Blatant ad populum.

Blatant 'using-clever-Latin-phrases-to-show-how-clever-I-am' syndrome.
:p

Not quite, no. You're either overdoing it or over-interpreting things. Bear with me.

As some have rightly pointed out, you do not contribute to a debate at all - you state irrelevant things and focus on the (few) posts addressed directly to YOU and that YOU can tag some Latin unto and accuse of fallacy - you seem to like this by the way... so let's look at it more closely:

Argumentum ad hominem: where did you see that happen? Asking you where yourself and your views come from has been (as far as I see) mainly done in an attempt to widen the grounds of the debate. Most importantly, being the object of an ad hominem does not mean you "win" the debate. First, debate is not about "winning" or "losing", and second, there are dozens of posts that do not imply you as a person that you have simply ignored in your answers, as pointed out before (- ignoratio elenchi, perhaps, by the way?).

Straw man fallacy for Moonblue's post: if you feel you can accuse Moonblue of straw man fallacy (which I don't think is the case), you have to recognize the exact same goes for yours. Seriously, that one is blatant.

Argumentum ad populum: certainly not in Phdbug's post. You surely know that argumentum ad populum means that one assumes that because the majority agrees on something, then that something is true. Phdbug does nothing of the like. The post only states a personal opinion and asks the rest of us a question. Whether the question is rhetorical, I do not know - joys of written communication. Even if it was, it'd simply make it another personal opinion.

I can think of at least one instance of argumentum ad verecundiam in your posts on this topic - you might be pleased to know! And also, I'm not sure, but there must be a name for the process of trying to dismiss the arguments of others by means of using foreign languages? Reading your posts, I cannot bring myself to think it could be sheer pedantry...

Imitation is the finest form of flattery. Back to the debate?

Cleverclogs, I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'spiritual', which may partially explain why I'm finding it hard to engage with your position.

But leaving that aside, let me see if I can say something that challenges your position directly rather than committing any 'straw man' or 'ad hominem' fallacies:

The tension I can see in your view is between your view that prostitution is a bad thing because of the harm it does to prostitutes in particular (and perhaps society in general), and your view that prostitution is a bad thing because it involves some sort of denial of human dignity/spirituality/nobility.

Now, I don't think anyone here is going to deny that there's a close connection between prostitution and all sorts of terrible things of the sort you describe: assaults, drug addiction etc. There's a debate to be had about how we should respond to that fact: do we try to 'stamp out' prostitution, for instance, or do we bring it out in the open in such a way as to make it easier to offer appropriate forms of support to prostitutes - health advice, union representation etc.?

Your view, I think, is that we should 'stamp it out'. Now, that's a legitimate view - somebody could argue for that approach, for instance, by producing evidence that increased toleration of prostitution is always likely to do more harm than good (perhaps because more women would be attracted to the profession, and hence exposed to unacceptable and ineleminable risks).

What's worrying, though - and, I suspect, what's behind some of the 'ad hominem' attacks that have been made in this thread - is that your adherence to the 'stamp it out' view seems to be based not so much on concerns about the safety of prostitutes, but on the view that prostitutes (and, I suppose, their clients) are morally blameworthy, spiritually deficient, less-than-fully-human individuals.

So, two questions:

1.) If the risks involved in working as a prostitute were minimal, would you still oppose it as being 'animalistic', 'beneath human dignity' or some such?

2.) What is it about selling sex, in particular, that makes it a *morally unacceptable* surrender to our 'animal' natures? (Presumably you don't have a problem with people indulging their 'animal' desires for food, warmth etc.)

I think the challenge for you is to give consistent answers to those two questions. If you just think sex is 'dirty', you're on safe ground from that point of view but most people will disagree with you. If, on the other hand, you think that prostitution is to be condemned just insofar as it harms people, I supect you're going to find it easier to answer the second question than the first.

Clever Clogs, if you wish to engage in debate, then I'd suggest that you do just that and stop the flippant remarks on each post - you really do come across as rather immature and ignorant. You have only recently joined us, I'd suggest that rather than insulting established members of the community and making silly comments you engage with us and debate properly.

We are all intelligent, deep thinking people, and enjoy a good debate that doesn't become personal - however there is little that annoys certainly myself, and I know several others here - than people who come on and simply say 'yeh but, no but'.

You are not 'winning' - debates aren't 'won', they are engaged in and well all learn from them. Please can you enlighten us further with reasoned debate and less of the flippancy, rudeness and ignorance. As a spiritually educated person I'm certain that you can manage that?

Go look through this thread and see who has been making personal remarks. I won't attach any regard to any post here which reflects on my character.

Magictime I hear the voice of reason and will reply later.

I've just skimmed through the last few pages and can't find a single sentence where I've reflected on a person's character.

'Stressed' on the other hand: -

All I've done is state my views with characteristic conviction, which clearly winds up some people, though that's not my problem.

Has this thread been restored?

*Ding Ding*

Yes we have restored the thread. If the *ding ding* carries on though we might take it off again as the personal insults just end up creating a flame war, which was what Sascha was trying to avoid by taking the thread down. Please stick to the arguments and leave those reading the thread to make their minds up about the personality or parentage of the other contributors.

Moving away from the "fight".

The whole thing still raises lots of questions about PhDers resorting to prostitution. I am sure that there are no stats, but is anyone else wondering how commonplace this is? Or maybe even some of our regulars may be doing this kind of work?

I mean if the best BdJ could do in the 14 month period of writing up/ being awarded her PhD was going on the game, it doesn't say much about our employability.

I hope all the hookers reading this thread think of cleverclogs and smile the next time they walk off after a job with some well earned cash to pay for a lovely relaxing holiday from the stressful PhD work :p

I hope all the hookers reading this thread think of cleverclogs and smile the next time they walk off after a job with some well earned cash to pay for a lovely relaxing holiday from the stressful PhD work :p

Today it was reported that her father slept with 150 prostitutes. That explains a lot. I suppose the liberals here will defend him vigorously too.

You know what Slowmo, All this has really made me think I wish I could do this; I mean 300 quid an hour, flip, in three hours I'd make month's wages. But I know I couldn't do it.