Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You can keep coming back to this false equivalency as often as you like. — isn't just another lousy McJob.

Again it's a arbitrary line. The only reason you don't care if the guy cooking you burgers in the back at Mac D's is a meth addicted exploited worker who is being threatened by his employer is because there is no — involved. Completely arbitrary. News flash, some people would prefer to have — all day than flipping burgers. Both choices can be painted as occupation of last resort, and both occupations have the potential for exploitation. Your sacred cow theory regarding — begin the line we shouldn't cross is an arbitrary distinction.

This isn't an OSHA issue. — isn't an occupation, it is the end result of societal and personal failures.

Sure, it isn't an OSHA issue, let's sweep the industry under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist in the name of human rights. Your moral crusade is doing more harm than good, by not giving people who choose to enter the industry the proper protection they deserve. You are enabling pimps by sweeping the entire industry under the rug.

And for that not so insignificant number of "— workers" who are addicted to drugs, in poor — health, or somehow under criminal influence are just going to stop?

And a not so insignificant number of fast food workers are addicted to drugs, in poor health, and are under criminal influence. Do you think they are just going to stop?

Again the rule of law helps everyone. What good does it do — workers to sweep the industry under the rug?

So if the decision is — with a sketchy man... or losing your apartment is that sort of rational risk management in play? — isn't a job, it is a last gasp survival strategy for people who have few tools or resources available to them.

The distinction with — is completely arbitrary. The decision is flipping burgers on your feet 8 hours a day or losing your apartment. Somehow you don't bat an eye if the guy in the back is desperate and only flipping your burger because of abject poverty. Again, — as some kind of moral sacred cow.

I'm not going to ask you to elaborate just what it is you mean by "exposed to".

Thanks for that beautiful ad hominem, which totally degrades this entire conversation. For the record I meant "exposed" in the same sense that you were "exposed", through anecdotes and circumstantial evidence. Not that it matters but I have never employed the services of a —.

Other than presumably aesthetics and hopefully hygiene, what is fundamentally different about the transaction other than the johns who can afford to go more upmarket? How does that make for a positive life experience for the women involved on either end?

I am simply relaying anecdotal evidence from — culture that I was exposed too, it's no different then your anecdotes that you shared. I am not making any point beyond that was my experience, which was in a totally different to yours. You are totally going off the rails with this path of logic.