|
State funded sex? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Gmoney part II |
| This goes back to my previous argument in the bird flu thread. Survival of the fittest. If you can't get laid, then you can't get laid. In order to reproduce, you have to get laid. If you can't get laid, then there is a reason for it. The reason is that you are not evolutionarly viable and are not meant to reproduce. So the government should not intervene to alter the course of nature. Of course, you can always find some nasty obese girl, but then your offspring won't be any better off then you are. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
Read the article.
He is not asking for the state to pay for the sex, he is asking them to pay for the call girls' transportation to his home because he is unable to go to them. He is already paying for the sex himself, he just wants the difference between what a healthy person would pay (going to the prostitute) and what he pays. Which is, as far as I can tell from what the article says about Danish disability rights law, what the law says it will provide for.
If you are going to comment on the issue, please read the whole article and not just the headline. I saw the headline and thought it would be pretty funny. I found it to be more sad than anything. I can't say I support his position ethically/morally but legally speaking, he is by no means out of line asking for this.
MrS |
+1
I posted similar to this earlier (after 1st reply) but it never made it for some maddening reason.
But yes, from my vague legal understanding of Denmark's equivalent to the ADA as reference to the article, this is no different the the state covering the chinese food, flowers, laundry, books, etc. costs it would cover. If they don't like it they either need to amend the laws to disallow it to be used for the lawful business purposes of prostitution or they should outlaw prostitution. otherwise they are hypocrties. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gmoney part II
This goes back to my previous argument in the bird flu thread. Survival of the fittest. If you can't get laid, then you can't get laid. In order to reproduce, you have to get laid. If you can't get laid, then there is a reason for it. The reason is that you are not evolutionarly viable and are not meant to reproduce. So the government should not intervene to alter the course of nature. Of course, you can always find some nasty obese girl, but then your offspring won't be any better off then you are. |
WTF is wrong with you man?!:mad:
Say a person loses his legs in an airplane accident - one that killed 200 people and he is the lone survivor. With his legs he lost his charmingly good looks and no women will sleep with him anymore.
Does not mean that he is evolutionarly unfit to have had offsprings? Had he been full-functioning he could very well of had kids and helped produce airplane accident resistant spawn. But you would have no say about it because "evolution" told him to lose his legs and become unattractive:rolleyes:
seriously, how old are you? |
|
|
| Gmoney part II |
| I am older than you are. Unfortunately my friend, we live in a superficial world. So instead of arguing with me with your candy-ass nonsense, why don't you look at reality. Would you want to have sex with a girl after she lost both her legs? Yes I know it may not be her fault that she lost both her legs but the reality is you would not. You may still love her and I applaud you for that but the truth is you would not want to have sex with her. So while my argument of survival of the fittest does not apply to people who have been in accidents and other random bad occurences, you are right, I don't think that you believe your own bull. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
*sighs*
gmoney, i hope sometime in the future something happens to you to prevent you from polluting the gene pool; none of your posts have the slightest bit of thought in them. theyre superficial & pointless. id hate to be unable to achieve rational thought processes.
your entire \"understanding\" of survival of the fittest is fundamentally flawed; in the sense that human beings are inherently different from animals in this context, and the social fabric of human existence is entirely different from the playing field in nature that animals are a part of.
if the human race were completely dominated by the fittest, i really hope for your sake youre big and strong or good at sport or something. |
|
|
| digitul punk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
WTF is wrong with you man?!:mad:
Say a person loses his legs in an airplane accident - one that killed 200 people and he is the lone survivor. With his legs he lost his charmingly good looks and no women will sleep with him anymore.
Does not mean that he is evolutionarly unfit to have had offsprings? Had he been full-functioning he could very well of had kids and helped produce airplane accident resistant spawn. But you would have no say about it because "evolution" told him to lose his legs and become unattractive:rolleyes:
seriously, how old are you? |
Dude let it go.. you can't convince people who arn't willing to listen. |
|
|
| Gmoney part II |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
*sighs*
gmoney, i hope sometime in the future something happens to you to prevent you from polluting the gene pool; none of your posts have the slightest bit of thought in them. theyre superficial & pointless. id hate to be unable to achieve rational thought processes.
your entire \"understanding\" of survival of the fittest is fundamentally flawed; in the sense that human beings are inherently different from animals in this context, and the social fabric of human existence is entirely different from the playing field in nature that animals are a part of.
if the human race were completely dominated by the fittest, i really hope for your sake youre big and strong or good at sport or something. |
First of all, I would like to thank you for wishing that something bad happened to me. I appreciate it. Second of all, let me explain something to you. Human beings are animals. Are we not? The difference is that in our day and age, things revolve around money. Well actually, 4 things matter, how good looking you are, how smart you are, how much money you have, and the 4th thing lets call "intagibles" (personality, social skills, etc). Good-looking smart people have good-looking smart kids.
ugly-stupid people have ugly-stupid kids.
The people from the first category (assuming nothing strange happens to them) and they are raised properly become leaders in our society.
The people from the later category, (assuming nothing miraculous happens to them) fall to the bottom. Of course there is a grey area in between but you are either on one spectrum or the other.
So I don't feel bad for the short, fat guy that can't get laid, because to be perfectly honest with you, if I was a semi-attractive girl, I wouldn't have sex with him. Why the hell would she when she has better options? So you can either sit there and bitch about how life is unfair, blah, blah,blah, or you can do things to improve yourself within the realm of your genetics. Look at Mini-me. Even though he is 2 feet tall, I bet he still got laid because he made something of himself. People are succesful for a reason, and people wind up at the bottom for a reason. Its a proven fact( if you read any book on evolutionary psychology) that men go for women with somekind of chest hip ratio (the hourglass figure) because the are programmed to know that these women have a better chance of producing healthy offspring. And it is also proven that women go for men with resources( i.e money) because they are programmed to know that these men will have a better chance of raising their children. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gmoney part II
I am older than you are. |
I'm calling you out: pics or stfu ;)
| quote: |
So instead of arguing with me with your candy-ass nonsense, why don't you look at reality. |
Perhaps you can stop making candy-ass generalization so I can stop making candy-ass nonsense? So we can go back to reality? hmm?
| quote: |
Would you want to have sex with a girl after she lost both her legs? Yes I know it may not be her fault that she lost both her legs but the reality is you would not. You may still love her and I applaud you for that but the truth is you would not want to have sex with her. |
Here's a mind-blower for you: Just because you believe in your heart of heart in one certain way, that this is the truth does not make that the truth for all others. Just as there are people who truly believe in Allah and would swear by their families that someone could not believe anything else, as nothing is so true and clear, so you can say that you would not a legless girl and believe no-one else would.
Would I? Hell I don't know. Most likely yes, particularly if it someone I love. Afterall, the person I will marry will grow fat, ugly, and old compared the her beauty in her prime... But I will still have sex.
But all does it matter? Would I ever give a hoboo a dime! Heck no! But I go by on the street and people do it constantly, all the time, they give them bills... even large bills. And to those that stand at the freeway offramps. Ack Hoboos! But there you have it, something I would never do - that I wouldn't think other people do - they do it - and they believe in it! ack!
Point is it doesn't matter what I think. There are people in this world that think differently then you or me in this world. And they aren't doing it to make you mad, to play some games, or to waste there time or your time. No they do it because they truely believe what they think - just like you.
| quote: |
So while my argument of survival of the fittest does not apply to people who have been in accidents and other random bad occurences, you are right, I don't think that you believe your own bull. |
What you or I think doesn't matter. What does matter is that I was right and you were wrong. |
|
|
| Gmoney part II |
| The fact that you would rather have sex with a girl with no legs then give someone a dime speaks for itself. That is all I have to say for now. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gmoney part II
Human beings are animals. Are we not? The difference is that in our day and age, things revolve around money. |
the difference is that humans create, influence & shape their environment to an extent that animals do not.
the rest of your post is shallow (at best). and it misses so many influences that add/detract from all kinds of success.
just one point tho; your comments re \"Its a proven fact( if you read any book on evolutionary psychology) that men go for women with somekind of chest hip ratio (the hourglass figure) because the are programmed to know that these women have a better chance of producing healthy offspring.\"
thats just bull. go on. prove to me otherwise. nothing like that has ever been \"proven\". the characteristics of a desirable female mate have changed throughout history/throughout cultures & civilisations. there is no inherent psychological desire. your \"proven\" ideas are laughable.
gross generalisations and misunderstandings are just a pain in the ass to bother with (so i wont continue). charles darwin would be howling with laughter if he could hear you now. |
|
|
|
|
