The nature of risk

[Guest knowland]

Not too many activities are risk free. The debate about HIV status is about a different issue, whether it's ethical in a business deal to conceal information that you know could influence the other person's decision to make or not make the deal. The same issue is present when an escort conceals his HIV positive status or when the officers of Enron conceal billions in debt so investors will buy the stock.

 

Getting an infection like e.coli is not a punishment for killing an animal. Anyone who says it is would have to explain why plenty of people have serious allergic reactions to legumes. Would that be a punishment for killing the peanut?

[phage]

I know this will bore most of you, but many months ago I was trying to understand the pros and cons of hate speech legislation and got some great information from the board. It helped me form an opinion that, right or wrong, is based in logic and a reasonable understanding of the issue.

 

I’ve been thinking about this for a while and honestly don’t know whether it is harebrained or reasonable.

 

It started with a conversation at work about the safety of the meat supply. A couple of the women were going on and on about a recent news report about everything from Mad Cow disease to E. Coli. It occurred to me that it is only right – in some moral or karmic sort of way – that there is some risk to eating meat. I mean, why should eating another living creature be risk free? If having that hamburger is important enough to you that some animal has to die, then you should be willing to assume some risk that it may cause you harm. (I do eat meat by the way.)

 

I thought about this again during the ‘Card Carryin’ thread when Ad rian was talking about an escort’s obligation to disclose HIV status so that he could minimize his risk. I know it’s not the same thing because the escort doesn’t have to die for the client’s orgasm, but I keep thinking the conclusion I reached about eating meat (I know most people won’t agree.) can be applied to this.

 

I should have paid more attention to those college philosophy classes. I just didn’t realize they could help you think things through later in life.

 

Any of you guys want to throws rocks at this?

[Guest dstud4hire]

Hmmm, phage, in your post, you fail to indicate what your opinion truly is about hate speech legislation, though based on your line of thinking in the post, (accepting a certain amount of risk, let's say, for eating meat, then getting e.coli) then I think you are going in the direction of saying that if you are Gay or black or jewish (in other words, not white, middle aged, christian, perceived heterosexual male) then you know there is a certain element of risk involved, so one should learn to deal with it......did I infer that correctly from your post? It was rather vague in what your opinion was /is on that subject.

 

So, if my interpretation of your post is accurate, then I guess one could also make the leap that there shouldn't have laws against rape, after all, a sexy woman who walks by a construction site dressed in a sexy tight outfit knows there is a element of risk later on at night of perhaps being followed by one of these guys, and maybe even raped, so she should have to be able to deal with the consequences.

 

If you happen to have your house broken into, (and you were silly enough not to install an alarm) and all your electronics were stolen, you also accept the risk of that happening because you couldn't afford to live in a nicer area or with an alarm....so strike that law.

 

hate crime laws address speech and the forms of violence that comes from such speech. These are necessary laws, for they make it punishable to infringe upon my rights...as a gay man, I have the right to walk out of my house holding the hand of my male partner, without the fear of recriminations. It is a violation of my civil rights to be able to attack me based on my orientation. So just like there are varying degrees of laws to address breaking and entering (i.e....lighter laws for attmpting to break and enter vs. breaking and entering but not taking any thing vs breaking and entering and stealing something, and so on) there too are a variety of laws that address the various forms of violence to someone (emotional or physical violence.)

 

Of course, that said and done, I probably misunderstood your post....but it wasn't a very clear post to begin with.

[foxy]

Life is a risk. Sooner or later, something will get you. Might as well enjoy the ride, it may be the only one you get.

[Guest Merlin]

phage, implicit in your thinking is the idea that eating meat, and killing animals to do so, are wrong. If you believe that, you probably should not eat meat at all. If you believe that killing animals and eating the meat are OK, then it make little sense to say that we deserve the risk. I personally believe that the killing and eating are OK. We are by nature animals, and like many other animals, we evolved to eat meat, with such fruit and vegetables as we could gather. Cultivating crops was a later and artificial development. Many scientists now believe that many of our weight and health problems result from the overconsumption of cultivated grains and sugars. Others believe to the contrary. Consider this: is it wrong for the lion to kill and eat the lamb? What else would he eat? Is he morally obligated to eat grass? Is it wrong for a big fish to eat a small fish? It is in their evolved nature to eat other animals, so how can it be wrong? So by what logic is it wrong for us?

[Will]

>I should have paid more attention to those college

>philosophy classes. I just didn’t realize they could help

>you think things through later in life.

 

One week to the day before the 9/11 disaster, my best friend died at 63 of brain cancer. Otherwise he was in spectacular health. His cholesterol was something like 164, his blood pressure 110/73, he ran every day. He could (and did) eat all the things I've forbidden myself practically since I was weaned: french fries, chocolate, mayonnaise. In fact, other than my own father he's the only man I've ever known who wore the same sizes as an adult that he had worn in high school.

 

My friend was also a widely-published philosopher as well as the greatest teacher I have ever known. The question that Phage raises here interested him very much and he often used it to pique students' minds, to goad them into thinking for themselves. I think he might have put it like this: What is the relationship between "rights" and "risks"?

 

For example, if I get mugged on the street, what is the relationship between my rights as a citizen, which is an inverse way of describing the responsibility of the government to protect pedestrians, and the risks I take when I decide to live in the city, which comes down to the fact that nobody is to blame except the perpetrator? Here's another version: Is it a "tragedy" when inhabitants who live on the slopes of a volcano are killed in an eruption, and, if so, what is the nature of that tragedy? Does justice transcend the laws of nature, which dictate that an active volcano is going to erupt every now and then, no matter who or what happens to be close by?

 

So it is with sex, and with love. But one thing was clear to my friend: if you don't ever take risks, you never have any fun. There may be pleasure in knowing exactly what the outcome of something will be, but there's certainly no thrill in it.

 

Who wants to swap the unknowable elements in the escort game for the predictable if pleasurable commodities of the "sure thing?"

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

The Sure Thing

 

>>I should have paid more attention to those college

>>philosophy classes. I just didn’t realize they could help

>>you think things through later in life.

>

 

>The question that Phage raises here interested him very much

>and he often used it to pique students' minds, to goad them

>into thinking for themselves.

 

>I think he might have put it like this: What is

>the relationship between "rights" and "risks"?

>

>So it is with sex, and with love. But one thing was clear

>to my friend: if you don't ever take risks, you never have

>any fun. There may be pleasure in knowing exactly what the

>outcome of something will be, but there's certainly no

>thrill in it.

 

Another wonderfully thoughtful post from Will. I only wish to get back to the point in two ways.

 

The concept of disclosure in business is always ethical and should cut both ways. Often, on this board, the onus is placed on the escorts, but as the incidence with Tom Bustone shows, both parties should not only take responsibility but also disclose as appropriate. In reality, this will also make the the entire experience a good one for the client and the escort.

 

As an escort, we undertake any number of risks, to our health, reputations, and general welfare. There are certainly enough stories about escorts being shortchanged as their are about clients being taken.

 

Personally, in all things, I think risk is what makes you feel most alive. Risk can be calculated, assessed and minimized, but life itself entails risk. I once went clear across the country to be with someone and while I certainly looked both ways before I left, it was certainly a leap of faith on my part to go.

[phage]

>Of course, that said and done, I probably misunderstood your

>post....but it wasn't a very clear post to begin with.

 

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity, but these aren’t clear thoughts, which is why I wanted some input. The topic of hate speech wasn’t really relevant to this particular idea. I just brought it up as an example of when some input helped me reach a conclusion. I always feel awkward bringing up topics that don’t relate to escorts, johns, or sex in some way; but there are some bright, educated and experienced guys around here. A couple of them have had a real impact on my thoughts and opinions.

 

Actually, I agree with you and do support legislation to control hate speech. I had a pretty good debate with TruthTeller, but in the end, my basic liberal democratic ideals won out. He wasn’t able to convince me that the protection of an almost limitless freedom of speech was more important than a person’s right to live free from the fear that hate speech is designed to create.

 

I believe one of government’s primary functions is to protect people from the baser instincts of their neighbors so that we can all enjoy as much of the ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ as is available to us without infringing on others. How can anyone’s right to spew hatred supercede someone else’s right to live free of fear and intimidation?

[phage]

It is in their evolved nature to eat other

>animals, so how can it be wrong? So by what logic is it

>wrong for us?

 

You are correct. I do think it is wrong. I know that I could not slaughter an animal myself. (Unless I was actually starving and had no alternative in which case I would probably make a good addition to the Donner Party.) The only thing that makes it palatable to me is the fact that the slaughtering process is far removed from me. I can disassociate those saran-wrapped slabs of meat from the actual killing of the animal.

 

I know that this is hypocritical and it is something that I struggle with. It is why I believe in the karmic justice of there being risk involved in eating meat and am comfortable assuming it. It offsets the guilt I feel for not being able to resist a good steak.

 

I understand what you are saying about animals and nature, but don’t we claim to be superior to animals? Isn’t that what justifies their use in medical experiments? I think we have evolved beyond that and evolution has prepared us for a vegetarian diet by now, but custom and acquired taste makes it difficult. I also think it is the processed grains and sugars that are contributing to the health problems. I have friends from India who are basically vegetarian (the women completely, but the men do eat a little meat) and there’s not a fat one among them.

 

(I’m really not a member of PETA, but I have to admit that I admire them.)

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>You are correct. I do think it is wrong. I know that I

>could not slaughter an animal myself. (Unless I was actually

>starving and had no alternative in which case I would

>probably make a good addition to the Donner Party)

 

I have no trouble with eating meat(or fish) so long as it does not arrive at the table looking like it did in real life.

 

Only once was I able to eat roast suckling pig. It was in London at a very posh restaurant on the Old Brompton Road, New Years Eve and I was bombed out of my mind. Had I been sober it never would have happened.

 

I have often wondered what I would do if I was ever in the position of those guys (I think it was a soccer team - not sure though) whose plane crashed in the Andes and they had to resort to eating their team members who had died in order to keep themselves alive. I really don't think I could have done that and would have elected to starve to death. But then I guess one never knows until you have been there.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Merlin]

Our physiology has evolved very little, if any, since our days as hunters and gatherers. We believe, with good reason, that we are intellectually superior to the animals, but there is no reason that our physiology is essentially different from or superior to the animals. The reason animals are used in medical tests is because they are similar to us in bodily function, while (apparently)lacking the consciousness which is unique to humans. But if you believe thatkilling animals for food is wrong, you are entitled to you opinion, and I would not say that you are wrong. I do object when animal rights advocates attempt to restrict the rights of others beyond the traditional prevention of cruelty to animals.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I believe one of government’s primary functions is to

>protect people from the baser instincts of their neighbors

>so that we can all enjoy as much of the ‘life, liberty and

>pursuit of happiness’ as is available to us without

>infringing on others.

 

So, I suspect, do most opponents of hate speech laws. The question is whether the motivation behind someone's acting on his baser instincts justifies enhancing the penalties based on the government's disapproval of the perpetrator's ideas about the members of whatever group he attacked. We're talking about increasing the amount of time we deprive people of their liberty here. I don't think it's particularly liberal or democratic do that lightly, especially based on what essentially amounts to political views (fucked up political views, yes; but I don't think people should be punished for having fucked up political views). There is also, it must be pointed out, a difference between expressing one's baser instincts and acting on them.

 

Also, and I hate to drag out the slippery slope argument, but how comfortable are you REALLY giving the government more power to decide what's sufficiently "hateful?" I think I used an example like this the last time around too, so sorry for any deja vu, but next time an ACT UP protestor pies a homophobic religious leader, do you really want him to get enhanced penalties due to his anti-religious bias?

 

>How can anyone’s right to spew hatred

>supercede someone else’s right to live free of fear and

>intimidation?

 

Well, I think we have a surprising amount of control over how fearful and intimidated we want to be, but I'd concede this much. I think statistics should be kept on hate crimes and police forces should devote the appropriate resources to understanding, preventing, responding to and solving these types of crimes. That's where I think the distinction should be underscored and dealt with -- on the policing side, not on the punitive side of the equation.

 

All that said, if there ARE going to be hate crimes/speech laws -- and I don't know that there's much evidence that places that have those laws are less racist/homophobic/anti-Semitic/etc places -- they should apply equally to speech/crimes against gays.

 

Anyway, I know you said this is all beside your main point, which I think was an interesting one, by the way.

[phage]

>Our physiology has evolved very little, if any, since our

>days as hunters and gatherers. We believe, with good reason,

>that we are intellectually superior to the animals, but

>there is no reason that our physiology is essentially

>different from or superior to the animals.

 

Excellent point.

 

>I do object when animal rights advocates attempt to

>restrict the rights of others beyond the traditional

>prevention of cruelty to animals.

 

Again, I’m not a PETA member but I believe what is changing is the definition of what constitutes cruelty. As I get older I get softer. The image of some forlorn wild animal kept as roadside amusement (a recent case of a gorilla that got a lot of attention) or for other “entertainment” reasons now strikes me as cruel. I find I have no stomach for circus entertainment or rodeos and can’t imagine the horror of a bullfight.

 

At this rate, I’ll be a card carrying, paint throwing member of the PETA brigade within a decade or so! (Of course, I’ll have to do something about that craving for a good filet and my fondness for Italian shoes. )

[taylorky]

>At this rate, I’ll be a card carrying, paint throwing member

>of the PETA brigade within a decade or so! we have 11 horses, 3 dogs.and a goat .so maybe i'm a little biased........but you could do worse!!!!!!!!

[phage]

Hey Devon, It’s always good hearing from you.

 

>We're talking about increasing the amount of time we deprive

>people of their liberty here. I don't think it's

>particularly liberal or democratic do that lightly,

 

I would never support incarceration unless the speech lead to actual violence or the person resisted the authorities attempts to stop the activity. I just believe that the government does have the right to control certain activities, and yes, even suppress certain types of speech if it is for the greater good.

 

>especially based on what essentially amounts to political

>views (fucked up political views, yes; but I don't think

>people should be punished for having fucked up political

>views). There is also, it must be pointed out, a difference

>between expressing one's baser instincts and acting on them.

 

I’m not sure I agree that hate speech amounts to political views. I suppose a person could try to spin anything into being his “political” view, but is it really reasonable that saying things meant to fuel hatred and incite violence (against any group) is a legitimate political view?

 

The thing that pushed me over the edge was the web sites that were established by the anti-abortion groups that listed doctor’s names, addresses and photos. These were clearly “hit lists” and meant to intimidate the doctors, make them live in fear, and possibly get them killed. I think they have all been shut down, but these nuts tried to hide behind the banner of the Freedom of Speech.

 

It convinced me that the government needed clear authority to take action when one person’s right to speech infringes another’s right to pursue happiness. It should not be a constitutional issue and they should not be allowed to hide behind it.

 

>Also, and I hate to drag out the slippery slope argument,

>but how comfortable are you REALLY giving the government

>more power to decide what's sufficiently "hateful?"

 

I actually have a lot of faith in our government. I believe there are sufficient checks and balances in place to protect any extreme encroachments on people’s rights. I also believe that people in government are just as dedicated to the principal of free speech as any other American.

 

As much as I dislike Ashcroft, I don’t think he is evil or un-American or will have a huge impact on policy. He’ll swing the pendulum a little (I’m still pissed off about his interference in Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.) but he won’t be able to change the whole government. The same would be true of an Attorney General who really believed in curbing hate speech. He would swing the pendulum but only be able to go so far.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>As I get older I get softer.

 

Ever thought of trying Viagara. :-)

 

>The image of some forlorn wild animal

>kept as roadside amusement (a recent case of a gorilla that

>got a lot of attention) or for other “entertainment” reasons

>now strikes me as cruel. I find I have no stomach for

>circus entertainment or rodeos and can’t imagine the horror

>of a bullfight.

 

I totally agree. Any trained animal act is hatefull and should be outlawed. Many municipalities in Canada now have bylaws that prohibit travelling circuses with such acts. I presume the same is happening in the US.

 

>At this rate, I’ll be a card carrying, paint throwing member

>of the PETA brigade within a decade or so!

 

But I draw the line at paint throwing. People who kill animals to supply the fashion industry by cruel means such as leg hold traps should be forced to spend a few days in one of those traps themselves.

And those who club baby seals should be clubed as well.

 

But if the animal is not an endangered species and is bred for it's pelt - such as mink - and humanely killed - I see no problem with this. The paint throwers who ruin a 20K mink coat should be put in jail. It's no different than if they wrecked a 20K car or vandalized your home.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I’m not sure I agree that hate speech amounts to political

>views. I suppose a person could try to spin anything into

>being his “political” view, but is it really reasonable that

>saying things meant to fuel hatred and incite violence

>(against any group) is a legitimate political view?

 

Of course it's not a LEGITIMATE political view (an assessment NOT best left, however, to any government), but the idea that some people are inferior to others could hardly be called apolitical. It's a view that, if it really caught on, couldn't fail to have major political consequences. So if we're punishing the speech, or enhancing a criminal's penalties because of hateful things he said (before? after? during?) his violent act, we are punishing him for his politics, and as far as I can tell, during whatever extra time he spends in prison (or worse, if the "hate" status of his crime triggers the death penalty), he is a political prisoner.

 

>The thing that pushed me over the edge was the web sites

>that were established by the anti-abortion groups that

>listed doctor’s names, addresses and photos. These were

>clearly “hit lists” and meant to intimidate the doctors,

>make them live in fear, and possibly get them killed. I

>think they have all been shut down, but these nuts tried to

>hide behind the banner of the Freedom of Speech.

>

>It convinced me that the government needed clear authority

>to take action when one person’s right to speech infringes

>another’s right to pursue happiness. It should not be a

>constitutional issue and they should not be allowed to hide

>behind it.

 

Oh, I agree in the case of the hit lists, but was it hate speech laws that shut them down? I don't think abortion providers are considered a protected class under hate speech/crime laws. Actually I'd be interested in hearing what law(s) they did use -- one of the racketeering laws, maybe, that was used in some of the clinic entrance cases (I'm relying on a fuzzy memory of a fuzzy understanding here)? Or stalker laws? At any rate, these were specific individuals being targeted. If the web sites had simply said inflammatory things about abortion providers as a group I don't think they could (or should) have been should down.

 

>I actually have a lot of faith in our government. I believe

>there are sufficient checks and balances in place to protect

>any extreme encroachments on people’s rights.

 

Don't the inequities in our criminal justice system give you pause? The selective application of the death penalty based on race and the higher rates of incarcaration for African-American offenders, and the overwhelming disadvantages faced by poor defendants, for starters? One concern I have is that hate crime prosecution will start being disproportionately used against minorities as well -- that when a black man assaults a white man it will run a greater likelihood of being treated as a hate crime than the other way round. Or, for that matter, that "white trash" will be overwhelmingly targeted for enhanced penalties due to hate speech.

 

>I also

>believe that people in government are just as dedicated to

>the principal of free speech as any other American.

 

I have a lot of admiration and respect for a lot of people in government, including Rudy Giuliani for the way he responded to 9/11 and helped make New York safer, etc., and I'm sure he thinks of himself as being dedicated to the principal of free speech as any other American, but when the man tried to cut off the Brooklyn Museum's funding due to its showing "anti-Catholic" art (by Catholic artists, of course) that should have been a sign that, just as people can try to hide behind the First Ammendment, people in government can also be very elastic in their ideas about what counts as hate speech.

 

I tend to have more faith in the marketplace of ideas. I think the advances gays, for example, have made culturally in the last decade have far outstripped their legislative achievements (and if anything have helped to make them possible). White supremacists ONLY get more widespread sympathy in this country when the government steps in and has an FBI disaster.

 

>As much as I dislike Ashcroft, I don’t think he is evil or

>un-American or will have a huge impact on policy. He’ll

>swing the pendulum a little (I’m still pissed off about his

>interference in Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.) but he

>won’t be able to change the whole government.

 

Any why won't he? Because the whole world has been watching his ass from Day One. We're lucky, in some ways, that Bush didn't appoint somebody bland and low-key to quietly do the things Ashcroft is facing constant scrutiny over.

 

>The same would be true of an Attorney General who really believed in

>curbing hate speech. He would swing the pendulum but only

>be able to go so far.

 

Maybe, but it ain't necessarily so.

[Guest jon guy]

I always seem to get to these interesting topics when rocks have already been trown almost to obliteration!

 

What grabs me about phage's post is the apparent equation between risk and the rightness and wrongness of our actions - eating meat being a case where karmic justice might intervene - to punish??

 

Equally though there are morally unreproachable actions that come inseperable from risk. What about diving into rapids to rescue a dying child.

 

The connection between risk and morality seems contingent at best. I don't believe that you (phage) are suggesting that the gay community is in some way 'morally' culpable for HIV, or are you? We can of course all be individually irresponsible, but the interesting question might be whether the individual who doesn't use a condom deserve to fall positive any more than the baby born to a drug using mother deserves to be. The difference between these two cases, and the force of your meat argument, seems to rest in the fact that our actions - and the moral component of our actions - would seem to requre that we take into account their broader implications. That going to Macdonald's for instance might support to some extent the sort of farming practices which led to BSE by not affording sufficient reverance to the future contents of our dinner tables.

 

But this merely shows that the risk of a behaviour either to ourselves or others should be a component of a morally responsible decision. It does not in any way demonstrate that good = risk free and bad = risky. Lest were back to fuzzy notions of divine retribution arising from fallen man and the eating of the forbidden fruit. The good don't always prosper and the bad don't always fall. Risk abounds, forms the backround to meaningful choice and is morally neutral.

 

There might be a school of thought that argued that actions are only good when they are encumbered by risk. the man who lends money to a friend - (sorry G!!) knowing that he is doing so riskfree is far less a friend than he who puts his own survival at risk by doing so. But this is saying that risk is a factor in mediating the moral worth of an action, and not that risk itself has any moral basis.

 

I came across a great quote from a blogger website a whiile back. don't know if it is original but it sums up the arbitrariness of the risk and reward equation.

 

"Close your eyes shut your doors, and you do not toil all your life,

Open your eyes, and carry out your affairs, and you are not saved all your life"

 

unfortunately how true. Cheer up Ruben!

 

x jon. http://www.jonguy.com

[phage]

>What grabs me about phage's post is the apparent equation

>between risk and the rightness and wrongness of our actions

>- eating meat being a case where karmic justice might

>intervene - to punish??

 

You are correct. That’s what karma is all about the way I understand it.

 

>The connection between risk and morality seems contingent at

>best. I don't believe that you (phage) are suggesting that

>the gay community is in some way 'morally' culpable for HIV,

>or are you?

 

Not at all. It is not a gay issue for me. It is about commercial sex and some people’s opinion that the commercial nature of the transaction should actually require greater disclosure in order to increase the safety of the consumer. That’s what I really disagree with.

 

We can of course all be individually

>irresponsible, but the interesting question might be whether

>the individual who doesn't use a condom deserve to fall

>positive any more than the baby born to a drug using mother

>deserves to be.

 

I wouldn’t go as far as to say “deserve”, but they are certainly unequal situations. In the first case there is the element of irresponsibility and the necessity to accept consequences. The same cannot be said about the baby, maybe it’s mother, but not the baby.

 

The difference between these two cases, and

>the force of your meat argument, seems to rest in the fact

>that our actions - and the moral component of our actions -

>would seem to requre that we take into account their broader

>implications. That going to Macdonald's for instance might

>support to some extent the sort of farming practices which

>led to BSE by not affording sufficient reverance to the

>future contents of our dinner tables.

 

I think that says it rather well. (I see you paid more attention to those philosophy classes than I did.) I can relate this same concept to the commercial sex industry and it makes sense to me.