Fair enough, but next time, ask them if they are in the country legally. If they are, ask to see their passport.
And what kind of place is their “home”?
I have no problem believing that. It’s not like picking up a hooker is some kind of remarkable achievement. It’s certainly more plausible than Shagnasty’s tales of owning the mineral rights from Louisiana to Texas, or aceplace57’s ever-changing stories about his wife and kids.
Whether he’s lying about his job, I have no idea. But his posts about science and technology remind me of those Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes where there’s some doubletalk solution to whatever mess the Enterprise has gotten into. “Captain, if we reverse the polarity of the tractor beam, and synchronize the frequency with the deflector shields, we should be able to escape the temporal rift! It’s never been tried before, but the math checks out!”
Presumably you don’t really expect me to do that. Kind of weird that a liberal person would suggest profiling and harassing undocumented immigrants.
Their “home” is a group flat shared by the sex workers as they come through town, as there is a kind of nationwide rotation to keep things fresh in each locality.
I’m not asking you to profile and harass undocumented workers. I’m asking you to determine if the women you are “giving a ride home” are trafficked and need protection.
Yeah, this is trafficking.
Edited to add: You can’t possibly be this fucking stupid.
We should be doing more than just trying to reduce CO2. And while, yes, we don’t know that other solutions won’t work or won’t have side effects that don’t make them worthwhile, there really hasn’t been much spending on the subject of alternatives to CO2 reduction and there’s really no reason for us to be in that position. As it is, dumping iron powder into the Indian Ocean is the only test that has been undertaken, that wasn’t by some lone entrepreneur, that I know of.
Ultimately, we don’t know if there’s a runaway point where everything goes to hell. Trusting that we won’t reach it in the course of the 40-60 years that it takes to turn around carbon emissions, and having zero fallbacks that we’ve at least studied enough to know whether they’ll be useful at all, is a bad idea when you’re looking at something which could potentially lead to a mass extinction event. If things start to pick up, we need to be ready to build giant CO2 scrubbers or whatever, regardless of how expensive it is, and have them be effective at shutting down the feedback loop.
And, to be fair, probably a lot of the reason for the focus on CO2 is because of the politicization of the subject. Just trying to prove that it’s really a thing and keep track of where it’s at is such a hard task, politically, that it’s hard to split things up and allow for disunity on advice.
From the standpoint of where things are politically, focusing on CO2 may make the most sense. But in terms of not destroying the planet, we would do better to switch 95% of everyone who’s tracking the course of climate change and predicting where it will go, to instead be researching alternative means of slowing it down or combating it, that don’t require replacing the planet’s entire energy supply chain with an alternative one that may or may not even practicably exist yet.
What, the lunatics who wrote SuperFreakonomics have set up a website to promote their own drivel and refute criticism? Quelle surprise!
But no, it wasn’t. The only thing I saw in a quick skim of that bullshit site was their attempt to refute Joe Romm’s criticism of the fuckups in their dealings with Caldeira, who is a legitimate climate scientist somehow caught up in promoting the atmospheric albedo modification nonsense due to his involvement with Intellectual Ventures. There are no other climate scientists involved with this crew, to my knowledge. Meanwhile the cite I linked lists a whole host of informed sources criticizing Levitt and Dubner over virtually the entirety of the global warming chapter. I can’t comment more specifically on what they got wrong on climate change in general because I haven’t seen the stupid book, but I trust the sources and am aware of this pair’s controversial reputation. And I can certainly comment on the sheer idiocy of their climate engineering proposal, some of which I cited earlier from the IPCC WG3 report.
Sage Rat, agreed.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
What’s with the scare quotes? I gave them rides home, no quotes needed.
Not scare quotes. Just highlighting what you said. You are right though, I shouldn’t have used quotes. I honestly didn’t mean to make them “scare quotes” just supposed to be highlighting the important part of your post.
Also, protecting women from being trafficked is not the same as “harassing undocumented immigrants”
(quotes on purpose)
Also, just so you know, but maybe don’t care, this is the first time in the history of being on this board that I’m actually angry about what a poster posted. Unless you want to plead being the most ignorant person on the planet, I cannot see how you don’t realize that is human trafficking.
Asking people you suspect are in the country illegally whether that is the case, and demanding to see their papers, is the textbook definition of harassing undocumented immigrants, at least for anyone to the left of Sean Hannity.
ETA: I chat with these women. They are not scared, cowed, defeated.
Asking for the passports of women you suspect are trafficked is not harassing undocumented immigrants. It’s to see if they have access to their passports so they can leave if they want. You don’t even have to look at the fucking things or check to see if they have a valid visa or whatever. Just check to see if they actually have them.
Again, you cannot be this fucking stupid.
To be fair, a lot of them are probably raised to think that they don’t really have any value beyond as living sex dolls. And, cynical as it may be, that is possibly true. And some men have no real value except as physical labor to be ground into dirt or sent charging across a field with a gun.
Evolution isn’t a process invented by a benevolent deity. If conformity, complacence, and obedience are intrinsic traits that help the species to survive - if spread across a reasonable percentage of the population - then that’s what will happen.
In a sense, you could argue that it’s just natural and fair. It’s the course of our nature for humans to be used and for those humans to think it’s natural and right. But, if you’re not in that subset, you do have the choice of whether to be one of the ones using them or one of the ones trying to protect them from the ones who would.
And I mean, I do accept that there are also people who straight up love sex and would gladly be paid to do it professionally. I have no objection to that happening. But it’s not the majority of cases, and I wouldn’t trust that the outward impression of happiness is correct nor, even if it was correct, that it signals something good.
I don’t have a problem with sex workers. I do have a problem with sex workers that disregard the number one safety rule in their workplace, so to speak, by having sex with customers without a condom. Especially if they are carrying a sexually transmitted disease. It’s not just the level of self-hate involved, it’s a public health issue. And men that seek that out are really low and disgusting, because they don’t give a damn about the health of their partner or their own health. As long as it feels good now.
And in the era of DNA testing, it’s risky on a different level. Samuel A may end up living in a cardboard box because his 80K salary is being garnished to pay for the support of the kids he fathered with his hookers.
A business card is not a legal document, such as a legitimate diploma from an accredited university is. One can put anything they wish on a business card or name card.
I’d go with 116,000 as the most likely number.
So what happened?
[ol][li]You got expelled.[/li][li]You flunked out.[/li][li]You ran like the wind.[/ol][/li]
Query for the non-trolls in the thread (that’d be anyone other than SamuelA): There are a number of PhD holders posting on this site; any of them have one in climate science or a related field?
How the fuck is that racist, you insipid moron?
Lol. You walked into this one. You do know that different ‘races’ (scare quotes because I am well aware that racial subdivisions are somewhat arbitrary) have different penis sizes. It’s all genetics. So implying I am an inferior human being because I have a smaller penis is absolutely no different than saying I am an inferior human being because of my specific race.
That’s some racism right there.
This the dumbest thing I’ve read in quite a while. And I was talking with utravires just the other day…
I agree with manson. This sounds like trafficking. You don’t have to ask if they’re here legally. Do a little research so that you know what to look for yourself. It would be a good idea to have a few phone numbers for help lines ready to hand out.
wolfpup is right. The SuperFreaks cite dealt with mostly with the review process, and they did actually accept the blame for NOT handling it correctly. The cite in no way defended the climate science.
With most other posters, this is the point where I’d say, “whelp, this here is a troll.” You, however, appear to actually be this virulently stupid. May I interest you in a fine bridge in Brooklyn? Perhaps some Moon vacation lots before they’re all sold?