Amsterdam Dims the Red Lights

[Cain]

The city supported buying out a large part of the infamous red light district:

[The mayor] also sees the buyout as a chance to begin clearing out the cannabis-selling coffee shops and what he calls "bad horeca" (the hospitality industry term meaning hotel-restaurant-cafe). The move underpins the strategy of the leftist city government to curb what they see as the excessive proliferation of commerce based on sex, drugs and alcohol, for all of which the city earned its global reputation. While they do not plan to stop the sale of undesirable goods and services altogether, they say it has gotten out of hand.

City Hall's drive to clean up the streets has been going on for some time, but last week's property buy-out marks a major escalation - it will eliminate one third of the prostitution rooms in the red light district, and one fifth of those citywide. Nor is this likely to be the last buyout.

It's all a part of the city's new tourism strategy. The problem with a lot of the people who go to Amsterdam -- or at least the young Americans I know who go, and the ones recounting their experiences on the intarweb -- is that they're *********** idiots. I mean, the highlight of their trip is getting baked/ripped, and then waiting in line to grope a statue of Anne Frank.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070926/wl_time/amsterdamdimstheredlights

This touches upon the earlier thread on prostitution legalization in Nevada. "Sixty Minutes" recently had a piece on medical marijuana here in California -- how the laws are abused, how it attracts a criminal element. I never did like the "people are going to do it anyway" argument. At the end of the day, yes, we need to be adults and recognize realities. However, people are going to do a lot of things nearly everyone agrees should be outlawed. What crucially matters is an engaged, proactive citizenry.

[Pvt. Stash]

The city supported buying out a large part of the infamous red light district:



It's all a part of the city's new tourism strategy. The problem with a lot of the people who go to Amsterdam -- or at least the young Americans I know who go, and the ones recounting their experiences on the intarweb -- is that they're *********** idiots. I mean, the highlight of their trip is getting baked/ripped, and then waiting in line to grope a statue of Anne Frank.





I'm sorry thats been Your experience... certainly hasnt been mine... I've done the Dam twice now... the highlight of my trip is getting baked/ripped and then visiting the several museums and spending money on the various tourist traps...

If its their "new strategy" to make it a place where I Dont wish to go an spend money, then I hope their happy with the results they get.

In any case your ignorant overgeneralization of the American tourist is noted.

[Octavo]

In any case your ignorant overgeneralization of the American tourist is noted.

Not that I need to defend Cain, but let me quote the relevant section here:

or at least the young Americans I know who go, and the ones recounting their experiences on the intarweb -- is that they're *********** idiots
(bolding mine)

That is not a generalisation, nor is it ignorant. He is clearly speaking of his personal experiences of American tourists - not all American tourists.

Your willingness to jump to conclusions has been noted.

ETA: bolding

[Mycroft]

Not that I need to defend Cain, but let me quote the relevant section here:


(bolding mine)

That is not a generalisation, nor is it ignorant. He is clearly speaking of his personal experiences of American tourists - not all American tourists.

Your willingness to jump to conclusions has been noted.

ETA: bolding

So you read it as a statement on the quality of the company he keeps?

[timhau]

I spent five days in Amsterdam with my wife in the fall of 2005, and neither of us had the feeling that sex, drugs, or alcohol was actively and aggressively marketed to us. It's not the teetotaler puritan's dream city, but for one of the supposed Vice Capitals of the World, it's a remarkably family-friendly place.

ETA: I can't claim any knowledge of what sort of degenerate lechery you'd find there if you went looking for it, but it surely doesn't come looking for you.

[ponderingturtle]

It is always interesting to see the point of view that was used to justify a goverment poisoning its own citizens.

Specificaly durring prohibbition the goverment found people where drinking industrial alcohol and so they increased the ammount of poison in it to discourage this behavior.

[The Painter]

It is always interesting to see the point of view that was used to justify a goverment poisoning its own citizens.

Specificaly durring prohibbition the goverment found people where drinking industrial alcohol and so they increased the ammount of poison in it to discourage this behavior.

What? What does that have to do with this?



Does Amsterdam have casinos? It sounds like it would be better than Las Vegas. Hey you should have the TAM thing in Amsterdam.

[pgwenthold]

I lot of people I know specifically schedule layovers in Amsterdam on their trips to Europe so they can spend a night downtown.

[Darth Rotor]

I lot of people I know specifically schedule layovers in Amsterdam on their trips to Europe so they can spend a night downtown.

Puts a whole new meaning into layover, doesn't it? :)

DR

[timhau]

I lot of people I know specifically schedule layovers in Amsterdam on their trips to Europe so they can spend a night downtown.

I can see reasons other than pot & prostitutes for scheduling that layover in Amsterdam. The Schiphol airport, for example -- it works pretty well overall, the services there are good and it's a short, inexpensive, and comfortable train ride from the Amsterdam main railway station. Beats the hell out of, say, Heathrow (or, FSM forbid, De Gaulle).

[madurobob]

I've done the Dam twice now... the highlight of my trip is getting baked/ripped and then visiting the several museums and spending money on the various tourist traps...

I certainly hope you didn't go all the way to Amsterdam just for the drugs, that would be patently stupid. They've got nothing I can't get at home and I can get baked in the comfort, beauty and safety of my backyard. What possible incentive could there be to travel to Amsterdam just for drugs?

I'm sure the folks in the tourist industry there would be happier if their customers were slightly less baked (half-baked?). They're not getting rid of the drugs and hookers, just keeping them from getting out of hand. Seems a fine idea to me.

[Madalch]

Hey you should have the TAM thing in Amsterdam.
TAMsterdam!! I'd go!

I love Amsterdam- been there half a dozen times at least. Never touched any of the girls, drugs, or porn, but had a great time visiting with relatives and seeing the tamer sights.

[patrick767]

then waiting in line to grope a statue of Anne Frank.


Uh...... what? Why? That doesn't sound fun at all, especially if there are real women to grope. :p
/never been to Amsterdam, but I'll be there for two nights in about a month

[YoPopa]

There is a particularly bizarre twist to this which I cannot reconcile.

Is it that the city just wants to move the business to another part of town or perhaps to the suburbs? They aren't going to do away with the drugs & the prostitution, that is stated in the news article. In fact they have given these trades a shot in the arm profit wise.

The property which they have bought for $35 million is going to be worth less when they are done with the "improvements".

The buyers reckon that the value of the properties may fall by $21 million, a deficit that the municipality would have to fund. They have incentivized the process of creating a red light district, no? The sellers now have $35 million to buy up three times as much property in another area or just buy the same amount of property and pocket the extra $21 million. Cool, I'm a free market kind of guy and I say that's great from the POV of the sellers, but maybe the taxpayers of Amsterdam are getting screwed & paying for dinner?

[Cain]

In any case your ignorant overgeneralization of the American tourist is noted.

You -- out of my thread. And kindly remove your foot from your mouth to hurry along. As noted earlier, I consciously and explicitly described the ravings of people I personally, or rather impersonally for encounters in teh online, making no pretense that this was a representative sampling.

[timhau]

maybe the taxpayers of Amsterdam are getting screwed & paying for dinner?

Isn't doing away with the dinner part sort of the point of prostitution?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Does Amsterdam have casinos? It sounds like it would be better than Las Vegas. Hey you should have the TAM thing in Amsterdam.

Pretty sure it does. In fact I think someone told me they have just opened one in the airport.

[Lonewulf]

You -- out of my thread. And kindly remove your foot from your mouth to hurry along. As noted earlier, I consciously and explicitly described the ravings of people I personally, or rather impersonally for encounters in teh online, making no pretense that this was a representative sampling.
1) This isn't "your" thread. This is a thread that you started.

2) You can't make anyone leave. You're powerless. Flailing your arms around and going, "Get out of my thread! Wah!" won't change that.





Oh, and I voted thumbs down.

[Cain]

1) This isn't "your" thread. This is a thread that you started.

2) You can't make anyone leave. You're powerless. Flailing your arms around and going, "Get out of my thread! Wah!" won't change that.


You need to get out of my thread as well, or, even better, off of this forum. Look at this bloated, unnecessary reply of yours, and how as a matter of point inflation you pathetically attempt to extend one argument into two. Go away; people like you are not welcome in my thread. Thread crasher.

[Lonewulf]

You need to get out of my thread as well
Naw, I'm good. :)

or, even better, off of this forum.
Naw, I'm good. :)

Look at this bloated, unnecessary reply of yours, and how as a matter of point inflation you pathetically attempt to extend one argument into two. Go away; people like you are not welcome in my thread. Thread crasher.
And I repeat. This isn't "your" thread. Just saying that it is doesn't make it so. Oh well, I only hope one day you'll actually come to realize that. :)

And I still voted thumbs down. We can talk about that if you like. Or you can continue to attack me and Pvt. Stash, acting as if you carry some sort of authority or ownership that you, quite frankly, do not have.

By the way, it's so CUTE how you do that. It's adorable, like a puppy trying to bark at the real dogs.

Oh, and please let me explain how my point wasn't "inflated". I did, in fact, make two.

See, the first point was that you don't own any thread. This is a point of fact, and while it is necessary for point two, it is distinctly not the same. It is interesting that you still do not acknowledge point one, even though it is very easy to verify; instead, you still talk about "your" thread, as if you have some sort of magical ownership. It really is intriguing.

The point two was that you were powerless. And you are. You cannot force anyone to leave, although you can ask them to. If you did it politely, they might just do that... but it's doubtful.

Point two is distinct from point one. You could still have power without "owning" the thread. See, moderators have power and influence on this board, even if they do not actually personally own it.

And thus, my point was not inflated. The two are related, but distinct.

But, as you declare that I am sabotaging "your" (:D) thread, let's go ahead and get it back on track. I think that it's sad that the Red Light District is disappearing. One of the countries that was actually open-minded and free is now under influence of a crackdown that is designed in such a way to hurt Amsterdam more than help. It's bad all around, and I don't see any good behind it.

Okay, the ball is in your court. :)

[Gurdur]

Possibly, Lonewolf, the Amsterdam City Council just don't see why they should run their city in line with fratboy wishes. But of course, you simply havent concerned yourself with any of the reasons why they have undertaken what they have, all you've done is give your thumbsdown to it and be rude to Cain. Well goodness gracious me, I'm sure they will be so massively impressed by that that they will immediately reverse their decision.

[Lonewulf]

Possibly, Lonewolf, the Amsterdam City Council just don't see why they should run their city in line with fratboy wishes.
Women's sexual rights, and the ability to do drugs are just "fratboy" wishes? I guess Penn and Teller, women that want to be prostitutes, and ... well... I am a "fratboy". Even though I never belonged to any sort of a fraternity, and wouldn't be interested in it anyways. Not to mention that I would never want to hire a prostitute or do drugs; but I support the freedom of others to do it if they wished. I'm weird like that. Of course, I also find it very very strange how prostitution is legal (a dinner and a date + sex as a one night stand = legal prostitution, especially if you cough up some jewelry as a "gift"), but making it an exchange of hard currency suddenly makes it eevil. But I'm sure there's a perfectly logical, rational, empirical argument as to why prostitution should be made illegal, and I'm sure the council has made it. So let's hear it, mmm? :)

But of course, you simply havent concerned yourself with any of the reasons why they have undertaken what they have, all you've done is give your thumbsdown to it and be rude to Cain.
Respect is to be earned. I am not rude to people I respect. Cain has not earned my respect, and in fact, has earned my ire for previous behavior.

As to me not concerning myself with "any of the reasons": Give me any good reasons, and I'll respond. I haven't seen ANY listed by you or Cain. Obviously you guys haven't concerned yourselves with the reason either. Hypocrites, anyone?

Oh, and Cain is the pinnacle of politeness, let me tell you! He's been utterly polite to everyone, especially those "stupid American tourists" he loves so much!

But I guess it's okay to be rude if they agree with you, right, Gurdur? ;)

Or possibly you have a grudge because of our arguments in ANOTHER thread, dealing with videogames. You know, the same thread that you still have yet to give a cogent argument or opinion, while all the same time sounding all offended like I kicked your puppy? Have you given up there?

If it makes you feel better (and I do mean this), I did make it more personal than I really intended to. I still am an absolutist when it comes to that subject, however, and when I perceive a cogent argument against my viewpoint, I will listen and then respond. That is how a discussion is to commence.

"You! OUT OF MY THREAD!" is not discussion.

Well goodness gracious me, I'm sure they will be so massively impressed by that that they will immediately reverse their decision.
I was unaware that I was set out to argue for or against the decision to the council that decided to undertake these actions.

Where are they? Are they here...? There...? Are they hiding under your bed?

*gasp*... are YOU part of City Council?! OMG! Should I bow? Don't tell me Cain is part of the Amsterdam City Council. Oh dear! Oh well... I speak bad about enough politicians, what's a few more?

I'll respond to real arguments when I see them. I haven't seen any yet. If you could, could you point to any, especially any by our beloved Cain? :)

But, oh goodness gracious me, I'm sure your witty retort to my response will convince all the pro-red light people that they should give up the ghost and go home, for the City Council is obviously 100% right in this decision! I bow to your wit! *bows*

[Cain]

A lot of crap most sane people would not, could not, and should not read.

I don't know if you noticed, but I'm kind of a big deal. Telling people to get out of my threads is something I do; it's an expression, very Cainsyian. I would refer you to another such thread where I have actually had this discussion, but the search feature is currently broken. Please do not subject me to any more insipid emoticons, uninspired analogies, or thin, meandering rationalizations.

Oh, and please let me explain how my point wasn't "inflated". I did, in fact, make two.

You need an editor. I accuse you of generating bloated posts and then you go out of your way to write a lot of crap that says nothing at all, perhaps if only to make my comment look like pale understatement. Jackass. Oh, and here's the appropriate edit for the disjointed posting above:

This isn't "your" thread. This is a thread that you started. You can't make anyone leave. You're powerless. Flailing your arms around and going, "Get out of my thread! Wah!" won't change that.

You're just another person I owned in some previous thread, and you've been nursing a grudge, so whenever the glimmer of an opportunity presents itself you can snipe at me personally and include an empty, superficially relevant comment as an afterthought. Fine. (See also "dudalb" for another recent example.) What bothers me is that people like you are oblivious. Do you really think I do not already know I cannot force people out of my threads? This reminds me of a facetious comment I made a little awhile ago and you foolishly jumped in to "call" me on it. Laugh tracks exist for people like you. Smileys are tagged onto the end of sarcastic sentences for people like you. Just shut up and watch re-runs of "Two and a Half Men."

Finally, some of my threads boast an astonishingly high percentage of quality postings, far, far above the JREF average (see for instance "Iraqis out of Iraq" or "Best and Worst of Congress"). And don't even get me started on the bubble-headed administrators who compromise my vision and form by editing my tags (See the relevant thread in the management forum).

[Lonewulf]

I don't know if you noticed, but I'm kind of a big deal.

:D
Telling people to get out of my threads is something I do; it's an expression, very Cainsyian. I would refer you to another such thread where I have actually had this discussion, but the search feature is currently broken.
:D :D

Please do not subject me to any more insipid emoticons, uninspired analogies, or thin, meandering rationalizations.

:D :D :D

You telling me not to make any "uninspired analogies" is analogous to me making inspired analogies and telling you to suck it. I rationalize this by saying, "suck it". :D

You need an editor. I accuse you of generating bloated posts and then you go out of your way to write a lot of crap that says nothing at all,

I accuse you of generic crap.

perhaps if only to make my comment look like pale understatement. Jackass.
I'm so wounded. :(

You're just another person I owned in some previous thread, and you've been nursing a grudge, so whenever the glimmer of an opportunity presents itself you can snipe at me personally and include an empty, superficially relevant comment as an afterthought. Fine. (See also "dudalb" for another recent example.) What bothers me is that people like you are oblivious. Do you really think I do not already know I cannot force people out of my threads? This reminds me of a facetious comment I made a little awhile ago and you foolishly jumped in to "call" me on it. Laugh tracks exist for people like you. Smileys are tagged onto the end of sarcastic sentences for people like you. Just shut up and watch re-runs of "Two and a Half Men."

Naw, I'm good. :)

Finally, some of my threads boast an astonishingly high percentage of quality postings, far, far above the JREF average (see for instance "Iraqis out of Iraq" or "Best and Worst of Congress"). And don't even get me started on the bubble-headed administrators who compromise my vision and form by editing my tags (See the relevant thread in the management forum).

You know, I gave you a choice.

Get back on topic by actually responding to the parts of my post that actually deal with the topic of the thread... OR, continue by blasting me and continuing this immature, preschool flame war.

I find it interesting that one as self-righteous as you couldn't even be bothered to drag yourself out of, as what you called it, "thread crashing".

It takes two to tango. You stumbled as you thought it was a waltz.

Now, does anyone here actually have anything meaningful to say? I'm giving up on Cain.

[PogoPedant]

Of course, I also find it very very strange how prostitution is legal (a dinner and a date + sex as a one night stand = legal prostitution, especially if you cough up some jewelry as a "gift")

This particular argument has cropped over once or twice before, and it strikes me as a sad commentary to the emotional capacity of whomever is making it.

Not everything is a business transaction.

[Lonewulf]

This particular argument has cropped over once or twice before, and it strikes me as a sad commentary to the emotional capacity of whomever is making it.
Nice ad hominem attack. I like how you snuck that in there.

I notice you seem to assume that anyone who talks about something must engage about it. I mean, if I talk about "dinner and a date + sex", you assume that I'm always after one-night stands.

I guess if I argue in favor of drugs, you'll assume I'm a druggie.

Or, perhaps you just assume that if I possibly dare to disagree with you, I must be "emotionally corrupt" or some bullspit like that.

It's a sad commentary to the intellectual capacity of people making such an argument. Tsk tsk tsk.

Not everything is a business transaction.
Nor did I say it was. This is what is also known as a "straw man". Take your straw somewhere else.

However, the fact remains, that I CAN legitimately "buy" sex from another person, as long as I don't give over cash. However, when I do give over cash, in the states, not only do I go to jail, but so does the prostitute. We both get in trouble, with the law, over her selling me something that could be given for free, or bought another way. I have yet to hear a single convincing argument as to why, in particular, this is a justified law. It does not matter as to my personal opinion to one night stands, nor if "everything is a business transaction". IN PRACTICE, I could POTENTIALLY do what I said above. The fact that you ignore that is intellectually amusing to me.

So, thus, should we make one-night stands illegal, or should we remain hypocritical?

Sheesh, I was after *real* arguments. Is this the best you can do?

I like how Amsterdam avoids the hypocrisy of the U.S., and similar countries that criminalize prostitutes and throws it's citizens in jail for, quite simply, just having sex with another person.

I sincerely hope it stays that way, in spite of self-righteous moralists telling everyone else how emotionally incapable they are because they disagree.

[PogoPedant]

Nice ad hominem attack. I like how you snuck that in there.

Nono, an ad hominem is committed when one seeks to invalidate an argument by attacking the arguer. I wasn't attempting to invalidate your argument, as I actually support the legalization of prostitution.

I honestly find the idea of a date as payment for future services extremely saddening.


I notice you seem to assume that anyone who talks about something must engage about it. I mean, if I talk about "dinner and a date + sex", you assume that I'm always after one-night stands.


No, but I do assume that you consider the analogy valid, which means that you actually do consider a date payment for future services. Which I find sad. Of course, I may be wrong, but then why would you use that analogy in the first place?


I guess if I argue in favor of drugs, you'll assume I'm a druggie.

Or, perhaps you just assume that if I possibly dare to disagree with you, I must be "emotionally corrupt" or some bullspit like that.

It's a sad commentary to the intellectual capacity of people making such an argument. Tsk tsk tsk.


Nor did I say it was. This is what is also known as a "straw man". Take your straw somewhere else.

However, the fact remains, that I CAN legitimately "buy" sex from another person, as long as I don't give over cash. However, when I do give over cash, in the states, not only do I go to jail, but so does the prostitute. We both get in trouble, with the law, over her selling me something that could be given for free, or bought another way. I have yet to hear a single convincing argument as to why, in particular, this is a justified law. It does not matter as to my personal opinion to one night stands, nor if "everything is a business transaction". IN PRACTICE, I could POTENTIALLY do what I said above. The fact that you ignore that is intellectually amusing to me.

So, thus, should we make one-night stands illegal, or should we remain hypocritical?




'We' should legalize prostitution, and enforce whatever health and safety regulations are necessary to ensure that the risks experienced by both client and prostitute are as low as reasonably possible.



Sheesh, I was after *real* arguments. Is this the best you can do?

I like how Amsterdam avoids the hypocrisy of the U.S., and similar countries that criminalize prostitutes and throws it's citizens in jail for, quite simply, just having sex with another person.

I sincerely hope it stays that way, in spite of self-righteous moralists telling everyone else how emotionally incapable they are because they disagree.

Fair enough.

[Lonewulf]

Nono, an ad hominem is committed when one seeks to invalidate an argument by attacking the arguer. I wasn't attempting to invalidate your argument, as I actually support the legalization of prostitution.

I honestly find the idea of a date as payment for future services extremely saddening.

You commented on the "emotional capacity" of anyone who "makes this argument". If I make the argument, I must be emotionally incapable, which would thus be influencing my argument. I might as well say, "Wow, the intellectual capacity of someone to make THAT argument," and then laugh it off. That's an ad hominem.

But whatever, it's a moot point, seeing as I really honestly don't care one way or the other.

No, but I do assume that you consider the analogy valid, which means that you actually do consider a date payment for future services.
For a one-night stand, it usually is. When both partners agree that it will be a one-night stand, it is indistinguishable from prostitution.

Which I find sad.
Guess how much I care what you think? Guess! C'mon! On a scale of 0 to 10, guess what my personal feelings as to your "emotional sadness" towards me is? C'mon!

Of course, I may be wrong, but then why would you use that analogy in the first place?
You still don't get it, do you? Should I draw a diagram?

Man <---Date---> Woman.

A date can mean many things, which I guess is where your confusion is coming from. You probably think that I mean "any" date. You're wrong.

So, let's call it by what I really meant it to be:

Man <---One Night Stand---> Woman.

Man agrees with woman that it will be a one-night stand. Woman agrees, as long as man pays for the meal ticket. This is legal.

Man <---Pays for---> Prostitute.

Man agrees with woman that it will be only for one night. Woman agrees, so long as the man gives her money.

Both situations are perfectly possible. Of course, I guess you can argue that it's utterly impossible that one night stands exist and that it's a fabrication of evil lechers, but I'll leave the mods to split that discussion out into the conspiracy theory section.

The fact remains that the one night stand situation is perfectly, 100% plausible. It's possible for two people to do this, in their actions and legally. And for all I know, two people have. Under the law, this is legal.

Why?

I think that people think of money as more dirty than they should. A gift of cash is considered crass and rude. Spending that money on gym socks for someone that doesn't want it is sweet and endearing.

'We' should legalize prostitution, and enforce whatever health and safety regulations are necessary to ensure that the risks experienced by both client and prostitute are as low as reasonably possible.
I agree completely.

Here's a cookie, and that $20 I promised if you agreed with me. Oh, should I have not said that out loud? :x

Shoulda stuck with bribing with cookies... ;)

[Gurdur]

.....But whatever, it's a moot point, seeing as I really honestly don't care one way or the other.
....Guess how much I care what you think? Guess! C'mon! On a scale of 0 to 10, guess what my personal feelings as to your "emotional sadness" towards me is? C'mon!

Well, I guess we can judge from all that the truthfulness of your previous claim to be wanting to actually debate the matter properly. The way you avoid all discussion of the concrete details of the Amsterdam decision confims that.

Anyway, back to the previous point made:
your own position is clichéd and rather boring because of that. The world will not be run on your whims, and reality will continue to confound you. Cheers.

[Lonewulf]

Well, I guess we can judge from all that the truthfulness of your previous claim to be wanting to actually debate the matter properly.
You say, conveniently ignoring the rest of my post, and pointing at the parts of my post where I actually dismissed the personal attack part of his post, and continued on with making a point of discussion.

Go figure. :rolleyes:

Dishonesty seems to run rampant with you.

So define "properly"? He made a point, I got snarky and then proceeded with a counterpoint. A counterpoint that actually demonstrated why my comparison was valid.

But I guess I didn't do it exactly as you would, which makes it "improper". What I SHOULD have done is act properly condescending, and then made a post with no actual substance whatsoever, and then act as if I'm the superior debater. Sorry, I don't go that way.

By the way, I have already demonstrated on another thread on the same subject that I'm perfectly willing to debate. That occurred when you actually made any sort of argument. You seem to be ignoring this... once again, proving that dishonesty runs rampant with you. You just can't stand me, so you ignore everything that proves you wrong about your assessment of me, even when it's right in front of your eyes. Go figure.

The way you avoid all discussion of the concrete details of the Amsterdam decision confims that.
I have yet to see any offered, by you or Cain.

Scared of something?

Anyway, back to the previous point made:
your own position is clichéd and rather boring because of that.
Cliche... cliche... cliche...

Doesn't that mean it lacks originality? That it's overused?

Wouldn't, then, any scientific concept be "cliche" if it doesn't become disproven?

You should be attacking the validity of the argument, which you have yet to do, not on whether it's used more commonly than you would prefer. If you can disprove why my example is fallacious, then do so. But you cannot, so you resort to personal attacks instead of arguments.

The world will not be run on your whims, and reality will continue to confound you. Cheers.
Nothing of substance? I'm getting used to that.

You're convincing me more and more that you're a troll.

[Cain]

A whole lot of nonsense not worth repeating.

You're not too quick on the uptake, are you? Incredibly Gurdur said something that somehow brought you (superficially) on to topic, otherwise you came into my thread to troll. Also, here's an analogy: "Giving up" on me -- that is, refusing to share your vapid, ill-considered opinions -- is sort of like Rosie O'Donnell threatening to withhold sex from me.

[Lonewulf]

You're not too quick on the uptake, are you?

Oh, and a wicked shot by Cain! +1 point.

Incredibly Gurdur said something that somehow brought you (superficially) on to topic, otherwise you came into my thread to troll.
+2 points! +1 for the troll comment, +1 for reaffirming that, yes, Cain somehow has ownership over this thread!

Also, here's an analogy: "Giving up" on me -- that is, refusing to share your vapid, ill-considered opinions -- is sort of like Rosie O'Donnell threatening to withhold sex from me.
+2 extra points! AND HE GOES FOR THE WIN!

Wow, an incredibly motivating and argumentative post by Cain that once more reaffirms Amsterdam's decision to root out prostitution and drugs and... no, wait...

For someone that points at me and says "thread crasher", you're really good at keeping it crashed. ;)

It's interesting that you call me a "troll", yet you're really good at continually making posts that don't have any actual content, and are just filled with personal insults...

Gaspeth! Wait! That's the textbook definition of a troll! Go figure.

[ZirconBlue]

Hey guys! Anyone here want to actually discuss the topic of the thread? Based on the article, I'm leaning toward this being a bad idea. Does anyone have any actual arguments to the contrary?

[Lonewulf]

Hey guys! Anyone here want to actually discuss the topic of the thread?
*raises hand*

Based on the article, I'm leaning toward this being a bad idea. Does anyone have any actual arguments to the contrary?

I agree that this is a bad idea. The only argument I've heard is from Gurdur, who argues that the city council doesn't "want to give into the demands of frat boys".

What are your reasons for feeling that this is a bad idea?

[Gurdur]

Hey guys! Anyone here want to actually discuss the topic of the thread? Based on the article, I'm leaning toward this being a bad idea. Does anyone have any actual arguments to the contrary?

Funnily enough, I would like to see some genuine discussion on this, yes. Cain's OP deserved much more than what it got in response. Tell us why you think it's a bad idea before you ask others for their arguments against yours.

[Checkmite]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for telling cities in other countries what they should do; however, I similarly would like to know why this is supposed to be a bad idea.

[Gurdur]

BTW:
...Incredibly Gurdur said something .....

I'll have you know I say lots of things.

[Lonewulf]

Well... one thing I criticize is here:

From a strictly entrepreneurial point of view, this is not a good investment. The buyers reckon that the value of the properties may fall by $21 million, a deficit that the municipality would have to fund.

That's a lot of money, and this could harm the extra money that they get from the tourists that do arrive. This could be more harmful than helpful to Amsterdam.

While prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, the city has found the trade is a magnet for female trafficking and money laundering. "Our aim is to push back criminal activity, to gain more control over the area", mayor Job Cohen commented.

I will admit that female trafficking and money laundering are bad things that should be ended. I may need to change my vote on this issue, but I don't think I can.

Nor is the sex-industry Mayor Cohen's only target: He also sees the buyout as a chance to begin clearing out the cannabis-selling coffee shops and what he calls "bad horeca" (the hospitality industry term meaning hotel-restaurant-cafe). The move underpins the strategy of the leftist city government to curb what they see as the excessive proliferation of commerce based on sex, drugs and alcohol, for all of which the city earned its global reputation.

The problem is, if that commerce helps Amsterdam, then why is it necessarily wrong? Also, what's so bad about alcohol? :P

While they do not plan to stop the sale of undesirable goods and services altogether, they say it has gotten out of hand.

I can see that, though.

However, does this action necessarily directly target the actual problems here; I.E., money laundering, and human trafficking? It seems more like a political shotgun blast that they hope will ricochet and hit the criminal activities that they really want to confront.

I guess I'm growing more ambivalent than anything else. *Shrugs*

[Gurdur]

...That's a lot of money, and this could harm the extra money that they get from the tourists that do arrive. This could be more harmful than helpful to Amsterdam.
Yet again you don't actually tackle why they do this. They want a more pleasant atmosphere and they want a more balanced and civic city-planning and city-economy, rather than being a huge red-light district. They are willng to forego lots of money to attain that. Not all values in life are money, you know, funnily enough.
The problem is, if that commerce helps Amsterdam, then why is it necessarily wrong?
Why not allow unimpeded gun-running, slavery and Blackwater subsideries the? After all, they're only "commerce". See above.
Also, what's so bad about alcohol?
Abuse, when it happens. Same with a lot of things.
However, does this action necessarily directly target the actual problems here; I.E., money laundering, and human trafficking?
It does to quite a large degree.
It seems more like a political shotgun blast
City-planning experience shows that presumption is wrong. It's quite more targeted than you suppose.

[Lonewulf]

Yet again you don't actually tackle why they do this. They want a more pleasant atmosphere and they want a more balanced and civic city-planning and city-economy, rather than being a huge red-light district. They are willng to forego lots of money to attain that. Not all values in life are money, you know, funnily enough.
Strawman.

Why not allow unimpeded gun-running, slavery and Blackwater subsideries the? After all, they're only "commerce". See above.
See your strawman? Okay.

Gun-running is equivalent to prostitution?

Slavery is equivalent to prostitution?

:D :D :D :D

Sounds like the slippery slope fallacy to me.

Abuse, when it happens. Same with a lot of things.

It does to quite a large degree.

Evidence?

City-planning experience shows that presumption is wrong. It's quite more targeted than you suppose.

I'm not entirely sure how it works. Perhaps you're willing to educate me without the logical fallacies?

[YoPopa]

I similarly would like to know why this is supposed to be a bad idea.
Basic political principle, subsidize something that you want more of.

The taxpayers are rewarding (ie. subsidizing) the landlord of these businesses by paying about 3 times the value of the property. At best, all this is going to accomplish is to move the businesses to a new neighborhood at taxpayer expense.

There is no need to discuss this as a question of the morality of drugs & prostitution. These things are still being allowed. On the contrary this is an ideal environment to encourage corruption such as bribes, kickbacks and graft.

[Gurdur]

Strawman.
Not at all. I see you are back to the contentless flaming and the unsupported accusations. It was a very direct answer to you which you refused to deal with.
See your strawman? Okay.
Troll much?
Gun-running is equivalent to prostitution?
Slavery is equivalent to prostitution?
Both gun-running and slavery are examples of commerce. I was criticising your naive statement about commerce. Can you actually be honest enough to tackle the point?
:D :D :D :D
Troll much?
Evidence?
Now I am laughing. You've been making statements with no foundation, indulging in contentless flaming and what looks very much like empty trolling, and you want evidence?

I'm not entirely sure how it works. Perhaps you're willing to educate me without the logical fallacies?
Naaaw, I'll pass. Can't be bothered with you at all now. Your opinion is quite literally worthless and irrelevant, and your dishonesty in discussion means I feel no great desire to bother with you.

Hopefully others will step into this thread; it's very clear you have nothing substantial to say, and I won't allow you to use me at least in your attempts to get a stupid flame-war going to ruin the thread. Run along now, off you go; that was the last time I ever try taking you seriously. Cheers.

[Gurdur]

....The taxpayers are rewarding (ie. subsidizing) the landlord of these businesses by paying about 3 times the value of the property.
Just how do you work that one out?

At best, all this is going to accomplish is to move the businesses to a new neighborhood at taxpayer expense.
Not true. What it will do is simply close a lot of business down and encourage those involved in it to get into completely new and more acceptable lines of business.
There is no need to discuss this as a question of the morality of drugs & prostitution. These things are still being allowed.
No, they are being allowed less.
On the contrary this is an ideal environment to encourage corruption such as bribes, kickbacks and graft.
Just how?
"Oh please accept my bribe to reclassify the block so I can open a grocery? Even though the grocery would make me far less money than a bordello?"

This is rather a ridiculous argument of yours, since the risk of bribery and corruption are quite likely to be reduced by the measures.

[Lonewulf]

Not at all. I see you are back to the contentless flaming
Wait. Pointing out logical fallacies is "flaming"? :confused:

Says who?

and the unsupported accusations.
I never said that money was all that matters. You acted as if I said that. But okay, I'll let it rest.

It was a very direct answer to you which you refused to deal with.
They want a more pleasant atmosphere and they want a more balanced and civic city-planning and city-economy, rather than being a huge red-light district.
Some people don't feel that the government should be working to make the people do whatever the government wants. The "Government" in Amsterdam wants a "more pleasant atmosphere"... and? Does this mean I automatically have to agree with every measure they take to get that "pleasant atmosphere"?

Troll much?
Pointing out that you made a strawman is not trolling.

Gun-running is not the same as prostitution. This is pretty obvious to anyone.

Troll much?
Not trolling, I'm pointing out the silliness of your arguments.

Now I am laughing. You've been making statements with no foundation, indulging in contentless flaming and what looks very much like empty trolling, and you want evidence?
So, you have no evidence of your claims.

Naaaw, I'll pass. Can't be bothered with you at all now.
Great! Welcome to my ignore list.

Please read Cain's lovely comparison to Rosie O'Donnell and sex as to a wonderfully-put and apt response to my feelings over this matter.

Anyone else want to engage in serious discussion over the OP?

[YoPopa]

Just how do you work that one out?
Taxpayers are paying $35 million, the value of the property is projected to fall by $21 million. Even if you don't include costs of new construction & infrastructure the taxpayers are making a bad investment decision.

What it will do is simply close a lot of business down and encourage those involved in it to get into completely new and more acceptable lines of business. Demand for these trades will be unaffected by government fiat. When demand is steady and availability declines then prices increase. The profit margines for the remaining businesses will skyrocket. Note that ".. they do not plan to stop the sale of undesirable goods and services altogether"

Just how?
"Oh please accept my bribe to reclassify the block so I can open a grocery? Even though the grocery would make me far less money than a bordello?" It's not the grocers who are going to be grateful. It's the remaining bordello owners who will profit the most.

This is rather a ridiculous argument of yours, since the risk of bribery and corruption are quite likely to be reduced by the measures. More money being spent by government is always equal to a greater potential for bribery and corruption. The fact that the money is obviously being spent foolishly is just a good clue that such shenanigans are quite likely at work in this case. Of course this is not necessarily the case in this particular instance. Some powerful politicians are just well meaning airheads.

[ZirconBlue]

Funnily enough, I would like to see some genuine discussion on this, yes. Cain's OP deserved much more than what it got in response. Tell us why you think it's a bad idea before you ask others for their arguments against yours.

It's just a gut reaction to the information presented thus far. I don't have enough information, yet, to take a more firm stance. That being said, some items from the article that form the basis of my "gut reaction":

From a strictly entrepreneurial point of view, this is not a good investment. The buyers reckon that the value of the properties may fall by $21 million, a deficit that the municipality would have to fund.

And the authorities appear ready to accept the inevitable impact of the cleanup on tourism.

Spending a great deal of money with a possible consequence of reduced tourism, smells a little of cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face. They may well have researched their position and decided on the option that offered the most desirable outcome. Or they could just be idealogically opposed to what they consider undesirable activities (prostitution, drug use, etc.), and are taking any measure to reduce those activities, no matter how ill-conceived. I can't tell yet which (if either) of these is in play, here.

[Gurdur]

Taxpayers are paying $35 million, the value of the property is projected to fall by $21 million. Even if you don't include costs of new construction & infrastructure the taxpayers are making a bad investment decision.
See the point I made before to Lonewulf. Again, there are more values to life and city-planning than only money.
Demand for these trades will be unaffected by government fiat.
You are presuming inelastic and constant demand. That is a mere presumption of yours, so far without any proof.

It's not the grocers who are going to be grateful. It's the remaining bordello owners who will profit the most.
The remaining ones will profit to a small degree, but the whole city and its native population profit much more in different ways. Nothing in this so far backs up any charge of increase of risk of corruption.
More money being spent by government is always equal to a greater potential for bribery and corruption.
That seems like only an anti-government rant. You might as well say,
"More money spent by anyone at all is always equal to a greater potential for bribery and corruption".

Ironically, the decrease in the redlight zones means less hot money floating around and less opportunities for all the crimes often associated with the redlight trade. Therefore, less chance of corruption.

The fact that the money is obviously being spent foolishly
Only in your opinion.
is just a good clue that such shenanigans are quite likely at work in this case.
Special pleading of yours, and making your desired conclusion appear in your premise as well. invalid on both counts.
Of course this is not necessarily the case in this particular instance. Some powerful politicians are just well meaning airheads.
Mere empty rhetoric.

Out of interest, just how much experience do you have professionally in city-planning? Any at all? If you don't have any, how come you're abusing those who do?
_____________

.....Spending a great deal of money with a possible consequence of reduced tourism, smells a little of cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face. They may well have researched their position and decided on the option that offered the most desirable outcome. Or they could just be idealogically opposed to what they consider undesirable activities (prostitution, drug use, etc.), and are taking any measure to reduce those activities, no matter how ill-conceived. I can't tell yet which (if either) of these is in play, here.

Seeing as to how they've allowed so much redlight traffic for so long, then a presumption of "ideological opposition" can be immediately dismissed. Which only leaves the other option of that they "have researched their position and decided on the option that offered the most desirable outcome."

[Wheezebucket]

People are just going to do it anyway.

Bam.

[Gurdur]

People are just going to do it anyway.
Only they're going to do a whole lot less of it there.
Bam.
Wham bam thankyou ma'am.

[YoPopa]

Originally Posted by Wheezebucket http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3012550#post3012550)
People are just going to do it anyway.



Only they're going to do a whole lot less of it there.

Wham bam thankyou ma'am. Ergo, those who choose to still do it will be paying a higher price. Thank you madam. :D

[Gurdur]

.... Ergo, those who choose to still do it will be paying a higher price. Thank you madam.

Thus reducing demand. And so the Iron Hand Of The Economy chokes off the Dong Of Desire. Or something like that. Probably we shouldn't chase metaphors too much here, it would only get us X-rated.

[TX50]

I live in Amsterdam. I applaud the city government's desire to curtail
the iniquities of the gutter-trash of the city (if, perhaps, not their
chosen method).

[YoPopa]

You are presuming inelastic and constant demand. That is a mere presumption of yours, so far without any proof. Ya got me there pardner. If you want proof of the inelastic and constant demand for the world's oldest profession then I am indeed speechless.

Out of interest, just how much experience do you have professionally in city-planning? Any at all? If you don't have any, how come you're abusing those who do?
I was never a prostitute, a pimp, a drug dealer or city planner. If experience in these professions is a prerequisite for this discussion then I leave the rest to you sir.

[Gurdur]

Ya got me there pardner. If you want proof of the inelastic and constant demand for the world's oldest profession then I am indeed speechless.
Point is, you ignore just how elastic a market can be.

The fact that a trade such as prostitution has always and will always exists does NOT constitute any proof at all of inelastic demand for it. That should be obvious. There is no logical connection between presence and level of demand; you need to do far more work on your argument.

I was never a prostitute, a pimp, a drug dealer or city planner.
Fallacy of lack of ambition.

Sheeeesh, I dunno what's wrong with young folks these days.

then I leave the rest to you sir.
I can be all 4, right? At the same time? :) Ta muchly!

[Checkmite]

There is no need to discuss this as a question of the morality of drugs & prostitution.

Maybe, maybe not. That the legislature of the place chooses not to legally restrict such activities does not mean their decisions in this case aren't influenced by thinking of drugs and prostitution as low-rung pastimes. In the article, I thought I detected some subtext, and that subtext was that Amsterdam is not enamoured of having a reputation as the world's slut-n-puff playground, despite the revenue these activities may generate.

[Wheezebucket]

I can understand them not wanting to be a 'puff-n-slut' station (side note - I'm going to open a gas station by that name in the near future), but if other countries had more realistic and sensible laws regarding drug use and prostitution, they wouldn't have this problem. Now, instead of everyone else getting better, they're forced to make themselves worse just to keep up. It's a bummer.

But like I said - people are just going to do it anyway. Might get more dangerous, might get more expensive, hell, it might get cheaper - but it's not going to stop. Nor should it. Just a matter of how long we want to keep trying to ignore it as a community instead of working to make both industries better.

Or we could just keep trying prohibition. Seems to work great so far.

[Lonewulf]

I can understand them not wanting to be a 'puff-n-slut' station (side note - I'm going to open a gas station by that name in the near future), but if other countries had more realistic and sensible laws regarding drug use and prostitution, they wouldn't have this problem. Now, instead of everyone else getting better, they're forced to make themselves worse just to keep up. It's a bummer.

But like I said - people are just going to do it anyway. Might get more dangerous, might get more expensive, hell, it might get cheaper - but it's not going to stop. Nor should it. Just a matter of how long we want to keep trying to ignore it as a community instead of working to make both industries better.

Or we could just keep trying prohibition. Seems to work great so far.

Why do you hate Amer... er, I mean, Amsterdam?

[Checkmite]

I can understand them not wanting to be a 'puff-n-slut' station (side note - I'm going to open a gas station by that name in the near future), but if other countries had more realistic and sensible laws regarding drug use and prostitution, they wouldn't have this problem. Now, instead of everyone else getting better, they're forced to make themselves worse just to keep up. It's a bummer.

I think you're missing the point of what they're doing. Moving these industries out of downtown areas, or other areas where the city, is not eliminating drugs and prostitution a la the US; it's simply transplanting it to places where its less in-your-face. Just because such things are allowed does not mean Denmark as a whole has to revel in them - and this move is designed to send a message that they no longer wish to. Which is their perrogative of course.

[YoPopa]

Maybe, maybe not. That the legislature of the place chooses not to legally restrict such activities does not mean their decisions in this case aren't influenced by thinking of drugs and prostitution as low-rung pastimes. In the article, I thought I detected some subtext, and that subtext was that Amsterdam is not enamoured of having a reputation as the world's slut-n-puff playground, despite the revenue these activities may generate.Yes you can include the question of morality, I only meant to say that I chose not to in this case. I prefer to follow the money. Whatever the intent of the citizens or the planners might be and however honorable or nefarious, the money trail is a little easier way of tracing the effects and identifying the winner$ and loser$ as well as predicting future behaviors. I know it's only small part of the whole.

The citizens have every right to be concerned about quality of life issues and I don't fault them an iota for wanting to find some remedy. If I was raising a family in a residential neighborhood next to a red light district I would be seeking some remedy as well.

[Gurdur]

.....The citizens have every right to be concerned about quality of life issues and I don't fault them an iota for wanting to find some remedy. If I was raising a family in a residential neighborhood next to a red light district I would be seeking some remedy as well.

Bingo. This is where we get to the kernel of the matter; this is where we're tackling the nitty-gritty.

A redlight district tends to attact a huge amount of problems in its wake, driving out other businesses and lowering residential values pretty much (not many people really want to live somewhere where they will be woken up at 3am most mornings by drunken oiks vomiting in the gutter on the street and whining loudly that they don't have enough money to buy a screw).

Throw into addition the big rise in the drug scene, the big rise in violence and the nasty weirdo scene, throw in having to walk or drive home each evening through aggressive fratboys out for a night on the town, and one sees why a city council could easily start thinking about reducing the size of a huge redlight district.

[Matthew Best]

Just because such things are allowed does not mean Denmark as a whole has to revel in them

Denmark? :confused:

[Gurdur]

Denmark? :confused:

The Danes are over-achievers. Sooner or later they will take over Amsterdam too.

[Matthew Best]

Last I heard they were having enough trouble controlling Copenhagen (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/101685.html).

[Gurdur]

That's only because it's full of Danes. Amsterdam will be easier.

[Matthew Best]

Why, because it's full of Americans?

[Gurdur]

If I say yes, will that get me flamed?

[Cain]

Ya got me there pardner. If you want proof of the inelastic and constant demand for the world's oldest profession then I am indeed speechless.

You seem to continually make this argument in one form or another, saying the money will simply move the prostitution out and demand will remain more or less the same. Interestingly, the city of Washington D.C. committed basically the same economic fallacy. They took the inelastic demand of oil (in the United States) and accordingly tacked on a huge tax. The problem was that people could fill up elsewhere; the city planners should have calculated the demand for gas in Washington D.C.. Yours is a mistake because it implicitly assumes demand is almost entirely local when, in point of fact, the city is attempting to attract a different type of tourist. If drugs and prostitution become more underground then that definitely makes it more difficult for foreigners in a new land to engage in those behaviors (unless it's organized in some semi-systematic way, like the sexual tourism industry in Thailand, but that's not something a country like the Netherlands would ever tolerate).

Yes you can include the question of morality, I only meant to say that I chose not to in this case. I prefer to follow the money. Whatever the intent of the citizens or the planners might be and however honorable or nefarious, the money trail is a little easier way of tracing the effects and identifying the winner$ and loser$ as well as predicting future behaviors. I know it's only small part of the whole.

If we take morality out of the equation, then I suppose you would think a more amenable solution would be to intensify regulations on legal prostitution rather than buyout. Maybe the property owner could be banned from it altogether, or the city could simply seize his property compensating him with little to no money. I mean, that's one solution. The figures you keep citing (21 million) do not interest me much because it's mere guesswork, though you (repeatedly) tout it as fact. Also, we do not know the details of the deal the city struck with the owner. If prostitution is illegal elsewhere, and he's uber-rich now, then he would be considerably less likely to stay in that business.

You're also missing an important part of the city dynamics at work. While I am not familiar with the geography of the region (I doubt you are either), it's possible city planners are acting in a rationally self-interested manner. Cities have given bus passes to the homeless, sending them to sunny California and Florida; this does not solve the problem homelessness, obviously, but relocating it just as good as far as their constituency is concerned. And that leads to another point, you started speculating about possible graft, but these reforms currently enjoy popular support.

[Matthew Best]

If I say yes, will that get me flamed?

I doubt it - this is a sensible forum full of disinterested critical thinkers. ;)

[Gurdur]

That means "yes".

[ZirconBlue]

Well, this thread has certainly taken a turn for the funny.

I like to think that I'm at least partially to blame.

[Gurdur]

.....I like to think that I'm at least partially to blame.
Guilt problems? Too many Woody Allen films?

[ZirconBlue]

Guilt problems? Too many Woody Allen films?


Never been a fan, actually, and I wouldn't really call it a problem, per se.

I was a Richard Lewis fan back in the day, and he had some sort of Jewish guilt schtick going on. . .

[Gurdur]

I must confess total ignorance of whoever Richard Lewis is or was.

[ZirconBlue]

I must confess total ignorance of whoever Richard Lewis is or was.

Why? This is the internet. You should claim to be president of the "Richard Louis Fan Club" then lambaste me for calling his act a "schtick". Seriously, you don't really think you have to tell the truth, do you?

[Gurdur]

Why? This is the internet. You should claim to be president of the "Richard Louis Fan Club" then lambaste me for calling his act a "schtick". Seriously, you don't really think you have to tell the truth, do you?

Um, yes. This answer is in all deadly seriousness.

Except when I am telling a joke, then my basic stance is that I am honest till the other person shows dishonesty towards me. After that, it's all bets off, gloves off, the works.

I know your post here is none too serious, and meant in good fun, so please pardon me if I use it to make a serious reply. I hope it's not too boring.

Yes, it may well "only" be the internet, but I personally don't make any differentiation between the net and the rest of life. I'm reasonably well-known around the atheist / secular humanist corner of the net, and I like to be myself, warts and all; I prefer it by far if others are themselves with me. Life really is too short to do anything else, IMvHO.

I do fully realise that this makes me a boring old fart. On the other hand, I can tell millions of very funny true stories, when I get given the chance.

[ZirconBlue]

Um, yes. This answer is in all deadly seriousness.

Except when I am telling a joke, then my basic stance is that I am honest till the other person shows dishonesty towards me. After that, it's all bets off, gloves off, the works.

I know your post here is none too serious, and meant in good fun, so please pardon me if I use it to make a serious reply. I hope it's not too boring.

Yes, it may well "only" be the internet, but I personally don't make any differentiation between the net and the rest of life. I'm reasonably well-known around the atheist / secular humanist corner of the net, and I like to be myself, warts and all; I prefer it by far if others are themselves with me. Life really is too short to do anything else, IMvHO.

I do fully realise that this makes me a boring old fart. On the other hand, I can tell millions of very funny true stories, when I get given the chance.

Of course, as you know, I was joking. In all sincerity, I appreciate the good humor in which you've taken my recent posts. Your gruff exterior belies your creamy nugget center. Or something.

Oh, and Richard Lewis was a semi-popular stand-up comedian in the 1990's. He even had a short-live sitcom with Jamie Lee Curtis. You might remember him if you see him:

http://delafont.com/comedians/Richard-Lewis.htm

[Gurdur]

..... your creamy nugget center. Or something.
I dunno, ZirconBlue, you make me sound kinda disgusting.

OK, OK, I MAY be disgusting, but not in that way! :p

Oh, and Richard Lewis was a semi-popular stand-up comedian in the 1990's. He even had a short-live sitcom with Jamie Lee Curtis. You might remember him if you see him:
Sorry, looked that all up and I still don't have the slightest clue who he is. I know who Jamie Lee Curtis is, from A Fish Named Wanda and the film Wild Animals, but no idea about him.

Keep in mind I am not an American, nor a Canadian; I just don't see a lot of the TV shows you would have seen. Pardon my ignorance.

OTOH, I am sure I have socially redeeming value of some kind. Somewhere.

[Wheezebucket]

He's a terrible comedian, but he's on a show called Curb Your Enthusiasm now where he can be pretty funny (though he does look like he's suffering from no less than 9 different forms of cancer at once).

[Gurdur]

He's a terrible comedian, but ..... he can be pretty funny (though he does look like he's suffering from no less than 9 different forms of cancer at once).

Oddly enough, I can and do manage both things as well (looking like Keith Richards but being funny etc.). Still don't know him from Adam. Sorry.

[ZirconBlue]

Sorry, looked that all up and I still don't have the slightest clue who he is. I know who Jamie Lee Curtis is, from A Fish Named Wanda and the film Wild Animals, but no idea about him.

Keep in mind I am not an American, nor a Canadian; I just don't see a lot of the TV shows you would have seen. Pardon my ignorance.

Don't worry about it. In the early 90s, American television was awash in stand-up comedy, so a lot of relatively obscure comics actually got some TV time. He's had some small parts in television, but the only other things you might have seen him in are the movies Once Upon a Crime, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. It's not like he's a big favorite of mine, or anything. His was just the first name I thought of in association with the word "guilt".

[Gurdur]

...... Robin Hood: Men in Tights. It's not like he's a big favorite of mine, or anything. His was just the first name I thought of in association with the word "guilt".


If you're going to watch movies with names like Robin Hood: Men in Tights, perhaps guilt is wholly appropriate.

[Cain]

What the **** is Richard Lewis doing in my thread? This is primarily about prostitution and cannabis in Amsterdam, not alcohol and cocaine in Los Angeles.

[Gurdur]

What the **** is Richard Lewis doing in my thread?

He was just looking to score some dope?

[The Painter]

What the **** is Richard Lewis doing in my thread? This is primarily about prostitution and cannabis in Amsterdam, not alcohol and cocaine in Los Angeles.


Richard Lewis is an attention whore. There, now it fits.

[Checkmite]

Denmark? :confused:

:D :D :D

[Matthew Best]

As I suspected, it was all Korosi's fault.

[Gurdur]

As I suspected, it was all Korosi's fault.

Who else? Bees in the bonnet.

[Checkmite]

You people and your hive mentality.

[YoPopa]

With an apology to Robert Frost.

Some said this thread would end in fire,
Some said in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of this humor
I hold with those who favored fire.

But if it has to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And will suffice.

[vexed]

It's all a part of the city's new tourism strategy. The problem with a lot of the people who go to Amsterdam -- or at least the young Americans I know who go, and the ones recounting their experiences on the intarweb -- is that they're *********** idiots. I mean, the highlight of their trip is getting baked/ripped, and then waiting in line to grope a statue of Anne Frank.


Different strokes for different folks. If someone doesn't like the 'party' atmosphere, don't go, that simple.

[pgwenthold]

Remember back when Las Vegas decided that they needed to sell themselves as a more family friendly city? Yeah, how'd that work out?

Now they are back to, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."