hold judgement until we learn whether this was sex slavery, where very poor women - in exchange for "safe passage" (in shipping containers) to the US - are forced to have sex to repay their host.
here's one such case locally from a few years back:
non, it was the end of the day on a Tuesday, which means I've been busy getting stuff ready for the paper edition. If you've got such a problem with it, feel free to come by the office and we can discuss it in person. Or you could just kiss my fucking ass.
The other side of this is that the victims are the women who are shipped like cattle from Asia to work in these places. Sure, there are "sensible" women who make the choice to be a sex worker, but more often than not it's soe young girl from Asia or the former USSR sold into slavery.
When I was younger, and dumber, Iwent to one of these places. It was a very sad experience for both of us.
"The sales manager of Mattress Liquidators, next door to the Avalon, also applauded agents and police for the crackdown. "They need to clean up this neighborhood," said Karsten Logan. "From 85th to 105th, it's kind of a prostitution area."
You'd think a cut-rate mattress outlet would be sad to see volume customer go out of business.
"From 85th to 105th, it's kind of a prostitution area."
As if busting a brothel will have any impact on the number of streetwalkers in the area. In fact, I'll bet if it wasn't for the bust, the Avalon's neighbors had no idea it was a brothel.
Mahtli69, I agree with most of what you say, but you really do go on to ruin your own point. And you do so in a way that is very frustrating, similar to the non-apology-apology: though everything you say is true, what you are really saying is clear and annoying.
Of course "shame on the cop" if they said something rude. That is 100% true 100% of the time (even if not illegal). Just like you could say, "shame on the cop if they slapped the woman first and then lied about it." That would also be 100% true 100% of the time. Because of that, it is difficult to argue against.
Why is okay to jump to that judgment though? The logical jump is one step, not two. One step says, I think the cop might have said something to provoke her. Once you move on to shaming --->>>IF<<--- that is what happened, you are talking about a completely hypothetical situation, while at the same time, still indirectly blaming the cop. The cop in this case, is the victim.
It does seems highly probably that there was an exchange that took place before the slapping. I would even be okay with someone saying, "I want to hear the whole story before I cast judgment either way." Once you move on to shaming one of the parties -- even though you have ever so cleaver/annoying IF in there -- you actually cross the line.
here's one such case locally from a few years back:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.c…
Even a read-over by YOU would have caught this error, you fucking hack.
How's stalking Adrian going?
Can someone please open one of these happy-ending parlors in Belltown? I hear they need a few more beat (off?) cops....
When I was younger, and dumber, Iwent to one of these places. It was a very sad experience for both of us.
Got anything else?
"The sales manager of Mattress Liquidators, next door to the Avalon, also applauded agents and police for the crackdown. "They need to clean up this neighborhood," said Karsten Logan. "From 85th to 105th, it's kind of a prostitution area."
You'd think a cut-rate mattress outlet would be sad to see volume customer go out of business.
As if busting a brothel will have any impact on the number of streetwalkers in the area. In fact, I'll bet if it wasn't for the bust, the Avalon's neighbors had no idea it was a brothel.
Of course "shame on the cop" if they said something rude. That is 100% true 100% of the time (even if not illegal). Just like you could say, "shame on the cop if they slapped the woman first and then lied about it." That would also be 100% true 100% of the time. Because of that, it is difficult to argue against.
Why is okay to jump to that judgment though? The logical jump is one step, not two. One step says, I think the cop might have said something to provoke her. Once you move on to shaming --->>>IF<<--- that is what happened, you are talking about a completely hypothetical situation, while at the same time, still indirectly blaming the cop. The cop in this case, is the victim.
It does seems highly probably that there was an exchange that took place before the slapping. I would even be okay with someone saying, "I want to hear the whole story before I cast judgment either way." Once you move on to shaming one of the parties -- even though you have ever so cleaver/annoying IF in there -- you actually cross the line.
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/no_r…
how did that happen?