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

[Stormbringer]

Please explain how she is forced to do it?
There is absolutely nothing preventing her from not taking the job, or quitting if she has the job.

She's being forced into it because if she doesn't benefits she needs are going to be vanishing. When the choices are go with out vital necessities or become a prostitute then that's forced. She can and did turn down the job, it's just she might loose necessary benefits.

And if she took the job she would still have been forced into it even if she quits later. It's a rather binary choice.

If she can make it on her own, the obviously she doesn't need government assistance. If she can't then the term "Beggars can't be Choosers" applies.

Where does it say she could do with out the benefits? And surely a government assistance program is not so hard up that it's required to force people into prostitution just to keep afloat?

The simple fact is she apparently needs the benefits, I doubt a waitress can manage with out some help. And I would consider it morally bankrupt of any state to so violate any persons basic human rights so badly as to force some one into prostitution.

The addage only goes so far, in a society that has the financial means to support it's citizens there's no need what so ever to resort to such methods. She should be expected to work, and she is willing, just not to sell her body.

[Darth Wong]

Believe it or not, yes I have. I've spent two summers working as a laborer for a millwright that was essentially the maintenance department, there were plenty of things like hydrocloric acid, high percentage hydrogen peroxide, and plenty of carcinogens that we dealt with. And I was actually part of two moon-suit jobs during the course of the second summer. Of course I don't know about how it's done in Canada, but here in the US they try to make sure you have safety equipment so you're not exposed to those.

Laws mandate safety equipment but there are limits to their efficacy. I, for one, would prefer not to work in a uranium mine regardless of how much safety equipment they use.

Believe it or not, there are plenty of jobs out there that people would have good reason not to take. Prostitution is hardly the only one. Read the fucking thread before firing off half-assed comments.

Pardon me if I don't feel that forcing someone into prositution and forcing them to take a job that's merely unpleasant is any where near the same.

Empty-headed nonsense; there are plenty of jobs which actually represent real risk to life and limb, and for which someone would have good reason not to take it. And here's a fucking news flash: no one is putting a gun to her head and forcing her to be a prostitute. They are saying that she won't continue to get ridiculously generous welfare benefits for sitting on her ass at home and doing nothing. Frankly, since no one should get such generous benefits for sitting on their ass and doing nothing, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this.

[Darth Wong]

By the way, what are welfare payments under German law once unemployment benefits are cut off? Just how much pity should we lavish upon this person? I'm personally suspecting that she deserves little or no pity, based on what fgalkin said about German welfare payments.

[Alyeska]

Something comparable.

Say the only available job was that of being a stripper. Should she still face the same penalties?

Mike, a critical thing you don't consider for some people is that they desire control over their bodies. When it comes to sex, that is their own body. Working around dangerous chemicals does not equate to the same thing as prostitituion or stripping. There are certain professions that shouldn't be forced onto people who do not wish to partake in them. I think that prostitution, stripping, the military, and certain dangerous professions (say crab boat fishing as an example of something very dangerous) should never be a forced option for someone.

What the government is doing is effectively coersion. The morality of forcing someone into prostitution to make a living is equal to that of rape. Your forcing sex onto someone who does not choose it.

[Stormbringer]

Empty-headed nonsense; there are plenty of jobs which actually represent real risk to life and limb, and for which someone would have good reason not to take it.

And if they're posing an illegal level of hazard then one should be able to refuse it. But nothing in this world is 100% safe, never will be. So long as the risk is with in socially acceptable standards then that's legitimate job.

It's not the same as violating some one's human rights. Should an adult have to prostitute themself in Southeast Asia because it's the only way to make a living? What about child-prostitutes in Africa?

Sorry but I see a hell of a lot of difference between forcing a woman to surrender control of her body and between a job that's occassionally hazardous.

And here's a fucking news flash: no one is putting a gun to her head and forcing her to be a prostitute.

Saying you'll cut some one's benefits off for not becoming one is a very serious threat. It's not loaded gun but it sure as hell is a serious one.

They are saying that she won't continue to get ridiculously generous welfare benefits for sitting on her ass at home and doing nothing.

Well, if it's a problem solely of benefits being way too much, then I think we all know what I think of that.

Frankly, since no one should get such generous benefits for sitting on their ass and doing nothing, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this.

Your moral bankruptcy is not my problem.

[Alyeska]

By the way, what are welfare payments under German law once unemployment benefits are cut off? Just how much pity should we lavish upon this person? I'm personally suspecting that she deserves little or no pity, based on what fgalkin said about German welfare payments.

Any sigificant amount would make what is happening irreprensible. If the article is true, enough money is being cut in order to coerce people into jobs they don't like. Because prostititution got lumped in with every other profession, it apparently falls under the same rules.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, since no one should get such generous benefits for sitting on their ass and doing nothing, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about this.

Your moral bankruptcy is not my problem.

Wow, such a reasoned argument. Oh wait a minute, it's nothing more than your usual worthless posturing! Such moral self-righteousness from a right-winger

[Darth Wong]

By the way, what are welfare payments under German law once unemployment benefits are cut off? Just how much pity should we lavish upon this person? I'm personally suspecting that she deserves little or no pity, based on what fgalkin said about German welfare payments.

Any sigificant amount would make what is happening irreprensible.

Why? If she can live on welfare, why the fuck is the government obligated to give her shitloads of money more than that for sitting on her ass, no matter the circumstances?

If the article is true, enough money is being cut in order to coerce people into jobs they don't like. Because prostititution got lumped in with every other profession, it apparently falls under the same rules.

If there is a problem with the rules, the rules themselves should be looked at. Making a special exemption for prostitution does not fix a wrong-headed rule. And I notice that both you and Stormbringer ignored the "uranium mine" example. Since when is pressure to take a prostitution job worse than pressure to take a job which could lead to a slow, agonizing death?

[Vendetta]

Since when is pressure to take a prostitution job worse than pressure to take a job which could lead to a slow, agonizing death?

One customer who slips through medical screening and prostitution can lead to a slow agonizing death.

[Darth Wong]

Since when is pressure to take a prostitution job worse than pressure to take a job which could lead to a slow, agonizing death?

One customer who slips through medical screening and prostitution can lead to a slow agonizing death.

How does that answer the question? People are saying "prostitution =BAAAAAD!! Exposure to potentially lethal substances = GOOODDDD!!!"

[Morilore]

It is merely a difference of degree, not kind. The problem is that such "coercive" measures must be applied AT ALL, IN ANY SITUATION, and that sex is involved is just nuts and cream. It's like freezing the price of water: all it does is force asinine regulations on water use in times of shortages, the requirements of which people would comply with anyway if water prices were higher.

[Alyeska]

nt would make what is happening irreprensible.

Why? If she can live on welfare, why the fuck is the government obligated to give her shitloads of money more than that for sitting on her ass, no matter the circumstances?[/quote]

Mike, we don't know the complete circumstances of what is going on. I am opperating under the impression that she is barely making a living and that by choosing not to take up prostititution she is being seriously hit on living money.

If there is a problem with the rules, the rules themselves should be looked at. Making a special exemption for prostitution does not fix a wrong-headed rule. And I notice that both you and Stormbringer ignored the "uranium mine" example. Since when is pressure to take a prostitution job worse than pressure to take a job which could lead to a slow, agonizing death?

I didn't ignore your example. I even cited similar examples to show that certain professions should never be forced onto people.

Although ultimately your example is a red herring. This is an issue of people and their control of their body. A better example would be drug testing non-lethal drugs, but drugs that cause unpredictable sideaffects on the body. And the stripping example also fits. Its about control of the body and the desire to not have it violated.

[Darth Wong]

Why? If she can live on welfare, why the fuck is the government obligated to give her shitloads of money more than that for sitting on her ass, no matter the circumstances?

Mike, we don't know the complete circumstances of what is going on. I am opperating under the impression that she is barely making a living and that by choosing not to take up prostititution she is being seriously hit on living money.

And what do you base this on?

I didn't ignore your example. I even cited similar examples to show that certain professions should never be forced onto people.

Although ultimately your example is a red herring.

Hardly. If the rule is wrong-headed, it's wrong-headed. Making a special exemption for one undesirable profession is the absolute wrong solution. I merely gave another example of such a profession.

This is an issue of people and their control of their body. A better example would be drug testing non-lethal drugs, but drugs that cause unpredictable sideaffects on the body. And the stripping example also fits. Its about control of the body and the desire to not have it violated.

Which only reinforces my point. What is your problem?

[Alyeska]

And what do you base this on?

The wording of the article. If the situation is such that she is living high on the hog to begin with, then there is no issue in the first place.

I didn't ignore your example. I even cited similar examples to show that certain professions should never be forced onto people.

Hardly. If the rule is wrong-headed, it's wrong-headed. Making a special exemption for one undesirable profession is the absolute wrong solution. I merely gave another example of such a profession.

Which only reinforces my point. What is your problem?

Ok, I have to ask, what exactly is your position on the article? And please state what assumption of facts (since we are making some assumptions bassed on lack of information) you are bassing this position on.

[Broomstick]

Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?

Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck.

Why are they so different? What substantive differences are their between the two?

Assuming you are a man...

If someone gave you the choice between letting other men fuck you up the ass for 8 hours a day, or cooking hamburgers for 8 hours a day, what would your reaction be?

Unless you can honestly say "I'd rather men I didn't know fuck me in the ass 8 hours a day than cook burgers" you have no leg to stand on when saying "meh - it's a job, it's legal, she should take it."

[Darth Wong]

And what do you base this on?

The wording of the article. If the situation is such that she is living high on the hog to begin with, then there is no issue in the first place.

Oh for fuck's sake, you are using the rhetorical impression generated by the article as EVIDENCE?

Ok, I have to ask, what exactly is your position on the article? And please state what assumption of facts (since we are making some assumptions bassed on lack of information) you are bassing this position on.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? If it is wrong to force people to take jobs they may have moral or safety-related issues with, then it is wrong across the board. For the umpteenth fucking time, making a special exemption for prostitution is the completely wrong solution. And if welfare benefits in Germany are as generous as fgalkin says, it is arguably not really "wrong" anyway.

[Alyeska]

Oh for fuck's sake, you are using the rhetorical impression generated by the article as EVIDENCE?

Some times authors rely on rhetoric more then facts and omit facts that support their rhetoric and merely rely on rhetoric. I admit that I was making an assumption and that I can very well be wrong.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

What purpose does that comment serve? I was specificaly asking you to clarify your position. I obviously did not see just what you were arguing and if your examples were more along the lines of devils advocate or extreme examples designed to make a point.

If it is wrong to force people to take jobs they may have moral or safety-related issues with, then it is wrong across the board. For the umpteenth fucking time, making a special exemption for prostitution is the completely wrong solution. And if welfare benefits in Germany are as generous as fgalkin says, it is arguably not really "wrong" anyway.

Now you fully state your opinion. Any legal job should be considered the same as any other and issues of welfare should treat them all the same.

This I can not agree with at all. Certain jobs most definately are not normal jobs and should NEVER be considered standard work. Prostititution is one of these. Its not just that people might not moraly like it, it is litteraly rape when you coerce someone into having sex against their will. This is not directly comparable to hazzardous jobs by any degree.

[Darth Wong]

Now you fully state your opinion. Any legal job should be considered the same as any other and issues of welfare should treat them all the same.

Correct, since the problems inherent in codifying definitions of which jobs people can and can't be forced to take are legion.

This I can not agree with at all. Certain jobs most definately are not normal jobs and should NEVER be considered standard work. Prostititution is one of these. Its not just that people might not moraly like it, it is litteraly rape when you coerce someone into having sex against their will.

I have already addressed the absurd "coercion" argument; no one is being forced to do anything. She can live just fine on welfare.

[Morilore]

Unless you can honestly say "I'd rather men I didn't know fuck me in the ass 8 hours a day than cook burgers" you have no leg to stand on when saying "meh - it's a job, it's legal, she should take it."

Of course, which is why no one is saying that. All the argument here is between different ways to solve the same problem.

[fgalkin]

Unless you can honestly say "I'd rather men I didn't know fuck me in the ass 8 hours a day than cook burgers" you have no leg to stand on when saying "meh - it's a job, it's legal, she should take it."

Of course, which is why no one is saying that. All the argument here is between different ways to solve the same problem.

Plekahnov is.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

having sex against their will.

I have already addressed the absurd "coercion" argument; no one is being forced to do anything. She can live just fine on welfare.[/quote]

If what you believe about the German welfare is true, then I agree.

I am opperating under the impression its not that bad.

[Darth Wong]

If what you believe about the German welfare is true, then I agree.

We're talking about Germany: country with such generous social programs that everyone gets a free university education. I doubt they have a particularly stingy welfare system.

You see Alyeska, one thing you have to realize about social programs is that for those who are on them, it's never enough. They will always complain, they will always make it seem as if they are mistreated by the system, they will always try to portray themselves as helpless victims. Canada has far more generous welfare programs than the United States, yet our welfare recipients are just as vocal in complaining about their situation, if not more so. This is why I gave no credibility to the article's subjective impression that the woman felt victimized by the system and would be poverty-stricken without the extra benefits.

[Montcalm]

Would military service be a better alternative for welfare?

[Durandal]

Here's what I don't get ... is there something stopping this woman from going out, finding a job herself and then taking that one instead?

On the other side of the coin, the government is threatening to cut her benefits if she doesn't become a prostitute, so if she takes the job to keep her benefits, any sex she engages in during that stint could be considered coerced.

But here's another thing I don't get ... the government forces people to take jobs by threatening to cut their unemployment benefits. Well if they take the jobs, they're no longer unemployed, so why would they still receive the benefits? Do people who take jobs the government forced them to still receive unemployment benefits or something?

[Darth Wong]

I find it strange that none of the right-wingers stopped to wonder whether there was something fishy about this woman collecting unemployment benefits and trying to portray herself as a victim. Whenever I hear about an unemployed person demanding more money and trying to claim victimization, my skepticism flag goes up immediately. And I'm a left-winger!