|
Oberleutnant posted:It's amazing to me that a country like America can have a multiple mass murders a year "Multiple a year" is understating the situation dramatically. In February, the number of mass shootings was approximately one a day (with 5 on the 20th alone). Renaissance Robot posted:Speaking of guns, how dumb would it be to start a discussion in here on the subject "I want to see a review of gun law because I'd quite like to try the olympic sport of pistol shooting without having to leave the country to do so"? Pretty dumb as you can "try the olympic sport of pistol shooting" just fine in the UK.
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
Got a link on a good, detailed crit of the Nordic model?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
winegums posted:This is one of those issues I go back and forth on. Ideally it should be legal because in an ideal world it's a victimless transaction. However even if it's legal and regulated and cleaned up, there'd still be people trafficking and exploitation. I think decriminalising prostitution is a good idea because it places the burden of crime on the punters. The trouble is when buying sex is a crime, the only people doing it are those who are willing to break the law, and don't want to be caught. So sex workers can't operate in the open, they still have to move underground, and that rewards criminal gangs who control access and guarantee discretion - sex dealers, if you like. And that's obviously a very coercive environment to be working in, with clients who are more likely to be dangerous or demanding There are lots of people who are coerced into sex work one way or another, either because someone has control over them or because circumstances like poverty mean they have no other choice. Making sex work legal but the purchase illegal does nothing to help those people escape their situation, more likely the opposite. And of course it makes things worse for the people who choose to do it IDS is a separate issue, there's already legal sex work like working in strip clubs that people have been 'encouraged' to take up. Legality shouldn't decide what's acceptable to push people into, that's already a problem in itself
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Pretty dumb as you can "try the olympic sport of pistol shooting" just fine in the UK. Darth Walrus posted:Got a link on a good, detailed crit of the Nordic model?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Give me a crossbow and explosive chemicals and I'll be sure to make it a modern repeating crossbow that shoots out arrow bombs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Not according to the actual criteria laid out for the Olympic sport of pistol shooting you can't. I'm chuffed you remembered! I've got it on my laptop still, can email it to anyone who's interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Milotic posted:FT is claiming Osborne has scrapped the biggest part of his planned changes for pension: FT paywall. No changes to tax relief in the budget. He's done this will the past several budgets, where he announces something that gets the Telegraph reading crowd in a tizz because it targets the Tory voter demographic. Then it miraculously gets dropped so he can reference that it was dropped during the statement to the house and make the rest of it not look so bad. I wonder what shaftings will get an easy ride in the press this time around.....
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
So hey I just got sacked from my new job! No real reason because they take everyone on probation for essentially the whole first year and then ... it's pretty much right to work if you are on probation. I had some disagreements with one of my coworkers, but it would have been nice if they'd let me (or anyone else) know beforehand or given a chance to be more careful or something. Oh well. Capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I'm chuffed you remembered! I've got it on my laptop still, can email it to anyone who's interested. Yes please! Email in the babby marxism thread. Private Speech posted:So hey I just got sacked from my new job! No real reason because they take everyone on probation for essentially the whole first year and then ... it's pretty much right to work if you are on probation. I had some disagreements with one of my coworkers, but it would have been nice if they'd let me (or anyone else) know beforehand or given a chance to be more careful or something. Oh well. Capitalism. That loving sucks. Condolences. Hope you find a less lovely job soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
twoot posted:He's done this will the past several budgets, where he announces something that gets the Telegraph reading crowd in a tizz because it targets the Tory voter demographic. Then it miraculously gets dropped so he can reference that it was dropped during the statement to the house and make the rest of it not look so bad. Have you any specific examples out of curiosity. I'd argue the tax credits u turn probably wasn't the core Tory base, more the people who want to be Tories. Though it does help with making a show of unity and compromise in the run up to the referendum. So you could well be right, but it is also aimed at the Brexit MPs as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Have you any specific examples out of curiosity. I'd argue the tax credits u turn probably wasn't the core Tory base, more the people who want to be Tories. Though it does help with making a show of unity and compromise in the run up to the referendum. So you could well be right, but it is also aimed at the Brexit MPs as well. This maybe? Budget 2011: Sighs of relief as George Osborne goes easy on non-doms
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:So hey I just got sacked from my new job! No real reason because they take everyone on probation for essentially the whole first year and then ... it's pretty much right to work if you are on probation. I had some disagreements with one of my coworkers, but it would have been nice if they'd let me (or anyone else) know beforehand or given a chance to be more careful or something. Oh well. Capitalism. Where are you located and what sector do you work in?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
re: reparations dependency theory is sketchy even as applied in the long 19th century; in the postwar era it is implausible. Poor countries are not principally poor because of extractive transfers. Rich countries are not principally rich because of extractive transfers. Colonialism, in the context of the British South Asian adventure, was largely a project for the benefit of a British (esp Scottish!) officer class and a variety of local partners, rather than Britain writ large. Britain did not dispose of empire because of a sudden terminal case of morality, but postwar mass democracy at home could veto its enormous expense - but it had never been anything but expensive. Ironically, this is a case where you can do better by looking at class subsuming national boundaries, rather than by national identities alone. One can still have reparations without a notion of 'undoing' wealth extraction, of course (e.g., war reparations). But the politics of reparations is particularly noxious half a century after the end of empire, in no small part because by assumption it is to be undertaken with the cooperation and support of the host government. And yet any mainstream party that is banging the drum about reparations is doing so by emphasizing old grievances and linking these to the remaining traces of Western influence, which in TYOOL 2016, is dominated by non-traditional roles for women, secular government, the persistence of ethnic minorities that prefer English as the common language of government and commerce, etc - the erosion of bargains that were forged during the heady days of early independence. Recognize that for the first time in a very long time, the metropole in London is not the primary intended audience of such political theater. ronya fucked around with this message at 11:02 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 10:40
|
|
|
ronya posted:dependency theory is sketchy even as applied in the long 19th century; in the postwar era it is implausible. Poor countries are not principally poor because of extractive transfers. Rich countries are not principally rich because of extractive transfers. So if I engage in an activity that has two negative effects I can claim that overall it isn't negative because I can point to one of the effects and argue that it wasn't the principle cause of my targets misery? Economists have a strange way of reasoning about things. E: pedantry dispatch_async fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Do you know what 'principally' means?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/04/ed-miliband-praised-after-giving-a-rough-sleeper-10quote:Former Labour leader Ed Miliband has been praised for setting a good example after he was filmed giving a rough sleeper a £10 note. But Ed, isn't giving that man money encouraging the evils of idleness and dependency, something that greatly concerned you as Labour leader? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080776/Now-Ed-Miliband-gets-tough-onslaught-evil-benefits-scroungers.html quote:Mr Miliband’s somersault on benefits will be signalled in a speech later this month by Labour welfare spokesman Liam Byrne to mark the 70th anniversary of the Beveridge Report.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Speaking of guns, how dumb would it be to start a discussion in here on the subject "I want to see a review of gun law because I'd quite like to try the olympic sport of pistol shooting without having to leave the country to do so"? I don't think it's a bad discussion, I just don't really see a decent way of regulating/re-introducing it, and there really isn't a large group of people/lobbying group for it. I guess a possible way would be to have a few ranges where the range owns the guns and they never leave the premises, but then you run the risk of theft, or someone going to use the range and shooting people there and escaping with guns/ammunition. Anecdotally, the only people I have seen agitating or trying to organise campaigns for widespread handgun ownership on various gun forums are the same people talking about defending themselves from "goblins" or "ferals". Yeah, not the people you want with access to a slingshot, let alone a revolver. The shooting community in the UK is largely not these people, mainly farmers or pest control people who see and use firearms as tools, but the idiots are very vocal. Want to shoot target pistol? Try a half decent airpistol and see if you enjoy that- it's pretty fun and surprisingly accurate once you get the hang of it, and if you enjoy it a lot there are clubs that do regional and national competitions. I never got into that side of things, but have had some great times shooting target with a few friends- you can also shoot all day long for a quid or two's worth of pellets, actual firearm ammunition is bloody expensive. Milotic posted:A pistol does not really have agricultural uses Actually, one of the few ways to legally own a handgun in the UK is to be a vet who uses them for humanely dispatching wounded animals in the field. Handguns aren't de jure banned in the UK, it's just so hard to get the appropriate licence that they might as well be (a section 5 licence, which covers handguns, has to be signed off by the home secretary).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 11:42
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Not according to the actual criteria laid out for the Olympic sport of pistol shooting you can't. this would surprise me research on outcomes here have been very spotty. sex workers don't like it, and report that they don't like it in surveys. according to the norwegian processing of the norwegian implementation of the law, most effects are not statistically significant, but they conclude that criminalising sex purchase has reduced demand for prostitution by something like 25%, which obviously puts the mostly self-employed sex workers in a relatively precarious situation. the norwegian report has not found any reason to believe claims of increased violence or access to health services, nor claims that it's significantly impacted trafficking. most arguments cited as evidence against the model are typically based on surveys among sex workers, who obviously are opposed to a measure reducing the demand of the service they provide. they are a relevant group, but they have a very clear pecuniary interest in responding to such evaluations, and this must be kept in mind when considering their evaluation of such a law. most support of the nordic model is framed in terms of opposing sex as a commodity, the notorious skeeviness of brothels as a line of business (health and safety issues abound, and german brothels are perceived as very unpleasant employers) and the desire to socially reduce the acceptability of purchasing sex period for various reasons. citing the model as a "success" or "failure" requires one to clearly define the criteria one is using to define those terms; to most of the scandinavian left-wing feminist movement, reducing the amount of sex purchase in society is a good in itself for reasons previously outlined, and the law is thus a success
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I'm chuffed you remembered! I've got it on my laptop still, can email it to anyone who's interested. Have you considered making a google docs account or something for all your essays? You seem to be handing them out via email in various threads pretty frequently, it might be easier for you to just shove them somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
I know where he can shove them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
I don't think they'll fit up your urethra 'Flaps, not that I want to kinkshame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I know where he can shove them. Up yer auld da's farter? https://twitter.com/YvetteCooperMP/status/137492580530274304?s=09
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Up yer auld da's farter? She's beaten her hubbie, Ed "Ed Balls" Balls for best tweet by a Labour MP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:this would surprise me Most sensible thing I've seen Cooper say in the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
All work is exploitation, it's just sex work is much better paid and far less degrading than most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I'm chuffed you remembered! I've got it on my laptop still, can email it to anyone who's interested. Have you still got my email? I'd like to take a look. Gonzo McFee posted:Up yer auld da's farter? pro-tweet
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
dispatch_async posted:So if I engage in an activity that has two negative effects I can claim that overall it isn't negative because I can point to one of the effects and argue that it wasn't the principle cause of my targets misery? You would have to prove its negativity. In the context of India this is particularly tricky, because you would have to reconcile the traditional nationalist narrative of the baleful 19th century trade surplus with the contemporary preference for such surpluses. That's not conceptually difficult, but most straightforward explanations discard the idea of the extractive surplus (e.g., arguing that the surplus was actually negligible (!) but saying that the Raj failed to sufficiently invest in infrastructure, squandered local taxes, didn't tax enough, etc). Then it's no longer a negative effect to begin with. And if it's not negative, then the notion of an Elgin-Marble-esque reverse transfer of the stolen goods isn't applicable either. One could still talk about reparations, etc etc but it would be about the moral sins of governments rather than about trade accounts, and believe me, in South Asia that's not even a can of worms, it's a dimension door to the vermean plane. Gonzo McFee posted:All work is exploitation, it's just sex work is much better paid and far less degrading than most. realtalk: don't crack these kinds of jokes in an actual Labour/Socialist/whatever meeting, it's incredibly skeevy ronya fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Mar 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
outsource workfare to India
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
ronya posted:realtalk: don't crack these kinds of jokes in an actual Labour/Socialist/whatever meeting, it's incredibly skeevy £70 for 30 min work, dude. I get paid less than that for an eight hour day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:£70 for 30 min work, dude. I get paid less than that for an eight hour day. Is that how much a prostitute is? I couldn't even guess a ballpark figure. I guess you're assuming that they get to keep the money and it isn't all taken by some pimp though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Is that how much a prostitute is? I couldn't even guess a ballpark figure. I'd assume it varies from a fiver to £10k+ depending on who and what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:£70 for 30 min work, dude. I get paid less than that for an eight hour day. Yeah but how much of it goes to your pimp?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:£70 for 30 min work, dude. I get paid less than that for an eight hour day. labour supply in this industry is not really constrained by capability or labour-hour availability, obviously
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
StoneOfShame posted:Is that how much a prostitute is? I couldn't even guess a ballpark figure. I guess you're assuming that they get to keep the money and it isn't all taken by some pimp though. A friend of mine is an escort and sex-line worker at the moment to help fund her uni studies. She gets £150 an hour for the escorting plus 30p per sex text and she sends hundreds of those every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
ronya posted:labour supply in this industry is not really constrained by capability or labour-hour availability, obviously Women were earning far more than men, enough to support themselves without a husband, and some of them were even turning to feminism  e: obvs that was before second wavers started arguing that they should be murdered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Mowglis Haircut posted:She gets £150 an hour for the escorting plus 30p per sex text and she sends hundreds of those every day. Christ that must get dull. Can she not just make a few hundred templates to send?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Mowglis Haircut posted:A friend of mine is an escort and sex-line worker at the moment to help fund her uni studies. She gets £150 an hour for the escorting plus 30p per sex text and she sends hundreds of those every day. It still shocks me that people are paying to sext someone when there's so many other ways to get their jollies. But then hey, I've never considered soliciting from the sex work industry. Selling myself in it, however? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
a glitch posted:Yeah but how much of it goes to your pimp? That's not the sex work that people want to decriminalise, in fact part of the decriminalisation of sex work is to focus police resorces on sex trafficking and forced prostitution as well as granting better protection for those who go into the industry of their own free will. StoneOfShame posted:Is that how much a prostitute is? I couldn't even guess a ballpark figure. I guess you're assuming that they get to keep the money and it isn't all taken by some pimp though. "Yer posh if ye dinnae ken a prostitute" - A wise man.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:07 |
|
|
So are there many issues with the current legal status of prostitution in Britain is the problem with solicitation being illegal as it gives the police a good excuse to harass prostitutes? Also if brothels are illegal how the gently caress are there 3 that immediately spring to mind that are pretty blatant about advertising themselves as such in the parts of Birmingham I tend to travel through?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 16:00
|
|