Y'all have me scared with all this HIV talk, because

[AllanahStarrNYC]

Hey Spanky

By the way- SPECULATION is what started lets see THE SALEM WITCH HUNTS, THE McCARTHY HEARINGS, ETC..

Which witch are you looking to burn or which witch hunt are you looking to start?

[Ecstatic]

Ecstatic, being married and all. How would you feel about sleeping with HIV infected escorts? If you knew they were HIV positive, would you still see them or choose a girl where you didn't know her status? I mean there is more at risk than just your personal health right?

Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her. Yet choosing a girl whose status I don't know implies potential risk, indeed. Less risk statistically that sleeping with someone who I knew to be HIV-positive, but not knowing is something of a crap shoot, which I'm sure is part of your point here. And I always practice safe sex (which of course is never 100% safe, but is within "acceptible mission parameters." As for more than my personal health, yes, if I became infected and passed the virus on to another partner (my wife or another escort), there's definitely more than my own safety involved. However, despite appearances (heehee), I'm really quite selective with whom I sleep, so that is some reassurance.

I've said many times escorts should be required to get tested and publish their status because not doing so, knowing they are infected, and still performing as a sex worker is wreckless endangerment. I talked to legal cousel at a large adult company (bigger than any I have worked for) and validated that is the case for video work at least. Since escorting is already illegal in and of itself, I am not sure there is a prescedent there.

Maybe today there should be a price for knowing your partners status. Would you be willing to pay more $ for the reassurance that your partner didn't have HIV?

Yes, I would. I think that would be fair and quite reasonable, and that prostitution should not be illegal in the US but licensed and that regular testing and credentials would be part of the process. That's the way it is in the Netherlands, isn't it?

Only one girl (my favorite girl, incidentally) has volunteered to show me her test results, though I haven't asked for the results specifically, although I have asked girls if they've been tested and the result has been "yes, and I'm negative": but that's not proof, only assertion. I do trust these girls to be telling me the truth, but I also trust in laytex for protection.

Perhaps you could once again share the info regarding the AIM (iirc) test that the adult film industry uses? I think I would like to take that test because it's the most accurate, isn't it?

[AllanahStarrNYC]

In a perfect world that would great- but prostitution will never be
legalized nor regulated in this country.

hence, why we have to have these discussions and arguments.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

[b][color=indigo]I didn't set out to whip anybody's butt, and I really don't care what you choose to believe, either Spanky or Big Booty. However, a word of caution to anyone with pretensions of higher intelligence who writes phrases such as "most of the material mentioned has went over your head or has ascended your level of thinking": "has went" is extremely poor grammar, and "has ascended your level" is nonsense, though it could be taken to mean either "has ascended to your level" or "has transcended your level" (which I know is what you intended).

A word of caution? You're funny. You can't think of anything else to tackle my arguments directly, so you look for other things, which are irrelevant to the subject, such as my grammar. This is typical of the losing side of a debate. The losing side generally will "look" for other things to try to use to discredit the opposition, because of a LACK of any RELEVANT material.
Typical, and yes predictable.

As many "grammatical errors" which have taken place in this thread not once did I address them, because it is IRRELEVANT. Some of Allanah's responses are barely legible at times, but I attacked the IDEA behind the GRAMMAR, because thats what mattered most.

Now

I have respect for my fellow members here at HungAngels. But I could literally destroy you both in a debate simulantaneously. You both have troubles sticking to the subject matter at hand, and also have faulty premises and questionable conclusions formed by unstable logic.

Since i'm finished with Allanah, it would be more presentable for you not to deviate from the subject of discussion.

Take all the time you need to respond, my point has been expressed so theres no need to further repeat it.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

LOL finished with Allanah

That's a good one. Booty- u are a kidder.
Yes I am a horrid typist. SUE ME.

[Ecstatic]

Now this is indeed humorous. First you accuse me of arguing ad hominem (though failing to identify the supposed fallacy as such):

You can't think of anything else to tackle my arguments directly, so you look for other things, which are irrelevant to the subject, such as my grammar.

Then you turn about and commit the same logical fallacy yourself:

But I could literally destroy you both in a debate simulantaneously. You both have troubles sticking to the subject matter at hand, and also have faulty premises and questionable conclusions formed by unstable logic.

Upon what premise do you assert that you could "destroy" me in a debate? You have established none, but have merely asserted superiority. An assertion, I might add, wholly without merit.

This is typical of the losing side of a debate. The losing side generally will "look" for other things to try to use to discredit the opposition, because of a LACK of any RELEVANT material.
Typical, and yes predictable.

As many "grammatical errors" which have taken place in this thread not once did I address them, because it is IRRELEVANT. Some of Allanah's responses are barely legible at times, but I attacked the IDEA behind the GRAMMAR, because thats what mattered most.

And when the grammar is purely a matter of mechanics, in a forum such as this, the accepted custom is to let the grammar slide. But you have asserted a bold claim to your intellectual and discursive superiority over both Allanah and me, a claim without merit, which then brings your grammatical missteps to bear precisely because you have asserted your superiority. Allanah has made no such claim, and neither have I. I am content to debate the substance of an argument, but once the argument slips into an attack "to the man" as you did by claiming superiority (in fact, I'd classify your fallacy as ad hominem abusive or argumentum ad personam as you have unfairly insulted Allanah and me:

I usually don't argue with people of obviously lesser intelligence, so I won't do it here. Its time the smarter one stepped aside and let the chips fall where they may.

That is very insulting. Just for clarification, an argument ad hominem has the following form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

You posit that I exhibited this tendency by attacking your grammar rather than the substance of your prior statement; however, since that prior statement consisted of an unfounded and unsubstantiated claim to superior intellect yet was presented with erronous grammar and usage, my pointing out that failure was not a fallacious attack ad hominem but a substantive assertion regarding the fallacy of your overstated claim regarding your superior intelligence: a claim which you have now reiterated. I am not impressed.

However, it does beg the question: why do you feel it necessary to pound your chest and assert your superior intellect? I have made no such claim.

Since i'm finished with Allanah, it would be more presentable for you not to deviate from the subject of discussion.

Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself and not accusing someone of HIV positive status without proof and in violation of that individual's privacy ("bearing false witness" to use a Biblical turn of phrase, as that is what unsubstantiated, unproven claims regarding someone else's HIV status constitute and which is therefore regarded as both immoral and illegal). I have not deviated from the discussion (although in this response I have deviated from my prior statement to refrain from further response: but again, I am responding to an attack ad hominem, not to the substance of the debate as we will be forever polarized on those issues it seems).

Take all the time you need to respond, my point has been expressed so theres no need to further repeat it.

In that case, why are you persisting? And asking myself the same question, I step aside. If you want to claim victory, be my guest.

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

[quote="Ecstatic"]
Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself and not accusing someone of HIV positive status without proof and in violation of that individual's privacy ("bearing false witness" to use a Biblical turn of phrase, as that is what unsubstantiated, unproven claims regarding someone else's HIV status constitute and which is therefore regarded as both immoral and illegal). I have not deviated from the discussion (although in this response I have deviated from my prior statement to refrain from further response: but again, I am responding to an attack ad hominem, not to the substance of the debate as we will be forever polarized on those issues it seems).



And along with all that jargon, and run-on sentences your points remain invalid, because they are subjective to being victimized by your own personal biases. What did you look through one of your little logic books? LMAO.

If that wasn't such a pitiful attempt to make yourself sound authoritive I might have laughed a little at your effort.

Disclaimer: Take notes. To all the people watching at home, this is another sub-standard secondary re-attempt to establish credibility by the losing side: Make yourself appear, and/or sound more authoritive.--Another tactic by the losing side of a debate. The first attempt didn't work; this is Plan B.Disclaimer; edit.

Now

Anyone with debate skills knows how not to lose the audience. I will not lose the audience with all the jargon; I know the terms, it was a part of my training.
You argue on the basis of an invalid foundation by circulating an argument around the irrelevant material. You just typed many pseudo-profundity statements, (they appear to be actually speaking a deep truth but really in actuality aren't saying much of anything). Your idealogies along with Allanahs have bordered the lines of being surreal because they are non sequitor statements. That means your conclusions dont follow logically from the premises that precede it.

Now they say, to, "keep your friends close, your enemies, CLOSER."
If I had a friend like you, who wouldnt tell me if I was about to endanger my life by sleeping with someone who is HIV positive....................................with friends like this, who needs enemies?

A person, can tell a friend, that they may be endangering their lives, without the information become some public phenomena or a world news event. I can tell my friend of the possible dangers that surround a particular course of action. Any human being with a sound mind, who has a real friend, wouldnt want to stand at the edge of a lake and watch their friend needlessly drown and die.
I tell my friend of the possible dangers, and I let THEM DECIDE for themselves if they still choose to do whatever they may. As I do this, I have fulfilled my duties as a real true friend, because I care about them.
I would hope my friend would do the same for me.

Also some of you in here always add the tag-on "without proof".
This is where you fail.

A "warning" doesn't have to be proven. You don't have to provide proof for a simple warning. You can give a warning to your friend in the form of a suggestion, or advice--because a warning, is simply making someone aware of a possibility that they failed to take into account because of a lack of knowledge.
When it comes to impending DOOM, one can only "warn" another up to a certain extent, before the DOOM or devastation has to actually be EXPERIENCED for the warning to be proven to be a "true" fact.


And another mishap explanation:

[b][color=indigo]Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....

The substance of your post didnt deal with the above. You deviated from the subject and the rest was all repetition. You abandoned the topic in that post, now in this post you totally evade the issue by quoting logic terms.

....and for the record, killing you in a debate has proved to be rather easy. I've been beating a dead horse with these last 3 posts.

I can use your own arguments against you, because you're inconsistent.


These two things.............

[b][color=indigo]....... with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....

[b][color=indigo]Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.

................prove my point exactly. You wouldnt even do it yourself. Taking responsibility for oneself involves the use of all and any possible knowledge. Saving a life is far more important than "keeping secrets" for the sake of some bullshit business practice. If it wasn't imporant, then it wouldnt matter whether you slept with her or not.

Your arguments are a joke. You advocate silence but in reality would change your endeavors if you were given the knowledge. Borderline hypocrisy.

The next time you consider entering a debate.........


...............................don't. You brought a knife to a gun-fight.......








and the knife wasn't even sharp.

[b][color=indigo]Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.

OPEN and SHUT CASE.

[Ecstatic]

I will add just a little fuel to your pointless, chest-beating bonfire; take the points or leave them, it's up to you. Why you have turned this discussion into a personal vendetta against me is baffling, illogical, and absurd.

And along with all that jargon, and run-on sentences your points remain invalid, because they are subjective to being victimized by your own personal biases. What did you look through one of your little logic books? LMAO.

If that wasn't such a pitiful attempt to make yourself sound authoritive I might have laughed a little at your effort.

Here we go with an attack to the man rather than the argument once again. Thank you for proving your own case against yourself. Firstly, I wrote no run-on sentences, but apparently any compound-complex sentence longer than fifteen words is too confusing for you to follow. Secondly, and far more significantly, you claim without substance that my statements are subjective and "victimized by my own personal biases." Nevermind the illogic that a statement cannot be victimized (it's not a sentient creature), you have failed to identify those supposed biases and are merely claiming that that's what they are.

"My little logic book": for what it's worth, I taught college English for 10 years, earned my BA summa cum laude and my MA with a 4.0 GPA. I have no insecurities regarding my academic or intellectual credentials. Please do not attempt to put down another forum member's intellect or knowledge base; it is crude, cheap, and boorish, not to mention utterly without foundation.

Disclaimer: Take notes. To all the people watching at home, this is another sub-standard secondary re-attempt to establish credibility by the losing side: Make yourself appear, and/or sound more authoritive.--Another tactic by the losing side of a debate. The first attempt didn't work; this is Plan B.Disclaimer; edit.

Note: you have aptly described your own actions. Furthermore, you are claiming a victory where none exists: when two sides refuse to agree upon the conclusion of a debate, yet the issues remain open, there is no victor. Proclaiming that you have won is a very weak tactic indeed.

Now

Anyone with debate skills knows how not to lose the audience. I will not lose the audience with all the jargon; I know the terms, it was a part of my training.

That's wonderful. Care to share you training with the group?

You argue on the basis of an invalid foundation by circulating an argument around the irrelevant material. You just typed many pseudo-profundity statements, (they appear to be actually speaking a deep truth but really in actuality aren't saying much of anything). Your idealogies along with Allanahs have bordered the lines of being surreal because they are non sequitor statements. That means your conclusions dont follow logically from the premises that precede it.

Circular reasoning: you are arguing that by stating that something is fact, it is fact: you claim that my comments are "psuedo-profound" and therefore dismiss them as such. I can only assume this is because you cannot or choose not to address the issues themselves, but instead choose to attack the rhetoric.

Now they say, to, "keep your friends close, your enemies, CLOSER."
If I had a friend like you, who wouldnt tell me if I was about to endanger my life by sleeping with someone who is HIV positive....................................with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Apparently, you have failed to read what I wrote:

If you have good reason to suspect someone and privately confide in a friend who could suffer from contact with that individual, that would be a good thing in my estimation. But to publically out someone, without proof, in a public forum is unjustified and unethical.

Note: If I were your friend, and I strongly suspected (or thought I knew) that a girl you were going to sleep with was HIV positive, I would tell you. That's what I stated. However, I don't think such suspicions should be publically proclaimed about other people; that slippery slope (there's another little logic book reference for you) is precisely what leads to libel, slander, witchhunts, and persecution of the innocent. It's not my place to say "so-and-so is infected": I'm no authority and I could be wrong, and I could damage that person's reputation and source of income by doing so.

A person, can tell a friend, that they may be endangering their lives, without the information become some public phenomena or a world news event. I can tell my friend of the possible dangers that surround a particular course of action. Any human being with a sound mind, who has a real friend, wouldnt want to stand at the edge of a lake and watch their friend needlessly drown and die.
I tell my friend of the possible dangers, and I let THEM DECIDE for themselves if they still choose to do whatever they may. As I do this, I have fulfilled my duties as a real true friend, because I care about them.
I would hope my friend would do the same for me.

See above; I said I would do this. It's a different situation, and quite different to expecting Allanah to report on all the TS escorts and entertainers she happens to know: that would be irresponsible and reprehensible on her part.

Also some of you in here always add the tag-on "without proof".
This is where you fail.

A "warning" doesn't have to be proven. You don't have to provide proof for a simple warning. You can give a warning to your friend in the form of a suggestion, or advice--because a warning, is simply making someone aware of a possibility that they failed to take into account because of a lack of knowledge.
When it comes to impending DOOM, one can only "warn" another up to a certain extent, before the DOOM or devastation has to actually be EXPERIENCED for the warning to be proven to be a "true" fact.

Yes, you can warn your friend based on your suppositions. And you can warn them of the potential danger inherent in engaging in sexual activity with anyone (escort, girlfriend, or wife). But expecting someone to expose someone else based on hearsay or suppostition is unethical and immoral. The playing field has changed.

And another mishap explanation:

Presentable? As opposed to logical? or substantive? The substance of the post I made which you have herein attacked as being without merit or substance and deviating from the discussion dealt directly with law, morality and ethics, and specifically with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....

The substance of your post didnt deal with the above. You deviated from the subject and the rest was all repetition. You abandoned the topic in that post, now in this post you totally evade the issue by quoting logic terms.

Anyone can read the post in question for himself. I had stated my position quite clearly and in some detail earlier in this thread, and in the post in question reiterated the core principles: 1) that it is everyone's responsibility to protect himself, 2) that it is a good thing to warn a friend of danger if you have reasonable suspicion that danger exists, and 3) that it is not ethical to assert that you have knowledge which is unsubstantiated that any given individual is HIV-positive in a public forum. I stand by those three principles. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Protect yourself. Warn your friends if you suspect risk. Do not publically accuse someone of being HIV-positive when you have no substantial proof of that condition being in fact true.

....and for the record, killing you in a debate has proved to be rather easy. I've been beating a dead horse with these last 3 posts.

I can use your own arguments against you, because you're inconsistent.

No, you're consistent at claiming that you're right and I'm wrong, and that you've somehow won this debate and easily defeated me, when in fact all you've done is convinced yourself that you've won an easy victory and that your position is right.

These two things.............

....... with the paramount importance of taking responsibility for oneself.....

Excellent question, Vicki. No, if I knew an escort was HIV infected, I would not sleep with her.

................prove my point exactly. You wouldnt even do it yourself. Taking responsibility for oneself involves the use of all and any possible knowledge. Saving a life is far more important than "keeping secrets" for the sake of some bullshit business practice. If it wasn't imporant, then it wouldnt matter whether you slept with her or not.

Here is a true example of non sequitor logic: if my primary objective is to take responsibility for myself, then not sleeping with someone who I know is HIV positive is most definitely taking responsibility for myself. In what way does this demostrate inconsistency or illogic on my part? The conclusion ("I would not sleep with someone I know to be HIV positive") follows necessarily from the premise ("the primary importance is to take responsibility for oneself").

Your arguments are a joke. You advocate silence but in reality would change your endeavors if you were given the knowledge. Borderline hypocrisy.

I advocate taking responsibility for yourself, warning a friend if I truly suspected a risk, and not accusing someone of that for which I have no proof. In no way is that hypocritical. Being "given the knowledge" assumes either that a) it is true, and therefore I should take heed, or b) it might be true, and it would be advisable to take heed. But the fact that I would act on that knowledge (or, if suspect, investigate further) in no way invalidates the principle that publically accusing someone of being HIV positive when you don't have proof and have only hearsay is unethical.

The next time you consider entering a debate.........

...............................don't. You brought a knife to a gun-fight.......

and the knife wasn't even sharp.

OPEN and SHUT CASE.

Ah, my dear old friend the argument ad hominem: conclude your argument by viciously attacking your opponent. That will convince everyone you're right and I'm wrong.

Careful. You'll cut yourself . . . or shoot yourself in the foot.

[Dina Delicious]

..........

[Big Booty Shemale Lover]

WOW two very smart men i give you both credit for stating your opinions so passionately(did I spell that write)i hope im not running on sentence here!! lol but i do respect both of you.see the power of open debate and the free world
we get to see other side of you this arguement will never be one but i wish you both health and happiness
Dina

Thanks for the compliment Dina. As far as health and happiness, likewise.


Ecstatic you can carry on in your redundance. Also i'm quite familair with all the logic terms, your "slippery slope", your "question-begging", Allanah's "false dichotomy" with her fallcious if-then statements accompanied by you and your "red herrings". Trust in all, I'm light years ahead of you in the art of discussion and properly defending standpoints.

You taught college level English, and you can't represent yourself verbally any better than you have done here tonight?
Now THATS information you should DEFINITELY KEEP CONFIDENTIAL.

Care to share you training with the group?

....and you want to compare brainpans? You feel the need to be specific and voice your intellectual accomplishments based on your exposed incompetence in an area you once thought you excelled.
I let my discourse alone represent my intellect because my arguments are formed from trained thought. I am also a college graduate, but I never felt the need to say it here, because unlike you, my logic was never in question.
All I will say in here, is that I work for the government, and it is my job daily to counter verbal opposition in debate-like settings.


Again, I leave you to your redundance.