kazelee Wrote:I have tendency to oversimplify in posts, hoping that the main point of it will be understood. That doesn't seem to be happening so.... let me break it down for you.

vileru Wrote:I would say "yes, it would make your post more valid and less offensive" but only if your post had referred to your mom's experience. Instead, your counterexample was based on assumptions that impoverished victims are mostly ignorant and completely helpless.

The answer to that question is no, actually. It was "partially" sarcastic. As I said before the counterexample was just that - a counter (to an exaggerated example). Not the absolute truth.

Yes, I realized that it was a rhetorical question. Obviously a single person's experience doesn't grant one absolute authority, but it's much more authoritative than a claim based on unjustified assumptions. I'm in no way trying to claim that I have absolute authority on the matter, but I'm merely making the modest claim that in this case empirically rooted claims are more credible than notions about the circumstances of victims that are divorced from any factual evidence.

kazelee Wrote:"Like Bob who ruined his life and got put on TV, Suzie the dildo, who is rebellious and too angry to listen to her parents, who runs off and ends up as a sex slave is all too convenient an example."

Much like the "counter-argument" I proposed. It's only purpose was to show that an extreme example exist from both (or any) perspective.

Fair enough. I misread this and took it from a different angle.

kazelee Wrote:That's a given. I thought my addressing "Suzie the dildo's" circumstances implied this enough.

Yes, it does, but it doesn't justify an outright dismissal of Thurd's views.

kazelee Wrote:While it's true that many individual below the age of 16 a fairly competent, this is not true for all. To believe so would put children in circumstances they are incapable of understanding. See!? I just reversed what you said there. I could use the little experience I have teaching as evidence, but that would only be evidence from my single perspective.

Applying that same logic, couldn't we say the same for adults?

kazelee Wrote:Yes, no one said he made "insightful" points. They only briefly referenced them, and then posed counter arguments. If his points were insightful, the topic would have taken a totally different direction. Especially when you consider the number of posts THROWN at him.

Good != insightful

Yes, I could have made a better word choice, but let's not reduce the matter to mincing words. The point I was trying to make is that no one seemed to have given his thoughts serious consideration.

kazelee Wrote:And surely others have flags that go off when an individual starts assigning blame on circumstances they know little about as well? You are assuming the position of authority while attempting to discredit the authority others when one's mother's single experience does not make one an authority.

In my last post, I drew the distinction between assigning blame and identifying poor decision making. I said that the exploitative agencies should take the blame since they're the ones committing crimes, not the victims. However, I emphasized that this is a separate matter from saying that someone made a poor choice. If I came across as assigning blame to victims, that was definitely not my intent.

On the other count and at the risk of sounding redundant, the point of introducing my mom's experience wasn't to put myself in a position of authority. It was to show that someone's actual experience is far removed from all the speculation that was going on.

kazelee Wrote:Thurd is apportioning blame (or is he), and you agree with the apportioning of blame, "at least partially."

This isn't taking into account the distinction I made between apportioning blame and identifying poor decision making. Saying someone made a bad decision != saying they are to be blamed.

kazelee Wrote:

vileru Wrote:However, that doesn't change the fact that in most cases the person probably made a bad decision.

Aren't we generalizing here, yet again?

Yes, but sometimes generalizations are justified. "Most people prefer to be happy rather than unhappy." Now, I don't know everyone's unique situation, but I wouldn't be surprised if the results of a random samples from every nation showed this generalization to be true. If I told you, "Hey, I have this job for you in a foreign country and it'll pay well" and you take up my offer, then I would say that's a bad decision regardless of most individual circumstances.

kazelee Wrote:

Quote:To make your two examples more analogous...

Re-writing the example to fit your more authoritative version of the truth when in reality both version hold equal weight.

What does avoiding false analogies have to do with trying to pidgeon-hole someone's example to fit my version of truth? I don't see what's manipulative about making an example align with the prescriptions of logical thinking.

kazelee Wrote:My authority comes from a higher authority, btw.

Yes, and his name is Fabrice

@IceCream
I agree with everything you said, except the part where you say:

IceCream Wrote:Of course, trusting people blindly is probably a bad decision anywhere, but as you know, in many cases we're not talking about trusting random strangers, but friends and family members.

When it comes to friends and family, I wouldn't make exceptions. Betrayal from friends or family happens, and it's kind of naive to deny such a possibility. If a friend or family member told me about about an offer that sounds too good to be true, I wouldn't think twice about looking into the legitimacy of their offer.

Anyway, the point you made about decisions being proportional to outcomes is incredibly useful. For example, it's critical when it comes to whether we as a society are responsible to seek justice for certain crimes. If the computer guy just left his computer there, I think most people would say that it's tough luck and we're not going to hunt down the thief for him. On the other hand, if he had entrusted the regular at the cafe, then I think most people would hold the careless regular as the responsible party. It goes without saying that we should seek justice for victims of sex trafficking.

@Everyone
The reason I got involved in this discussion is because I thought that everyone jumped on Thurd without giving his thoughts a fair shake. I felt many of the responses were attacking phantoms in his posts, claims he hadn't even made. Honestly, I disagree with a lot of what he posted, but I saw a spark of reason in his replies that had gone unnoticed. I found his point about victims making bad decisions as useful to the discussion. Before his post, everyone focused on these idealized notions about the circumstances of victims. His post brought up the problem: is the victim at fault when they make a bad decision that holds likely risks? This is a legitimate question and deserves a fair and thought-out answer. That's why I stood up for him.

What's at stake here isn't who's right or wrong on the matters being discussed, but who's considerate and thoughtful in their postings. I think discussions, especially on controversial topics, often sink into polemical tirades on these forums. This usually results in the popular position or the more vocal posters suppressing any opposing views. This is antithetical to discussion, and not to mention just plain disrespectful. I posted with the intent on creating a more open and friendly discussion, but unfortunately, I don't think that was the result. It's frustrating to see some tremendously intelligent users reply with dismissive attitudes and expressions of superiority because they could contribute so much more to the discussions if they opted for a more fair and empathetic demeanor. This is not to say that we are children who need to be coddled. Rather, it is to say that we cannot give a serious evaluation of someone's thoughts until we give those thoughts our serious consideration.

Anyway, I hope this exchange leaves a positive mark on these boards. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean I can't hope.

I was going to do this whole quote-reply thing but you guys wrote so much it would take me ages to reply. Thats why I'll do it in a more condensed form.

I didn't say (or want to imply in any way) that we shouldn't fight with people that are responsible for trafficking. My intention was exactly summed up by vileru, I'm just trying to point out that in some/most/few (choose your favorite/acceptable qualifier) such cases victims situation was created due to his/her bad decisions and this makes me reluctant to unconditionally and universally feel sorry for them.
Picture a person doing a dead end job, complaining how bad it is and how unhappy it makes him. In such case there are at least a few people who would ask a fundamental question: how did you end up doing it? This is exactly what I wanted to do, I wanted to ask such question to a much more controversial subject. Whether or not you feel sorry for such guy is entirely up to you, but at least in my case it softens my reaction to his overall poor situation.

I refuse to read all of that, but will instead inquire as to where I may find a Japanese woman in a nurse outfit.

Edit: Not a hospital.

vileru Wrote:

kazelee Wrote:My authority comes from a higher authority, btw.

Yes, and his name is Fabrice

Actually, I was referencing the man in the sky, but... that's true also. o.0

Quote:Yes, it does, but it doesn't justify an outright dismissal of Thurd's views.

Was not out right dismiss. Many times say -__-;

Quote:I wouldn't be surprised if the results of a random samples from every nation showed this generalization to be true. If I told you, "Hey, I have this job for you in a foreign country and it'll pay well" and you take up my offer, then I would say that's a bad decision regardless of most individual circumstances.

Is this not your own form of prejudice?

Quote:I don't see what's manipulative about making an example align with the prescriptions of logical thinking.

Perhaps it is that your version of "the truth" happens to involve elements of "trust" which makes your example "manipulative." ( I wike kwotes)

Or maybe it's just me.

Quote:I thought that everyone jumped on Thurd without giving his thoughts a fair shake.

"The way I see it they just had it coming... If you act normally and aren't a complete idiot there is almost no chance of getting caught in such situation."

Perhaps he was joking, though, is it really a wonder why he received such strong responses?

Quote:What's at stake here isn't who's right or wrong on the matters being discussed, but who's considerate and thoughtful in their postings.

Interesting...

Quote:I think discussions, especially on controversial topics, often sink into polemical tirades on these forums.

I'll resist the urge to say something negative or sarcastic here and reply with...

*must set positive example*
*must set positive example*
*must set positive example*

I've never seen any forum discussion where people were as ideologically polite in making their stances. Have you?

Quote:This usually results in the popular position or the more vocal posters suppressing any opposing views.

.... I've seen topic go on for pages with the same two vocal posters only succeeding in suppressing any outside interest, but I don't believe I've seen a person's view suppressed completely. I could be wrong though.

Quote:It's frustrating to see some tremendously intelligent users reply with dismissive attitudes and expressions of superiority because they could contribute so much more to the discussions if they opted for a more fair and empathetic demeanor.

Empathy is the topic at hand here, is it not? Where should it be placed, if at all? I strongly urge you to re-read the posts here.

Quote:This is not to say that we are children who need to be coddled.

Would there be need for clarification if there were no implication?

Quote:Rather, it is to say that we cannot give a serious evaluation of someone's thoughts until we give those thoughts our serious consideration.

If the initial statement is an extreme one or a joke, then how does one proceed?

Quote:Anyway, I hope this exchange leaves a positive mark on these boards. I have my doubts, but that doesn't mean I can't hope.

At what point did it turn negative?

Perhaps I've become callous to internet discussion. Maybe I'm just using the extreme negative as a baseline, but I don't see what you're talking about here. These are some of the most tame response I've seen on this board, as of late.

People fall for all sorts of tricks and make bad decisions. I think people are still victims even if in a way it is their own fault. I mean, the vast majority of people here would have no problem buying vitamin pills or foods with added antioxidants, when it's clearly not true it would provide any health benefits and some seem to increase your risk of getting cancer when taken as a supplement (Vitamin E, for example). A lot of people here would like to visit Las Vegas. A lot of people here have bought expensive moisturizing creams. A lot of people buy books written by nutritionists, or about new age stuff written by people like Deepak Chopra. All of these are basically cons, and the people who are doing the confidence tricks are good at what they do--they know how to trick humans. I imagine that people who traffic humans for sex are also quite good at what they do.

It's unfortunate the way we take something that is by far the most wonderful experience a human being can have, and turn it into a trip into hell for so many. The unwilling female participants are obviously harmed by the experience, but so is everyone else in the transaction.

It's difficult to imagine those intimately involved in the exploitation as capable of experiencing suffering, but the internal demons created by harming someone's daughter must be unimaginable. Though they appear not to be human because of their actions, they are, and subject to the pain we all experience when harming another.

The buyers of sex are victims of mental suffering as well. What does one buy when purchasing sex? The physical pleasure that accompanies sex is such an insignificant fraction of the total positive experience that comes from the act. It would be like going to Krispy Kream, buying a dozen glazed donuts, putting them into a blender and then hooking up a feeding tube to your stomach. The urge to eat will be satisfied, but...

We can not judge anyone involved in this trade because most of us know it goes on and yet do nothing to ease the extreme poverty that allows much of this exploitation to take place. If you have ever taken an expensive vacation abroad or purchased an unnecessary luxury item, and not gone into one of these places to help, you are equally to blame as anyone else involved it the process.

Tzadeck Wrote:People fall for all sorts of tricks and make bad decisions. I think people are still victims even if in a way it is their own fault. I mean, the vast majority of people here would have no problem buying vitamin pills or foods with added antioxidants, when it's clearly not true it would provide any health benefits and some seem to increase your risk of getting cancer when taken as a supplement (Vitamin E, for example). A lot of people here would like to visit Las Vegas. A lot of people here have bought expensive moisturizing creams. A lot of people buy books written by nutritionists, or about new age stuff written by people like Deepak Chopra. All of these are basically cons, and the people who are doing the confidence tricks are good at what they do--they know how to trick humans. I imagine that people who traffic humans for sex as also quite good at what they do.

I'm pretty sure a sweeping dismissal of vitamins and nutritionists is a mistake as there's plenty of evidence of the benefits of specialised nutrient supplements with regards to correcting deficiencies, but I do agree in principle if you're speaking about the health industry as a pseudoscientific consumer nightmare.

I don't like Deepak Chopra, but I can't decide whether I think he's entirely bad. I guess some folks could get something positive from him if they take him with a grain--err, a tonne--of salt.

nest0r Wrote:I'm pretty sure a sweeping dismissal of vitamins and nutritionists is a mistake as there's plenty of evidence of the benefits of specialised nutrient supplements with regards to correcting deficiencies, but I do agree in principle if you're speaking about the health industry as a pseudoscientific consumer nightmare.

I don't like Deepak Chopra, but I can't decide whether I think he's entirely bad. I guess some folks could get something positive from him if they take him with a grain--err, a tonne--of salt.

I didn't mean it as a dismissal of vitamins. For example, vitamin C has multiple benefits and taking vitamin C as a supplement is fine. I have no problem with vitamin supplements that have been proven to be healthy and beneficial. But, for example, placebo-controlled studies of Vitamin A and betacarotine supplements have shown an increase in cancer or heart disease risk (the CARET study and a huge study in Finland were the first two, I believe in the late 1980's, and later trials have had the same results), and other trials have shown similar results for many other antioxidant and vitamin supplements, such as vitamin E (it has no health benefits in small amounts and is dangerous in larger doses), but they are nevertheless sold as supplements. There was research in the early 80s that showed that there might be benefits, but once proper studies were done it was shown that there were no benefits or that they were harmful.

So, yeah, basically I'm talking about it being a pseudoscientific consumer nightmare, but I'd point out that the 'nutrition' industry is not the same as the medical industry, although there is some overlap.

I am, however, dismissing nutritionists completely. Nutritionists are not scientists--it's not a protected term and anybody can call themselves a nutritionist. The protected term is 'dietitian'. If you've ever read a book written by a nutritionist, ignore everything you learned. As comedian Dara O'briain says "Dietitian is like 'dentist;' nutritionist is like 'toothiologist.'" I grant there are at least a handful of people who call themselves nutritionists that are doing something resembling real work, but they're not the influential ones. Some nutritionists, the most famous and notable being Matthias Rath, are responsible for tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of deaths (in his case, through the influence of his friend he convinced Thabo Mbeki, the South African president at the time, that HIV does not cause AIDS and that AZT is dangeous and was causing most of the deaths). The interesting thing about nutritionists, however, is that a lot of them think that they are using real science. Others are just con-men.

As for Deepak Chopra, I'm actually not sure if he's lying or if he's a dope. Recently when I watched his debate with Sam Harrias and Michael Shermer (there was some lady on his side as well) I became more convinced that he's actively a con-man.

Ah, I didn't realize 'nutritionist' wasn't an 'official'/'protected' term. I'll be certain to use 'dietitian' in future.

http://www.dietitian.com/rds.html

I could've sworn I posted this link here related to that Rath fellow in some context or another:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100504/f...0.210.html