semi-OT: Louisville

[ctchamps]

The interesting thing to see here will be, if this costs Pitino and Jurich their jobs and hinders fundraising to the point that it legitimately impacts the overall quality of athletics, what is the ACC going to do? This isn't like Rutgers, where their circus of an athletic department is the cost of doing business for the prestigious research institution and NYC market access. Louisville provides 0 off-the-field value. It's a longshot, but I could definitely see a move to expel them from the league on some sort of morality grounds or something.

I can't imagine a league with FSU, Miami, UNC and Syracuse pulling rank on Louisville for this.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Morality is a personal thing. If adults want to pay each other for sexual favors, then that's fine. The whole "sex is immoral" thing when it comes to consenting adults is a silly, worn remnant of the world's historical religious oppression.
The only question left is: "at what age is a person an adult?"
Certainly it can't be, in America, later than your 18th birthday, when it becomes legal to shoot people on the other side of the planet behind the false aegis of liberty.

Wow. I don't think anyone has interjected religion into this equation. Certainly not me. I never said sex was immoral. I think prostitution is immoral but I understand that's my opinion. I KNOW that being a madame and selling sex with your own children is immoral and its not because of religion, historical oppression or either the true or false aegis of liberty.

 

[ctchamps]

Morality is a personal thing. If adults want to pay each other for sexual favors, then that's fine. The whole "sex is immoral" thing when it comes to consenting adults is a silly, worn remnant of the world's historical religious oppression.
The only question left is: "at what age is a person an adult?"
Certainly it can't be, in America, later than your 18th birthday, when it becomes legal to shoot people on the other side of the planet behind the false aegis of liberty.

Agree with your sentiment. We have a double standard regarding violence and sex. Heck add in drugs to the equation.

The trade is not what bothers me. My objection is that her children might have been sent to trade school well before "maturity". I'm not a prude by any standards, but I go by the rule of what would I think if...

What if I had a daughter, and while I as was at work my wife was boinking guys and making my daughter watch. Would I be just incensed by my wife's infidelity or would I be additionally appalled she's increasing the probability of my daughter going in that direction? And what if she was offering a twosome with a nine year old?

 

[Chief00]

Still go back to Pitno's last Gampel game and a woman defended Pitno when various fans were yelling inappropriate comments at him due to his own incident - she was wrong and the hecklers were right!

 

[ctchamps]

Wow. I don't think anyone has interjected religion into this equation. Certainly not me. I never said sex was immoral. I think prostitution is immoral but I understand that's my opinion. I KNOW that being a madame and selling sex with your own children is immoral and its not because of religion, historical oppression or either the true or false aegis of liberty.

Your name might be giving people the wrong impression.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

Tax fraud on top of it, I imagine.

Even receiving a $10,000 wire in one shebang may attract some undesirable attention.

 

[CL82]

Have you never asked or been asked for parental advice?
I mean jeez if your mother is a stripper and a sells you for sex you might not have been equipped with the necessary tools to make morally sound intelligent choices. Selling a book and being interviewed for TV about this might seem exciting or even glamorous for a second but unless that money lasts forever it is not exactly going to help you with non-stripper work, relationships etc..

Your response is similar to the criminally irresponsible mother's defense, "Oh, I didn't prostitute them until they were of the age of legal consent and then they made their own choices."
Ah no.

I understand your point but the women in that video seem intelligent, competent and not under duress. If being a stripper is what mom does to put food on the table, I can see why the kids might not find it morally repugnant. Likewise, if making side money, is the norm in that profession, I get they might respond 'yes' when given the opportunity.

That said, it's an odd argument for me to making but I'm not inclined to shoot the messenger in this story.

 

[HobokenHusky]

I hope he realizes that Louisville isn't throwing those parties anymore...

He may have already been the "beneficiary" of one of those parties? Although if they are throwing the "talent" (and I use that phrase very liberally) from the ESPN video at Antonio Blakenly I don't even want to see what this poor kid got

 

[UCHuskies08]

Agree with your sentiment. We have a double standard regarding violence and sex. Heck add in drugs to the equation.

The trade is not what bothers me. My objection is that her children might have been sent to trade school well before "maturity". I'm not a prude by any standards, but I go by the rule of what would I think if...

What if I had a daughter, and while I as was at work my wife was boinking guys and making my daughter watch. Would I be just incensed by my wife's infidelity or would I be additionally appalled she's increasing the probability of my daughter going in that direction? And what if she was offering a twosome with a nine year old?

Somehow I doubt a husband or father figure has played any part in any of their lives.

This is why I don't judge their life choices. My life was pretty easy here growing up in Rocky Hill, CT. Not going to try to imagine how others had it growing up.

 

[Leebo]

For what it's worth, Powell says she did not take any money from the "side deals." She claims to have only organized the dances, and any money the dancers made on the side was their own bonus. Now, there are legal reasons that she would give her an incentive to frame it that way, but she doesn't claim to have "sold" her daughters or acted as a madam.

Also, I would have a hard time accepting any argument that prostitution is immoral if it's between consenting adults.

 

[sledog]

Saw part of the ESPNU piece on this. I thought I was watching '60 minutes' or something. This is deep.

 

[intlzncster]

Wow. I don't think anyone has interjected religion into this equation. Certainly not me. I never said sex was immoral. I think prostitution is immoral but I understand that's my opinion. I KNOW that being a madame and selling sex with your own children is immoral and its not because of religion, historical oppression or either the true or false aegis of liberty.

Again, that's a belief. I think that's why Taste might have brought up religion.

 

[upstater]

Whether it's moral or not is also a question that has a different context when a college official procures prostitutes on a college campus.

 

[Dogdeacon]

For what it's worth, Powell says she did not take any money from the "side deals." She claims to have only organized the dances, and any money the dancers made on the side was their own bonus. Now, there are legal reasons that she would give her an incentive to frame it that way, but she doesn't claim to have "sold" her daughters or acted as a madam.

Also, I would have a hard time accepting any argument that prostitution is immoral if it's between consenting adults.

I've got an equally hard time accepting that anyone can't even consider an opinion that prostitution is immoral. A. Illegal B. Morality is subjective and one ought to be able to consider or accept another's moral compass if one wants their own accepted. C. Try making the prostitution is moral argument to any woman, start with your significant other than try your mother or sister.

Regardless I'm going to be far apart on this issue from any that believe in sex for money but that's fine. My bigger issue is more about the complication of having a parental role model and authority figure brokering the services of their children. BS that she didn't take a cut, of course she says that but given the way she facilitated their sale and is now shamelessly selling her families' reputation for books she almost undoubtedly acted as a pimp. I don't care how old your kids are, a parent selling their services in any way is far different versus choosing it on their own.

PS Handle is from two schools I attended neither seminary

 

[Leebo]

Morality should relate to harm or suffering caused. If no one is harmed and no one is suffering, then I don't consider it immoral. Obviously the current status of prostitution makes it an unregulated and dangerous industry, but that doesn't mean it is immoral in and of itself.

If two consenting adults agree to a sex act for money... there's nothing to even discuss there.

BTW, my family is quite liberal, so they agree with me already, but the idea that it would be tough to convince them doesn't hold any water as to whether it's right or not.

It's fine if you want to call her a liar, but what she described doing is not what you're accusing her of.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Morality should relate to harm or suffering caused. If no one is harmed and no one is suffering, then I don't consider it immoral. Obviously the current status of prostitution makes it an unregulated and dangerous industry, but that doesn't mean it is immoral in and of itself.

If two consenting adults agree to a sex act for money... there's nothing to even discuss there.

BTW, my family is quite liberal, so they agree with me already, but the idea that it would be tough to convince them doesn't hold any water as to whether it's right or not.

It's fine if you want to call her a liar, but what she described doing is not what you're accusing her of.

You sound more right wing conservative than liberal to me but I also sense trolling* a bit. My point about family was asking women their opinion of prostitution since they are indeed the ones that are often harmed which fits your moral compass definition. So unless it's legal and safer it is in fact a moral risk by even your flimsy definition.

*Claiming something is morally ok because it's a victimless crime is exactly where morality should apply so either you are trolling, haven't thought it thru or are essentially immoral and ok with cheating, stealing and other things so long as you don't get caught. And that brings us squarely back to Mr Pitino and Ms Pimp my Daughters.

 

[Leebo]

How on earth could you interpret what I said as being okay crimes "as long as you aren't caught?" If you have stolen something, the victim is hurt whether you get caught or not. If you cheat, you have deceived the other party. Harm was caused. How is that not clear?

The other party could be something as general as "society."

I have no idea where you got that interpretation of what I said from.

Calling me right wing based on what I said doesn't make any sense either, but whatever.

 

[Dogdeacon]

How on earth could you interpret what I said as being okay crimes "as long as you aren't caught?" If you have stolen something, the victim is hurt whether you get caught or not. If you cheat, you have deceived the other party. Harm was caused. How is that not clear?

The other party could be something as general as "society."

I have no idea where you got that interpretation of what I said from.

Calling me right wing based on what I said doesn't make any sense either, but whatever.

Right wing because it seems like you do what's good for you and don't worry about repercussions on others or society unless they are directly negatively impacted. But maybe a free love legalized prostitution is far left wing, either way just semantics, not happening so doesn't matter.

Morality: Say you were married, you cheat on your wife, you enjoy it, the person you are cheating with enjoys it and your wife never finds out. I say that is immoral and you broke a promise and betrayed someone. You may believe it's ok to do and even feel no guilt but that doesn't make it a moral way to act. Moral would be do it only if it is possible without deception.

 

[Leebo]

If you cheat on your wife, which implies you had an extramarital relationship without her knowledge and without her consent... obviously you have deceived her and this is represents harm whether anyone in the world ever finds out.

You seem to be going out of your way to misinterpret what I said.

People who are against weighing harm and suffering typically argue for the "moral authority" angle, whereby some entity (usually God) declares things wrong just because he says so. Sin, for instance, is the idea that some things are wrong even if no one is harmed by them, just because God doesn't like them.

That's what I'm contrasting against.

Your characterization of me as someone who selfishly ignores "indirect repercussions" (whatever you mean by that) is not accurate. Any negative repercussion represents harm in my view of morality, whether the party is aware of it or not.

 

[TasteofUConn]

Right wing because it seems like you do what's good for you and don't worry about repercussions on others or society

"Repercussions" on "others" or "society" is simply a pretext for attempting to control what other people do because it's frowned upon by . . . whomever.
For example, I say, "prostitution between consenting adults should be legal."
The response is, "there is a negative impact on society. It causes broken homes. Many women get raped or get diseases."
And so on.
But really, the whole "it's bad for society so even though it's consensual, it should still be illegal" is a cover for "my belief structure views that as immoral, so therefore it should be illegal."

The proof in what I said is the fact that 33% of all Americans are obese, and 38% of all American children are obese. If the issue really was about negative impacts on society, and not about controlling eschewed behavior in others, then the list of "what should be illegal to protect society from being harmed" should start with weighing all the fat asses and making it illegal for them to be obese.

I mean, eating garbage food seems like a victimless crime, to be sure, but think of the costs on society.

 

[huskiesNhoos]

I propose an immediate amendment to the boneyard constitution:

Separation of church and boneyard

 

[Leebo]

This is definitely veering toward Cesspool content. Probably a good idea to stop.

 

[Dogdeacon]

If you cheat on your wife, which implies you had an extramarital relationship without her knowledge and without her consent... obviously you have deceived her and this is represents harm whether anyone in the world ever finds out.

You seem to be going out of your way to misinterpret what I said.

People who are against weighing harm and suffering typically argue for the "moral authority" angle, whereby some entity (usually God) declares things wrong just because he says so. Sin, for instance, is the idea that some things are wrong even if no one is harmed by them, just because God doesn't like them.

That's what I'm contrasting against.

Your characterization of me as someone who selfishly ignores "indirect repercussions" (whatever you mean by that) is not accurate. Any negative repercussion represents harm in my view of morality, whether the party is aware of it or not.

Your exact definition was someone is harmed and in my scenario no one is harmed but you still found it immoral so you need to rework your definition. Morality has zero to do with a god. Whether one exists or not, I don't know.

So ok I agree 100% with you that people cannot impose moral authority over others. Especially true if they are doing so according to their arbitrary religious rules or doctorine.

I don't think I'm imposing some moral authority on this woman in being spalled that she would participate in any way in whoring her daughters

 

[Leebo]

Your exact definition was someone is harmed and in my scenario no one is harmed but you still found it immoral so you need to rework your definition.

No... in the cheating scenario, deception of your wife represents harm to her even if you take the secret to your grave. Clearly you didn't grasp this from my first post about it, but now that I've made it clear, can you stop repeating your misrepresentation of it?

 

[CallMeBruce]

No... in the cheating scenario, deception of your wife represents harm to her even if you take the secret to your grave. Clearly you didn't grasp this from my first post about it, but now that I've made it clear, can you stop repeating your misrepresentation of it?

He'd either have to admit he's wrong or stop talking, and I don't see either of those happening, so expect some more tortured-ass logic.