Brothels

[OzAtheist]

We've had the discussion on abortion running for ages, so how about a different topic?

Do you think brothels should be legal, or at least decriminalised?

[background: just watched an excellent documentary about some little old ladies trying to get brothels legalised in the UK]

Discuss and give your reasons, for or against.

[davo]

ok, my problem with brothels is not the brothels, but lies in the general structure of the sex industry, being under a capitalist system, it is therefore exploitive to the workers.

I am not 'against' prostitution, if that makes sense. What someone does with their body is their business.

So really, if a brothel was a collective venture of the people working there, equally distributing the income, I would have no problem with it.

EDIT: I suppose I should answer the question ...

I think they should be legalised, so that the exploitative format is avoided. I think they should be run by the workers, and not business interests outside of them

[SchizoDeluxe]

Yes they should be legal. Under supervised and legal conditions, brothels are much safer than criminalising the industry. The porn industry alone thrives despite much of it being censored and prohibited. Penn & Teller did an excellent episode of this on the bullshit show, shed a lot of light on how they actually operate. Besides, why should it be illegal to give someone an orgasm? :D If people can give it away for free, why is it an issue when money is involved? I think people have rape and prostitution confused and mixed together, not saying that bad stuff doesn't occur in the industry but making it illegal has not helped one bit. It's the whole sex thing as well, people are just uncomfortable about the subject.

[Cody]

Definitely should be legalised regulated and taxed.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Yep. Legal, regulated, taxed. As I think George Carlin said, sex is legal and selling is legal... so why selling sex be illegal?

I certainly don't see the industry as exploitative - every profession in the world has people doing things they don't want to for money. I certainly get sick of my job from time to time, but I wouldn't want it banned.

And frankly, prostitutes have my most massive respect. I could never do their job, certainly not well enough to earn a living. I mean, I burn out just working tech support, and there the clients are only figuratively in my face / up my arse / on my tits all day long...

[Vonnie]

In Queensland, there are quite a few legal brothels. Not decriminalised, but legal. Of course, they are regulated and taxed too. And I'm all for them.

I drive past one once a week or so. It's always interesting to see who's car is in the carpark! I've recognised one or two of those cars... From the various utes with work gear in the back, it appears that most of the customers at this particular brothel appear to be tradies, but that's probably because it's in the 'burbs, and I drive past during the day. Their clientelle may well change at night.

Good on them, I say (both the brothels and the customers)!

Vonnie

[Kerri-Lee]

Legalised, regulated and taxed. Mostly I'm concerned for the women and I guess men too who get beaten and treated badly. Other criminal activities tend to go on alongside prostitution like money laundering,the drug trade and sex slaves- this is a problem in the UK where Eastern European women are being smuggled into Britain with the promise that they will be given legitimate work, what actually happens is that their passports are taken and they are locked in a brothel.

[davo]

exactly. most all of these issues would disappear thru the simple requirement of workers control and ownership of their labour.

When people say other criminal activities go alongside prostitution, I have to point out that anything that is exploitative is criminal, and it tends to be criminal gangs that use anything that can be exploited, so that's 'why' they 'go alongside' each other, not because they are directly related, but because criminal elements use everything they can exploit for profit. create a market by having something illegal and unregulated, there they will be.

[Vonnie]

Surely there must be legal brothels in states other than Queensland?

Vonnie

[davo]

Victoria has around 100 http://www.aaei.com.au/licensedbrothels.htm

[Donna]

From Wikipedia:

Prostitution in Australia is governed by state laws, which vary considerably. Street prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_prostitution) is illegal in all states of Australia except NSW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW) where it is prohibited near churches, schools, hospitals and similar venues.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia#cite_note-0) In addition to the summaries provided below, brothels are often regulated by local council planning laws.
Australians make between 12 and 16 million visits to an estimated 20,000 sex workers every year, and to more than 5,000 legal brothels, escort agencies and sexual massage services and to 2,000 illegal outfits. While NSW, Qld and Victoria account for 78.3 per cent of all establishments in the sex trade, revenue and wages are higher in Victoria, NSW, WA and the ACT where incomes are higher and there is a higher quality of establishments to attract wealthier clientele.


Blimey, between 12 and 16 million visits....its all going on out there...and don't forget, no street walking near a church in nsw ok :p and I'm all for legalisation, regulation and taxation!


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia#cite_note-1)

[peterthames]

We've had the discussion on abortion running for ages, so how about a different topic?

Do you think brothels should be legal, or at least decriminalised?

[background: just watched an excellent documentary about some little old ladies trying to get brothels legalised in the UK]

Discuss and give your reasons, for or against.

Yes, Because a Woman can decide what she wants to do with her body.

[alanqui]

For as long as Fast Eddy Groves does not have anything to do with them.

[atomac]

Like all of things, drugs included, when governments move to prohibit them and make them illegal they fall under the purview of organised crime and become associated with violence and other forms of criminality.

The argument about drugs and prostitution should not be a moral one but one informed by logic and rational thinking.

[SchizoDeluxe]

Like all of things, drugs included, when governments move to prohibit them and make them illegal they fall under the purview of organised crime and become associated with violence and other forms of criminality.

The argument about drugs and prostitution should not be a moral one but one informed by logic and rational thinking.

the legality of drugs will be another hot topic around here...keep em coming :D

[davo]

yep victimless crimes

[Kieran]

ok, to answer the original question:

In so far as any form of business is legal, brothels should be legal. Labor is in effect prostitution anyway, we're selling our bodies to the boss.

But like Davo, I'd prefer brothels (like all businesses) to be run as a workers collective.

[peterthames]

Brothels cover the whole spectrum of genders, Peter.

OK Yes a because a man & a woman can decide what they want to do with their bodies.

[Duffy]

We've had the discussion on abortion running for ages, so how about a different topic?

Do you think brothels should be legal, or at least decriminalised?

[background: just watched an excellent documentary about some little old ladies trying to get brothels legalised in the UK].



I saw the same doco on SBS. Go Grannies!!! I think brothels should be legal for a few reasons,

consenting adults don't need regulating,
legal brothels are more transparent to circumstances of exploitation (foreign sex slaves, minors, etc),
they can pay tax like the rest of us,
to ensure violence against workers is brought to the attention of the law
because prostitutes need union representation to ensure good working/pay conditions like anyone else.
so customers aren't treated as criminals when no crime is committed
there are probably more but brain has dried up
I like the co-op idea and abhor the idea of pimps/parasites.

I think prostitution is a good example of reality. Why aren't we debating whether a person should be selling their bodies? Because no matter what we think it's going to happen anyway. This discussion is about how to manage the situation. Bravo!

[His Noodly Appendage]

What kind of employer isn't effectively a pimp, though?

Do all industries need to be transformed to co-ops?

[Duffy]

The guy I employ has a history of depression and strong medication. When he first came to us he was nervous and felt useless. I have also had a history of depression so I treated him as I would have liked to have been treated.

I already thought you were a good guy but this just confirms it. :)

[davo]

I'll try and not get dragged into a political debate, as it could detract from a lot of other great discussions going on the board ... but I will say just like religion, people do good things under capitalism, there's no doubt, but the structure of it, is based on power, and power corrupts. In fact, the similarities are astounding, as is the ability of its adherants to defend the little they have under it's structure with blnd faith, and not able to even concieve of a change to the structure. ("maybe this pastor will be better than the last!") sigh.

Co-operatives are one thing, but they are open for abuse, eg: I worked for a co-operative ISP in a small town, the CEO was on 130,000+ a year, and had to be shown how to add an attachment to email, all us other workers were on the same pay (yes, I was on call 24/7 running all the servers and web development team earning the same as everyone else from helpdesk to secretaries). All the board members, the accountant, all of them ran a 'boys club' in town for want of a better explanation, protecting each others interests. They were the business owners locally, all of them chummy. The co-operative fed off the good will of the community, and paid directly into these peoples pockets. The workers in the co-operative were just like any other workers, except it was worse for us, as we were in there with good intentions, but still fighting the inherant power struggles that come about from pyrimidal decision structures.

It's the same outside of the microcosm of a township, just on a larger scale.

Myself I'd prefer federations of workers collectives.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Or man/man, woman/woman and any of those with the otherwise people, whether born with, or choosing to adopt difference.

"Man" and "Woman" are just two of many stations on a very big circular railway.

And that's not even counting NZ brothels...

*ducks*

[eclectic]

ok, my problem with brothels is not the brothels, but lies in the general structure of the sex industry, being under a capitalist system, it is therefore exploitive to the workers.

I am not 'against' prostitution, if that makes sense. What someone does with their body is their business.

So really, if a brothel was a collective venture of the people working there, equally distributing the income, I would have no problem with it.

EDIT: I suppose I should answer the question ...

I think they should be legalised, so that the exploitative format is avoided. I think they should be run by the workers, and not business interests outside of them

ditto! I have zero problem with prostitution in theory. I don't think the sex industry is a "necessary evil", I think adults should be freely available to sell and buy sex. But yes, the problem is with the exploitation that occurs in the real world. Exploitation that legalisation can help lessen. And I'm against capitalism generally, certainly in regards to the sex industry.

[Godless Ray]

Yes I am for them.

anyone know a goodin? :p

[Duffy]

Yes I am for them.

anyone know a goodin? :p

Hahahahaha, if the grannies get their way (see first post) the brothels would be mobile. Home delivered:D

[davo]

Hahahahaha, if the grannies get their way (see first post) the brothels would be mobile. Home delivered:D

Actually, if you like, got a road train going, with gambling, brothel, pub and nightly raves ... you could make a mint ...

You could call it Highway to Hell!! :)

[Duffy]

For a couple of bob more, we'll take your fundies out of town when the tour moves on. If they don't become harlots, DJs or croupiers by the next town, we'll let 'em go in the bush by the roadside.

LOL Like a decadent pied piper? I can see a lot of hands going up for the job:D

[M0381U5]

The legalisation of prostitution also affords the workers legal rights and Occupational Health and Safety as well. Meaning tax deductable Health checks and other industrial relations rights such a unions or other collective regimes. It allows for the use of legitamate and registered security control and also protection provided by Law enforcement.

As for other illegal activity, you will find were there is one illegal activity you will find almost all forms of illegal activity. legalisation of prostitution has allowed it to displace itself from this environment.

edit
oops just realised what i have said has been mentioned already, and this is actually an older thread then i realised:p

[Duffy]

As for other illegal activity, you will find were there is one illegal activity you will find almost all forms of illegal activity. legalisation of prostitution has allowed it to displace itself from this environment.

Another good point:)

[Godless Ray]

Mr Black, I had the feeling that the sex industry was more "industrial" now as opposed to 20 years ago when it was offered more on the street. Is this the case or am I again out of date?

Godless Ray

[davo]

Your right Godless Ray, most girls and guys prefer working in an establishment as it offers them personal protection and the same rights as any worker, whereas working the streets is more for the desperate (egL drug users) and the clientel also realise this. Thus the pricing on the street tends to be a lot lower than it used to be, and both the client and the worker don't know what they are getting into each 'trick'.

I grew up just off Grey St in St Kilda my late teens, early twenties, and there was a lively street working scene to say the least, plus criminal element, of course that's changed a bit with the yuppification of the area, but the trade is still there. Drugs and violence regardless is still a big issue. Footscray has a similar problem, so I wouldn't say it's changed a whole lot, either do the residents I know in the area, tho the actions of the police have improved the violence aspect somewhat.

edit: In their Report on street prostitution, the Attorney-General's Advisory Group states that 'Governments, which have regulated brothels and/or escort agencies, have gained greater control over the sex industry and curbed to a large extent the influence of organised crime' (AGSPAG,2002,p.47).

[Godless Ray]

I new a lady who worked in the reception part of one such place. By and large she thought most ( not all) of the workers were well balanced and enjoyed the work to a certain point. None felt mistreated.

The lady left in a hurry one day when unlocking premises for the new owner, He happened to be there this morning, it was his cheery good morning coupled with the loaded 357 magnum that first caused a change of mind, I think it was followed by the plastic buckets of unamed tablets and the white sealed up bricks. I tells ya, Godless thought he had a pharmacy.

Godless

[Duffy]

Then again, I had an engineer colleague who sat down one day and guesstimated how much he'd spent on dates over the last few years, rang an establishment down the road (ah, Fyshwick ACT, where government and private[-parts] enterprise work comfortably cheek by jowl!) and got some quotes. He became a once-or-twice-weekly regular and paid off most of a new Commodore out of savings over a couple of years.

I can guess he wasn't looking for love ;)

[His Noodly Appendage]

<Matty> Hmm
<Matty> A little bored this afternoon
<Matty> Thought i'd do an exercise on leasing versus renting
<UG> indeed
<Matty> Paul Macartney is my subject
<Matty> I note according to reports he paid 49million dollars to heather mills for 5 years or marriage?
<Matty> Assuming he got sex every night during their 5 year relationship (which lets be honest, probably didnt happen) it would end up costing him $26,849 per time.
<Matty> Heather aint exactly the best looking bird
<UG> then he's a dumbfuck :)
<Matty> Now i also note, Elliot Spitzers call girl, Kristen, an absolute stunner with a body like no other, charges $4,000 an hour. For anything..
<Matty> Had Paul McCartney 'employed' Kristen for 5 years, he would've paid $7.3 million for an hour of sex every night for 5 years (a saving of $41.7 million).
<Matty> Value-added benefits are: a 22 year old hot babe, no begging, no coaxing, never a headache, plays all requests, ability to put BOTH legs around you (!!!), no bitching and complaining or 'to do' lists. Best of all, she leaves when you're done, and comes back when you ask her. All at 1/7th the cost, with no legal fees
<Matty> Sometimes renting makes far more sense..


:D :D

[His Noodly Appendage]

Actually, I saw a doco on prostitution in Australia a while back, and consensus was that an awful lot of clients weren't in it for love or sex, but just for company - eye contact, sharing personal space, casual touch, conversations that weren't about work or whether they wanted fries with that, the occasional shoulder to cry on, just being around a living breathing woman without having to consciously radiate "I'm not trying to hit on you" all the time, etc.

I can relate to that. We're primates, and as such need to groom and be groomed. But in our society, a vast proportion of us live painfully solitary/impersonal lives. If you kept apes under those conditions, you'd be prosecuted for cruelty.

The saddest, most ironic part of all of it is that such needs are considered infantile, and most people would rather break strong cultural sex taboos (and resort to a cold, transactional imitation that only provides company as a side effect) than seek to fulfil them directly.

[eclectic]

Clarification may have been needed. Love's nice, but there's a lot of temporary company, and a moderate amount of bumping uglies, occurs while one's waiting for Lurve to show, if one's even bothered with Lurve in the first place.

Engineer Guy was by no means a romantic. I think we might guess what he was looking for.

There's a major difference between love and the 'dating' scene. As a woman, (and a reasonably attractive, sociable one, if I do say so myself), I normally haven't had much trouble fulfilling my physcial need for sex between love-partners - so I just did that and have never been one for making a man buy me ten dinners sort of thing. It wasn't necessary if I just wanted sex, and not in my view the path to love. (My current love-partner I met at uni and our 'courting' consisted of hanging out at my flat drinking goon and writing alliterative verse.)

If you're in need of sex - or as Noodly points out, just physical companionship - I think its much more honest and healthy to be able to just pay for the service you need, rather than finding dates.

[Duffy]

That's definitely the upside to prostitution. If the couple is consenting, then why shouldn't men or women seek sex without the game of dating if love isn't on the radar. I think most of the problem with dating is that the individual agenda is not clear. And a lot of the time people become disillusioned because they misread the situation. My niece gets most offended when a boy uses a pick up line like 'my face is leaving in ten minutes, care to be on it?' I say at least he's honest in his intentions, better you know immediately what kind a guy he is rather than wasting another minute to find out.

BTW does I guy ever think those lines would work?

[eclectic]

That's definitely the upside to prostitution. If the couple is consenting, then why shouldn't men or women seek sex without the game of dating if love isn't on the radar. I think most of the problem with dating is that the individual agenda is not clear. And a lot of the time people become disillusioned because they misread the situation. My niece gets most offended when a boy uses a pick up line like 'my face is leaving in ten minutes, care to be on it?' I say at least he's honest in his intentions, better you know immediately what kind a guy he is rather than wasting another minute to find out.

BTW does I guy ever think those lines would work?

:) It's hard to imagine they could! Thoes lines could only work at all if used comically... but I can't even see that working. I was once told I had a nice chassis, which was rather strange.

[Godless Ray]

I dunno about Chassis eclectic, but your a fine figure of a woman. ;)


Godless Ray

[ozogg]

Some contributors to this debate have been using that word "love".

It is a much over used word in our society, and strangely so because there are so many varieties of this widget, and few precisely define which version, colour, flavour or football team they intended to convey.

It's a bit like another often used word, SHLURGLE, you know, that thing that lives in the sky, or created the universe and went into solitary confinement, keeps an account book of everyone's deeds, is invisible, silent, etc, and in every way "insensate", has putative properties of:

omnipotence
omnipresence
omnisicence
benelovence (not in all religions - e.g. Balinese SHLURGLES).

Surely we need a commonly agreed definition of this LURV thingy, else we don't know whut we're talking / debating about.

Sorry, can't give any stats on this SHLURGLE thingy, except that 90% of the world believes it exists, but that of course is no statistic about the probability of SHLURGLE's existence.

Bit like that other well defined word, LURV, love, agape, etc, etc.
Often confused with "limerance". Or "romance". Or ...

Or will we just simply utilise the common "belief", that "We do/don't 'feel' that it exists?" :mad:

Me stirring the pot, overmuch, again. :cool:

'im.

[davo]

love : a strong positive emotion of regard and affection

the beauty of words is they can mean different things to different people, following what your saying you would want a definition for 'fun' for 'happy', for 'sad', for 'big' etc etc etc

Not sure your point otherwise, you may have to dumb it down a little for me

[ozogg]

No biggie, Davo. Here's what I mean (or, "in other words").

Wittgenstein, a philosophical hero to some, said:
Philosophical problems arise when "language goes on holiday" See quote & source below.

So, let us, since atheism is the theory & practice of a philosophy (it sure ain't a science with lab experiments), attempt to "minimise taking language on a holiday"?

So, maybe a few strict definitions wouldn't go astray in these debates, in order to acquire precision ?

Unless, of course, one is not at all interested in precision, and mostly interested in the beauty of words.

Now there's another weasel word needing precision: "beauty".

The fundies are masters\mistresses of stirring words around until they can mean anything at all, but mostly they claim that these meanings are "just what their god intended".

There is another Davo, in the "One Body of Christ Experiment" in FarkoBerserko. He explains how a god, existing in all space and all time, does NOT control "freewill", becasue this god exists in the "eternal-now".

Therefore his god only "sees" forwards, backwards, sideways, and probably up everyone's fundamental orifice. His god does not foresee a person's future (and therefore "fix" it - therfore cancel freewill) .

If this is a "beautiful use of words", then go join that group.

I just see it as a mess of language imprecision!
How can one reconcile a dictionary definition of "eternal" and "now" so sloppily married together?

I have spent too many hours trying to nail this particular piece of religious jello to the wall, and am much concerned to see the same sort of jello lurking in these woods.



_____
From : http://goinside.com/00/5/language.html

Questions of Philosophy
The questions raised by Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Leibniz, Descartes, Hume, Kant and others, are questions that must be dealt with by giving a description of our language-games.



True philosophy reminds us of what everyone really knows: it pays attention to actual use of language, and thus it dissolves problems, rather than constructing complex systems.



Questions like "what is existing?," "what gives language meaning?," "do other minds exist?," "what is knowledge?," "what is it to understand something?" may all be dealt with through the language-game approach, according to Wittgenstein.



Philosophers and others do, according to the Austrian philosopher (WITTGENSTEIN), have a tendency of creating conceptual confusions.



Philosophers tend to ask somewhat strange questions, like "do I have any knowledge at all?," "are there other minds than mine?," and these questions, WITTGENSTEIN argues, are the results of misuse of language.





"Philosophical problems arise when "language goes on holiday," he says. But Wittgenstein's new approach cannot give us anything new, "it leaves everything as it is." Philosophy thus becomes a "therapy," a conceptual therapy where the most important method for healing is appeal to everyday language.


_____________________ REPLY SEPARATOR ______________

love : a strong positive emotion of regard and affection

the beauty of words is they can mean different things to different people, following what your saying you would want a definition for 'fun' for 'happy', for 'sad', for 'big' etc etc etc

Not sure your point otherwise, you may have to dumb it down a little for me

[davo]

So what are you trying to say? that people are using the word 'love' without rigidly defining it?

Can you please define love for us? A definition that covers everyone and everything?

Much appreciated that you can definitively define love for us, thanks.

[davo]

ps: I would be really interested in your comments regarding the actual topic.

[GenericBox]

Love is an electrical response in your brain when your sensory organs transmit signals to your brain that triggers the release of certain chemicals and electrical pulses that induces effects we commonly define as 'being in love' (slight nausea, attraction, arousal, etc etc).

To be blunt.

But Mama said...

[davo]

thanks, my total confusion over what 'love' could possibly be was muddying the debate.

[davo]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3324811841_e5d38472a3.jpg (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23804107-2,00.html)

[Fiery]

since atheism is the theory & practice of a philosophy

Bullshit! Atheism, the theory and practice of a philosophy? *snerk* In what reality?

There has been a recent thread going on and on (ok maybe 4 or 5 back and forths) about what exactly those two little greek bits stuck together mean.

a- without
theos- belief in god/gods.

Not a lot of philosophy there.

(it sure ain't a science with lab experiments), attempt to "minimise taking language on a holiday"?


Yeah, talk about taking language on a holiday.

Wait- check definition of philosophy.

philo- lover
sophoi- wisdom/ wisemen

general definitions (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy)-

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.


Conclusion- atheism isn't a philosophy. It doesn't tell one how the world works, how to live life, the means to learn new ideas, or that 2 + 2 = 4. It doesn't tell us that forcing a pregnant 9 year old to carry twins to term is a moral choice. It doesn't tell us that kicking dogs is wrong. It doesn't replace the idea of god with anything.

Atheism is a LACK of something. A lack of belief in god. One can be an atheist and not believe IN god. Or one can be an atheist and not believe there IS a god. And various other permutations of NON belief. How is that a philosophy? It doesn't fit ANY of those 8 definitions. And if you have to concoct a new definition of what a philosophy is...


Atheist- WITHOUT BELIEF.

Full stop.

[eclectic]

I dunno about Chassis eclectic, but your a fine figure of a woman. ;)


Godless Ray

Shucks. :o

I'll take the compliment, even if you have never seen my figure. :p

[eclectic]

Love is an electrical response in your brain when your sensory organs transmit signals to your brain that triggers the release of certain chemicals and electrical pulses that induces effects we commonly define as 'being in love' (slight nausea, attraction, arousal, etc etc).

very true. such effects are strangely enjoyable however. :)

[ozogg]

In what reality?

I quite understand that in the REALITY of the SUPRA-EGOISTIC,
no opinions or data matter, except those that exist inside one's own ill-tutored mind.

Other opinions, educated or not, are therefore to be treated with tantrums and quite immoderate language.

I know some brains are dominantly connected to their amygdala.
And I can understand how such brains can confuse <word etymology> with <idea exposition>.

But here are some OTHER brains and OTHER realities that don't so energetically dismiss the notion that ATHEISM and PHILOSOPHY can get along quite happily.

I am also quite unconcerned that the truly egocentric will refuse to read anything other than what they write themselves - just as Australia's own Elle MACPHERSON declared to the media not so long ago.

Well, she is a blond after all !


___________________ web-links ___________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyphilosophers/p/AtheistPhilosop.htm
http://blogs.salon.com/0002889/stories/2003/10/05/atheismInPhilosophyMarxKierkegaardDostoevskyNietzs che.html

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Atheism-and-Philosophy/Kai-Nielsen/e/9781591022985

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewis00.htm
http://not-only-bright.exactpages.com/
http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/goldman/sp001502.html
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/philo/atheism.htm (http://www.update.uu.se/%7Efbendz/philo/atheism.htm)
[/URL]
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24 (http://www.update.uu.se/%7Efbendz/philo/atheism.htm)

[URL]http://ergosum.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/deriving-atheism-from-philosophy/
http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/philosophy_bites/atheism/
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081019203036AAZ0efK

____________________ reply separator _____________________


Bullshit! Atheism, the theory and practice of a philosophy?

*snerk* In what reality?

Full stop.

[davo]

Whereas I agree with the points you are making Ozogg, there is a difference between little a and big A atheism in my opinion as well as others and by actively using that to attack others that are in solidarity by fact of circumstance you are splitting any movement. I think you have to be very wary of a stance such as yourself is making, indeed I see it as being not only segregational, but destructive of building any atheist 'movement'. You are taking one concept and making that the only concept.

I also find the way you speak to people to be highly derogatory, and hope that you can put forward your points in future by ACTION, and not by deliberately treating everyone else as 'lower class atheists', indeed if atheists at all.

One of the defining issues confronting any group that is putting forward an ideology is segregation of those that would 'follow it' due to what is referred to as Big A idealism. I think you are particularly and actively doing so, and it is this issue I am trying to confront, as I see it as destructive in any movement for change.

This has happened with Anarchism, for want of an analogy, and is spoken about as the "Big A little a" issue. It is one of the reasons the working class do not consider anarchism as a valid ideology anymore, whereas it used to have very strong working class involvement, it now tends to be middle class intellectuals rather than grass roots activism from the working class which would actively feed real change. The actions of the middle class intellectuals splits the movement, casting out those not of the 'intellectual level' you define, as they have no concept of others ideas as being valid, and actively say so, indeed work it into every argument and thus are just as bad, if not worse, in destroying any movement as those in direct opposition.

To find a reference to satisfy you I am not quite sure how to go about other than what I just said, needless to say I have been to plenty of anarcho conferences where this has been discussed, as well as within organised revolutionary union circles, so really, would only be pointing you to someone else giving their opinion, with as much backgrounding as myself on it.

What happens is 'intellectuals' define a philosophy behind the movement, and thus create a barrier for entry. The movement becomes one of middle class intellectuals, and splits, if not kills off, entry for others. Usually those intellectuals try defining a philosophy, back it up with agressive attacks on people not fulfilling that as they see it, and actually destroy the ground level of the movement.

So what you are actively doing is defining a platformist stance of Big A atheism, based on your definitions, and being exclusive.

You can see this in your posts, which are focussed on telling people how they should think rather than confronting the topics of threads, and not putting forward your thoughts in action so that people may follow your methods if they so choose, but put forward a play with words thus proving your intellectual superiority to yourself, and splitting any movement. You create a high level goal and point out anyone that has not achieved it.

Whether you like it or not, atheist means non-believer. <-- yes full stop. Get over it.

You can define philosphical and historical aspects (and I know well the discussions presented by for example Emma Goldman in your links) that is FINE. But do so in your actions, not by splitting any ground level support for the concepts, by defining them to your rigourous idealistic notion of what atheism means to you, and saying everything else is tantrums and supra-egoistic. That is the height of arrogance and a classist mentality that I not only find disturbing, but have to confront each and every time it is presented.

[ozogg]

Why thank you Davo.

That was robust but polite comment on my submission in here, and it is appreciated.

Now I DO understand your enthusiasm for "solidarity in the ranks", and yes it IS important. So be careful not to sin likewise.

But I challenge the proposition that I have been "rank dividing", for you again mis-assert that I appear to be "classist". I can't do anything about misperceptions.

But I will ask that it be noted that there are two 'kinds' of "snobbery", the USUAL KIND based on an inflated sense of self-worth, often rotating about breeding, money, tribe, education, etc.

The OTHER KIND has been called "invert snobbery", and it deems everything other than the previous kind, as far superior in X, Y, Z.

"Intellectuals" are their main bete noir. And fundy Xians often fall into this latter kind of snobbery, for they believe that words, and thoughts, and philosophies are far inferior to their prescriptive holy book, and an impediment to "pure & holy faith". They just "feel" that their "feelings" just HAVE to be true.

Neither kind of these snobberies is at all worthy.

And I disagree with another proposition. Philosophy is no barrier to anyone. It is a wonderful explanatory & integrative tool, which we all use over the kitchen table, without calling it such. No classism there.

Now I'm not sure if you are either kind, but for myself, I don't take kindly to being rather roughly forced into either of these pigeonholes.

In your terms, I go for both big and little A atheism!
Don't want to appear "sizeist", ya know :eek:
Nor am I exclusive - we're all in this together - or should be.

Yes, my previous post indeed was a little narky, for I had been well & truly "dissed", so I waited for week to see if there might be an apology following, or some kind of conciliatory comment - but none.

So I "arced up". Not at you, or "everyone", but kinda obliquely at one person who just unloaded the Reptilian part of their brain all over me.

In time, I'll no doubt have to gird my loins. But don't feel obliged to take up the battle on behalf of this person.

This all should have gone to PM, but you have put it into the public arena, and I therefore have to do likewise.

See U in collegiate cyberspace.

Or send a PM contact.

[Fiery]

I quite understand that in the REALITY of the SUPRA-EGOISTIC, no opinions or data matter, except those that exist inside one's own ill-tutored mind. Insult noted. ..|..

Other opinions, educated or not, are therefore to be treated with tantrums and quite immoderate language.

Ohhhh poor Ozogg. Did the mean ole fiery use naugty language when
addressing you. Poor tender ozogg. Duffy. The soap. *lick lick*

Happy now? Didn't think so. Having trouble caring.

I know some brains are dominantly connected to their amygdala. And I can understand how such brains can confuse <word etymology> with <idea exposition>. Insult noted. ..|..

Care to explain? Or was that the purpose of the link list at the bottom? What's the matter? Don't want to put it in your own words?

But here are some OTHER brains and OTHER realities that don't so energetically dismiss the notion that ATHEISM and PHILOSOPHY can get along quite happily.

I never said atheism and philosophy couldn't get along. I said atheism wasn't specifically A philosophy. I hardly provided the history of the word but rather it's current accepted meanings. Atheism isn't a philosophy. It provides little working knowledge of how the universe works, how man gains knowledge, how he should live his life, who to vote for, or what art work is uplifting.

I am also quite unconcerned that the truly egocentric will refuse to read anything other than what they write themselves - just as Australia's own Elle MACPHERSON declared to the media not so long ago. Who in the world are you talking to?

Well, she is a blond after all ! sexism and insult noted. ..|..

What a piece of work is ozogg. And by work I mean something immoderate and... how did he put it? ... oh yes, and tantrumesque. ..|..

[Seamus]

Good posts (translation:I agree with their content):cool:


Of far greater importance (due to her significance in my fantasies)


Elle McPherson is a blonde? I HAD heard she's a bit of a bitch,but not that she's a natural blonde.:D

--------------------------0000000000000000000000000------------

A blonde and brunette are in a lift.

A guy gets in.The brunette notices he has severe dandruff.

After the guy gets out,the brunette says to the blonde ;"That guy needs some head and shouder

The blonde replies:"Yeah I guess-----Umm,how do you give shoulder?"

[Fiery]

Yes, my previous post indeed was a little narky, for I had been well & truly "dissed", so I waited for week to see if there might be an apology following, or some kind of conciliatory comment - but none.

So I "arced up". Not at you, or "everyone", but kinda obliquely at one person who just unloaded the Reptilian part of their brain all over me.


*snerk* You felt dissed? What is this... dissed? Is that a scientific term? Is that a philosopher's term? Is that the language of a tantrum? Seems rather immoderate to me. Even vaguely threatening with undertones of a really tough black person in street gang regalia all up in my bidness.

Why didn't you mention that your feelings were hurt? That you felt publicly humiliated? Was I supposed to read your mind? You went away and pouted for a week, checking back periodically to see if I had recanted my naughty word and disbelief in atheism not being a philosophy and calling you out for saying it was?

And what is it with you and the "reptilian" part of the brain? Did you have yours removed or something? Or a sort of reverse lobotomy that disconnected you from it? You act as if emotion in a discussion was somehow abhorrent to you.

And "obliquely" doesn't make the insult any less insulting. You just cloak it in "plausible deniability".

[Fiery]

how do you give shoulder?"

ask ozogg, his is cold.

[davo]

so .. back to the actual topic, brothels ...

[davo]

seen this ?

http://au.christiantoday.com/article/acl-launches-election-website-labor-ignores-christians-despite-close-race/5664.htm

[davo]

ahh makes sense, dominionists hard at work :|

[Duffy]

We almost need an Oz Fundiewatch site. Don't suppose you know of one?


I think this is a great idea Mr Black. What about a thread that exposes the fundie backed industries and business like Gloria Jeans and their involvement with the Mercy Ministries, etc, so we can make informed decisions before giving them our money. I don't mean it to be a witchhunt on christian businesses, just information on cult supporters etc.

[Duffy]

What a piece of work is ozogg. And by work I mean something immoderate and... how did he put it? ... oh yes, and tantrumesque. ..|..

Oh dear Fiery, so much has happened since I've been away! My sympathy on dealing with what looks likes a display of NPD (http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm).

And a telling off about the word 'Love'....that takes the cake in over intellectualising. If I want to think 'love' is slice of baked cheesecake, I don't need my friggin' brain analysed...'oh for the love of the simple things'. What a tormented time the big 'O' must have when everything has to be disected to pieces until all its beauty no longer exists.

And trolling for an apology?!?! Well it does prove he has a sense of humour:D

[eclectic]

This is another tangent (re: Zen), but hey it has never stopped any of us before....

I was having dinner with my BFFs and one has Chinese heritage and studying Buddhism and teaches RE at the local primary school. Sometimes we discuss our differing beliefs but her intentions are so peaceful and caring I don't ever get my hackles agitated. But I can't help thinking how delusional her thoughts are to life, death and life (take 2). It is so very nice..but so very...I guess... pretentious. Romanticising natural processes to give them meaning is very childlike to me. Kinda reminds me of when mum used throw a lace curtain over the old hot water system to pretty it up.:)

We had similar feelings towards a friend of ours the other day. This woman is quite wonderful and I have her up on a pedestal for being such an active activist... but the other day she was talking about a Tibetan protest group who she is vaguely involved with, and she referred to the leader of the group as a "lama" - ie a reincarnation of a buddha (or something like that) - completely soberly and simply, as though everyone in the room was naturally a believer in such things. She would assume that we aren't Christians, but also assumed Buddhism was completely acceptable to us.

[Buddhish]

They should be legal. Of course, that could undermine the stigma associated with xtian morality, and that could trigger a whole lot of people losing their guilt and becoming comfortable with who they are, and that could in turn destroy the mental health industry....

and that could cost jobs....

so on economic grounds I must recant!:D

[Fiery]

The Zen-Sufi stuff can be found here (http://atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=494). Cheers for the flare Mr. B.! :D

[Podblack]

I think this is a great idea Mr Black. What about a thread that exposes the fundie backed industries and business like Gloria Jeans and their involvement with the Mercy Ministries, etc, so we can make informed decisions before giving them our money. I don't mean it to be a witchhunt on christian businesses, just information on cult supporters etc.
I'm planning on doing an interview with a person who runs a blog on this very topic - will alert you to the ep of the Skeptic Zone podcast when that happens. :)

[davo]

I'm planning on doing an interview with a person who runs a blog on this very topic - will alert you to the ep of the Skeptic Zone podcast when that happens. :)

oooh looking forward to it! I'm really interesting in this topic, I would love some resources to look into this stuff further? I have done a lot of research and some reports as well, but wish to keep up with the general knowledgebase of atheistic connections on this.

I have quite a few workers in a union interested in this aspect of business, and would like to start bringing more of it to a front in various areas, and to actually action on the points.

cheers

[Seamus]

---but,but,I LIKE Weetbix!

[Godless Ray]

Yes indeed it should be made Legal.

Godless ray

[DanielV]

...most of the customers at this particular brothel appear to be tradies...

Poor ladies - lots of rough hands...

:(

[Surprised Peter]

Giday
Im showing my age now but over the years I have met people from all walks of life. This includes being friends with the odd sex worker. Note the word friends. They need them too. Even if they can survive without pimps they still have to pay for protection. This is usually to the local constabulary. I have witnessed this in a car park at the back of a hotel in Adelaide. Call me a Conspiracy theorist but if it was made legal who would pay their xmas bonus.

Surprised Peter