Strippers v.s. Telemarketers by SigmaNunki

TALK STORY

Strippers v.s. Telemarketers

POSTED BY: SIGMANUNKI
UPDATED: Friday, April 6, 2007 03:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3280
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:15 PM

Just going to bed and I had a neural misfire which resulted in what I think is an interesting question.

What is ethically worse, being a stripper or being a telemarketers?

IMO, it's the telemarketers.

In general, stripping isn't exactly the most respected profession. But, to see a stripper you have to go out of your way; you can't really accidentally see a stripper. Thus, only those that choose to see them, see them.

But, telemarketers are involved in annoying us, mostly at the worse times. Not to mention that a good portion of them are trying to rip us off. There is also no limit to who they bother. They affect the young and old alike regardless if we want it. They also will not leave us alone. There is no escape.

What are your guys opinions?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:47 PM

DECAF

The problem I see is that there are side effects to strippers. Say a strip club opens up around the corner from your home. You start to worry about your kids being out at night even near their home because they bring in "undesirables". Now don't get me wrong. I enjoy myself at a club every now and again, but some of the folk I've seen there give me the willies (sometimes the dancers too)

That said they are quite similar. They make most people uncomfortable who are not interested in spending money there. The telemarketer who calls at dinner, or the seedy strip club in a residential neighborhood. 'course I definately agree with you on one point. I feel like I get more for my money from a stripper

_________________________________
"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
- Abraham Lincoln

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 12:56 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

I think for the most part we'd be better off without both of them... or at least as many of them. Nice to know they're there if you wanna go out of your way to do business, but I don't like shiting where I eat. I kinda liked the idea of strippers more when it was dirty, not well lit places you'd go to off of an expressway. Not so much a fan of them when they're taking off their clothes right next to the Baskin Robbins at the local mini-mall, in a non-smoking establishment. Yeah... they did that in cities in Illinois already because we know that the patrons who frequent the nudie bars and get drunk there are really upstanding citizens who care an awful lot about their health.

I also derive pleasure from both of them. Strippers need no explanation of course, but I like harassing telemarketers just as much. Nothing beats trying to sell my car to a telemarketer.... except maybe getting a lap-dance from a stripper that's crying.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 5:39 AM

SCORPIONREGENT

Everyone is entitled to a job, and if I have to choose the lesser of two evils I would say the strippers stay and the telemarketers go. It wasn't a easy decision, a good friend of mine works as a DJ at a strip club and has explained to me the unseen elements of the whole situation so I have a perspective beyond the surface veneer.

But what's your opinion of the phone sex workers?

Scorpion Regent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:05 AM

REDLAVA

Both of them are jobs that one may not want to have to fall into. And both are held by people who are just trying to make a living like everybody else. One job is annoying for almost everybody the other is pure entertainment for those people whom want that sort of thing.

My vote for the more ethically worse is the telemarketers. We can do without people trying to sell us life insurance and change phone service when we are trying to eat dinner. But face it most of us love, at least a little bit, a person who is willing to take their cloths off and dance for a couple of bucks.

Course the $20 cover and the $8 beers are morally and ethically wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 6:13 AM

KANEMAN

What is ethically wrong with being a stripper....Their bodies, given to them by god, to show men for a buck...Works for me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 30, 2007 9:41 AM

LETOV

I have no ethical problem with strippers per se. I worry more than anything about the strippers being mis-treated or shady things happening in the background. Telemarketers I know are just people making minimum wage somewhere trying to make a living. It doesn't mean they aren't annoying as hell. My wife has a great response actually to telemarketers. You can usually tell if you're getting a telemarketer since there's a little pause before they connect. She'll grab our 3-year old and give her the phone.

Course, I'll never forget a quote I once saw on the news when there was a report about how the city was trying to get the strip clubs to shut down by removing their liquor licenses. They asked this woman who was passing by how she felt about her husband going to the clubs. She just replied: "Honey, I don't care where he goes to get an appetite, just so he comes home to eat"...

Love that quote...

Me, I personally don't enjoy strip clubs. It's just teasing without release... you get arrested for getting that...

- Leto_V

"Well, my days of not taking you
seriously are certainly coming to
a middle." - Mal

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 10:03 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What is ethically worse, being a stripper or being a telemarketers?

You're presupposing that they're both unethical. Justify.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 11:44 AM

ZEROKIRYU

All I know is telemaketers are evil.

Telemarketers attack you at home and at the worst times.

Although, I wouldn't mind a stripper calling me at 8:00 p.m. to tell me she's coming to give me a lap dance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 11:47 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What is ethically worse, being a stripper or being a telemarketers?

You're presupposing that they're both unethical. Justify.

I <3 you, Causal.

(VERY IMPORTANT) Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 12:00 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What is ethically worse, being a stripper or being a telemarketers?

You're presupposing that they're both unethical. Justify.

Well, I hate to be playing semantics, but does 'ethically worse' imply 'unethical'?

For instance, one could argue that voting for the GOP is ethically worse than voting for the Democrats, but is it unethical?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 12:14 PM

SIGMANUNKI

@Causal:

I actually gave some thought about how to respond to your post; going over several different replies in my head. But, in the end, I wanted a short simple response. From your sig (as of this writing) I found such a response:

"""
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously
"""

@ScorpionRegent:

Not sure. I have zero experience with them. Not that I have very much experience with strippers (one in my life and I was almost literally dragged along).

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 2:01 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Causal:

I actually gave some thought about how to respond to your post; going over several different replies in my head. But, in the end, I wanted a short simple response. From your sig (as of this writing) I found such a response:

"""
No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously
"""

Touche!

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 2:02 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What is ethically worse, being a stripper or being a telemarketers?

You're presupposing that they're both unethical. Justify.

I <3 you, Causal.

Thanks Yinyang!

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 1, 2007 2:21 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Touche!

Tee hee

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 6:18 AM

KHYRON

Pedantry is the in-thing at the moment, ALL the fashionable forums are doing it these days. We must keep up appearances.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 5:31 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Pedantry is the in-thing at the moment, ALL the fashionable forums are doing it these days. We must keep up appearances.

Oh, now, I'm no pedant. I have no illusions about the actual pragmatic value of philosophizing--but then that's not really the point. I philosophize not because I rate it too highly, but because I love it so much. So if I think I can draw someone into a philosophical discussion, I will. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Sometimes I just get flamed to pieces. But that's a 2 in 3 chance of something interesting happening, and I guess I'm willing to play those odds.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 2:21 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I philosophize not because I rate it too highly, but because I love it so much. So if I think I can draw someone into a philosophical discussion, I will.

Okay then, what do you think of my statement that something being ethically worse does not imply that it's unethical?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 2:34 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I philosophize not because I rate it too highly, but because I love it so much. So if I think I can draw someone into a philosophical discussion, I will.
Okay then, what do you think of my statement that something being ethically worse does not imply that it's unethical?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Well, you're speaking to an issue of ethical gradation, and typically, ethical philosophers don't go in for graduation of wrongness/rightness, but a mere identification of act as morally blame- or praise-worthy. That said, what is intended by the term "ethically worse"? There seem to be two ways to take that. First, the term might mean, "Between these two alternatives, which is the morally wrong one?" Second, the term might mean, "Between these two morally wrong alternatives, which is more morally wrong?" If the first use of the term is meant, then of course the question of which group is morally worse doesn't imply that both are morally wrong (and, strictly, also doesn't entail that either is). But if that's the intention of the phrase, why use the term "worse?" "Worse" is a comparative term that presupposes that two things share some attributes in common, but that one shares those attributes deficiently. Merriam Webster def 1: "of more inferior quality"; def 2: a: more unfavorable, b: more faulty; def 3: bad, evil, or corrupt in a greater degree: more reprehensible (emphasis added). So I think that to ask which of two alternatives is morally worse is to presuppose that both are morally wrong in some degree, and then to ask further which is morally wrong in the greater degree. That, of course, leaves open the tricky question of how one identifies degrees or gradations of moral wrong.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 4:23 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, you're speaking to an issue of ethical gradation, and typically, ethical philosophers don't go in for graduation of wrongness/rightness, but a mere identification of act as morally blame- or praise-worthy.

In that case I disagree with ethical philosophers on this point (probably just means I'm wrong), but if something is debate-worthy from an ethical perspective, there's almost never black and white, and the shades of grey can change depending on context (sorry, I know 'shade of grey' is becoming a bit of a cliche, but it fits).

Quote:
That said, what is intended by the term "ethically worse"? There seem to be two ways to take that. First, the term might mean, "Between these two alternatives, which is the morally wrong one?" Second, the term might mean, "Between these two morally wrong alternatives, which is more morally wrong?"

In this case the second case you mentioned is more applicable, but with a modification: "Between these two morally ambiguous alternatives, which is more morally wrong?". I changed 'wrong' to 'ambiguous' since saying flat-out that they're morally wrong is basically saying they're unethical, and this assumption is what I don't necessarily agree with (in general and in this context).

Or perhaps the following alteration is more fitting: "Between these two alternatives, which are both morally wrong to some degree, which is more morally wrong?". The reason for this change, which in hindsight I probably prefer, is this:

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So I think that to ask which of two alternatives is morally worse is to presuppose that both are morally wrong in some degree, and then to ask further which is morally wrong in the greater degree.

I don't have a problem with presupposing they're morally wrong to some degree (just like most things worthy of debate are), but that just says that morally speaking they're both not ideal, which is different from assuming they're immoral (or unethical).

Btw, a bit off-topic but something I'm not sure about and never have been, in a context such as this, what's the difference between 'moral' and 'ethical'? Most of the time I use them interchangeably in these sort of discussions without being sure if I can do that.

Quote:
That, of course, leaves open the tricky question of how one identifies degrees or gradations of moral wrong.

Yep, that's why we have debates on the morality of war, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 10:41 AM

SCORPIONREGENT

So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

Scorpion Regent

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 11:06 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:
So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

Scorpion Regent

I have to say, if my sister wanted to be a stripper, I'd have less moral reservations than if she wanted to be a telemarketer.

I'd have things to say about the safety of the job, though, which has nothing to do with the morality of the concept of stripping for money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 11:43 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:

So it seems unanamious that strippers are less offensive than telemarketers.

And don't you find that just wild?

Quote:
Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:

Which would you choose for your close females friends and relatives as a job? Bear in mind that strippers get paid exceptionally well.

I'd find them a job as a waitress

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:36 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
In that case I disagree with ethical philosophers on this point [ of philosophers not talking about ethical gradation ] (probably just means I'm wrong), but if something is debate-worthy from an ethical perspective, there's almost never black and white, and the shades of grey can change depending on context (sorry, I know 'shade of grey' is becoming a bit of a cliche, but it fits).

Well, I guess I'm going to have to stick my neck out for my colleagues and say that I agree with their disinclination to talk about degrees of moral evaluation. I think right and wrong as such are binary propositions. An act either is or is not wrong. I'm afraid I just don't buy that right and wrong exist on some sort of continuum. That said, it is often very difficult to tease out just what is right and wrong in a given situation, which gives the appearance of moral ambiguity. In addition, there does seem to be a continuum in terms of the effects of certain wrongs, and the social condemnation of certain wrongs. Take, for instance, two cases, A and B. In both A and B, an legitimate authority has given a rule or law to someone under authority, such that that rule/law ought morally to be obeyed. In both A and B, the rule/law is disobeyed. I think that it's the case that we can say that in both A and B the disobedient party did wrong in that they disobeyed a person with legitimate authority. And this seems clear without having to investigate the particulars of A and B in that the moral ought of rules-following was disregarded. But suppose further that in case A a mother told a child not to eat a cookie before dinner, whereas in case B a man was driving drunk and killed a pedestrian. Only now does it appear that "ethically worse" would apply--but my contention is that it does not. My contention is that "wrong" simply means "not morally right" and that doesn't allow for gradations. But what does allow for gradations is the severity of the wrongdoing in terms of the magnitude of the effects of the wrongdoing and in terms of the social blame place upon the wrong doer. In that sense, I think that we might actually be agreeing when it comes to what "ethically worse" means--though by using "worse" we import a philosophical can of worms (the idea of moral gradations), which is tricky given that right/wrong seem to be a binary pair that doesn't admit of gradation.

Quote:
In this case the second case you mentioned is more applicable, but with a modification: "Between these two morally ambiguous alternatives, which is more morally wrong?". I changed 'wrong' to 'ambiguous' since saying flat-out that they're morally wrong is basically saying they're unethical, and this assumption is what I don't necessarily agree with (in general and in this context).

Now we're back into the morass of moral gradation. My assertion is that in ethical evaluation right/wrong is a binary pair. That is, an act is either right, or it is wrong, or it is morally neutral (like tying one's shoes). I think it is improper to say "more wrong." Consider a computer's binary operations: the gate can have a value of 0 or 1 and nothing in between. We don't say it's "more 1" because that's incomprehensible. I propose something similar is the case with moral evaluation. I suspect that if you were to describe exactly what you mean by something's being "more wrong" than something else, you would wind up discussing the effects of two different things, or the degree to which our society holds that those things are acceptable or not. But neither of these things goes to the moral status as such of the acts. They go to the effects or to the social reception of the acts. Again, though, I suspect that we are really talking about the same sort of thing, just with different language. I think it's a perfectly appropriate question to ask which of two alternatives has the more deleterious effect on society--but this doesn't describe the moral status of the alternatives, it describes the effects of the alternatives.

Quote:
Btw, a bit off-topic but something I'm not sure about and never have been, in a context such as this, what's the difference between 'moral' and 'ethical'? Most of the time I use them interchangeably in these sort of discussions without being sure if I can do that.

Well, "ethics" is the branch of philosophy that deals with questions of moral rightness and wrongness. The trouble is that the term "ethical" isn't very precise. The term "wrong" is precise in a way that "unethical" is not, but we live in a culture that is increasingly denying that there is value (or even content) in the concept of morality. I think this has to do with ideas about religious faith and judgment, and not a very thorough understanding of the concepts of right and wrong. In such a culture, "unethical" is sometimes more palatable than "morally wrong." Even many moral philosophers seem to shy away from "right" and "wrong" and substituting them with "morally praiseworthy" and "morally blameworthy." In the vernacular there may be some significant difference between "unethical" and "morally wrong," but philosophically the only real difference is that when I hear someone say "unethical" it makes me think that the person is attached to some particular ethical theory that guides their evaluation of acts in question.

Quote:
Quote:
That, of course, leaves open the tricky question of how one identifies degrees or gradations of moral wrong.
Yep, that's why we have debates on the morality of war, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

Actually, what I meant here is not to say "determine degrees of wrongness is hard." That would assume that I think that it is possible. What I meant was that the person who holds that it is possible to subdivide right and wrong in gradations has the burden of proof of showing how it might be possible to show how one act would be "more wrong" than another. And my contention is that there is no way to do that without resorting to a discussion of the effects of the act or the social blame or praise attendant to the act--neither of which discuss the act-as-such and are therefore irrelevant to disucssing the act-as-such. I don't think that the debates over war and abortion and euthanasia are so vigorous because no one agrees on the degree of right or wrong present in those things. I think that they are vigorously debated because people can't agree on the bare moral status of the acts-as-such. Take abortion. We had an abortion debate on these boards not too long ago which actually managed to stay pretty calm (with a few exceptions). What I discovered was that I was considering abortion as an act with moral import (and as such, susceptible to a right/wrong evaluation) whereas the individual who was my chief antagonist saw abortion as a morally neutral act, with no more moral significance than tying one's shoes. It doesn't seem to be the case that we disagreed on the degree of morality (which I believe is an empty concept) but on the moral status as such of the act--and that was the point of contention.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE