What's the more ethical profession?

[Telaynay's G'son]

Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
You are dodging the OP context.

So, you have disdain for Mormons...it that what this thread is all about?

It's about double standards, dogma, jingoism. I picked the military because I knew it would cause considerable dissonance to learn that becoming a prostitute may cause less harm than joining the military.

Many have pointed out the inadequacy of the OP. I agree, I should have written it with more clarity, and framed the question better.

The double standard notion could also apply equally as the implied feeling your position is right yet it appears to be based more upon personal emotion than fact.

I would agree with your assessment of the OP structure...GIGO.

 

[Richard Masters]

Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
You are dodging the OP context.

So, you have disdain for Mormons...it that what this thread is all about?



The double standard notion could also apply equally as the implied feeling your position is right yet it appears to be based more upon personal emotion than fact. <snip>

How so? We tend to judge morality on the intent of actions and the consequences of those actions. What double standard am I engaging in?

 

[Telaynay's G'son]

Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
You are dodging the OP context.

So, you have disdain for Mormons...it that what this thread is all about?

The double standard notion could also apply equally as the implied feeling your position is right yet it appears to be based more upon personal emotion than fact. <snip>

How so? We tend to judge morality on the intent of actions and the consequences of those actions. What double standard am I engaging in?

Your position appears to be that Mormons have a double standard regarding prostitution versus military service yet your unfounded assertion that prostitution and military service are equally a moral wrong could be construed as possibly a double standard as well. I mean you have indeed made a value judgement directed at Mormons yet then include yourself in the capacity to make value judgements as well.

However, I could be totally wrong and what it actually is is simply plain old emotional based bias.

 

[JihadJane]

Enough Mormons.

 

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Telaynay's G'son
Therefore, using your logic, the act of anyone working for a living (wherein your time & body are requisite) is immoral.





Wage slavery as defined;

http://www.answers.com/topic/wage-slavery

could not include the entire workforce...would it?

Who did you have in mind?

 

[Richard Masters]

Your position appears to be that Mormons have a double standard regarding prostitution versus military service yet your unfounded assertion that prostitution and military service are equally a moral wrong could be construed as possibly a double standard as well. I mean you have indeed made a value judgement directed at Mormons yet then include yourself in the capacity to make value judgements as well.

Is it really an unfounded assertion? I've basically said there are many things the matter with soldiering and that it can be more harmful in some instances, than prostitution.

The only value judgement directed at Mormons (and it wasn't just Mormons; the person I was arguing with just happened to be) was that they are wrong. I've gone through and explained why. If I'm consistent in my criteria, how can it be a double standard?

However, I could be totally wrong and what it actually is is simply plain old emotional based bias.

We are subject to it, but it can be successfully pointed out to us.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Wow. It truly blows my mind how so many 'educated' types can be so ignorant about poverty - and its power.

Poverty will push a person into whoredom or nationalistic murder quicker than you can say 'two dolla make you holla'. From where I stand I can say with confidence, that they don't really like doing it. They do it because they think they have to. They think it's their best option. And they're usually right.

I find it nauseating when 'well off' finger-pointers sit in their air-conditioned homes with their DVR's and their steaks and then try and judge the majority of these poor soldiers - or raped prostitutes with labels of "more unethical" and "less unethical."

What a farce.

You're sitting on your computer, judging me.

What a nauseating farce.

See, I find people who a reasonably well off, yet play the working class hero card to be quite full of crap. Isn't being smugly judgmental grand?

 

[quarky]

My mom is not a gay prostitute!

 

[Richard Masters]

My mom is not a gay prostitute!

And she doesn't service soldiers either.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

How would you know ?

 

[quarky]

She's been a corpse for some time now.

Any lesbian soldiers that are 'doing her' are seriously problematic.

 

[Darth Rotor]

How can one profession be more or less ethical than another? There can be ethical and unethical prostitutes and ethical and unethical soldiers.

A had working for me an ethical sailor who screwed an unethical prostitute ... which he found out after he got back to the ship and realized that she had, in addition to his previous, temporary affections, his wallet.

He wanted to go back to that part of town and get it back. No, he wasn't sober. His Chief and LPO got him to his bunk, and he then got a lesson in the buddy system that had permanent effect.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Imagine a prostitute that is also a soldier!

That would be so service-like, it makes my head spin.

Regretfully, it's more common than one might nope, but when they get caught they tend to go up on charges.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Glad to hear that.
I have on-going difficulty with the "hero" jingoism and intense emotionalism tied into military "service" in general.

The world has moved on, quarky ... it isn't 1965 anymore.

Most people that I know whom "served" were either drafted against their will, or they were in legal trouble at home and got an offer they couldn't refuse.

As I said, the world has moved on. There were sailors who served for me in the 80's who nowadays could not have been signed, nor reenlisted, on due to their criminal records.

They sure as hell aren't all "heroes".

This is true, but the bulk of them are pretty effing good people.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Soldiers are knives, prostitutes are spoons.
Knives can be used by a serial killer to murder innocent people, or by your Dad to protect your family from intruders.
Spoons generally serve up mildly pleasant comfort food, after the consumption of which you may well feel a little guilty. Spoons can't do much harm or much good.
The most harm they generally do is when, driven by boredom, you whack them on your own head to try and get that amusing hollow sound.

Nommed, PJ,

I'd love to know what you did to that hooker, back in the day, to get that amusing hollow sound from her. Was it legal? .

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Would you say most of the non military people you know are not ?

The bulk of everyone I know are pretty effing good people ..

All of this ethical stuff is pretty relative ..

 

[Darth Rotor]

The ambiguity starts with the name of the department in charge typically being called Defence. Defence of what? Is it mostly focussed on defence, or is offence also part of its remit?

On this side of the pond, it was originally and honestly called the War Department, which was separate from the Department of the Navy. Then a bunch of corporate efficiency experts got their effing hands on it all, and the Defense Reorg Act of 1947 was born: child of a jerkoff spew if there ever was one.

FWIW: The United States Department of the Navy was established by an Act of Congress on 30 April 1798, to provide administrative and technical support, and civilian leadership to the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps (and when directed by the Congress or President, the United States Coast Guard).
The Department was a cabinet position,
along with the War Department which contained the US Army
until 1947 when the National Military Establishment was formed.
The National Military Establishment was later renamed Department of Defense (DOD) in 1949. )

Too bad.

On your side, and in most NATO nations I recall, it's the MoD: Ministry of Defense. I think that's a recent development, as in Post WW II.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Would you say most of the non military people you know are not ?

No, but you just implied that. For the record: you said that, not me. Don't try to put words in my mouth, if you please.

By the way, what you are trying to say has nothing to do with what I was saying to quarky.

We are talking about soldiers (and hookers) here. That is the topic, from the OP. Quarky is uncomfortable with some of the hype, sort of the "halo effect of virtue" that some pundits spew about. I know what he's talking about, and find it to detract from the impressiveness of those with real virtue. Let me put that another way: whey you meet a real hero, like Clyde Lassen, and then hear someone call any and everyone in uniform a hero, when you know yourself that you can't hold Clyde's jock ... I hope you see what I mean. I think that is the root of one of quarky's points.

Hmmm, let's try to stay on topic -- soldiers and hookers -- or the dreaded Rule 11 police might show up!

The bulk of everyone I know are pretty effing good people ..

I have found that it varies greatly. Some people I meet are oxygen thieves, some incredibly awesome. Most somewhere in between.

All of this ethical stuff is pretty relative ..

Yes, it can be.

 

[Travis]

Defense is constructive and necessary, but U.S. Army is more of the destructive and offensive kind.

Yeah, America is evil.

Whatever.

So the Serbian soldiers at Sebrenica (sp?) were doing something constructive when they massacred people there?

The red army soldiers in western Russia (Katyn,Charkov, Kalinin, etc) did something constructive when they executed 21 857 polish officers who were allied with the UK and France in 1940?

My point is that not all soldiers are from the US or democracies (not that there isn't bad people in the US army or western armies for that matter) nor do they all fight for the "good" side.

Uh, yes, but I was addressing the hippy crowd that thinks soldiers are always evil and unnecessary and all problems can be solved with a good song around a campfire. So do you agree that a soldier is not an inherently evil person?

NFL players and prostitutes don't kill as many people as soldiers. Someone also noted that wars are not always constructive and necessary.

Neither are they always destructive or unnecessary while prostitutes are always unnecessary even if ethical and not destructive.

Soldiers don't always do constructive work, and it very often isn't necessary.

US soldiers have spent more time assisting in natural disasters and on civil construction projects than they ever have fighting wars.

Putting your body and mind at the disposal of bad people, or merely at the disposal of others, isn't necessarily a moral act.

Neither is it inherently immoral.

German soldiers under Hitler were solders, too.

Sure were.

Vietnam?

What about it? You weren't against the Vietnam War were you?

The current US conflicts?

What about them? I support them both.

Placing yourself under military command, or allowing yourself to be placed under military command, doesn't absolve you of moral responsibility for all of your actions.

Nor should it.

 

[Geezer]

-snip-


Uh, yes, but I was addressing the hippy crowd that thinks soldiers are always evil and unnecessary and all problems can be solved with a good song around a campfire. So do you agree that a soldier is not an inherently evil person?



-snip-

Of course, I think that that's clear in my post, but why did you assume that the hypothetical soldier had to be american?