quote:

ORIGINAL: Endivius

quote:


Frankly, while I don't think prostitution needs to be outlawed, certainly the way it is handled in all but a very few cases is dehumanizing and devaluing. I don't think it HAS to be (which is why I have no problem with it as a concept and if handled well).

She's ok with prostitution, even though it's dehumanizing, as long as it is "handled in a way that is acceptable to her."

The point I was making should be obvious.

Everyone up to speed?

quote:

Er . . . no. Apparently I'm a little slow today, because I still agree with Sunny here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissJana

Some people would need to pay people to be their friends!

quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

That was really uncalled for.  I think most folks know that this is not really an atypical point of view in the world.  It's not popular on here, but I don't think it's terribly far from what people would consider the norm in many societies.  Frankly, while I don't think prostitution needs to be outlawed, certainly the way it is handled in all but a very few cases is dehumanizing and devaluing.  I don't think it HAS to be (which is why I have no problem with it as a concept and if handled well). 

The paying people to be your friend part is a bit over the top, but a number of people have attacked him (like yourself) rather than arguing the point.  Let's face it, there are PLENTY of people who pay others to be their friend - heck take a look at my post on the first page and it pretty much says that very thing.  Lots of people pay in other ways besides cash, too although that may be a bigger argument than the one here and may be going a bit too far astray. 

best,
sunshine

I can't say that I think it was.  Jana didn't say specifically that she meant Patrick would have to pay a person to befriend him.  She just happened to quote him to keep her joke in context amidst the great olive debate.  (For the record, I'm pro olive but don't care for pimentos.  )

Oh I totally missed that!  I ignored the olive debate - I've relatively little time on line these days, so I ignore the sauce and stick to the meat of the argument (oh that sounds dirty!)

Even though I'm pretty sure Jana was just kidding around, I don't happen to think she's wrong, either.  You honestly can't tell Me that there aren't people out there who aren't appealing to others to the point where they have to pay for company.  We've got a few of them on the boards who constantly go on about how nobody wants to be their friend or be around them.  (Pretty easy to figure out why when you read their posts, but that's another issue.)  A couple of them have gone on for literally years that they have nobody to talk to (which I firmly believe they have brought on themselves) and come here running for attention as a result of it.

Oh sure, there are people who have to pay others to friend them - I believe I said that in my post Lady Pact.  I don't think that this particular point of view is one that would make it the case for him. In fact, I think it's a pretty commonly held view the world over.  I mean the purpose of laws is to maintain the order of the land based on that area's moral codes.  Seeing as prostitution is against the law in all but a few places, it only goes to suggest that most people believe it is not a good thing.  Thus, he's in the majority.  He won't need to pay for friends.  The rest of us yahoos are the minority here. lol. 

You can tell Me that is mean all you like, but it also happens to be true.