just out of curiosity. It isnt a matter of sitting on her ass and doing notheing, there are literally not enough jobs for almost 20% of the fucking population.

Also, would you like to prove that she isnt actively looking for work, and that she is sitting on her ass? Seeing as she sought help from an unemplyment office to find a job, your burden will be reasonably high.

Are you saying that she deserves more than bare subsistence money for sitting on her ass and doing nothing? Because that's what it amounts to when you characterize it as some kind of inhumane punishment.

SHe will get LESS than that if her benifits are cut, seeing as that is what unemplyment benefits tend to be. DO you actually have numbers that support your contention that she is getting more than base subsitance level in the area that she lives? Moving to a lower cost area takes a considerable amount of money mike. If she is ccapable of doing it, please, post numbers to assert it.

It's not nice; that doesn't make it rape.

Alright how about this.

"spread your legs, or I will take your apartment in the middle of winter"

Or lets even downgrade it

"Spread your legs, or you will consistently go to bed hungry"

[Edi]

I don't think you need to be that resourceful to use the various methods available to you to look for work. And let's face it; I've been allowing you to draw a false dilemma between the most expensive city in the country and absolute podunk nowhere-towns, as if there's nothing in between.

There's something in-between here, yes, but not very much.

First you say that this is just a tangent, then you angrily complain that I should have been discussing the tangent rather than wondering why you never admitted your bullfuckery on the "rape" issue? Despite your earlier proud statements that you always explicitly concede a point when it's shown to be wrong? Forgive me for wondering about your blatant bullshit.

The tangent was a rather separate discussion in itself without having anything much to do with the main issue anymore, so why should it not have been pursued separately? It's not as if I just completely dropped the main line in favor of the tangent, I was responding to both, and as you have seen, I conceded that point in that discussion. So you have nothing to really accuse me of on this score.

Not if there's a welfare system in place. Anything more than she needs to survive is a handout, not an obligation, and she is not entitled to it by any means, hence it is not coercive to take it away, any more than it would be coercive for a man to refuse to pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex.

Did you miss my post above where I explicitly conceded this?

Yes, actually. Not that you actually admitted anywhere that it was more than a mere "error", and that you were engaging in rhetorical bullfuckery to equate it to rape. Sorry, I don't see why anyone should be able to get away with accusing others of condoning rape and not actually retract the statement rather than making some vague concession of error about differing levels of government assistance.[/quote]
The error you had been harping on as the underpinnings of your argument against me and why my argument did not work, so forgive me for assuming that you would be able to see that when I conceded the whole thing when I conceded the point that my position was using as a linchpin.

[Darth Wong]

DId you know that due to systemic problems, 18% of germany's population has no job? This is just out of curiosity. It isnt a matter of sitting on her ass and doing notheing, there are literally not enough jobs for almost 20% of the fucking population.

According to the BBC as of last October, "German unemployment is running at 10.7%". You are either exaggerating or just plain bullshitting the problem. That's higher than Canada's 7.2% unemployment rate for 2004, but not so much higher that we can throw out all of the rules.

If someone really wants to find work, they can. Most people who can't find work cannot do so because they are inflexible about working conditions or locales (refusing to relocate is a common problem in finding work).

Also, would you like to prove that she isnt actively looking for work, and that she is sitting on her ass? Seeing as she sought help from an unemplyment office to find a job, your burden will be reasonably high.

She has no job, therefore she is not working. And if she was searching full-time every day for work, I seriously doubt that she would be unable to find anything but a prostitution gig.

SHe will get LESS than that if her benifits are cut, seeing as that is what unemplyment benefits tend to be. DO you actually have numbers that support your contention that she is getting more than base subsitance level in the area that she lives? Moving to a lower cost area takes a considerable amount of money mike. If she is ccapable of doing it, please, post numbers to assert it.

What kind of bullfuckery is this, asshole? You're saying I have to prove my contention that you won't starve on German welfare, because the default is to assume that you will?

It's not nice; that doesn't make it rape.

Alright how about this.

"spread your legs, or I will take your apartment in the middle of winter"

Or lets even downgrade it

"Spread your legs, or you will consistently go to bed hungry"

You know, creationists are fond of inventing false analogies to "explain" a position that they cannot directly defend too. You can dress up your "she will starve" bullshit in a thousand different ways, but it will still be bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

The tangent was a rather separate discussion in itself without having anything much to do with the main issue anymore, so why should it not have been pursued separately? It's not as if I just completely dropped the main line in favor of the tangent, I was responding to both, and as you have seen, I conceded that point in that discussion. So you have nothing to really accuse me of on this score.

Sure I do; falsely accusing others of condoning rape is sufficiently inflammatory rhetoric that pretending to take the moral high road after that is incredibly foul bullshit of the worst sort.

[Patrick Ogaard]

you sure that they can only make you move? wikipeida says on Hartz IV:

wer eine zumutbare Arbeit ablehnt, dem wird das Arbeitslosengeld II für drei Monate um 30 Prozent gekürzt. Jede weitere Ablehnung solch einer Arbeit führt zu einer Kürzung um weitere 30 Prozent, durch die Addierung dieser Überschneidungen kann es zu einer Reduzierung von über 100 Prozent kommen, d.h. die Miete wird nicht mehr übernommen und der Betreffende wird obdachlos.

rough translation:
if somebody refuses a reasonable job offer Arbeitslosengeld II will be cut 30% over a period of 3 months. refusing additional offers lead to additional cuts of additional 30 percent. the sum of these cuts can lead to a reduction of over 100% which means that the rent wont be payed anymore and the subject becomes homeless.

source

That hasn't been worked out yet, apparently. A lot of the Hartz IV reform's stuff (as in ALG II) has plenty of wiggle room for the responsible offices. Much of it boils down to definitions of what constitutes reasonable. A job offer as a prostitute, for instance, could quite legitimately be considered an unreasonable offer and would thus be a matter for the courts to decide. Also, rent payments are apparently in addition to the basic monthly funds paid by ALG II.

wikipedia links to an official government source:

jede Ablehnung einer zumutbaren Arbeit führt dazu, dass die Regelleistung für 3 Monate um 30 Prozent <snip>

... Die Minderungen werden bei Überschneidungen addiert, so dass es zu einer Gesamtminderung von 60, 90 und mehr Prozent kommen kann.

Überschreitet die Gesamtminderung die Regelleistung (zum Beispiel bei 4 Ablehnungen), werden die Kosten der Unterkunft und Heizung ebenfalls gemindert. Die Agentur für Arbeit kann dann in angemessenem Umfang ergänzende Sachleistung oder geldwerte Leistung erbringen. Da es sich um zumutbare Arbeit handelt, liegt es im Verantwortungsbereich des Betroffenen, diese Folgen nicht eintreten zu lassen.

[url=http://www.bundesregierung.de/Politikth ... en.htm#neu[/url]]

rough translation:
each refusion of a reasonable job leads to 30 percent cuts of payment
<snip>
cuts are added which means that sum of cuts can be 60, 90 or more percent
if the sum of cuts is higher than the total (original) payment, for example after for refusions, payments for heating and housing are also cut.
the "agency of work" can give payments in form of money or objects.


i don´t know what exactly the last part means, the part about the "agency of work" can give you payments in form of money or objects.

does that mean that you might have to live on the street, like wikipedia claims or does that mean that you´ll get enough to live?

Basically, the Employment Agency (a government agency) can provide goods, or services with monetary value, in lieu of transfers of cash to the client's bank account. (Random note: It's effectively impossible to do anything in Germany without a giro account to make and receive payment transfers with. Statistically, Germans just don't have or use checking accounts, and German stores generally don't accept checks.) For someone getting those unemployment support payments docked, (and ALG II is really for the long-term unemployed) those goods and services might include government-supplied housing (in part because that's a welfare benefit). Part of the problem in getting a straight answer at this point is that not everything has really been worked out in practice, the Hartz IV reforms, especially ALG II, not having been in effect for very long.

Also, since ALG II is intended for the long-term unemployed, it's specifically engineered to be just one unattractive step above German welfare, and is thus supposed to make the acceptance of otherwise unattractive job offers palatable. That this is really intensely unpleasant for those affected is intentional. That this also royally screws over people who stay in economically depressed areas is less intentional but just as true. Even now, there are large stretches of the former East Germany where the remnant population is comprised primarily of retirees on fixed incomes and those few others who are unable or unwilling to move away.

[Edi]

The tangent was a rather separate discussion in itself without having anything much to do with the main issue anymore, so why should it not have been pursued separately? It's not as if I just completely dropped the main line in favor of the tangent, I was responding to both, and as you have seen, I conceded that point in that discussion. So you have nothing to really accuse me of on this score.

Sure I do; falsely accusing others of condoning rape is sufficiently inflammatory rhetoric that pretending to take the moral high road after that is incredibly foul bullshit of the worst sort.

Why don't you fuck off, Mike? I used the term rape in the statement where I said that the defining issue was when is it voluntary prostitution and when is it not. I did not make accusations, and since you have demonstrated the reasons why some of my arguments were erroneous, that is the end of it. If you took that statement that I made early on as a direct accusation on yourself, then you were reading things into it that were not there. Your reading comprehension problems don't concern me, and you can forget about any apologies after this outright lie about me accusing people here of condoning rape.

Edi