Free speech is not a minor thing. But when someone uses 'free speech' as an excuse to post derogatory and insulting points of view that they have absolutely no possibility of defending, they cross the line. There was no opinion expressed in the original post in this thread. It was a degrading essay on strippers. I love how people always cry out 'free speech' when they want to insult someone or some group of people, or post an 'opinion' that they could never hope, or intend, to defend.
How to FUCK a STRIPPER & Still Have Money Left In Your Pocket
- Thread starter Just Alex
- Start date
- Status
Techman said:
Techman,
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, anything that promotes hate or violence is agreed by 99.999% of people to be worthless and thus, even under the broadest definitions of free speech should not be allowed.
Outide of that -- absolutely, yes I would.
If someone attempted to write a humorous essay (not a malicious one) on how to have sex with white, black, asian, catholic, jewish, indian, women etc etc.. it could be done in a number of ways. (remember -- as with the sex with strippers article -- I'm saying "attempted" not "succeeded" -- It could be done in an childish way. It could be done in a rude, insulting way. It could be done in a way that makes fun of author, by breaking down the ridiculous stereotypes themselves. It could systematically poke fun at each race, culture and religion (do 29 wrongs make a right? I don't know...) It could be done in dozens of ways. My point is simple. Adults should be able to decide for themselves what is offensive. That's all. Because something runs the risk of being offensive doesn't mean it should be hidden. The opposite is true. It should be discussed.
How would you feel if there was no more shooting allowed in movies? OR no more swearing? What about cigarette smoking? I seem to remember you complaining about the Montreal smoking ban.... Should smoking be banned in books and articles too? What if 90% of people thought so?
What about how to have sex with a fat girl?
What about how to have sex with a skinny girl?
What about how to have sex with an SP.... oh wait, that's what this entire website is devoted to.
Did you happen to read the thread on the "Kloseoff Maneuvre" -- ie: how to have sex with an MP who is just doing her job and has no intention of having sex with you. OH wait.. don't forget the part about not paying her extra, or even a nice tip... I saw lots of cheers for that. Didn't hear chef or anyone objecting to that... And, that wasn't satire or a joke. That was real people acting inappropriately.
Getting back to the article about having sex with strippers. If there was any mention of slipping something to someone without their knowledge, or disrespecting the will of the individual, or forcing a girl to do anything that she did not want to do, I would feel differently. Those aspects do not exist in this "piece".
I understand your concerns. I really do and in fact I feel the same way as you much of the time. But nobody else here is playing devil's advocate, so it's left up to me. I know there are lots of you who agree with me but don't want to get dragged into this. Can't blame you. I'm running out of ways to make my point.
Techman -- since Korbel seems to be unable to make his case --- do you have any thoughts on the point I addressed to him about SP reviews, and how much of our society would probably feel the same about these as you do about the article at the top of this thread? Should SP reviews (and merb as a whole) be banned, since we can logically assume that "most people out there" would object to it entirely as demeaning to women???
BD
Last edited:
Free Speech
Unfortunately free speech covers almost unlimited territory theoretically. One can expouse such concepts as Nazism and still be covered by free speech despite the disgust to the rest of us. But your point is well taken, the opening post was an attack and a vicious stereotype against some who are very likely to be in personal distress in the first place. I simply don't see the humor in a story that seems to be an outline to exploit anyone, much less women quite possibly in a deep personal struggle. It's bad taste to say the least. Whatever the intent of the author, the story is exploitative, cruel, and possibly inhuman at worst. I don't know how it can be legitimately defended as respectable "satire".
Double YUK!!!
Korbel
Hello Techman,Techman said:
Unfortunately free speech covers almost unlimited territory theoretically. One can expouse such concepts as Nazism and still be covered by free speech despite the disgust to the rest of us. But your point is well taken, the opening post was an attack and a vicious stereotype against some who are very likely to be in personal distress in the first place. I simply don't see the humor in a story that seems to be an outline to exploit anyone, much less women quite possibly in a deep personal struggle. It's bad taste to say the least. Whatever the intent of the author, the story is exploitative, cruel, and possibly inhuman at worst. I don't know how it can be legitimately defended as respectable "satire".
Double YUK!!!
Korbel
Last edited:
Korbel said:
Your post makes no sense. I'm not going to waste my time defining the words "rant" "objectionable" or "asinine" for you. Either you don't understand what they mean, or you just have your own definition for them. How many more times are you going to reply saying that you're not going to reply?
Techman said:
I would. Freedom of speech is only meaningful if it defends unpopular speech. There's no need to have freedom of speech if all you want to say is that you love everybody.
We're much better off with too much speech, than with entrusting the right to censor into any government's hands.
That being said, this is a privately owned board. The topic is escorts. So the mods are entirely within their rights to remove off-topic posts about ethnic groups, or any other posts for that matter. If anyone is unhappy with this, they can start their own board at a very low cost.
Last edited:
It was low-life humour, the kind we hear on too many radio stations during afternoon rush hour - humour, in this case, containing the not-so humorous suggestion that men can have sex with women whose consent has been impaired.Techman said:
This comment is unfair in a way that it aims to discredit one's defence of a principle (i.e. BD's defence of "freedom of speech") on the basis of supposed intentions (i.e. defending freedom of speech = defending the use of racial stereotypes).Techman said:
The original post didn't make it to the level of idiocy and I think everyone here agrees to this. If it made it somehow to a tribune, there's always the option of ignoring it or to attack it back. Demanding it to be censored - if we push the principle another notch further - is also an exercise of freedom of speech though it would be reasonable for some to object that the post was pure satyre and should remain. We can walk in circles like that ad vitam aeternam until an authoritative figure settles the dispute and, to this regards, we have laws, all part of the genocide and hate-crimes legislation. Example: in Canada, a bill passed in 2004 which holds as a crime the use of the Bible by means of opposing homosexuality.Techman said:
On this board, well, we have Moderators.
Last edited:
Ziggy Montana said:
It's my understanding that many, though not all, strippers and SPs are high on the job. At the very least, many have had more than a couple of drinks on the job.
Therefore, hasn't almost every guy on this board had "sex [or sexual contact] with women whose consent has been impaired"?
Last edited:
There were more than 1 review on this board recounting SOG/MSOG with SPs who were high on something. It was not funny but nobody ranted about it. Why so?
Kepler said:
That probably used to be true years ago. But if you check out the number of strippers who drink nothing but bottled water all night, I think you would be surprised. We aren't in the cocaine fueled '80s anymore.
I'm sure that some guys on this board would still be virgins if it weren't for consent impaired women.
Techman said:That probably used to be true years ago. But if you check out the number of strippers who drink nothing but bottled water all night, I think you would be surprised. We aren't in the cocaine fueled '80s anymore.
I agree with you, This is my case , I drink wather juice and maybe 2 drinks(offer by custumers most of the time I refuse) in a 12 hours shift. I found out that I make a lot more money if I can still talk without making a fool of myself .I keep my head on my shoulders so I dont regret anything...
And a lot of girls do the same.
Ben Dover said:
Make that "at least 2 other people" Ben because I agree with just about everything you've posted in this thread. Personally I find the original article annoying, disturbing and completely unfunny - in fact completely without any merit whatsoever. However unlike some of the self-appointed censors here I do not feel that I or any other individual should have the right to determine what others find objectionable.
Techman, normally a reasonably intelligent poster, notes that he does not find this type of article funny because he knows people who have died because of drugs. Well that is definitely a tragedy but everyone on the planet has been or will be touched at some point by his own particular tragedy. Techman has every right not to find this - or any other - subject funny but he has no right to decide for others. If he and the other self-appointed censors are correct in their view that this article is pure garbage (and I agree that it is!) then what's the problem? Presumably any intelligent person who reads it will feel the same.
Is cooking and eating babies a funny subject? Probably not (!) yet a few hundred years ago Jonathan Swift wrote a famous story ("A Modest Proposal") on that very topic. It's still studied in universities today. It's called satire. Yes, Swift was a writer of talent, unlike the hack who composed the piece of drivel that started this post...but does a subject become valid only if the writer has ability? If you think so, then you're confusing talent with morality.
John Legend said:
Personality goes a long way ... especially if you're one charming motherfucking pig ... like that Arnold on 'Green Acres'.
Wwid?
I still haven't decided/figured out yet if this is just the racist/sexist mumblings of a serious "player" who thinks he knows how to score ... or some pretty talented comedy writing. Sometimes life imitates art & sometimes art imitates life so it's hard to tell.
But I was just wondering : "What Would Imus Do?" Hee-hee-hee
And, speaking of Imus, what drugs do 'nappy-headed hos' like to use?
Hmmm.
I still haven't decided/figured out yet if this is just the racist/sexist mumblings of a serious "player" who thinks he knows how to score ... or some pretty talented comedy writing. Sometimes life imitates art & sometimes art imitates life so it's hard to tell.
But I was just wondering : "What Would Imus Do?" Hee-hee-hee
And, speaking of Imus, what drugs do 'nappy-headed hos' like to use?
Hmmm.
Why doesn't someone post an article on how to shoot up a university campus and get away with it and see how long it lasts or how many people complain about it? Or how about an article on how to get drugs from a cancer patient? And on and on... I feel an article on plying a stripper with drugs just as offensive as most people would find these ideas. Yes some people have gone through tragedies in their life. None of them should be made fun of or be turned into ridiculous "How To' guides.
As far as not being forced to read it, well the way it was posted was to attract people to read it. Once you start reading it, it's too late. It's as if I posted a link to a picture of a hot babe,, but when you clicked on the link it turns out to be a pic of a person with their head blown off. Real funny.
Last edited:
joelcairo said:
Joel --
Thanks for noting that reference. I had the idea in my mind (must have picked up the Swift story somewhere years ago) but could not make the proper connection. Also thanks for supporting my argument with an intelligent comment.
Roland -- you've done a great job of skimming this thread and not reading it, based on the complete incorrectness of your comment. Both JoelCairo and myself explicitly said that we do not support the article. Neither of us claim to find it funny. WE HAVE ALL AGREED THAT IT'S NOT FUNNY. You should erase your post, since it makes you look foolish. Try to pick up on the actual issue that is being discussed here. Hint, it's a BROADER topic....
BD
The new Censor King.
Let me make this announcement for you since some people don't seem to realize your true position on this thread.
Uh hum...laaaaaaaaaadiiiiiiiiies aaaaaaaand geeeeentlllllllllemeeen. Announcing the interpreter of thought. Then man who says he believes in free speech, respect for the opinions of others, and implicit freedom of thought. The man who can't maintain consistent principals if he thinks anyone has made the "wrong" interpretation of his or anyone's meaning. Our new CENSOR OF THE THREAD...you know him...you love him...the AMAZING BEN DOVER and his right to delete anyone who says what he thinks is wrong. There, how was that?
Geeez BD. Does Roland really have to delete his thread just because you don't like his interpretation of your posts? Remember that people get their own impressions from what others say and the understanding they get may not match yours or how you thought you were communicating yourself. Haven't you seen it done to politicians, movie stars, or just plain folks? How many times have you heard someone say..."you took my statement out of context"? If every interpretation someone didn't like was removed there would be practically nothing to read or hear. This is the third time you have told someone to erase a post. Are you really for freedom of speech? Time to stand by your alleged principles and be tolerant of others rights to express themselves even if you don't like what has been said, which is the same basis you seem to think the first post here is perfectly legitimate. Come big boy. Either stick to your principles or pick up your crown as the CENSOR KING of this thread. Or would you just rather call us assinine...again. You already implied he's incapable of reading things correctly and possibly just stupid. I thought you were the one who quoted Voltaire...mistakenly.
SO...where do you really stand???????
Decide,
Korbel
Hello Ben Dover,Ben Dover said:
Let me make this announcement for you since some people don't seem to realize your true position on this thread.
Uh hum...laaaaaaaaaadiiiiiiiiies aaaaaaaand geeeeentlllllllllemeeen. Announcing the interpreter of thought. Then man who says he believes in free speech, respect for the opinions of others, and implicit freedom of thought. The man who can't maintain consistent principals if he thinks anyone has made the "wrong" interpretation of his or anyone's meaning. Our new CENSOR OF THE THREAD...you know him...you love him...the AMAZING BEN DOVER and his right to delete anyone who says what he thinks is wrong. There, how was that?
Geeez BD. Does Roland really have to delete his thread just because you don't like his interpretation of your posts? Remember that people get their own impressions from what others say and the understanding they get may not match yours or how you thought you were communicating yourself. Haven't you seen it done to politicians, movie stars, or just plain folks? How many times have you heard someone say..."you took my statement out of context"? If every interpretation someone didn't like was removed there would be practically nothing to read or hear. This is the third time you have told someone to erase a post. Are you really for freedom of speech? Time to stand by your alleged principles and be tolerant of others rights to express themselves even if you don't like what has been said, which is the same basis you seem to think the first post here is perfectly legitimate. Come big boy. Either stick to your principles or pick up your crown as the CENSOR KING of this thread. Or would you just rather call us assinine...again. You already implied he's incapable of reading things correctly and possibly just stupid. I thought you were the one who quoted Voltaire...mistakenly.
If you take that phrase exactly as you wrote it and google it you will discover the real author. It's actually meant to be a summation of Voltaires philosophy.Ben Dover said:
SO...where do you really stand???????
Decide,
Korbel
Last edited:
Ben Dover said:
Clarification please. My perception is that the two quotes are contradictory. Or am I missing something ?Ben Dover said:
I know, I know, I promised to stay quiet and censor myself, but I was concerned that my logical thought processes were awry as it seemed like an eloquent poster was contradicting himself. And yes, I do realize that the thread has evolved (thankfully) into a freedom-of-speech thread - I hope that I got that at least right.
Thank you in advance; I will now retire to self-censor mode.
- Status
Similar threads
