So The Independent recently ran a piece by Catherine Murphy of Amnesty International, explaining why the organization is calling for the decriminalization of sex work.
In the comments, someone calling themselves THEMISHMISHEH offers a unique take on the issue.
And by “unique” I mean “seemingly from another planet.”
Shades of Tom Martin, huh?
@Alan
So you’re telling me that even the people with the expertise to know these things have no idea what’s going on, and nobody thought to double check before leaving the (at least short-medium term) future of the 9th largest economy in the world up to a popular vote!?
Guess that one dude was right about the ‘experts’…
I see your VAT and raise you the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V49TMc7jPs
The law is weird
@ axe
Hey, we’re the fifth largest economy again! :-). But yeah no one really thought this through. The official explanation is that any preparation for Brexit would undermine the remain campaign by making it look likely and/or survivable.
Loved that video (is it US law that all pop culture commentators must sound like Wil Wheaton?). We had a big case here between George Lucas and the bloke who knocked up the Star Wars costumes about who owned the copyright. It hinged on whether the helmets were clothing or sculptures.
This is my EEA thing btw. I do find it unbelievable that no-one else raised this before; but then again my finest ever Court Martial Appeal Court victory came about because it transpired that I was literally the only person who’d read all the schedules in the Armed Forces Act (well, and presumably the guy who drafted it). You’ll probably spot where I’m wrong immediately though.
@Alan
Pop culture commentators, especially on YouTube, tend to be from California. Insofar as a west coast accent exists, that’s it. Couldn’t describe it to you, but white people on the Pacific all sound kinda the same (Edit: unless their, like, Bill and Ted). Or they do to my east coast ears…
I got nothin. Makes sense to me. It’s more than a little uncanny, but the logic checks out. I do wonder, tho, the EC was absorbed into the EU. Could that happen to the EEA?
@ axe
We’ve had some input from a very nice professor of EU law.
His view is that the agreement only seems badly drafted (in that it doesn’t cover this contingency) because in 1994 there was no mechanism for leaving the EU (that only came in with Lisbon) so the issue didn’t need to be addressed.
Unfortunately whilst the agreement does make some reference to EC (EU now) and EFTA members, it also uses “contracting parties” because it does allow for the possibility of other forms of membership in the future.
We’re now discussing whether the UK has ‘grandfather rights’ or whether it’s implicit that we’d have to reapply under the ‘new applicant’ provisions.
(It’s more interesting than the work I should be doing)
@ axe
Supplemental.
Apparently, according to Art 178(2) of the agreement (I’m sure you’re familiar with that) there should be a separate bit of paper setting out the details of our membership terms; but no-one seems to know where it is (or if it actually exists).
I’m envious that you can buy copies of your Constituion in the White House gift shop.
@ axe
Further update. Some nice chap (it’s a very good natured page) from the Spanish Govt says nobody who signed up in 94 did the separate bit of paper so that’s why we can’t find it.
(The 1994 signatories decided that the requirement for membership terms to be agreed in writing was satisfied by signing the agreement itself)
@Axe
Pfft. We say ‘pop’ up here in Washington and they say ‘soda’ down in California. (Actually I got so used to hearing all the transplants talk that I now say soda.)
/s, in case that wasn’t obvious. The valley has its own accent but yeah, West coast is pretty much the same. The fact that you can only distinguish non-valley West coast accents by the words they use for things rather than the way they pronounce them kind of illustrates that. You’ll hear more of a difference between small-farm-town Washington and Seattle than you do between San Francisco and Seattle, but that’s still so slight I couldn’t really put my finger on what’s different.
A clueless clusterf**k with no actual plan behind it that only racist idiots stumped for and everybody else just shakes their head and sighs at – it’s probably the most astute thing he’s ever said.
@SFCH
You just blew my mind. That means his statement was actually accurate… woah.
You just blew my mind.
Stopped clock and all that. =P
(… Also, I apparently forgot to remove the censoring when I copy-pasted that from the other site I posted it on. Oh well.)
Edit : sorry, @SFHC
Really hate getting someone’s name wrong, especially when I’m already acronymizing the hell out of it :/
@Paradoxical Intention
There are a couple of issues with this statement. Firstly, the issue of ‘need’. We previously discussed the meaning of the word ‘need’ in the context of sex and prostitution, in this thread. I think it’s definition plays an equally important role in countering your argument. A need is a requirement that is essential and not just desirable, one without which a person would struggle to survive. So by this definition, hygiene products are not needs…
Secondly and more importantly, by your logic, things like food and medication should not be taxed. Food, unlike hygiene products, is an absolute need without which we would struggle to stay alive. Additionally, medication and healthcare are a need for people with illnesses, yet they are taxed. This puts you in a bit of a predicament, in that it renders your cause one that is asking for special treatment for one gender, in regards to an issue that is not even a need.
Ponder this questions for a minute; why should food be taxed and not feminine hygiene products? (despite the first being a need and the latter not as per the definition of need). Your only case for this cause is that of gender. You are asking for special, favourable treatment for one sex over the other based on genetic and biological differences between the genders. If this isn’t the definition of sexism then I don’t know what is.
There’s another important issue here. Lets have a closer look at the picture that brought us to discuss this issue. This picture provides a very telling insight into the sexist ways of the feminist ideology. Please, look at the poster that girl is holding up..
http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_large/public/thumbnails/image/2015/11/10/12/charlie-ruth.jpg
She is saying that you should not be allowed an opinion in this matter if you have no uterus.
According to this feminist, a section of society should not be allowed the right to an opinion about particular issues because they are different genetically.
how is this different to this picture? Think about it.
http://cs618920.vk.me/v618920245/11764/yRi1XsZZgio.jpg
i’m sure if men had periods they would be charged tax on hygiene products used for this purpose in the same way they are taxed on all other male hygiene products. Equality is not giving rights to one sex and deprive them the other, that would be favouritism, which is what these feminists are asking for and If you think that it stops at tax then think again. No, in some countries feminists are campaigning for free ‘feminine hygiene products for all women’.
If we are not going to tax or charge people for ‘feminine hygiene products’ then we should not tax or charge for most all hygiene products because they all serve the same purpose, that of hygiene.
How about the troll stops using all hygiene related products and let’s see how long he lives. Maybe he should do some googling on the importance of sanitary conditions?
But I suppose I’m wasting my time. This troll will never learn anything. Ban now?
@Imaginary Petal:
No. There is already one Roosh in the world, and we don’t need a second one.
Okay, you know, what, whatever. I’m responding this time for real.
Yeah, because people without uteruses don’t have the same experiences as people with uteruses so they wouldn’t know what people with uteruses go through thus do not know the needs of people with uteruses.
I mean, there’s people out there–mostly cis men–who know nothing about how uteruses work. One of the most infamous being Todd Atkins thinking people who were raped can’t get pregnant because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down” and that’s not how it works. At all.
Now, you tell me, do you think someone who has no idea how uteruses work should have an opinion on uteruses? Do you think someone without a penis and doesn’t understand how penises work should have an opinion on laws about penises? I mean, many people believe that penile circumcision prevents STDs and reduces the want to masterbate, which it doesn’t. Do you think if someone without a penis said that to someone with a penis, don’t you think they probably shouldn’t have an opinion on circumcision at least, if not penises all together?
These people with uteruses have lived their whole life with them, some have at least a vague inkling on how menstruation works, how it affects them, how expensive it can be, so they have an idea what is best for people who menstruate, unlike people who don’t. So, yeah, people without a uterus don’t get an opinion on it because they’re opinion is likely wrong because they haven’t experienced it.
Men do have periods and are taxed as well. I know you’re likely an asshole who don’t think trans men are real men and are just butch lesbians or whatever, and you probably don’t even recognize there’s more than two gender, but you’re wrong, and some men can and do have periods.
We don’t “need” hygiene products? What the fuck is this bullshit?
Second of all, I actually do think we shouldn’t tax food or medication. The idea we charge people for things that they need to survive is one thing but the fact that we tax them on top of it is nonsense to me.
Yeah, this is a jump the shark moment for me. I nthing the ban request.
To add on to my last post because I missed the edit window:
I think if people want high-end stuff (and we should have access to a lot of lower-end stuff for free so everyone has access to hygiene products), they should pay for it, but it doesn’t make sense to tax people for stuff we all need to survive in society.
Besides, if lower-income people had access to free hygiene products, they could have access to better quality of life. And homeless people really need hygiene products as well, to the point where people are encouraging people to donate tampons and pads.
I think you’ve stumbled upon the real reason why CAPSLOCK is so against the idea.
Then campaign against taxation of all needs with equity and without the gendered, sexist slogans “no uterus no opinion”.
I don’t personally like taxation the way it is now. I don’t think we should be paying tax on things that we purchase but rather, maybe, pay a fair percentage of what is left over from our monitory wealth at the end of the year after having satisfied all our needs. ..Do you see the difference in tone between an egalitarian approach to resolving a problem and a sexist, gendered approach to resolving a problem? The first approach applies its standards to everyone with equity, the second’s standards differ based on your gender. You are a woman? you need tampons? No problem, no tax whilst Everyone else has to pay tax for their needs.
Without menstrual hygiene products, anyone who menstruates would not be able to go to work during their period. This would mean at worst, job loss and at best, loss of wages. Since one needs money to eat and have shelter, yeah, menstrual hygiene products are a necessity. Like I said earlier, the vagina is not a tap we can turn on and off during our periods.
Food and medication should not be taxed and in my state (MN), they aren’t. Junk food and dietary supplements are taxed, but medications and real food are not. People complain about Minnesota being a high tax state, but it’s not. It’s just taxed progressively instead of regressively. I would think that an egalitarian who is concerned with the rights of all humans would like that. I guess not.
By the way, how do you feel about fellow anti-feminist Andrea Hardie’s nukes comment?
Still too chickenshit to answer me? Post all the pictures of women in bloodstained sweats you like, it won’t disguise your cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.
Why do you think you should get an opinion about my uterus?
What makes you think none of us has campaigned for economic justice? I have. I’ve worked for a group that focuses on worker’s rights. None of their campaigns have been gendered. Feminism is about women. Intersectional feminism takes into account other oppressions besides regular old sexism and all of the feminists here are intersectional feminists. Also, being a feminist doesn’t stop one from participating in other social justice movements and it’s ridiculous to assume that we don’t.
What non-gendered social justice work have you done? No, whining about sex workers and freebleeding on the internet doesn’t count.
Okay, but sales tax seems useful if something bad happens because it’s a steady source of income for states in case of emergencies, like if a natural disaster or epidemic happens. You can’t budget for emergencies when you don’t know how much it costs. US wide, we collected around $390 billion dollars in sales tax in 2013, so the only way to keep the budget around the same amount without sale taxes is to raise regular taxes by…a lot. I think the only way that would feasibly work is if certain people paid their taxes at different times of the year (1/12 of Americans paying tax in January, 1/12 in February, etc.), plus maybe the rich get a tax hike because there’s no way a flat tax raise can work well with lower-income households when many are struggling as it is.
Of course, I’m not a tax expert, so I’m probably wrong. Any tax experts in the house?
Typically, in an emergency like a natural disaster the federal government would pay aid to the local region effected. In the US, a lot of states have constitutional requirement to balance the budget. The federal government does not. The capability of the federal government to pay for disaster relief is one of the many reasons that going to the gold standard and/or having a balanced budget ammendment is silly.
I know little about how budgets and taxes in countries other than the US work.
@Alan
Could a codified UK Constitution work? Like, would it interfere with anything? It’d be different from ours obvs. Probably not a simple Preamble > Articles > Amendments deal. Is something similar possible
@Jack
Impossible. Or it’s possible, but won’t ever happen. See, since the federal government can’t levy a sales tax (it’s more complicated than that, but, in practice, it can’t), all 50 states would have to scheme together to specifically cut their own funding. If any single state refused, then no other state would agree to it. It’s baseball revenue sharing but somehow worse. Then there’s NYC, for example, that has a city sales tax (NY state sales tax is pretty low to accommodate this since most of the population lives there anyway). Like all libertarian tax fantasies, it doesn’t actually work in the real world 🙂
Yeah, up where I live, in the socialist hellscape of Canada, there is no tax on food ingredients (things like bread, milk, eggs, vegetables, canned food, etc), because it’s deemed a necessity. (Junk food and prepared food are taxed, however. But it’s entirely possible to live off of non-taxed food items.) I’m pretty sure medication isn’t taxed, either. I think most medication is subsidized by the government and medical conditions can be used as tax write offs, though I could be wrong. I’m fortunately very healthy and have no experience in that realm.
Actually, in Canada the tampon tax was actually removed as well, back in July. I suppose this is proof that Katie’s evil authoritarian laudatory feminist plan is finally coming to fruition.