Whos business is it?

That would be considered taxable income. Unfortunately the fruits of your labor are taxable. So most states, and certainly the Federal government have an interest.

I have not figured out what if anything this has to do with swapping bodily fluids though?

Don't be obtuse, get to the point.

Click to expand...

Well, there will be plenty of time to talk about taxes, for now lets just talk about whose business it is in terms of morality.

If the government has no business telling two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to swap fluids, then why should they be allowed to tell two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to exchange labour for less than $7.25/hr.

What business have they telling them that it "isn't right" for them to exchange more than 8 hours of labour/day at that rate?

Ok, so we currently have 14 no votes and 0 yes votes. The original poll question was:

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Click to expand...

Considering that exchanging labour for capital is something that consenting adults do with each other all the time, does anyone want to amend their vote? Or do we all agree that laissez faire capitalism is the way to go?

Hopefully we can find some yes votes, otherwise this was a waste of a thread.:mrgreen:

Panache said:

Well, there will be plenty of time to talk about taxes, for now lets just talk about whose business it is in terms of morality.

If the government has no business telling two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to swap fluids, then why should they be allowed to tell two consenting adult males that it "isn't right" for them to exchange labour for less than $7.25/hr.

Click to expand...

It's not in my opinion. The minimum wage is in my opinion wrong.

Panache said:

What business have they telling them that it "isn't right" for them to exchange more than 8 hours of labour/day at that rate?

Click to expand...

In the end to many businesses try to take advantage of the workers. Has to do with that whole "life and liberty" thing, for me anyway.

When someone has to spend more than 1/4 of the day working, they should get a higher rate of pay for anything after 8 hours. This is not unreasonable in my opinion. If you don't want to do that you can make a salaried contract to ignore that restriction. This goes for the worker and employer.

A company I worked for had 4 different stores within 1 hours drive of each other. Employees were sometimes told to work at a different store for various reasons. Sometimes people worked over 18 hours but got no overtime. The stores were all under different corporate names to avoid having to pay overtime. This was the only reason they put each store under different corporations.

This is why we have some of the labor laws we do. And unscrupulous businessmen still find a way around them.

It is to bad the government has to step in at all. Unfortunately people seem to be unwilling to treat others fairly.

It's not in my opinion. The minimum wage is in my opinion wrong.

Click to expand...

Ok, well thats boring. Now we can just sit here and agree.

In the end to many businesses try to take advantage of the workers. Has to do with that whole "life and liberty" thing, for me anyway.

When someone has to spend more than 1/4 of the day working, they should get a higher rate of pay for anything after 8 hours. This is not unreasonable in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. Now lets go back to the personal sphere.

Too many people try to take advantage of people sexually or emotionally. Sometimes men pretend to feel like they are in love when they are really only after sex. If the government's job is suddenly to keep people from taking advantage of each other, and if what consenting adults agree to do with each other is suddenly any of its business, then what do you think the government should do about consenting adults taking emotional advantage of other consenting adults?

Perhaps there should be a law that say that if one person says "I love you" to another person, and then gets laid by that person, that the two should be legally required to stay together for at least six months after the initial profession of love.

This might go a long ways towards helping ensure that people don't take emotional advantage of other people by throwing around the "L" word just to get in their pants.

What do you think? Would this be a good law?

Panache said:

Ok, so we currently have 14 no votes and 0 yes votes. The original poll question was:



Considering that exchanging labor for capital is something that consenting adults do with each other all the time, does anyone want to amend their vote? Or do we all agree that laissez faire capitalism is the way to go?

Hopefully we can find some yes votes, otherwise this was a waste of a thread. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Well, at the time of the original question, no one had an F'in clue what you were really asking, and so voted on the obvious answer of "no" to the actual poll question.

Said poll has no bearing whatsoever on the totally different question, "Should the government have any say in what an employer pays their employees."

Well, at the time of the original question, no one had an F'in clue what you were really asking, and so voted on the obvious answer of "no" to the actual poll question.

Said poll has no bearing whatsoever on the totally different question, "Should the government have any say in what an employer pays their employees."

Click to expand...

That is not a totally different question. It is in fact not only a similar question, but an identical question. This is the question as it was, and as it is now:

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Click to expand...

I will admit however that I should have added a third option to the poll:

C) It's none of the government's business, unless they are engaging in something I personally disagree with, in which case, of course it's the governments business.

Panache said:

Fair enough. Now lets go back to the personal sphere.

Too many people try to take advantage of people sexually or emotionally. Sometimes men pretend to feel like they are in love when they are really only after sex. If the government's job is suddenly to keep people from taking advantage of each other, and if what consenting adults agree to do with each other is suddenly any of its business, then what do you think the government should do about consenting adults taking emotional advantage of other consenting adults?

Click to expand...

Taking advantage of someone emotionally does not have the same effect as taking advantage of someone financially. It is apples and oranges.

The state has little interest outside of infringing on someones intellectual property about emotional anything. The state does however have a vested interest in taking advantage of someone financially whether it be the employee or employer or just a contract between equals.

Following this line, the original question amounts to nothing more than an ambiguous assertion.

Panache said:

Perhaps there should be a law that say that if one person says "I love you" to another person, and then gets laid by that person, that the two should be legally required to stay together for at least six months after the initial profession of love.

Click to expand...

It has no bearing on government interest one way or the other as it is not any kind of contract.

When people exchange goods or services a contract is made in one form or another. Be it written or verbal etc.

Panache said:

This might go a long ways towards helping ensure that people don't take emotional advantage of other people by throwing around the "L" word just to get in their pants.

Click to expand...

This is just a red herring.

Panache said:

What do you think? Would this be a good law?

Click to expand...

I think I have stated quite clearly my position above.

Panache said:

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Click to expand...

Yes. It involves much more than your original question implied or represented.

As I said nothing more than a fallacy.

Panache said:

That is not a totally different question. It is in fact not only a similar question, but an identical question. This is the question as it was, and as it is now:

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Perhaps not a totally different question, but it was followed by the first post (by you), in which you asked a different and leading question, namely:

Panache said:

If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?

Click to expand...

Thus leading any who spent the time to read one line of text to believe that you were asking a question relating to the gay marriage debate, or perhaps two guys bartering with containers of some fluid...but probably the former.

Panache said:

I will admit however that I should have added a third option to the poll:

C) It's none of the government's business, unless they are engaging in something I personally disagree with, in which case, of course it's the governments business.

Click to expand...

That wouldn't have helped much, as it would only have increased the impression (which I seriously doubt was unintentional) that this thread was related to the gay marriage debate.

Taking advantage of someone emotionally does not have the same effect as taking advantage of someone financially. It is apples and oranges.

Click to expand...

The effect can certainly be as devastating. It can certainly be deemed as important. What makes one the governments business and the other not?

The state has little interest outside of infringing on someones intellectual property about emotional anything. The state does however have a vested interest in taking advantage of someone financially whether it be the employee or employer or just a contract between equals.

Click to expand...

Why? Remember we are talking about consenting adults, who are engaged in mutually agreed upon arrangements, which either of them can walk away from at any time.

Either you believe that people have the agency to make their own damn decisions about their own lives, or you believe that they need a fu*king nanny to make the important decisions for them.

If someone gets taken advantage of, emotionally, financially, or otherwise, boo hoo. Maybe they will learn from it, maybe they won't. It isn't any of the governments business either way. The government should only step in in the case of non-consent.

People seem to understand that when it comes to sex, as the poll shows, but then get confused when it comes to money.

Panache said:

The effect can certainly be as devastating. It can certainly be deemed as important. What makes one the governments business and the other not?

Why? Remember we are talking about consenting adults, who are engaged in mutually agreed upon arrangements, which either of them can walk away from at any time.

Either you believe that people have the agency to make their own damn decisions about their own lives, or you believe that they need a fu*king nanny to make the important decisions for them.

If someone gets taken advantage of, emotionally, financially, or otherwise, boo hoo. Maybe they will learn from it, maybe they won't. It isn't any of the governments business either way. The government should only step in in the case of non-consent.

People seem to understand that when it comes to sex, as the poll shows, but then get confused when it comes to money.

Click to expand...

If you cannot understand the difference, I feel sorry for you.

I really don't want to get involved in an argument riddled with fallacy arguments to begin with.

Have a good night bud.

Perhaps not a totally different question, but it was followed by the first post (by you), in which you asked a different and leading question, namely:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panache
If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?
Thus leading any who spent the time to read one line of text to believe that you were asking a question relating to the gay marriage debate, or perhaps two guys bartering with containers of some fluid...but probably the former.

Click to expand...

Well, its hardly my fault if people want to artificially limit the scope of the debate in their own heads. The sexual aspect of people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong seemed like a good place to start.

That wouldn't have helped much, as it would only have increased the impression (which I seriously doubt was unintentional) that this thread was related to the gay marriage debate.

Click to expand...

You seem to be under the impression that I was using sexuality as a guise to talk about capitalism. This is incorrect. I have said it before and I shall say it again. This thread is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. Sexuality is an aspect of that, financial agreements are another aspect of that.

Moving right along, we find that the initial principal (which everyone seems to give lip service to at least) that what happens between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own, also has some bearing on wage disparity between genders.

Supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a woman (also being a consenting adult), both voluntarily enter into an agreement whereby she agrees to do some work for me, and in exchange I agree to pay her $85,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but hers and mine.

Now supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a man (also being a consenting adult) also both voluntarily entered into another agreement whereby he agrees to perform the exact same task in exchange for $100,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but his and mine.

Now, considering that my agreement with the man is no one's business but his and mine, it stands to reason that it is none of the woman's business, and certainly none of the governments business, despite the fact that she is making 85 cents on the dollar compared to a man for an identical task.

Accordingly, the only solutions for this gender based wage disparity are for me to suddenly from the goodness of my heart start paying her more (Yeah, like I am going to voluntarily hurt my own bottom line:roll, for me to from the evilness of my heart start paying him less (not great for employee retention) or for her to demand higher pay as a requirement for her continued participation in the arrangement. (which would be a smart move on her part since I am clearly willing to pay more for the services she provides)

At no point does any of this become the government's business, as it is a voluntary arrangement between consenting adults.

If you cannot understand the difference, I feel sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Well, I genuinely do not understand the difference, and your pity is quite touching.

I really don't want to get involved in an argument riddled with fallacy arguments to begin with.

Click to expand...

I suspect you are lying. As evidence, I present exhibit A: You are posting on an internet debate forum. The very fact that you went through the trouble of setting up a login implies that you love getting involved in arguments riddled with fallacy. It's ok though, so does everyone else here, myself included.

Have a good night bud.

Click to expand...

I shall. You as well.

Panache said:

Well, its hardly my fault if people want to artificially limit the scope of the debate in their own heads. The sexual aspect of people sticking their nose where it doesn't belong seemed like a good place to start.

Click to expand...

Perhaps.

But for most people, there is a difference between interference by a government entity into two persons sexual activates and interference by a government entity into the same two persons financial activates.

Despite any contention on your part that they are identical, most would disagree with you.

Panache said:

You seem to be under the impression that I was using sexuality as a guise to talk about capitalism. This is incorrect. I have said it before and I shall say it again. This thread is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. Sexuality is an aspect of that, financial agreements are another aspect of that.

Click to expand...

True.

Panache said:

Moving right along, we find that the initial principal (which everyone seems to give lip service to at least) that what happens between two consenting adults is no one's business but their own, also has some bearing on wage disparity between genders.

Click to expand...

I would tend towards agreement.

Panache said:

Supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a woman (also being a consenting adult), both voluntarily enter into an agreement whereby she agrees to do some work for me, and in exchange I agree to pay her $85,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but hers and mine.

Click to expand...

Ok…

Panache said:

Now supposing that I (being a consenting adult) and a man (also being a consenting adult) also both voluntarily entered into another agreement whereby he agrees to perform the exact same task in exchange for $100,000/yr, such an arrangement according to popularly professed beliefs would be no one's business but his and mine.

Click to expand...

Ok…

Panache said:

Now, considering that my agreement with the man is no one's business but his and mine, it stands to reason that it is none of the woman's business, and certainly none of the governments business, despite the fact that she is making 85 cents on the dollar compared to a man for an identical task.

Click to expand...

Well, it could be argued that it is indirectly her business in that, armed with information to the effect that the male is making more than her for the same production, she could make a case to you for a pay raise, or she’s going to quit and seek other employment.

Panache said:

Accordingly, the only solutions for this gender based wage disparity are for me to suddenly from the goodness of my heart start paying her more (Yeah, like I am going to voluntarily hurt my own bottom line :roll, for me to from the evilness of my heart start paying him less (not great for employee retention) or for her to demand higher pay as a requirement for her continued participation in the arrangement. Which would be a smart move on her part since I am clearly willing to pay more for the services she provides.

Click to expand...

See above…

Panache said:

At no point does any of this become the government's business, as it is a voluntary arrangement between consenting adults.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Panache said:

Well, I genuinely do not understand the difference, and your pity is quite touching.

Click to expand...

Cool.

Panache said:

I suspect you are lying. As evidence, I present exhibit A: You are posting on an internet debate forum. The very fact that you went through the trouble of setting up a login implies that you love getting involved in arguments riddled with fallacy. It's ok though, so does everyone else here, myself included.

Click to expand...

#1 I don't lie.
#2 I like to debate this is true. I don't like to debate issues riddled in nonsensical fallacy's right off the bat. It accomplishes nothing.
#2 The influences of others or yourself do not apply. That is just an anecdotal blanket statement with you projecting to boot.

Panache said:

I shall. You as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

#1 I don't lie.

Click to expand...

I do. I don't trust people who don't lie. It unnatural.

#2 I like to debate this is true. I don't like to debate issues riddled in nonsensical fallacy's right off the bat. It accomplishes nothing.

Click to expand...

Well, good luck on your quest to find internet debates not riddled with nonsensical fallacies. Let me know how that works out for you.

#2 The influences of others or yourself do not apply. That is just an anecdotal blanket statement with you projecting to boot.

Click to expand...

Why do you have #2 twice? Shouldn't that really be #3? Just sayin'...

Perhaps.

But for most people, there is a difference between interference by a government entity into two persons sexual activates and interference by a government entity into the same two persons financial activates.

Despite any contention on your part that they are identical, most would disagree with you.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have spent more time in the grey area then. You agreed with me initially when I was talking about pokemon cards and casserole recipes. Pokemon cards are a type of capital.

If two consenting adults both agree to an exchange whereby one consenting adult gets a very rare and valuable pokemon card in exchange for a very common card found in every starter deck, is that any of the government's business?

Where exactly is the line? Is it just sex that people want government to stay away from? Should government have authority over every room in the house except the bedroom?

What is the actually principal that people believe in? Is it "What two consenting adults choose to do with each other is no ones business but their own... unless of course they choose not to have sex"?

I am genuinely baffled here. Why should my right to make my own decisions concerning my own life be restricted to sex? And how can anyone not see vast overlap between adults consenting to exchange fluids and adults consenting to exchange labour, capital, pokemon cards, casserole recipies or anything else?

Well, it could be argued that it is indirectly her business in that, armed with information to the effect that the male is making more than her for the same production, she could make a case to you for a pay raise, or she’s going to quit and seek other employment.

Click to expand...

Ok, insofar as we assume that she already knows that the man is making $100k/yr, I agree that she can reasonably use that as part of an argument for higher pay. Do you believe she has a right to that knowledge though?

I can agree with that.

Click to expand...

That's no fun. This isn't agreeaboutpolitics.com.

Just speaking for myself here but I don't need the government to tell me what is gross and what is not. I come by it pretty naturally.

Swapping fluids... eeeee-yew......

But I suppose it's necessary. :roll:

Panache said:

If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?

Click to expand...

Depends on the fluid.

EDIT: OxymoronP beat me to it on the first page.

Panache said:

I do. I don't trust people who don't lie. It unnatural.

Click to expand...

So you can't be trusted is all that says to me. I mean I am certain I do lie about things I don't realize I am lying about, but I don't lie on purpose.

Panache said:

Well, good luck on your quest to find internet debates not riddled with nonsensical fallacies. Let me know how that works out for you.

Click to expand...

Many abound here. Look around.

Panache said:

Why do you have #2 twice? Shouldn't that really be #3? Just sayin'...

Click to expand...

Typo? :doh

Only if one of them is consenting to be murdered by the other.

So you can't be trusted is all that says to me.

Click to expand...

No one can. Welcome to humanity.

I mean I am certain I do lie about things I don't realize I am lying about, but I don't lie on purpose.

Click to expand...

So when you said you don't lie, you were actually lying, but didn't realize you were lying at the time? Thats ok. I forgive you.

Many abound here. Look around.

Click to expand...

I'm a logic nazi. I see fallacies everywhere. Amazingly I have yet to see this logical fallacy which you insist is somewhere in my argument. Perhaps its because instead of actually pointing out a logical fallacy you simply assert pity for me for not being able to see it.

Is there anything besides sex which occurs between consenting adults that you don't think is any of the governments business? Or should government control every room in the house but the bedroom?

Where is this invisible line between mutual agreements betwixt consenting adults and mutual agreements betwixt consenting adults? The one just seems so much like the other to me.

Typo? :doh

Click to expand...

Are you asking me? Then yes. I believe it was in fact a typo. I just chose to point it out because I didn't have a better retort. It was kinda weaksauce for me. I'll try to do better next time.

Only if one of them is consenting to be murdered by the other.

Click to expand...

I was saving euthanasia for later, but nice to see you thinking outside the box.

So you don't believe that people should have the agency to determine when its time to cash in their chips and leave the table? Or you don't believe that they should be allowed to have help?

This one isn't as fun as the others. The ending of a life is a pretty clear delineation. I am not sure I agree, but saying that people should be allowed to choose how they live, but not how they die is at least a somewhat rational argument.

Saying that people should be allowed to choose how they live, so long as they choose to live in a way that you approve of, is not.

Panache said:

I was saving euthanasia for later, but nice to see you thinking outside the box.

So you don't believe that people should have the agency to determine when its time to cash in their chips and leave the table? Or you don't believe that they should be allowed to have help?

This one isn't as fun as the others. The ending of a life is a pretty clear delineation. I am not sure I agree, but saying that people should be allowed to choose how they live, but not how they die is at least a somewhat rational argument.

Saying that people should be allowed to choose how they live, so long as they choose to live in a way that you approve of, is not.

Click to expand...

I believe that instances of euthanasia carry the risk that the subject is suffering from treatable mental illnesses and that a formal review of his overall physical health and state of mind should be conducted to determine if he is in fact of sound mind when making that decision, and that the possibility of charlatans making money off the extermination of treatable patients should be avoided.

But, if the patient is indeed suffering from a chronic incurable illness that makes him decide that death is preferred over continued suffering or further inevitable degradation, by all means he should be allowed assistance in his self-termination.

I am opposed to people like Jack Kervorkian killing people in the back of his van and claiming he helped them.

Panache said:

No one can. Welcome to humanity.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Panache said:

So when you said you don't lie, you were actually lying, but didn't realize you were lying at the time? Thats ok. I forgive you.

Click to expand...

I don't on purpose. You can infer anything else you like, does not make it true.

Panache said:

I'm a logic nazi. I see fallacies everywhere. Amazingly I have yet to see this logical fallacy which you insist is somewhere in my argument.

Click to expand...

I already pointed it out. You ignored it and cut it out of my reply to you.

Panache said:

Perhaps its because instead of actually pointing out a logical fallacy you simply assert pity for me for not being able to see it.

Click to expand...

See post above.

Panache said:

Is there anything besides sex which occurs between consenting adults that you don't think is any of the governments business? Or should government control every room in the house but the bedroom?

Click to expand...

You are the self proclaimed Nazi, you tell me?

Panache said:

Where is this invisible line between mutual agreements betwixt consenting adults and mutual agreements betwixt consenting adults? The one just seems so much like the other to me.

Click to expand...

And that is your problem, and the lack of debate on the subject becomes self evident.

Bravo!

Panache said:

Are you asking me? Then yes. I believe it was in fact a typo. I just chose to point it out because I didn't have a better retort. It was kinda weaksauce for me. I'll try to do better next time.

Click to expand...

Please do. :roll: