Author Topic: Germany's Socialisim, Or how I learned to love democracy. (Read 1641 times)

OIO · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:17:58 PM »

erm, if you need the money you can get any job.

Theres no reason why the gov. should pay you to not be employed.

Since prostitution is legal there then it counts as one of the thousands of avaliable job types.

She doesnt have to become a hooker or lose her gov. check..she just has to get a job.

And for a girl to enter the sex industry imo, has to either like it or be in extreme duress... and extreme duress comes after being rejected by what id say is every job out there.

the choice is always hers to make.

Lizking · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:19:22 PM »

No need to even get sexual about it. If a construction company offered an accountant a job digging ditches and then the government refused his benefits because he didn't take it, it is the same thing.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:21:10 PM »

NO! It is not the same thing.

Both ditch digging and accounting are moral things to do.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:28:00 PM »

"Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners"

unlike other nations, this finaly becomes the land of the free

this will boost this part of bussines for sure, everyone welcome!

Lizking · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:28:24 PM »

Ditch digging is moral and honorable, but being a CPa is pushing it...

Seriously, it is the same thing, because they are forcing you to take a job that you do not want and are not qualified for (be it on moral, physical or economic grounds).

Yeager · « **Reply #50 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:28:45 PM »

Dear God this is funny! cutting off a womans tit to big government because she wont spread her legs is proof that european socialism is failing.

Commie bastards!

NUKE · « **Reply #51 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:30:10 PM »

The point is that the government considers the sex job a viable, normal job and by that job's mear existance, the woman loses her benifits because she refused to take it ( pun intended)

That effectivly eliminates her unemployment benifits......which are designed to help you until you find a job.

Well, in this case, the benifits are yanked because she was offered this sex job and refused it. That's a fact. She lost her benifits becaused she refused a sex job. No other way around it, just a fact.

Lizking · « **Reply #52 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:33:43 PM »

Nuke, she refused a job that she is not "qualified" for. Had she been a prior sex worker and refused the job, there would be no issue.

Chortle · « **Reply #53 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:05:04 PM »

The original article in german is here http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text.

Apparently it's just a theoretical example of what could happen. The 25 year old waitress doesn't exist.

Lizking · « **Reply #54 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:13:04 PM »

That is kind of what I figured. You can imagine all kinds of terrible results from the US unemployment regulations too.

Pei · « **Reply #55 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:15:30 PM »

Not sure what european socialism has got to do with it.

The US does provide unemployment welfare and does the US not remove that welfare if the recipient is offered a legal job and turns it down?
Or are you just allowed to sponge of the state forever (which is far more socialist)?

As I recall from living in New England unmeployment benefit was surpisingly good, some significant percent of your last salary for a year or two. Much better than the 59 quid a week I got in the UK last time I was on the dole.

The only difference here is that Germany considers prostitution a legal occupation. Now you may argue that this is much more liberal than most of the US, but it is hardly more socialist.

It's interesting that here in New South Wales prositution is also legal and the unemployment system is similar. The same problem doesn't arise however as the sex industry is considered a special case (for some reason Germany considered it too much effort to do this).

patrone · « **Reply #56 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:17:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chortle
The original article in german is here http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text.

Apparently it's just a theoretical example of what could happen. The 25 year old waitress doesn't exist.

Great, just what I thought from the start, Nice troll......

Lizking · « **Reply #57 on:** February 01, 2005, 08:30:46 PM »

Actually, Patrone, it is like I have been saying all along. If you are offered a job which you ar not qualified for (over or under), then you do not lose your benefits. If you do not accept a job that equates to your past history, you lose you benefits. Morals do not enter the equation, and would not, even if you were a sex worker.

Thrawn · « **Reply #58 on:** February 01, 2005, 09:24:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by vorticon
iits the forcing them into a job at a potatohouse,

BS, they aren't forcing her. No one is making her do it. She can choose not to work there. She doesn't have to. No making, forcing, or coersion going on.

Quote

shes not even out of work...or unwilling to work elsewhere...

"The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

Which the hell is it? Employed or unemployed. If she wants to work as a waitress, what the hell is stopping her?

Quote

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," " [/B]

BS rhetoric. She isn't being sent anywhere. She is chosing not to work at the brothel. Fine the government is cutting off her nanny government cheque that is paid for buy other workers taxes. Ironically she is being supported by those hard working potatos that she so decries.

Nuke,

I wouldn't know what it is like to be on welfare because I have never taken a welfare or employment insurance cheque in my life. I have worked some **** jobs in my time, and don't see any cause for anyone to ***** about wether or not the hard working taxes payers are giving the bums enough money or under what conditions.

PS, you're a commie.

NUKE · « **Reply #59 on:** February 01, 2005, 09:50:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thrawn
Nuke,

I wouldn't know what it is like to be on welfare because I have never taken a welfare or employment insurance cheque in my life. I have worked some **** jobs in my time, and don't see any cause for anyone to ***** about wether or not the hard working taxes payers are giving the bums enough money or under what conditions.

PS, you're a commie.

And Thrawn thinks he's made a point by getting on his soapbox to tell everyone about his chity life and crappy jobs.

Thrawn, does anything you said here have to do with the fact the the girl lost her benifits because she refused to be a prositute?

( I guess It's a hypothetical situation, as noted)

Although it is interesting to hear about how you only have had chity jobs and could care less about the "bums" ( even though by living in Canada, that's exactly what your taxes are used for), I still feel you should try to remain at least in the same ballpark in regards to what's being discussed.