Discussion:
Sexual Revolution Backfires: Women told to 'Work at Brothel, or else...'
(too old to reply)
Lee
2005-01-30 15:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Sunday, January 30, 2005

THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Women told, 'Work in brothel, or else'

German law forces out-of-work females
to take sex jobs or lose unemployment

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42615

Posted: January 30, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A provision in the German welfare system is forcing out-of-work women
to chose between taking jobs in the sex industry or losing their
unemployment benefits.

Once one of the most generous systems in Europe, Germany's unemployment
program has been reformed to require those out of work to take jobs for
which they are qualified, or lose benefits. In the case of women,
females below the age of 55 who have been out of work for a year or
more must take any available job offered.

The full legalization of prostitution two years ago - with brothel
owners now paying taxes and employee health insurance - has created
an awkward situation at German job centers where employers can access
the official government database of those seeking work, reports the
London Telegraph.

One 25-year-old waitress, an unemployed information technology
professional, had indicated a willingness to work in a bar at night and
had past experience working in a cafe. A potential employer, finding
her profile promising, contacted the job center about hiring her. Only
after the young woman called to inquire about the job did she learn the
employer was a brothel. When she refused the position, she was
threatened with cuts to her unemployment benefits.

Centers that do not penalize job seekers who refuse offered positions
are subject to lawsuits by the employers.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the
sex industry," says Merchthild Garweg, a Hamburg lawyer. "The new
regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any
more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Garweg notes that women who have past experience as telemarketers or
call service workers have been offered positions with telephone-sex
services. New laws permit sex-oriented employers to advertise in the
job centers and provide for the suing of job centers that refuse to
accept their ads.

When the German government crafted the recent welfare reforms, brothels
were initially considered for exclusion, but they were believed too
difficult to distinguish from bars. Their inquiries for potential
workers are treated no differently than those from grocery stores or
schools.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job center when I pay
my taxes just like anybody else?" asked one central Berlin brothel
owner who has been using the local database to find prospective
workers.

The German experience closely follows that of the Netherlands,
according to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Following the
2000 legalization of prostitution by the Dutch and the registration of
prostitutes, brothels began using official job centers to find new
employees.

Garwig believes pressure on job centers to meet employment targets is
only going to make the current situation worse.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual
services, but which don't count as prostitution," she says.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be
immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centers to
stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

Last year, the German federal government announced that it would be
fining employers that failed to hire trainees - a measure to be
applied to brothels as well as other employers. Brothels failing to
hire one apprentice for every 15 employees will be fined for failing to
promote the sex industry.

Germany legalized prostitution in 2002 in the belief it would slow down
the trafficking in women and reduce the role of organized crime in the
profession. Instead, government is expanding the sex industry by
guaranteeing a steady stream of new recruits, some willing and some
not.
n***@yahoo.com
2005-01-30 16:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Hey it's work. If you have the opportunity to work how can you claim
to be unemployed? It's one thing to ask for money because nobody will
give you a job, another to ask for it because you can't get a job you
like. Hell I hate my job, give me money.
Post by Lee
Sunday, January 30, 2005
THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK
Women told, 'Work in brothel, or else'
German law forces out-of-work females
to take sex jobs or lose unemployment
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42615
Posted: January 30, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Lee
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A provision in the German welfare system is forcing out-of-work women
to chose between taking jobs in the sex industry or losing their
unemployment benefits.
Once one of the most generous systems in Europe, Germany's
unemployment
Post by Lee
program has been reformed to require those out of work to take jobs for
which they are qualified, or lose benefits. In the case of women,
females below the age of 55 who have been out of work for a year or
more must take any available job offered.
The full legalization of prostitution two years ago - with brothel
owners now paying taxes and employee health insurance - has created
an awkward situation at German job centers where employers can access
the official government database of those seeking work, reports the
London Telegraph.
One 25-year-old waitress, an unemployed information technology
professional, had indicated a willingness to work in a bar at night and
had past experience working in a cafe. A potential employer, finding
her profile promising, contacted the job center about hiring her. Only
after the young woman called to inquire about the job did she learn the
employer was a brothel. When she refused the position, she was
threatened with cuts to her unemployment benefits.
Centers that do not penalize job seekers who refuse offered positions
are subject to lawsuits by the employers.
"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the
sex industry," says Merchthild Garweg, a Hamburg lawyer. "The new
regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any
more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."
Garweg notes that women who have past experience as telemarketers or
call service workers have been offered positions with telephone-sex
services. New laws permit sex-oriented employers to advertise in the
job centers and provide for the suing of job centers that refuse to
accept their ads.
When the German government crafted the recent welfare reforms,
brothels
Post by Lee
were initially considered for exclusion, but they were believed too
difficult to distinguish from bars. Their inquiries for potential
workers are treated no differently than those from grocery stores or
schools.
"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job center when I pay
my taxes just like anybody else?" asked one central Berlin brothel
owner who has been using the local database to find prospective
workers.
The German experience closely follows that of the Netherlands,
according to the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Following the
2000 legalization of prostitution by the Dutch and the registration of
prostitutes, brothels began using official job centers to find new
employees.
Garwig believes pressure on job centers to meet employment targets is
only going to make the current situation worse.
"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual
services, but which don't count as prostitution," she says.
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be
immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centers to
stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
Last year, the German federal government announced that it would be
fining employers that failed to hire trainees - a measure to be
applied to brothels as well as other employers. Brothels failing to
hire one apprentice for every 15 employees will be fined for failing to
promote the sex industry.
Germany legalized prostitution in 2002 in the belief it would slow down
the trafficking in women and reduce the role of organized crime in the
profession. Instead, government is expanding the sex industry by
guaranteeing a steady stream of new recruits, some willing and some
not.
Adrian Miles-Davros
2005-01-30 19:57:03 UTC
Permalink
"Lee" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sunday, January 30, 2005

THEIR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Women told, 'Work in brothel, or else'

German law forces out-of-work females
to take sex jobs or lose unemployment

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42615

Posted: January 30, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

This article is not strictly speaking true, and would seem to be typical of
world net daily, with lack of corroborative evidence. I suggest you look at
new German employment laws to actually find out the facts of this!
Lee
2005-01-31 12:22:58 UTC
Permalink
You claim it is 'not strictly speaking true'.

Your claim, your burden of proof. I am not going to do your legwork to
prove your theory.
Rambler
2005-01-31 15:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
You claim it is 'not strictly speaking true'.
Your claim, your burden of proof. I am not going to do your legwork to
prove your theory.
Great soc.men response. "Well yer honor, I posted something that wasn't
true, somebody called me on it, and instead of addressing it I told them
that thye had to prove what I said wasn't true (which is, of course,
impossible). Lee, how goes the trip to Japan?

Rambler
Lee
2005-02-01 04:21:20 UTC
Permalink
I see that your grasp of logic and debate is lacking, Rambler.

I present an idea, that German women who are on the dole must accept
job offers in the sex industry or lose benefits, and then I provide a
link, cite and article as proof that this is current policy in Germany.

Here is the original link:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42615

If you wish to prove it false, then prove that this is made up. Simple
enough, if it is not true. Ring up a German Lawyer and find out.
Provide a link that this story is bogus or a plant.

Your fallacy is referred to as Argumentum ad nauseam, or more
precisely, its negation.

You believe the article and idea to be untrue, as it is infrequently
heard, or maybe you simply believe it to be false based upon one
persons (Adrians) opinion, or perhaps false because I posted it (Ad
hominem == argument is wrong simply because I posted it) or perhaps
false because WorldNet hosted it, as Adrian claims WorldNet *may* have
posted untrue articles in the past. This claim is made by Adrian with
no proof that it is so, and no proof that it is so for this case. (Ad
Hominem and Fallacy of Division (which consists of assuming that as
Adrian claims WorldNet posts untrue articles, that that property apply
to all articles it posts.)

You have provided no proof for your thesis.

I will provide MORE proof for mine. Here is a very similar article,
but with names included. Note that the brothel owner who wants to hire
girls off the dole IS A WOMAN.

Here is the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/No-job-no-excuse-for-turning-down-sex-work/2005/01/30/1107020262141.html?oneclick=true#

Registration Required.

If you need a login, go to www.bugmenot.com, and enter
'http://www.smh.com.au'.

Here is the text of the story from the Sydney Morning Herald:

"No job no excuse for turning down sex work
By Clare Chapman in Berlin and John Garnaut
January 31, 2005

Australians are used to the idea of working for the dole, but the
Germans have taken it a step further.

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services" at a brothel in Berlin faces cuts to her unemployment benefit
under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany two years ago and brothel owners
- who must pay tax and employee health insurance - were granted access
to official databases of job seekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, was
willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe. She
received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was
interested in her "profile" and that she should ring them. Only on
doing so did she realise she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of
work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job or
lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for
the 11th consecutive month, to 4.5 million, taking the number out of
work to its highest level since reunification in 1990.

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe Government considered making brothels an exception on
moral grounds, but decided it would be too difficult to distinguish
them from bars.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the
sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who
specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the
sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down
without a risk to benefits."

Ms Garweg said women who had worked in call centres had been offered
jobs on telephone sex lines. At one employment centre in the city of
Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told she had to attend an interview for
a job as a nude model.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been
searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.
"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay
my taxes just like anybody else?" she asked.

Australia's Minister for Workplace Participation, Peter Dutton, said:
"It would be ridiculous for that to happen here ... it's against the
code of conduct for job network members ... to place any advertisements
of this nature on websites or offer them to candidates. There are also
very strong screening facilities to ensure this wouldn't happen."

The Sunday Telegraph"

Again, Adrain and Rambler. Your claim, your burden of proof.
I have met this requirement. You two have not.

All the Best,
-Lee.
Susan (CobbersMom)
2005-02-01 14:27:28 UTC
Permalink
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Sue
Minocqua, WI

"Do what you want and say what you feel because those that mind, don't
matter and those that matter, don't mind". ~Dr. Seuss
Rambler
2005-02-01 14:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Susan (CobbersMom)
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Sue
Minocqua, WI
"Do what you want and say what you feel because those that mind, don't
matter and those that matter, don't mind". ~Dr. Seuss
Rofl ... thanks Susan. This is hilarious.

Next, Lee?

Rambler
Lee
2005-02-01 16:47:49 UTC
Permalink
It is classified as 'undetermined'

You really *do* have comprehension and logic problems, don't you?

When Snopes classifies it as 'False', then you can gloat.

Until then the status is 'undetermined'.
We are living in anti-intellectual times.
Lee
2005-02-01 16:56:31 UTC
Permalink
Here is yet another version published by the London Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

"'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her
unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and
brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance -
were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had
said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a
cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer
was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on
doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons,
realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of
work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job -
including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.
Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to
4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since
reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral
grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them
from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a
prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that
it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people
who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from
the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the
sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who
specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the
sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down
without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been
offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of
Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview
as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in
the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came
into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the
advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been
searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay
my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East
Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12
prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the
area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government
believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut
links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment
targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits
of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual
services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be
immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to
stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph
Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence.
For the full copyright statement see Copyright."
Lee
2005-02-01 16:57:35 UTC
Permalink
Here is yet another version published by the London Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml

"'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'
By Clare Chapman
(Filed: 30/01/2005)

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual
services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her
unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and
brothel owners - who must pay tax and employee health insurance -
were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had
said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a
cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer
was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on
doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons,
realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of
work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job -
including in the sex industry - or lose her unemployment benefit.
Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to
4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since
reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral
grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them
from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a
prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that
it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people
who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from
the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the
sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who
specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the
sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down
without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been
offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of
Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview
as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in
the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came
into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the
advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been
searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay
my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East
Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12
prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the
area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court.
Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government
believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut
links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment
targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits
of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual
services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be
immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to
stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph
Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence.
For the full copyright statement see Copyright."
Rambler
2005-02-02 03:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Here is yet another version published by the London Telegraph.
lee, you're quoting the exact same thing again and again and again.

Ah well, at least it gives me my morning chuckle.

Rambler
Lee
2005-02-02 06:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Rambler, you aren't reading the storys. I am not quoting the 'exact
same thing again and again.'

Each is slightly different. The UK Telegraph article contains more
detail and names than the SMH article, which contains more detail and
names than the Worldnet Daily article.

You seem to have a bias that what I post cannot be true.

This is ad hominem, and is sloppy logic and a very poor debate tactic.

We shall see what Snopes concludes. As of now it is undetermined if
this is an UL.
Spender
2005-02-03 03:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
Rambler, you aren't reading the storys. I am not quoting the 'exact
same thing again and again.'
Each is slightly different.
They are all reading the same original story and just tweaking it a bit,
trying to earn their pay.
Post by Lee
You seem to have a bias that what I post cannot be true.
For a humane human being, what you posted shouldn't seem likely for a
European country, and by all accounts it isn't.

German has legalised prostitution - for both genders not just women.
After all people rent their bodies out in so many different forms, they
saw no rational reason to block this.

Mechthild Garweg (they misspelled her name) is a hard-core feminist who
likes headlines.

She tried to get some attention by saying that since being a prostitute
is now a legal job, couldn't a woman be forced to be a prostitute?

There is a conflict in the law now, on the one hand one can't force
people to do "immoral work", on the other hand prostitution is no longer
"immoral" - so perhaps you can - technically. It has yet to be tested
in court. However it would most likely be struck down as a human rights
violation.


Der Standard, mentioned it:

(translated from German) "Even if the army of the unemployed should
grown even larger, the work agencies see no reason to panic. Ulrich
Waschki from the Nürnberge Center told the Standard "Nobody will be
forced to offer sexual services if they don't want to"

Though some might not be inclined to help:

(translated from German) "Olaf Möller from Berliner Agentur, refers
to a principle in the social legislation and explains: "we do not
help anyone find immoral work." For while the legislators may not
consider prostitution immoral, the work agencies always will. If
someone rejects a job in the red light district they don't have to
worry about a cut in unemployment pay."

Some do fear that one fateful day the unspeakable might happen, however
a spokesman for the German Federal Labour Office does not agree and says
to news agency Reuters:

"... if job seekers said they were prepared to work as, for example,
dancers in strip bars, advisers could put them in touch with any
suitable employers, but vacancies would not be displayed in job
centres.
He also stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on
behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn't
specifically mentioned it as an area of interest"

And

(translate from German) "Knut Börnsen from the Hamburg employment
agency says "There is still custom and behaviour. " They would not
send people to work in brothels. "Besides, they don't come to us,
they go through other channels"


Although former Berlin madam Molly Luft thinks its a good idea, before
she was always looking for people, and now the unemployed can earn a
living with insurance and health benefits, of course it may not be for
everbody, as she adds:

"...if people aren't very attractive they aren't going to make much
money"


http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=664273
http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1937702
http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/textdruck
Lee
2005-02-03 10:06:10 UTC
Permalink
So the brothels are posting jobs at German job centers, and refusal to
accept a job in the sex industry *may* in the future result in a loss
of benefits. The law allows this, although custom currently does not.

"There is a conflict in the law now, on the one hand one can'­t force
people to do "immoral work", on the other hand prostitution ­is no
longer
"immoral" - so perhaps you can - technically. It has yet to­ be
tested
in court. However it would most likely be struck down as a h­uman
rights
violation."

It looks as though the thesis, that German women who are unemployed who
reject brothel job offers may lose benefits, is currently technically
true, and may be overturned upon judicial review.

Perhaps Mechthild Garweg was using this to gain headlines and
attention.
That a German Feminist raised this issue leads me to conclude that she
feared it could technically come to pass, and that she wanted to
prevent it from happening. It looks like they need to sort this out to
change it.

I stand by the original story, though it seems obvious that legislation
will be introduced to close this loophole.
c***@hotmail.com
2005-02-03 04:08:29 UTC
Permalink
If you like, I'll get down on my knees and giveth you the best headjob.
Lee
2005-02-07 16:03:44 UTC
Permalink
The original article I posted is untrue.

I am a man of my word, and as such I retract my support for the OP.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

"Deutsche Welle:
A brothel owner in the historic German town of Gvrlitz on the Polish
border is preparing to open his establishment next month but faces a
one last serious problem - he has no staff. Ulrich Kueperkoch's
adverts seeking "hostesses for erotic services" for his Golden 3
Privatclub have been rejected by Germany's Federal Labor Office even
though prostitution is legal in the country. The dispute with the labor
office stems from its refusal to allow advertising for prostitutes in
the network of job-placement agencies that it runs. A spokesperson said
that the labor office has "decided not to be active in that market
sector" due to its belief that such work could infringe on an
individual's rights if he or she is forced to take the job. Kueperkoch
insists he would only employ those who were interested and not those
who felt they had no other choice."

Best,
Lee.

USA
2005-02-01 18:13:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:27:28 GMT, "Susan \(CobbersMom\)"
Post by Susan (CobbersMom)
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Sue
Minocqua, WI
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

<quote> "We suspect this is another case where, like a game of
"telephone," a story has been garbled as it has passed from one news
source to the next..." <unquote>

The words "we suspect" prove only 1 thing. The Snopes website doesn't
know for a fact that the story is not true. We already knew that
without Snope's input.
pixelfreak
2005-02-02 22:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee
I see that your grasp of logic and debate is lacking, Rambler.
I present an idea, that German women who are on the dole must accept
job offers in the sex industry or lose benefits, and then I provide a
link, cite and article as proof that this is current policy in Germany.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42615
If you wish to prove it false, then prove that this is made up. Simple
enough, if it is not true. Ring up a German Lawyer and find out.
Provide a link that this story is bogus or a plant.
Your fallacy is referred to as Argumentum ad nauseam, or more
precisely, its negation.
Your grasp of logic and debate is clearly attributable to:

1. High School Debate team trickery.
2. Possibly a logic class in college.

I suggest you put your test through the crucible known as 'the
scientific method'. The scientific method has 4 steps.

1. Observation of and a description of Phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Experimentation to further reinforce the hypothesis with data and/or
quantitatively predict the
results of new observations.
4. Peer review and experimentation to independently prove or disprove
the experimental results.

In your case Lee..

1. Observation. Rumors of forced prostitution of unemployed German females.

Just because something is in print (internet or otherwise) doesn't make
it 'true'. Your observation is very limited in scope.

2. Hypothesis. In your case, German women must be prostitutes if they
can find no other job.

You have no hypothesis. You don't try to explain your observation. You
assume, apriori truth to the article. You postulate no logical reason
for the German government to make such a dramatic change to
unemployment law.

3. Experimentation.

I would expect there to be some social unrest in Germany if this were
to be true. e.g. Womens Lib groups protesting etc. That would surely
make news as well. This 'experiment' would further substantiate your
claim. _YOU_ should be the one to 'ring up a german lawyer' as that
burden falls on you as the person making the claim as that would be
just more experimental data further backing up your claim.

4. Peer review.

Here's where it gets good. You say 'I'm right, and unless you can prove
me wrong, I'm right'. Then you speak of 'negation'. Bleh. The burden of
proof _IS_ on you as you are making the claim. You need to have enough
'proof' to make your claim compelling enough such that the peer review
is voluntary. You can judge just how exciting any scientific
'discovery' is by the number of people that try to prove it wrong. And
even then, only the best hold up to the scrutiny. I don't see the
hoards running to prove you wrong..

And furthermore, if it were really true, do you think this story would
be internet only??

When NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN all run this story, I'll still be skeptical,
but I'd give it more than a grain of salt worth of credibility. Until
then, it is FALSE. At a bear minimum, something was taken out of
context and it has morphed into this little internet rumor with
absolutely NO legs..

Re-work your data.
--
thepixelfreak
Lee
2005-02-03 09:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by pixelfreak
1. High School Debate team trickery.
2. Possibly a logic class in college.
Incorrect. I am an autodidact.
Post by pixelfreak
I suggest you put your test through the crucible known as 't­he
scientific method'. The scientific method has 4 steps.
1. Observation of and a description of Phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Experimentation to further reinforce the hypothesis with ­data
and/or
quantitatively predict the
results of new observations.
Post by pixelfreak
4. Peer review and experimentation to independently prove or­
disprove
the experimental results.
Post by pixelfreak
In your case Lee..
1. Observation. Rumors of forced prostitution of unemployed­ German
females.
Post by pixelfreak
Just because something is in print (internet or otherwise) d­oesn't
make
Post by pixelfreak
it 'true'. Your observation is very limited in scope
My argument is more expansive than any counter argument to date.
Post by pixelfreak
2. Hypothesis. In your case, German women must be prostitute­s if
they
Post by pixelfreak
can find no other job.
Incorrect. Strawman and Red Herring. I make no such claim, nor is
that claim made in the article.
What claim *is* made is that in Germany, if a woman is on unemployment
benefits, and the local job center refers her to a sex industry
interview, and she declines, that she *may* be denied benefits or have
reduced benefits.

And, that brothel owners have a right to file job listings and utilize
the job center services like any other businessperson.
Post by pixelfreak
You have no hypothesis. You don't try to explain your observ­ation.
You
Post by pixelfreak
assume, apriori truth to the article. You postulate no logic­al
reason
Post by pixelfreak
for the German government to make such a dramatic change to
unemployment law.
I posit a story as prima facie evidence of a state of reality, an
observable truth for Germany in the subject discussed. I have
researched several articles along those lines, that all corroborate the
same original posting. Lacking evidence that the article is a
fabrication, I stand by its posting.

If it is proved a hoax, by Snopes or others, I am man enough to
retract.
No one has produced any evidence to the contrary. I stand by its
posting.

A logical reason for the German governement to make such a dramatic
change? When have laws always been logical, epecially in the past 45
years in the West? Perhaps it is not a change, but merely classifying
brothels as any other business in Germany, which evidence strongly
supports is the case. I see no dramatic change, merely treating
brothel job offers with other job offers. In a nation with legal and
destigmatized prostitution, this is reasonable and logical.
Post by pixelfreak
3. Experimentation.
I would expect there to be some social unrest in Germany if ­this
were
Post by pixelfreak
to be true. e.g. Womens Lib groups protesting etc.
I would not. Your evidence for this is...? Or am I to take your
opinion as fact?

You assume apriori untruth to the article, based upon your opinion.
You statement is not evidence that your posit is true, based upon your
own standards that stating something on the Internet does not make it
so.

"Just because something is in print (internet or otherwise) d­oesn't
make it 'true'."

I provide sources other than my own opinions. You have provided
personal opinion, nothing more. I stand fast.
Post by pixelfreak
That w­ould surely
make news as well. This 'experiment' would further substanti­ate your
claim. _YOU_ should be the one to 'ring up a german lawyer' ­as that
burden falls on you as the person making the claim as that w­ould be
just more experimental data further backing up your claim.
4. Peer review.
Here's where it gets good. You say 'I'm right, and unless yo­u can
prove
Post by pixelfreak
me wrong, I'm right'. Then you speak of 'negation'. Bleh. Th­e burden
of
Post by pixelfreak
proof _IS_ on you as you are making the claim. You need to h­ave
enough
Post by pixelfreak
'proof' to make your claim compelling enough such that the p­eer
review
Post by pixelfreak
is voluntary. You can judge just how exciting any scientific­
'discovery' is by the number of people that try to prove it ­wrong.
And
Post by pixelfreak
even then, only the best hold up to the scrutiny. I don't se­e the
hoards running to prove you wrong.
You are the fourth person to attempt to disprove this theory wrong.
Among the Usenet groups I post to, this is an unusually high number of
arguments to a story posted in my OP.
At this juncture, limited peer review does appear to be voluntary.
Your post is further evidence of this.
Post by pixelfreak
And furthermore, if it were really true, do you think this s­tory
would
Post by pixelfreak
be internet only??
Monica Lewinsky was a story only on the Internet (Matt Drudge, anyone?)
for weeks before it moved to the traditional outlets.
The National Guard memo scandal at CBS was on blogs only for a full
week before being picked up by the traditional outlets.
The hostage snuff videos were picked up by Al Jazeera before most
traditional outlets. Some were originally posted to Arabic blogs.

Your implied posit is that a story that is only on the internet could
not be 'really true', adn that if it were it would be on the
traditional media outlets. I have provided evidence to the contrary,
and you have provided only your opinion.
Post by pixelfreak
When NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN all run this story, I'll still be­
skeptical,
Post by pixelfreak
but I'd give it more than a grain of salt worth of credibil­ity.
Until
Post by pixelfreak
then, it is FALSE. At a bare minimum, something was taken ou­t of
context and it has morphed into this little internet rumor w­ith
absolutely NO legs..
You attribute a published story by, as an example, CBS to be stronger
evidence that it is true?!? Perhaps you don't know that major media is
playing catchup to blogs, and that CBS completely fabricated a recent
story with Dan Rather and Memogate. A CBS story is just as suspect as
a story posted by the UK Telegraph, Sidney Morning Herald, or WorldNet
Daily. I could go on about the Washington Post printing fabrications
that win Pulitzers, etc. But my point is made.

Your Appeal to Popularity of major outlets is rejected.

You are operating from a mid-20th century point of view.

Traditional sources are no more nor less reliable than non-traditional
sources of news.

Re-work your argument.

-Lee.
Ian
2005-02-03 10:10:19 UTC
Permalink
It's not internet only, London newspapers were running it the day
before yesterday; however I agree that German women aren't being
forced to be prostitutes just yet, much as we'd like that to be the
case.

bare minimum, rumour, sceptical, grain of salt's worth.

3. Women's rights movements post absolute crap every day, yet aren't
questioned. It's therefore completely fair not to have to post the
truth eithed.
Lee
2005-02-07 16:03:00 UTC
Permalink
The original article I posted is untrue.

I am a man of my word, and as such I retract my support for the OP.

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

"Deutsche Welle:
A brothel owner in the historic German town of Gvrlitz on the Polish
border is preparing to open his establishment next month but faces a
one last serious problem - he has no staff. Ulrich Kueperkoch's
adverts seeking "hostesses for erotic services" for his Golden 3
Privatclub have been rejected by Germany's Federal Labor Office even
though prostitution is legal in the country. The dispute with the labor
office stems from its refusal to allow advertising for prostitutes in
the network of job-placement agencies that it runs. A spokesperson said
that the labor office has "decided not to be active in that market
sector" due to its belief that such work could infringe on an
individual's rights if he or she is forced to take the job. Kueperkoch
insists he would only employ those who were interested and not those
who felt they had no other choice."

Best,
Lee.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...