Best Vacation Ever? (NWS) - Page 6

On August 11 2009 17:34 royalsu wrote: this would be the ideal bachelor party...only with your tighest friends who wouldn't say shit

WEEEE QUOTE BUTTTON

On August 12 2009 08:13 Baal wrote: First you say: " These girls are being exploited, maybe severely ( I.E they took their passports etc)" Then you say: "and honestly doubt they are holding their passports" Anyway the problem here is that you are clueless about what is exploitation, exploitation is taking advantage of somebody and not giving them remotely the remuneration their work deserves. There is a big difference between that, and to hire a girl from Ukraine because hiring a Danish girl would cost you 5 times more and she would be uglier, but still the Ukranian girl is being paid pretty good, that is not exploitation. You just arbitrarily assume they are being exploited while all evidence points that they are not, just go to their site and look in how many places they have been featured, famous radio shows, on god damn PlayBoy TV etc, and you make it sound like its some underground thai whore house.

the example, was just that an example of severe exploitation.

That is still exploitation, and being well advertised does not mean there isn't blackmail or exploitation involved, of course it does make it a lot less likely.
and paying them less because they are from ukraine rather than denmark is taking advantage of them, and still exploitation. same principal as sweat shops, but on a completely different level.

My only pseudo evidence is their low prices, and it's enough to make me very skeptical. Also this vacation isn't really my cup of tea for much the same reasons you stated. I'm not saying omg slave labor ! ! just saying that if i were to look into this i would have all this crap in the back of my mind, and question hem accordingly. If it turns out they're legit and just aren't greedy so they take little off the top for themselves, then great more power too them, but i would make damn sure they were before considering it.

I may have overreacted a bit earlier <3

On August 12 2009 11:39 iamalex wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2009 08:13 Baal wrote: Anyway the problem here is that you are clueless about what is exploitation, exploitation is taking advantage of somebody and not giving them remotely the remuneration their work deserves. There is a big difference between that, and to hire a girl from Ukraine because hiring a Danish girl would cost you 5 times more and she would be uglier, but still the Ukranian girl is being paid pretty good, that is not exploitation. When it's wrong is when they are coerced into their work and their pay. Deserves has nothing to do with it. If they think it's fair pay and they accept it, then all is good. Both parties have benefited from the transaction.

does the fact that your exploiting their lesser understanding of what it's worth in the relevant market not weigh into the equation of morality?

i'd have to disagree with alex, even tho both parties are "benefiting" i wouldn't go as far as saying it's morally upstanding and correct. Although they are doing the countries a service in a way. At least treat humans like humans tho.

Economics can't justify morality or whatever the fuck imo.

On August 12 2009 23:37 Etherone wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2009 08:13 Baal wrote: First you say: " These girls are being exploited, maybe severely ( I.E they took their passports etc)" Then you say: "and honestly doubt they are holding their passports" Anyway the problem here is that you are clueless about what is exploitation, exploitation is taking advantage of somebody and not giving them remotely the remuneration their work deserves. There is a big difference between that, and to hire a girl from Ukraine because hiring a Danish girl would cost you 5 times more and she would be uglier, but still the Ukranian girl is being paid pretty good, that is not exploitation. You just arbitrarily assume they are being exploited while all evidence points that they are not, just go to their site and look in how many places they have been featured, famous radio shows, on god damn PlayBoy TV etc, and you make it sound like its some underground thai whore house. the example, was just that an example of severe exploitation. That is still exploitation, and being well advertised does not mean there isn't blackmail or exploitation involved, of course it does make it a lot less likely. and paying them less because they are from ukraine rather than denmark is taking advantage of them, and still exploitation. same principal as sweat shops, but on a completely different level. My only pseudo evidence is their low prices, and it's enough to make me very skeptical. Also this vacation isn't really my cup of tea for much the same reasons you stated. I'm not saying omg slave labor ! ! just saying that if i were to look into this i would have all this crap in the back of my mind, and question hem accordingly. If it turns out they're legit and just aren't greedy so they take little off the top for themselves, then great more power too them, but i would make damn sure they were before considering it. I may have overreacted a bit earlier <3   On August 12 2009 11:39 iamalex wrote:   On August 12 2009 08:13 Baal wrote: Anyway the problem here is that you are clueless about what is exploitation, exploitation is taking advantage of somebody and not giving them remotely the remuneration their work deserves. There is a big difference between that, and to hire a girl from Ukraine because hiring a Danish girl would cost you 5 times more and she would be uglier, but still the Ukranian girl is being paid pretty good, that is not exploitation. When it's wrong is when they are coerced into their work and their pay. Deserves has nothing to do with it. If they think it's fair pay and they accept it, then all is good. Both parties have benefited from the transaction. does the fact that your exploiting their lesser understanding of what it's worth in the relevant market not weigh into the equation of morality?

I dont see how $3,500 (u dont get any sex at that price) to $8,000 for 3 god damn days per person is in any way cheap, that is a lot of money.

planning a vacation with hookers is pathetic. You can get a hooker when you are drunk or something but going on a trip!? come on guys, that should suck.

There is this moment in Kusturica's film "Life is a Miracle", when the old man talks about a lady he liked to Luca and the girl. It goes like

Old man: "there was this girl I liked, and she told me-bring me grapes, and I will be yours. So I went to the market and brought the grapes".
They: "Then?"
Old Man: "How do you call when you do it? "
They: "Making love?"
Old Man: "Yes. So I was making love, and she was eating grapes..."

On August 13 2009 09:18 Baal wrote: I dont see how $3,500 (u dont get any sex at that price) to $8,000 for 3 god damn days per person is in any way cheap, that is a lot of money.

Really? You don't even get any sex at that price? Seems like false advertising lol.

Amazing. Would be awesome.

I would really like to agree with iamalex here but somehow Baal's examples feel like exploitation even if I cannot immediately explain why.

The uneasiness I feel might have something to do with the idea of actually being willing to let someone you could easily help die if he doesn't give you what you want.

yeye lets just all agree on that prostitutes are happy and enjoying life, I mean they are just trading a service for money there nobody is getting exploited blablabla lets go race cards and hunt unicorns

o and 9/11 was a conspiracy

oh and whatever you guys say i will disagree for the sake of it.

I like pie.

On August 12 2009 18:10 Baal wrote: The example is really obvious, you do not need the water, and you dont need his fortune to get out of the desert are you fucking insane? why would you even ask such a ridiculous question. You claim that as long as the person accepts the deal and both parties are better off it is not exploitation, so if u give him the glass of water in exchange for all his possessions he wont die and ur rich, he did it willingly so its not exploitation, and its morally correct. Same example but instead of his belongings, he will be your slave for the rest of his life, its better than dying for him and he will probably accept so you think that is totally fine.

Yes, as long as both parties have been honest and accepted the transaction willingly there is nothing wrong with it. If you took away the rights of both parties to make the transaction, that would be far worse than any infraction on what is "morally correct", which is a totally subjective term.

No, slavery is a different matter and it totally depends on means of enforcement. Slavery is by definition, forced labor. If the man signs a legal contract to work for you for x years and perform whatever duties definied and there is no violence or coercian in maintaining the contract, ok. I would not fault either party for accepting the transaction.

On August 13 2009 00:44 YoMeR wrote: i'd have to disagree with alex, even tho both parties are "benefiting" i wouldn't go as far as saying it's morally upstanding and correct. Although they are doing the countries a service in a way. At least treat humans like humans tho. Economics can't justify morality or whatever the fuck imo.

I have not used any language to imply the actions I have described are nessecarily morally upstanding and correct. I am merely arguing for the rights of every human being. Morality is subjective. Everyone has their own definitions and principles. However, it is within the rights of the company to open a factory and offer whatever payment they want, so long as they are honest. It is also within the rights of the country people to work at the factory. If you deny either party's rights then you are denying their freedoms on the grounds of a subjective idea of morality.

On August 13 2009 18:06 SakiSaki wrote: oh and whatever you guys say i will disagree for the sake of it.

you're so nice they named you twice.

On August 13 2009 17:48 Fudyann wrote: The uneasiness I feel might have something to do with the idea of actually being willing to let someone you could easily help die if he doesn't give you what you want.

keep in mind that it is within your best interest to sell him the water as well. If you do not need it and he does, you only gain when a transaction takes place.

Every day every person on this forum denies the man the glass of water. The difference is sometimes the man is a starving child in Africa, or some other unfortunate in need of resources we own in excess. These people merely do not have the possesions or economic worth for it to be worth it for us to trade with them, so in general, we don't.

I think offering rice as a payment for working in a factory can be an enormous help to the people who are so poor they would otherwise starve. Not only do they no longer starve, they learn how to work to sustain themselves, and they can work to build up some real economy and become self-sustainable later.

The desert example is different, in that you're easily and cheaply able to help a desperate man, and negotiating for all his belongings would require you to be willing to let him die if he refuses. Which makes me uncomfortable. In my opinion asking any payment at all is awful in that situation.

On August 12 2009 11:39 iamalex wrote: Show nested quote + On August 12 2009 08:13 Baal wrote: Anyway the problem here is that you are clueless about what is exploitation, exploitation is taking advantage of somebody and not giving them remotely the remuneration their work deserves. There is a big difference between that, and to hire a girl from Ukraine because hiring a Danish girl would cost you 5 times more and she would be uglier, but still the Ukranian girl is being paid pretty good, that is not exploitation. When it's wrong is when they are coerced into their work and their pay. Deserves has nothing to do with it. If they think it's fair pay and they accept it, then all is good. Both parties have benefited from the transaction.

does the fact that your exploiting their lesser understanding of what it's worth in the relevant market not weigh into the equation of morality?[/QUOTE]

I have not been discussing any such equation. I suspect it does play into your principles of morality. However their employer is not responsible for their lesser understanding and cannot be faulted for employing them.