former lurker

Perhaps a brief primer in the structure of our government and our rights will help you understand. States have broad, general powers in all areas with delineated exceptions. The Federal Government is a government of enumerated (listed) powers. Some of those federal powers are exclusive to the feds, most may also be regulated by the states so long as the states' laws don't conflict with the federal laws (that's because the Federal government has "supreme" authority in those areas specifically listed in the Constitution). There are, however, certain rights retained by the people that neither the states nor the Federal Government may restrict (freedom of speech, political assembly, freedom of the press, etc.). To regulate those activities, the feds or the states must have greater cause to do so and may only do so in a limited fashion. Thus, the government can't ban political rallies, but it can limit the size of crowds, require the wearing of masks, etc. Those are referred to as "time, place and manner" limits. It would not be okay for the government to simply disallow political assembly outright. Restricting circuit parties, gatherings in bars, closing beaches and stadiums for athletics or concerts do not raise the same concerns because those activities are not political speech in the same way a candidate's rally or a civil rights protest are. If you really can't see the difference, you should take a few classes on the first amendment. I suspect you can see the difference, it just undercuts your argument of a double standard so you pretend the distinctions don't exist or don't matter.

The truth is we have no idea what any guy may take to maintain an erection before meeting with us.

If SoCal is your example, it's atypical of the rallies around the country, and it's an area where there has been a resurgence of covid cases. Not so in most other large cities with large BLM protest marches. What other large scale or crowded gatherings have been allowed in SoCal preceding the recent surge?

This latest of your posts exposes your real views and real agenda. You're no longer claiming to compare equivalent situations, you're imagining what would happen if your unsubstantiated assumptions were to come to pass. And USING ALL CAPS doesn't make your claim of a double standard where none exists any less telling. I guess I missed the part of your post where you told us what city you're in where there have been large scale protests with 25%-50% of people not wearing masks. As for the "rules are rules" part of your "argument", that's not correct either as a matter of law and policy. Protest marches are textbook instances of core political activity protected against governmental restrictions by the first amendment. Concerts for entertainment are not, nor is spring break, Cochella, or any number of other large gatherings. Political rallies get the same deference and are allowed. Both protest marches and candidate rallies may, however, be required to observe public health regulations (meeting fire codes w/r/t numbers allowed, masks b/c of Covid, etc.). You are putting a lot of effort into characterizing different circumstances as equivalent so as to falsely claim a double standard. That's plain, and it says a lot more than you're willing to admit.

Insisting that the escort come, and even refusing to pay the full rate if he doesn't, is hardly a means to ensure he is enjoying the time as much as possible. Less demanding is more likely to result in his greater enjoyment.

I don't find your A credible. It isn't what's been happening in most of the cities with large BLM protests. What city are you referring to? Also, which concerts and festivals can you point to where there were 75% of the attendees wearing masks? The data clearly reflects that most of the states where surges are occurring are those where the political leaders and population did not consider the virus to be a serious threat requiring closing bars, etc., and were quick to reopen them. How do you explain why the virus is surging in Florida, South Carolina, etc, but not in NYC?

NOPE, because in those areas where the virus is surging, the thousands aren't "wearing masks", they're gathering in bars and at rallies without distancing and without wearing masks. Your revising the facts to fit your view rather than revising your view to fit the facts.

Put another way, many escorts set their rates in part based on their travel expenses -- if they're going to fly to NYC or LA, pay for local transportation, hotel, etc., they want to cover all of those costs and still make money.

It's not a matter of having it both ways. You're comparing apples and oranges. In areas where the protests have been handled well (distancing, wearing masks, etc), there's been little to no evidence of a surge in Covid cases. In areas where people gather without masks and don't maintain distancing, there have been surges. In large part, the BLM protests have been conducted with a concerted effort to mitigate the risks of spreading Covid. The locations where surges have occurred are largely those where a good portion of the leaders and the population insisted the virus was a hoax, that the media overstated the risks, etc. Unsurprisingly, those who bought this line of bs did not act to mitigate the risks of contracting or spreading the disease.

Not quite. A lot depends on the approach taken in the particular locale. In those areas where the local officials and the public have taken the virus seriously, and consistently practiced the mitigation efforts (distancing, wearing masks, self-quarantining when warranted), there have not been spikes associated with large-scale protests. That is in part because the protest organizers and attendees are not denying the seriousness of the virus, and are acting to mitigate the risks. In contrast, the large gatherings in settings where denial of the virus and the threats it poses is part of the thinking (i.e., Trump rallies, reopening bars in states where the elected officials have downplayed the seriousness of the virus) have been accompanied by increased incidents of the virus. Can largescale outdoor events occur in a responsible way, with masks and distancing practiced? Yes. Are they likely to happen without a spike in cases, especially if the attending population are looking to make a point that the virus's threat is not real and act as if it's not, probably not.

Perhaps, but likely not a serious factor given that the most significant surges in cases are in states with less of the protests and smaller crowds at those protests.

The effectiveness of antibodies is still an open issue. We don't know how long they last, or the extent to which they confer temporary immunity. We do know that people have contracted Covid a second time which should give some pause to those relying on the prospect of herd immunity and immunity from the antibodies. We also have relatively little knowledge of how the virus adapts. Time will tell.

Only you can determine the level of risk you consider acceptable for yourself, although with Covid your risks aren't entirely your own. To my mind, NYC is and will remain a hot spot for Covid 19 because of the sheer size and density of the population. The numbers have stabilized, and that's largely a result of the rigorous approach to social distancing, wearing of masks, and limiting gatherings. Of course, any hiring one does in NYC will be the opposite of those practices and be risky. The simple fact of population density means you are never too far removed from someone who has been in contact with the disease and that, should you contract it, you will be in close proximity to others so as to be prone to spread it. So, in sum, the positives w/r/t NYC are that the population takes this seriously, as do the local officials, while the negatives are the population size and compact quarters. That would be too much risk for me to take on.

First off, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your niece. Second, I agree with everything you've said. The concerted campaign in the media to demonize the science and medical experts, and to trivialize the pandemic, is frightening. We now live in a world where facts are spun for political purpose into oblivion. It's the modern equivalent of the Nazi's propaganda -- "the big lie", if told often enough and insistently becomes reality for so many people. Trump has been an obstacle to dealing productively with the pandemic, and his minions are working overtime to demonize anyone who points out that he's talking bullshit.

My bad. Your writing that something "wasn't addressed at" me led me to surmise you were the poster. As for the substance, I stand by my comments.

You posted on an open forum, so don't be so touchy if someone you're not directly responding to comments negatively on a post. As far as the inevitability of quippy insults, you're letting yourself off the hook too easily. I don't suspect it was intentional, but some quippy insults are more insensitive than others and affect different people. There is some truth about your complaint re: "me culture", but there's also a tendency in these times of pervasive social media for people to say offensive things without thinking -- I'd say it's a coarsening of social discourse, casually posting offensive or insensitive items, and then verbally shrugging them off by accusing critics of being too PC or overly sensitive. Free speech isn't free in that one owns what one says, and words have consequences.

Take a moment to think about it. Referring to Trump, or anyone, as "Agent Orange" may be a quippy insult, but it can also come off as trivializing the real agent orange by treating it as a punchline -- the real agent orange was a chemical warfare substance that destroyed villages, and left scores (including our own service men) with serious lifelong illnesses.

We have the same proof of WorthJayson's claim as we do of yours -- his word. Beyond that, if both of you are truthful, his claim is more persuasive given that he actually saw the guy, while you perceived his lack of interest in seeing you as a response to your race. Perhaps he had other reasons for deciding to not see you.

This is an overbroad statement. It is true that good students who apply themselves can get as much from their college experience as students do at Ivy League schools. And there are some exceptional State Universities, and some that are exceptional in certain areas or fields. However, the faculty at the Ivies are uniformly among the top in their fields, the schools all have tremendous resources for research (libraries, science facilities), enroll students who are at the top of their classes in secondary school, and in a whole manner of other ways offer a generally more rigorous and exceptional education than other colleges and universities. The brightest stars from other schools may measure equally or even better than the brightest from the Ivies, but the great majority of Ivy graduates are better educated than the great majority at most other schools. It is also true that coming from money and being connected is a huge advantage for getting admitted to the most competitive schools, and that merit has less to do with the admission in those cases. But that's not how the vast majority of students get into the Ivies. They do so by being at the top of their HS class, having a breadth of experience, testing well, doing laudable and interesting things outside of school, being among the best at their extracurricular pursuits, etc.

Agreed. His pricing scheme provoked a lot of reaction, and it's clear most of us wouldn't hire him at those rates. Then we had the whole back and forth over his education. All of that is based on what's in his ad or quoted from an initial exchange. The more interesting (to me) info would be from someone who met (in person or via cam/stream) the guy.

Of course it's not good to generalize. You did in your earlier post. I agree with your more recent statement that it's more individualized. It is still the case that top schools like Harvard and Columbia have strong curricula across most or all departments -- they don't have weak spots.

You have a point, but are stating it too broadly. There are some schools (and most of the Ivy's fit this) where every area of study is top notch for that discipline. Harvard is one of them. So is Columbia. They don't have soft spots in the curriculum. They do everything well. Of course some Harvard graduates were more impressive and accomplished as students than others (as is the case at every school). But in general, an average student at Harvard is still impressive.

They are different, but depending on the field, the institutions and the circumstances, those differences can be either important or not. Years ago, after getting my masters, I was hired by my alma mater as a sabbatical replacement for my undergrad advisor. After his return, I became a full time administrator and taught one or two courses a year. When I was applying to law schools, he told me that a lot of universities will treat a JD as a PhD. It's not. The equivalent PhD in legal eductions is an LLD. The JD degree came into being in the Vietnam War era when students in PhD programs could obtain deferrals for the draft. Most law school faculties of that day voted to rename the LLB degree to be Juris Doctorate.

I LOVE that song!

That's all true. But there's also a supply/demand thing going on. He's banking on the likelihood that there aren't a lot of escorts with his looks, build, other physical attributes, etc, who are ivy league educated with a PhD. My guess is he won't get many bites from a site like RM with his rates and pricing scheme.