Denial is a river in Egypt.

At least the money is going to the women and not the pimps.

*promote because I would love to read the comment stream that might come from this vid.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 10:21am PDT - promote requested by bareboards2.

Fuckin rights its prostitution... how is there any question about that. Those girls are skanks.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with whores and skanks, but don't kid yourself on what you are doing.

if you are comfortable saying " I paid for my education by slutting myself out on the internet " then have at'r.

*nochannel

*news
*money
*controversy
*sluts

This video has been removed from all channels (Eia, Terrible, News, Money, Controversy) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by BoneRemake. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Money, News) - requested by BoneRemake.

I couldn't agree with you more Bone... i don't even really have that much of a problem with it... but don't freaking kid yourself.

Their "life experience" yeah right... thats why your doing it.

What about the guys? What about the site owner? I would love to hear your opinion of them, too....

And technically speaking, a sex worker isn't a skank, is he?

>> ^BoneRemake:

Fuckin rights its prostitution... how is there any question about that. Those girls are skanks.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with whores and skanks, but don't kid yourself on what you are doing.
if you are comfortable saying " I paid for my education by slutting myself out on the internet " then have at'r.

>> ^bareboards2:

What about the guys? What about the site owner? I would love to hear your opinion of them, too....
And technically speaking, a sex worker isn't a skank, is he?
>> ^BoneRemake:
Fuckin rights its prostitution... how is there any question about that. Those girls are skanks.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with whores and skanks, but don't kid yourself on what you are doing.
if you are comfortable saying " I paid for my education by slutting myself out on the internet " then have at'r.



My opinion on them is not relevant. Spreading your hoo hah to pay for school is my concern.

Oh yeah, let's blame it on the "skanks" and "gold diggers", not the pathetic excuse of an educational system that financially ruins anyone who dares try to educate themselves.

*adds video to playlist
*

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by hpqp.

But why just them? They aren't in it alone. It takes that man with the stunningly fashionable glasses to set up the website. It takes the 100,000 men on the site to make it work.

It takes the internet to do .... what? Democratize the profession? Allow these college educated women, who grew up with an explosion of sexual images that no other generation has been party to, to have a different view of what they are doing? Heck, Dan Savage and the whole sex-positive sex worker movement might have some effect on these women's thinking.

This, to me, is so much more interesting a topic than just labeling these women "skanks" and letting that be the whole response.



>> ^BoneRemake:


My opinion on them is not relevant. Spreading your hoo hah to pay for school is my concern.

Actually, this has long been quite common in Japan, where Highschool or Graduate Girls would get money from Sugar-daddies to buy stuff their parents wouldn't buy for them.

How is engaging in the "world's oldest profession" to pay for school any different than working at MacDonald's if both halves of the agreement aren't coerced in some way? These girls have chosen this path, they haven't been forced into it by addiction, threat or actual violence, or lack of choices.

>> ^bareboards2:

But why just them? They aren't in it alone. It takes that man with the stunningly fashionable glasses to set up the website. It takes the 100,000 men on the site to make it work.
It takes the internet to do .... what? Democratize the profession? Allow these college educated women, who grew up with an explosion of sexual images that no other generation has been party to, to have a different view of what they are doing? Heck, Dan Savage and the whole sex-positive sex worker movement might have some effect on these women's thinking.
This, to me, is so much more interesting a topic than just labeling these women "skanks" and letting that be the whole response.

>> ^BoneRemake:

My opinion on them is not relevant. Spreading your hoo hah to pay for school is my concern.



Not everyone is out to change the world and express opinions on everything, even when asked. To say that this is new and within the last generation or two is bullshit, pimps and whores have been around since the first fuck. You imply that I think the johns are any better then the slutteros, dont assume, you make an ass out of you not me.

>> ^Payback:

How is engaging in the "world's oldest profession" to pay for school any different than working at MacDonald's if both halves of the agreement aren't coerced in some way? These girls have chosen this path, they haven't been forced into it by addiction, threat or actual violence, or lack of choices.



You have slightly less of a chance of catching herpes from McDonalds. Slightly.

I'm just angry because no one will pay me to have sex with them.

This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.

Never buy an American hooker.

If only there was an equivalent site for male graduates...

The manosphere would be ablaze... with cock comparing

>> ^Trancecoach:

If only there was an equivalent site for male graduates...

Money makes non-traditional relationships a lot more tolerable to people is what I take away from a lot of this. If a guy is rich as hell, many women's standards and expectations seem to drop away. Prime example is Tiger Woods, it wasn't as if his wife was a secret.......so it's not like the ....10(?) girls on the side couldn't have figured it out.


I definitely wouldn't want to be a wealthy guy having to resort to this kind of stuff though, you get one girl who gets the bright idea to get pregnant. You'll be paying her for 18 years of "service".

But I do have to give it to her for her description of being a whore, I've wondered about that myself. It's been the "proper" thing to do having guys pay for everything, shower them with gifts and.....guys usually expect sex at some point in the future. Always seemed like a really slow version of prostitution to me.

What would solve this crisis? Of course! RAISE TAXES! If these wealthy men paid their fair share to begin with, college would be free!

>> ^NetRunner:

This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What would solve this crisis? Of course! RAISE TAXES! If these wealthy men paid their fair share to begin with, college would be free!
>> ^NetRunner:
This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.



Would that be so terrible? It seems to me that a system where young women feel they have to whore themselves out to get a college education is a lot less free than one in which old rich men pay slightly more in the way of taxes, and everyone goes to college who qualifies.

>> ^MrFisk:

Never buy an American hooker.


Ha! That reminds me of a story from the Navy days... although I did change the names. Out of habit, I guess?

We were down in Curacao (beautiful place!) for a couple of days. We had a great time. One of the days, around 6 of us spent most of the day at the blackjack table with the casino politely paying us to continue to play. Of course they were not so happy with us. After having them pay us for 6 to 8 hours, we called it quits. I was ready to go to bed after smoking and drinking all day long, but a couple guys decided to head out. In the morning, we heard they stopped off at the whorehouse. (Prostitution is legal in Curacao.) After finding this out, my good buddy Sam, who didn't go out after the casino either, looked at Danny, "Tell me that you didn't buy a woman last night!" Danny looked up with pained expression of a hangover doing its work, "No. No, I didn't buy a woman last night... but I rented two!"

I'm not gonna call them skanks, but seriously? "I want their life experience and their success and their generosity money."

America would take this entire planet into the next willennium if it just decided instead of Wars on Drugs or Iraq of Afganistan...lets have a War on illiteracy. Lets have a War on Stupidity and funnel TONS of money into schools and colleges. Seriously people from all over the world would come and get an education and love America and go back to their countries working towards solutions to make their lives better.

Why can't we do that? Why can't we?

I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks


No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

Women who exchange sex services for money are prostitutes or sex-workers, not "whores"; that term has ceased to be simply denotational, now carrying a heavy derogatory (and often sexist) connotation.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.


Not an education, but debts. She isn't fucking a teacher to get accepted, she is fucking for money, period. It would be akin to her getting into debt from buying a car that she needed to get to a job she wanted, and fucked on the side to pay for it. @NetRunner Strawman on freemarkets is pretty classy too. Because women shouldn't view sex as an empowering act, the should be shameful of any sexual experience outside of pure love. Because all of us here sell our bodies to the jobs that we love, unequivocally. Women fucking is a holy experience, give me a break. If a person could make a living off of fucking, eating, or shitting, more power to them...it is what your body would rather be doing.

^In a truly unregulated free market society, there would be nothing to stand in the way of child prostitution. Do you think that would be empowering too?

Ron Paul/Pedobear 2012!!!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^In a truly unregulated free market society, there would be nothing to stand in the way of child prostitution. Do you think that would be empowering too?
Ron Paul/Pedobear 2012!!!


All this from a video about a prostitute going to college and bitching about first world problems?

@NetRunner'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'

Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.

I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.

Shows how immature (or pure) my brain is. Every time I saw the title of this post before I finally just watched it, I honestly kept thinking it was about some crafty college girl who concocted a scheme wherein she could use a bunch of Sugar Daddy candy to pay her tuition.

>> ^hpqp:

Women who exchange sex services for money are prostitutes or sex-workers, not "whores"; that term has ceased to be simply denotational, now carrying a heavy derogatory (and often sexist) connotation.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.



Nope Whore means Sex worker...I don't care what derogatory connotation you think it has.

M&W Whore noun 1. : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money

What the fuck now?

@Yogi

Prostitute is always a whore

However -- Whore is sometimes not a prostitute -- men and women use that word to denigrate sexually active women

So I make a point of using the more accurate "prostitute" or "sex worker" to be specific.

Next time you call a woman a "ho" remember this comment stream?

>> ^bareboards2:

@Yogi
Prostitute is always a whore
However -- Whore is sometimes not a prostitute -- men and women use that word to denigrate sexually active women
So I make a point of using the more accurate "prostitute" or "sex worker" to be specific.
Next time you call a woman a "ho" remember this comment stream?


Or I'll just say whatever the fuck I want.

If that's what they want to do to earn money, then more power to them.

This is the market working within the confines of the society - i.e. high student loan -> need money -> prostitution == quick money.

@Yogi"Or I'll just say whatever the fuck I want."

If there's the option to make society better and push forward human thought, why not take it?

>> ^chilaxe:

@Yogi"Or I'll just say whatever the fuck I want."
If there's the option to make society better and push forward human thought, why not take it?


What the fuck are you talking about you sanctimonious blowhard...LOOK IT UP IN A DICTIONARY! I'm technically correct which is the ONLY one I'm concerned about. You think me calling someone a whore on a fucking forum is going to make society worse? I hope it does, in fact lets keep making it worse by calling you a Cunt.

>> ^lucky760:

Shows how immature (or pure) my brain is. Every time I saw the title of this post before I finally just watched it, I honestly kept thinking it was about some crafty college girl who concocted a scheme wherein she could use a bunch of Sugar Daddy candy to pay her tuition.


So did I. Sex is still shameful for women, which is a joke. I don't know why this is so enraging to me...perhaps because I lack a type "A" personality; meaning that if a women were to come over and be sexually aggressive towards me, I would see that as awesome. Women are still men's play toys in the minds of a lot of people, so a women using a man for money via sex has to be looked down on, women getting out of their repressive sexual position of being "given penis". Idea is slowing dying, and for more timid men like myself, it couldn't come sooner.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love it, when women have sex, they are whores. No one even mentioned the men using the site, sexist fucks

No when they have sex for Money they're whores. Also I think most of the criticism about this video is that they have to in this richest of all nations sell their bodies for an education. That's fucked up no matter how you slice it.

Not an education, but debts. She isn't fucking a teacher to get accepted, she is fucking for money, period. It would be akin to her getting into debt from buying a car that she needed to get to a job she wanted, and fucked on the side to pay for it. @NetRunner Strawman on freemarkets is pretty classy too. Because women shouldn't view sex as an empowering act, the should be shameful of any sexual experience outside of pure love. Because all of us here sell our bodies to the jobs that we love, unequivocally. Women fucking is a holy experience, give me a break. If a person could make a living off of fucking, eating, or shitting, more power to them...it is what your body would rather be doing.


Lemme try and make a more full statement, since my succinct snark clearly rubbed you the wrong way.

Mostly my point was that everything in this video is good news from the perspective of a free market fundamentalist. The scarce resource of quality education gets a price set by market forces -- a high price. It commands those prices because it's a valuable investment in human capital which investors (students) can expect to get a sizable return on over their lifetime. In order to acquire capital to make this investment in their own human capital, enterprising young women are leveraging their existing assets (namely, their "assets") through free and voluntary positive sum exchanges (i.e. prostitution). Now we have an even further advancement brought to us by the wonders of the free market -- some enterprising guy who helps facilitate these positive-sum voluntary exchanges by helping connect sellers (of pussy) and buyers (of pussy) for a modest fee. Another positive-sum voluntary exchange! Society as a whole has been made richer through all of this.

Now to people who aren't free market fundamentalists, this situation all seems wrong. Education shouldn't be something each individual has to pay for, it should be something society collectively decides is a good investment to make in its citizenry as a whole. We should pay for it by collecting taxes from everyone, but with most of the burden falling on those most able to pay (mostly rich old men, who might otherwise rather spend that money on prostitutes).

I don't know about other people, but I generally see working a job as being a form of slavery. I'm paid, but I wouldn't care about being paid if I didn't need to pay for things I need. Money and capitalism is just one arbitrary way to allocate resources, and there's no particular reason to blind ourselves to the reality that most of us would do something else with the time we're currently working if we didn't have to pay the bills for the things we need. We ultimately acquiesce to this arrangement because of coercion -- you can't get food from the Supermarket (or get land to grow your own food) without money, at least not unless you want to be arrested.

So my take on prostitution is that if you really do need to become a prostitute to get by, it's a form of rape. Technically it's consensual sex, but it's tainted consent.

If it were purely a recreational activity that you happen to make some money off of, I say no harm no foul. Hell, even if you decide you want that to be your primary source of income because you love the work, more power to you.

But if you wind up with a lot of young women weighing their dignity against the impact of college on their entire future, then I think we're asking them to make a sort of Sophie's choice that they shouldn't have to make. And worse, this guy is putting that Sophie's choice in front of as many young women as he can, in order to make a buck. It's disgusting.

And you can't deny that this is the shape of a society ruled by free market ideology. Everything for sale, nothing sacred, and nobody thinking about anything but personal material gain. It's not utopia, it's sick.

What are you guys talking about? This is the capitalism that you treasure, at it's finest!

@Yogi

Congratulations, you're authentically a sociopath, and your advocacy of progressivism discredits it more than advances it.

@Yogi

Yes, technically a "whore" is "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money;" but also "a prostitute or promiscuous woman: often a term of abuse" (Collins Engl. dictionary; the part in bold comes up in practically all the online dictionaries google presents when searching "whore dictionary definition", and the Oxford Dictionary classes this word as "derogatory").


But this is not about definitions, it's about use, and your reactionary response seems to betray the fact that you know this full well (which is perhaps why you chose to truncate the M&W definition of "whore").

Your comment that I originally responded to contained truth, and would have probably received a lot more upvotes if it hadn't been for the first phrase. My response, in any case, was not meant as a personal attack, but simply a "heads up" to the negative connotation that term carries.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.


So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.

Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.

Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.

I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

@NetRunner"Education shouldn't be something each individual has to pay for."

Total tuition to get your undergrad degree in California's excellent UC system runs to less than $40,000 if you do your first 2 years at a good community college, and take summer classes. These numbers are similar across the country. In other words, getting an undergrad degree costs about half of the starting salary (at California rates) for competent workers in in-demand occupations.

The "problem of college loans" is make-believe... it's due entirely to that humans generally aren't sufficiently rational to make competent decisions such as doing community college, summer classes, and going to the already-existing public universities.

@NetRunner "I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not."

That will just distort the incentives, making people's decisions even less rational, which means more bad decisions on which degrees to get.

Seeing how the problem of college loans is make-believe, there really doesn't seem to be any reason to encourage lazy, talentless kids to spend 4 years going to frat keggers instead of starting their real life immediately.

Aren't we overvaluing college education?

For most career paths, those that don't require heavily specialised and intensive training, further education buys you little more than the right to present prospective employers with an 'above average' result on a gigantically expensive, wasteful and noisy general aptitude test.

>> ^hpqp:

@Yogi
Yes, technically a "whore" is "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money;" but also "a prostitute or promiscuous woman: often a term of abuse" (Collins Engl. dictionary; the part in bold comes up in practically all the online dictionaries google presents when searching "whore dictionary definition", and the Oxford Dictionary classes this word as "derogatory").

But this is not about definitions, it's about use, and your reactionary response seems to betray the fact that you know this full well (which is perhaps why you chose to truncate the M&W definition of "whore").
Your comment that I originally responded to contained truth, and would have probably received a lot more upvotes if it hadn't been for the first phrase. My response, in any case, was not meant as a personal attack, but simply a "heads up" to the negative connotation that term carries.


Fuck Off.

The "unseen" irony is, kollijes raised--and keep raising--their tuitions because big thugverment stepped in and offered to pay for everything, based on random criteria or no criteria at all. As with health care, there is little competition and no real urge to cut costs, because consumers don't drive the "market", thugverment largesse does.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
What would solve this crisis? Of course! RAISE TAXES! If these wealthy men paid their fair share to begin with, college would be free!
>> ^NetRunner:
This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.


Would that be so terrible? It seems to me that a system where young women feel they have to whore themselves out to get a college education is a lot less free than one in which old rich men pay slightly more in the way of taxes, and everyone goes to college who qualifies.

@chilaxe the point I'm making is that you're viewing things through a different lens. Your starting point on viewing society is pretty much one of elite condescension (a topic I am intimately familiar with! ).

You seem to believe the society we have today is already mostly meritocratic, and that in large part people who're struggling have essentially brought it all on themselves by being stupid, lazy, careless, taking drugs, etc. The only thing you want to do with society is make it even more meritocratic, so that fewer and fewer resources wind up getting wasted on these inherently inferior human beings.

Me, I don't want a society whose main goal is meritocracy. I want a society whose main goal is to help people reach their fullest potential. I wouldn't wish poverty on my worst enemies, much less people who are essentially unable to fend for themselves.

To me, markets are just some highly theoretical concept that seems to be mostly beneficial to bringing about prosperity, but in a lot of ways runs counter to our moral obligations to help the least of us. Things people truly need, I think they should just be given, and the burden for providing it should lay on the backs of those of us who're thriving on our own. Obviously though, I'd prefer to transform unproductive people into productive people rather than simply keep people on the dole. Perhaps we could educate them somehow...

I have no desire to foist an unnecessary education on anyone. My desire is for everyone who could get something worthwhile out of higher education gets it, without regard to whether or not they've got $40,000 or whatever number of pieces of paper they're charging for it these days.

I definitely think that someone who has a desire to go to college, and not be a whore, shouldn't be given strong incentives by society to become a whore in order to get the education they want. At a minimum, if that's going to be how society works, we shouldn't be calling it anything even remotely like "free".

sex and capitalism:

http://www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2011-03-17-sex-at-dawn-shattering-the-monogamy-myth-and-more

Sad.

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by Lawdeedaw.

@NetRunner

"whether or not they've got $40,000 or whatever number of pieces of paper they're charging for it these days."

$40,000 is literally 1/2 the starting salary of competent graduates in in-demand professions in California. Why do you object to people having to work for such a small amount of time in exchange for receiving the kind of extremely rare, world-class education that only a fraction of humankind has access to? (The trick, and the reason you object, is that most of the people who you want to receive "free" educations will choose worthless degrees and won't perform competently.)

"Perhaps we could educate them somehow..."
No human alive has the power to turn a non-intellectual into an intellectual, or an irrationalist into a rationalist. I'd bet all my future earnings that we're going to have to wait until we start doing reprogenetics. Shh... don't tell liberals; they're not in a hurry to move humankind forward, and they want to be surprised that they've been on the wrong side of history for 100 years!

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011 2:09pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter albrite30.

@chilaxe I like how you ignore the central point I make, and just respond to random phrases out of context.

For the most part, I think you're wanting to focus on specifics largely based on the extant paradigm, while I'm making more of a statement about a desired ideal that would require a paradigm shift.

I don't deny the reality that education requires resources, and that it will need some mechanism of economic support, I'm just saying I don't think education should be denied to students who for whatever reason don't have the money to pay for it.

I also don't see why education should always be looked at as an economic investment. I happen to excel in subjects that apply well to a certain class of professional type of work, but I am interested in all sorts of topics for which I have no practical use.

I guess I am confused about your focus on people getting "pointless" degrees. I guess on one level my response is "pointless to whom?" Pointless to employers, or pointless to the person who wanted to study the topic? Why should employers get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?

On another level, like I said before, I our educational system could stand to be a bit more paternalistic in shepherding adolescents through the transition from a purely academic experience into a career path that suits some mix of their preferences and talents. But I guess I feel like schools (of all types) are largely interested in exposing children to purely academic pursuits, while justifying it in some vague sense as some form of mundane job training.

But I've never taken, nor seen offered, a college course I thought was "pointless". Certainly there's stuff I'm not interested in, stuff that would be remedial, and plenty that doesn't pose any obvious use in the job market (philosophy comes to mind), but in terms of helping people realize their full potential as human beings, all of it seems quite worthwhile.

Sigh. For a moment (when you edited your first reply to something less childish and insulting) I thought you didn't want to come off as a closet misogynist with the rhetoric of an angry tweenager... guess I was wrong.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^hpqp:
@Yogi
Yes, technically a "whore" is "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money;" but also "a prostitute or promiscuous woman: often a term of abuse" (Collins Engl. dictionary; the part in bold comes up in practically all the online dictionaries google presents when searching "whore dictionary definition", and the Oxford Dictionary classes this word as "derogatory").

But this is not about definitions, it's about use, and your reactionary response seems to betray the fact that you know this full well (which is perhaps why you chose to truncate the M&W definition of "whore").
Your comment that I originally responded to contained truth, and would have probably received a lot more upvotes if it hadn't been for the first phrase. My response, in any case, was not meant as a personal attack, but simply a "heads up" to the negative connotation that term carries.

Fuck Off.

@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.

My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

>> ^hpqp:

Sigh. For a moment (when you edited your first reply to something less childish and insulting) I thought you didn't want to come off as a closet misogynist with the rhetoric of an angry tweenager... guess I was wrong.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^hpqp:
@Yogi
Yes, technically a "whore" is "a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money;" but also "a prostitute or promiscuous woman: often a term of abuse" (Collins Engl. dictionary; the part in bold comes up in practically all the online dictionaries google presents when searching "whore dictionary definition", and the Oxford Dictionary classes this word as "derogatory").

But this is not about definitions, it's about use, and your reactionary response seems to betray the fact that you know this full well (which is perhaps why you chose to truncate the M&W definition of "whore").
Your comment that I originally responded to contained truth, and would have probably received a lot more upvotes if it hadn't been for the first phrase. My response, in any case, was not meant as a personal attack, but simply a "heads up" to the negative connotation that term carries.

Fuck Off.



You don't understand what Fuck Off means? It means I don't care whether you live or die...just FUCK OFF!

@Yogi

What exactly is it you want me to do again?

Is this what republicans mean when they say if we leave tax dollars in the hands of rich people they will create more jobs?

>> ^hpqp:

@Yogi
What exactly is it you want me to do again?



Fuck you, you fucking fuck.

@Yogi

You might like this (the chorus is right up your ally ):

I'd like to see what % of the girls are college educated and paying off their education bills with the proceeds.

Oh you don't like how they try to use personality tests, GPA, and the infamous "career day" to help kids decide? I'm still not sure what I could stand to do for the rest of my life, and that's mainly because everything they tried to tell me was not helpful and everything you look into is not what people claim it to be.

Which I view as a failing of colleges, since young people are paying money to go into things they only have a very vague notion of and unless their parents or a close relative do the job, no one is going to provide them with straight answers in a vast majority of the time. Assuming they even consider what careers to ask about or what questions to ask about said careers.

I hold it up as proof that colleges at this time are there to get people in and out of programs while milking them for as much as possible, but don't actually take the time to evaluate that their programs provide the building blocks the student would need to follow the job path they THINK they want. The colleges don't care if the students presumptions are wrong.

I also view elementary to high school as bypassing a lot of common knowledge, common sense, life skills, etc things kids should learn. Like electric safety and basic repairs, basic automotive/mechanic/tool usage, cooking/laundry basics, and probably the most important of all nutrition and exercise. You see people on the news having heatstroke and everything else because they don't drink enough fluids or don't realize that not sweating is a really bad thing. Plus proper stretching and all that. I mean I remember them having wood working classes, and it didn't even focus on things you might actually run into that you could repair on your own without having some major equipment.

Education is great, but too many people come out of high school and college with a lot of knowledge, no applicable skills to a field, and almost no rudimentary skills to speak of. And this isn't saying they should be trained for jobs, this is saying they have enough of a common life skill set that they can at least somewhat measure what is required in positions. Right now, everyone claims they can do everything and they really know very little.

But Im with you there on the TNG DNA job matching.....wish we had it. No politics, nepotism, and what not to throw a wrench into everything.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.

So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.
Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.
Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.
I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

We gotta teach our kids about debt. If you borrow money and you don't have an iron clad plan to pay it back you're going to be somebody's bitch until you do.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^bareboards2:
But why just them? They aren't in it alone. It takes that man with the stunningly fashionable glasses to set up the website. It takes the 100,000 men on the site to make it work.
It takes the internet to do .... what? Democratize the profession? Allow these college educated women, who grew up with an explosion of sexual images that no other generation has been party to, to have a different view of what they are doing? Heck, Dan Savage and the whole sex-positive sex worker movement might have some effect on these women's thinking.
This, to me, is so much more interesting a topic than just labeling these women "skanks" and letting that be the whole response.

>> ^BoneRemake:

My opinion on them is not relevant. Spreading your hoo hah to pay for school is my concern.


Not everyone is out to change the world and express opinions on everything, even when asked. To say that this is new and within the last generation or two is bullshit, pimps and whores have been around since the first fuck. You imply that I think the johns are any better then the slutteros, dont assume, you make an ass out of you not me.


Excellent handling of the moral crusader, if i may say so. It's easy for some people to claim you're only doing it because they're women and you kept above it.

Personally, i feel that as they weren't coerced into the situation in any way, but simply chose to do something for personal gain, they are by far the most culpable and deserving of scorn. If you're gonna scorn that kind of thing - i don't particularly mind.

Also, i hope all the sexism crusaders have absolutely no sympathy for drug users - people who are homeless, abandoned, that kind of thing - due to drugs. Because in the same way as here, they're as responsible as the "supplier", right? Next time i see any of you opining that a drug dealer is a horrible piece of shit, i want you to give an equal appraisal of drug users. Those poor drug dealers are being enabled by those horrible drug users! Though i suspect the righteousness doesn't stretch further than anything specifically male/female.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bareboards2:
@Yogi
Prostitute is always a whore
However -- Whore is sometimes not a prostitute -- men and women use that word to denigrate sexually active women
So I make a point of using the more accurate "prostitute" or "sex worker" to be specific.
Next time you call a woman a "ho" remember this comment stream?

Or I'll just say whatever the fuck I want.


I will deem all whores and the definition "flavor-flaves carotene." Why? because I fucking want to. Does it make sense? Gas-poo!

And to add---I fucked a fucking whore once in the Yogi-ass...that's a new term I use.;p

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^In a truly unregulated free market society, there would be nothing to stand in the way of child prostitution. Do you think that would be empowering too?
Ron Paul/Pedobear 2012!!!


Not fair. Ron Paul would leave those decisions to the States themselves. Now, if those lawmakers allow it--and their public does to with failing to make constitutional amendments, and the counties and such fail, then there would be nothing...

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.


Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.

These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

Sex farm for Sex Hookers

Dagnabbit how does one embed in comments...

NR I don't say it often enough, but thank you for your comments. You have conviction in your beliefs.

A partial answer to your question. Some of these women--very few--can legitimately be said to be maximizing their potential because they enjoy doing what they do, and would probably keep doing it after debts are paid off. The rest see it as a means to an end, as does anyone working a job they don't like in order to get to a better job or lifestyle.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:





@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

>> ^quantumushroom:

NR I don't say it often enough, but thank you for your comments. You have conviction in your beliefs.
A partial answer to your question. Some of these women--very few--can legitimately be said to be maximizing their potential because they enjoy doing what they do, and would probably keep doing it after debts are paid off. The rest see it as a means to an end, as does anyone working a job they don't like in order to get to a better job or lifestyle.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:



@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.



That means a lot to me, thank you!

I agree with your partial answer -- women who engage in prostitution because they find it to be deeply fulfilling might very well be doing it in the pursuit of maximizing their potential.

People who just do things as a means to an end largely aren't, whether it's prostitution, or just a job doing things they'd rather not be doing.

I'm pragmatic enough to realize that the latter category is probably largely unavoidable for the foreseeable future. But it doesn't mean it's the ideal end state of human existence, either.

Prohibition of prostitution is impossible to justify or enforce, so we might as well bring it above board so both parties involved can be better protected by the law.

And have a better way of educating and providing for the poor and homeless so that no one is ever *forced* economically into prostitution.

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.

What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.



Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.

Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

This is what Matt Damon is referring to by MBA thinking. Some people are defined by their jobs, some people aren't. I always thought it was rather insulting when people want to find out "Who are you?" in the sense of more than just your name, they ask "What do you do?" in the sense that your job/daily activity is the end all be all of what you contribute.

You are essentially saying that if you find a spot in a career path that you enjoy, excel at and are love to do and are still there 5 years later, you are doing nothing with your life. Even if you raise a family, volunteer, involve yourself in other people's lives........instead of spending your time looking for career advancement because that's what we should value. It's not specifically a bad thing, but it's something a lot of people would be utterly miserable doing. Live to work versus work to live type mentality.

Besides there are jobs that have to be done in society for it to run that are seen as menial "do nothing" jobs. With one hand you are accepting the services they make possible and with the other you are slapping them in the face and telling them their contribution is nothing. Waste management (Garbage truck operators (lots), landfill operations (few)), Waste Water Treatment facilities, road crews, farmers, etc. All of these jobs their progress and contribution to society can be measured daily if so desired, and the majority of those jobs are looked down upon and seen as unskilled labor. Yet they are necessary for the "noble"/desirable/rich professions of doctors and lawyers to even function. They would do away with those jobs if they could, but instead they work to cut the costs associated with them.....no matter how necessary they are. Earnings and cost are something to be considered, but they are not the end all be all of what keeps a society functioning. There are a lot more grunt jobs than there are management/white collar jobs.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.
What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.

Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.
Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

What a sad world view. Life is more than climbing a corporate ladder. Career advancement is a hollow goal, especially in this current age, when even white collar labor is fungible.

There are so many people that had this exact philosophy, and worked hard in its pursuit, that are now laid off and highly disillusioned.

I'm a corporate climber, but I don't for a second fool myself into believing it's what you say it is. There are many things that are more intellectually challenging than getting into a corner office. Really.


>> ^chilaxe:

What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner"Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

Life is more than a dick-waving contest where you accumulate the most power, money, and fancy shit.

Of all the reasons for legalizing prostitution, the economic advancement of young prostitutes is not one of them.

@longde @jwray @NetRunner

I'm actually not in the corporate world but in Silicon Valley startups, which seems to me to be humankind's global capital for innovation. I think most people's dreams for what humankind can become will be possible, but only through technology.

Overall, it seems fair to say I'll probably contribute more than 100x to humankind than each of the experientialist friends I grew up with, who seek to follow their instincts for pleasure rather than reshape their instincts for productivity (contribution to humankind).

>> ^chilaxe:

I'm actually not in the corporate world but in Silicon Valley startups, which seems to me to be humankind's global capital for innovation. I think most people's dreams for what humankind can become will be possible, but only through technology.
Overall, it seems fair to say I'll probably contribute more than 100x to humankind than each of the experientialist friends I grew up with, who seek to follow their instincts for pleasure rather than reshape their instincts for productivity (contribution to humankind).


Setting aside the rather gross display of immodesty, you're making the pro-market argument that appeals most to a utilitarian like me -- it provides people incentives to channel their activities into work that is of benefit to everyone. The whole "invisible hand" argument.

My problem with that is that those incentives don't work, and are often too severe. Your "lazy liberal" friends still exist despite our largely Randian society (not to mention, I suspect they don't share your dim view of the state and quality of their life).

Markets provide much greater rewards to people who establish monopolies, defraud customers, and squeeze labor forces than it does to the professionals who develop the technologies that shape and reshape our world. It makes the concentration of wealth by any means necessary the highest cause of our society, and attempts to moralize all sorts of actions that would be considered grossly immoral in other contexts.

Like, say, soliciting young women to become prostitutes.

>> ^NetRunner:

This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.


What do you think free markets are, just curious? I mean, in your own words what comes to mind when you hear "free market"? I tend to think of people interacting freely without coercion. But you may conjure images of the Kochs and multinational monopolies.

I see an innocuous system where people have the freedom to trade and create trade systems that best suit their needs. You seem to conflate free markets to the current US market. That's not a free market, it's the result of a false market created that forces the people to trade using one currency and one central bank system (as opposed to competing market forces), and where the legislators create a restrictive market that grants subsidies and welfare to the rich (Corporations) and robs from the middle and lower class (depletes opportunity, thus depletes employment).

But I'm sure you disagree.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
This is proof that free markets fix everything, especially education.

What do you think free markets are, just curious? I mean, in your own words what comes to mind when you hear "free market"? I tend to think of people interacting freely without coercion. But you may conjure images of the Kochs and multinational monopolies.
I see an innocuous system where people have the freedom to trade and create trade systems that best suit their needs. You seem to conflate free markets to the current US market. That's not a free market, it's the result of a false market created that forces the people to trade using one currency and one central bank system (as opposed to competing market forces), and where the legislators create a restrictive market that grants subsidies and welfare to the rich (Corporations) and robs from the middle and lower class (depletes opportunity, thus depletes employment).
But I'm sure you disagree.


What comes to mind when I see "free market" in most contexts is "here we go again, someone's trying to conflate markets with freedom".

To give a more rigorous definition, I'll go ahead and crib Wikipedia's: "A free market is a market in which economic intervention and regulation by the state is limited to tax collection, and enforcement of private ownership and contracts."

I think where we differ is our assessment of free markets, not their definition.

My assessment is that free markets can't be created, and if somehow one was created it wouldn't be stable (i.e. they'd stop being "free" quickly), and even if they could be created and stabilized, wouldn't constitute a just society.

@NetRunner"rather gross display of immodesty"

Ha. But we're evaluation the relative merits of meritocracy vs. collectivism/experientialism, so looking at the outcomes in terms of how good they are for contributing to humankind seems relevant.


"My problem with that is that those incentives don't work... Your "lazy liberal" friends still exist despite our largely Randian society"

Isn't that mostly because collectivist/experientialist culture tells us to not follow incentives? If Rachael Maddow's audience followed the high-contribution-to-humankind path, they wouldn't need to ask other people to pay their way. If that's the case, criticizing that culture seems like a step in the right direction.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner"rather gross display of immodesty"
Ha. But we're evaluation the relative merits of meritocracy vs. collectivism/experientialism, so looking at the outcomes in terms of how good they are for contributing to humankind seems relevant.

That doesn't seem to be the conversation we're actually having though. We're talking about the merits and shortcomings of markets. I don't have some utopian structure for society I'm trying to sell, I'm mostly trying to debunk the idea that markets are some utopian ideal we should strive for.

>> ^chilaxe:
"My problem with that is that those incentives don't work... Your "lazy liberal" friends still exist despite our largely Randian society"
Isn't that mostly because collectivist/experientialist culture tells us to not follow incentives?

No.

...and even if it was, it's another case of the invisible hand failing to work as advertised.

More to the point, is payment really your only motivator?

Let's suppose you're right, and what you're doing is tremendously more important to humanity than what the rest of us mere mortals are doing. Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?

Isn't the intellectual pursuit enjoyable enough to get you to continue? Isn't the benefit to humankind enough?

Shouldn't it be?

@NetRunner

"I don't have some utopian structure for society I'm trying to sell, I'm mostly trying to debunk the idea that markets are some utopian ideal we should strive for."

"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"

>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

[redacted... better for private conversation ]

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by ctrlaltbleach.