# Would you work...



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 23, 2014)

...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
...as a car salesman?
...as a drug traffickers?
...as a politician?
...as a soldier?
...as a tabacco PR rep?
... in the Hollywood movie industry?
Why/why not?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a car salesman?
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a politician?
> ...




Well


> the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a tabacco PR rep?



No- each of them has some element that clashes with my personal ethics or self-image.




> ...as a car salesman?
> ...as a politician?
> ...as a soldier?




Yes, since I feel each can be done in a way consistent with my morals.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 23, 2014)

Probably not any of those since it'd be a waste of my talent, training and interests.  The porn one is the most realistic as I could at least work on the back end of their websites or something.

That said, if I were suddenly in dire enough straits to be looking for a job and any of those would have me...

Porn can be done ethically and safely, so if the company I was considering did so, sure, why not.
Probably not a car salesman, I'm just not personally charismatic enough.
Drug traffickers?  Eh... no, 'cause the risk-reward is too heavy on the risk.  The real reward/profit goes to the people far removed and as an entry level trafficker I'd be the first under the bus.  Just not worth it.  I'm also for the legalization of all drugs and letting people take what risks they want with their own bodies, so you could even say I'm opposed to the job being _able_ to exist.
Politician... eh.  I'm not suited for the charisma side of the job.  I'd be better as the assistant or material expert that advises and informs the politician.  Which is actually something I _would_ like to do.  Spending a year or two in DC being the go-to guy in support of weapons projects when Congress has questions?  That actually sounds really interesting to me.
Soldier... eh.  I'm not suited for it and again, it'd be a waste of my skill/training/so-on.  I'm happier being the Q to the 007, even if in the real world both of those are hundreds of people.
Tabacco PR rep [sic]?  Um... no.  While I have no moral opposition to people willfully and knowingly poisioning themselves, I have no intention of lying to people to get them to do so.


----------



## delericho (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a tabacco PR rep?




No. Like Bullgrit, I find that each of these inherently conflicts with something in my ethics.



> ...as a car salesman?
> ...as a soldier?




Sure, but I doubt they'd have me - my talents don't lie in this area.



> ...as a politician?




Sure. If all we do is complain about politicians, and good people actively avoid the profession as a result, how can we ever expect it to get any better? And it's a field where a few good people really could make a huge difference to the lives of many.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a politician?
> ...as a tobacco PR rep?




None of the above, because ... ick.  Too compromising.



> ...as a car salesman?




Sure.  This industry may be full of sleazeballs, but not all of them are, and there's no reason they have to be.  No compromises required to actually help people.



> ...as a soldier?




No question.



> Soldier... eh. I'm not suited for it and again, it'd be a waste of my skill/training/so-on. I'm happier being the Q to the 007, even if in the real world both of those are hundreds of people.




You probably don't know that there are soldiers that perform just the role you describe.  And as "waste of skill/training" ... cyber is a huge growth area for the military.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.



Not my first choice, but it could happen. I did some early education in film and while I'd rather be making other types of films, I have no inherent objection to nudity or sexuality.



> ...as a car salesman?



Yes, but only if I was absolutely desperate for money. I've done retail, and sales to me is a job with very little substance and not something that I'd enjoy or get much out of, and not something that would have a positive impact on the world.



> ...as a drug traffickers?



No. It's too dangerous, and I would not want to associate with some of the people who do business in this type of illicit marketplace.



> ...as a politician?



Yes. My trademark brutal honesty probably wouldn't play well though. Being an amateur actor as I am, could I learn to be a good politician? Perhaps.



> ...as a soldier?



No. I don't believe in using violence.



> ...as a tabacco PR rep?



No. There's some jobs that have a positive impact, and some that are just picking up a paycheck and going through motions, but I wouldn't be part of one of the ones that is actively harmful to people and/or the world at large. Nor would I get into that level of deception and manipulation. There's plenty of things other than tobacco PR that I'd rule out on the same grounds.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.



I'd make a create director.



> ...as a car salesman?



Eww.



> ...as a drug traffickers?



I'd deal pot, it will be legal soon anyway.



> ...as a politician?



Yes, a very important job in our societies. Vision is needed. 



> ...as a soldier?



Do I look like I'm receptive to propaganda and want to die or kill people?



> ...as a tabacco PR rep?



Might as well PR rep for a sugar compagnie.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 23, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Do I look like I'm receptive to propaganda and want to die or kill people?



Yes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 23, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Yes.



Wow. My life up to this moment is all a lie.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Feb 23, 2014)

...in the porn industry? Certainly not in front of the camera, but if the job was steady and the salary sufficient, why not?
...as a car salesman? I am a very poor salesman in general, I would not make it in car sales.
...as a drug traffickers? No, I wouldn't do anything illegal unless I had absolutely no other choice.
...as a politician? Ugh, probably not.
...as a soldier? No if I had to be in harm's way. I could see myself in the army in a support job.
...as a tabacco PR rep? Probably not, no. I'm no good at convincing people in general.

AR


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> 1] ...as a car salesman?
> 2] ...as a drug traffickers?
> 3] ...as a politician?
> ...




1] never - those folks are parasites
2] never - moral reasons
3]  never - those folks are parasites
4] I would, I did I am happy to have done this, I wanted to do this for life.
5] No frickin way. I think it should be apperent

forgot the porn industry: no - moral delimma


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

A lot of people seem to have a "moral dilemma" with working in the adult industry, even if it isn't as on screen talent. Why is that? I mean, there are lots of other jobs that you can get in the adult industry. What's the deal with the "moral dilemmas?"

On a side, but related, note, a while back, when I work at a college tutoring really stupid students, a co-worker was looking for a job. She had gotten her degree in graphic design or something like it. In any case, she saw this job opening with a company in the area for a designer, or photo editor or something like that. She sent in her resume, and afterwards she decided she was going to research the company in case she got called. It turned out to be an adult company. She never got called, so I don't know if she would have taken the job or not, but I thought it was funny.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 24, 2014)

Porn Industry: Sure. I can do make-up and prosthetics.

Everything else: no.
Worst part of being a politician: having to sit through tedious meetings were everyone has to sit through at least half an hour of talking without saying anything. That's the only reason I haven't run for city council to oust some of the more idiotic people there. The idea of having to listen to that vacant blather for hours on end, all to accomplish nothing, would infuriate me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> A lot of people seem to have a "moral dilemma" with working in the adult industry, even if it isn't as on screen talent. Why is that? I mean, there are lots of other jobs that you can get in the adult industry. What's the deal with the "moral dilemmas?"




Well, even if you aren't on-screen talent, there's still reasons not to get involved in the pro or even "amateur" porn industries:

Ex1) Though they're doing a lot better with their self-policing, the industry still has problems with underage performers.  See the Tracy Lords & GGW controversies, separated by decades.

Ex2) There is a lot of self-medication/substance abuse (illegal and legal) among the performers, cited by current and past performers as a coping mechanisms for dealing with the job.  This also raises questions of consent, especially in those amateur subgenres in which the performers are filmed under false pretenses and/or where private sex tapes (some recorded secretly) are released for sale.

And by being involved in the industry, you are part of the support system that helps things like that- and others- continue.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Worst part of being a politician: having to sit through tedious meetings were everyone has to sit through at least half an hour of talking without saying anything. That's the only reason I haven't run for city council to oust some of the more idiotic people there. The idea of having to listen to that vacant blather for hours on end, all to accomplish nothing, would infuriate me.



I had a once had a nightmare that I couldn't find a job doing anything, so I had to run for public office. It was quite frightening. Seriously, I'm not joking. I actually had that dream. It was awful.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, even if you aren't on-screen talent, there's still reasons not to get involved in the pro or even "amateur" porn industries:
> 
> Ex1) Though they're doing a lot better with their self-policing, the industry still has problems with underage performers.  See the Tracy Lords & GGW controversies, separated by decades.
> 
> ...



Would you have the same objections to working in the Hollywood movie industry?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2014)

Not really.  Mainstream Hollywood isn't clean, but its not as problematic as the porn industry.

Generally speaking, mainstream Hollywood isn't paying people to have _actual_ sex on camera, so the underage sex issue is different.  Hell- since the sex is faked, Hollywood doesn't have the public health issue that porn does: the professional porn industry had AIDS-related shutdowns in 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 3 times in 2013.  The latest started in December and is still ongoing, as I recall.

And the amateurs don't have the safety regs and mandatory sexually-transmitted disease tests that the pros do.

Further, while there is substance abuse in mainstream Hollywood, there is not the corresponding issue of lack of consent and filming under false pretenses.






(I'm an entertainment lawyer...)


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.




Generally yes, as I have no moral problems with porn. If there'd be an option, I'd look carefully at the business model and the code of ethics of the company. The end result would pretty sure be "no".



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a car salesman?




This would be one of the very last options I'd try. Besides being a horrible salesman, I don't like the idea of generating more traffic and spending more resources on cars.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a drug traffickers?




No.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a politician?




Yes and no.

No because I derive my political views from a set of moral and ethical axioms by logical conclusions. This makes me incompatible with any political party.

Yes. If you offer me a job as king, I'd gladly do it. 



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a soldier?




No. One of the most important axioms is "Man must not kill".



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a tabacco PR rep?




No. Actively working in an industry which business model is based on imperiling their customers' health is a no go. Besides, I witnessed my grandaddy dying from lung cancer.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 24, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, even if you aren't on-screen talent, there's still reasons not to get involved in the pro or even "amateur" porn industries:
> ...
> And by being involved in the industry, you are part of the support system that helps things like that- and others- continue.



As much as that's true, it seems to be true of pretty much any industry. I don't know that the presence of bad actors within an industry is really that revelatory. People advance through the ranks in all kinds of business due to various forms of sexual exploitation, even if it isn't on camera. It's not a good thing, but it's the world we live in.

And going beyond that, pretty much anything you can buy in the US has some profoundly abused workers involved in its production somewhere. I mean, who has it better, the actors in the porn industry, or the people who built your smartphone or slaughtered your meat or tested your pharmaceuticals?


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not really.  Mainstream Hollywood isn't clean, but its not as problematic as the porn industry.
> 
> Generally speaking, mainstream Hollywood isn't paying people to have _actual_ sex on camera, so the underage sex issue is different.  Hell- since the sex is faked, Hollywood doesn't have the public health issue that porn does: the professional porn industry had AIDS-related shutdowns in 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 3 times in 2013.  The latest started in December and is still ongoing, as I recall.
> 
> ...



Right, yet there seems to be a pretty big problem with drugs. Lots of child stars seem to end up in rehab. It's not as if drug use is a minor thing in Hollywood. 


As for the underage sex?[/quote]There's a lot of people who have come forward and said they have been sexually abused as kids in Hollywood. Cory Felman and Cory Heim seem to be two of the worst. Then there is the guy who played Elmo, and there has been managers, talent agents, and others. It's not as if it doesn't happen, it's just not made very public. 

In any case, my actual point is that regardless of industry, you're going to find that there is an unsavory side to it. The adult industry isn't the only industry with this kind of stuff. It makes me wonder why people have a moral dilemma with working in the adult industry and not hollywood. 



> (I'm an entertainment lawyer...)



I know.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It makes me wonder why people have a moral dilemma with working in the adult industry and not hollywood.




Hollywood wasn't on the list in the original question.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Hollywood wasn't on the list in the original question.



Lies!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a car salesman?
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a politician?
> ...




Car salesman, sure.  I don't know if I'd be the best at it, but I have no objection to selling things to people.  Politician is similar - my personal ethics probably mean I wouldn't do well.  I've no general issue with being in the military, either - I almost used it to finance my education.

Drug trafficker and Tobacco industry - no thanks.  

Porn - I have no moral problem with the basic idea of the media.  I have problems with what I understand to be the current implementation of the business.  The levels of victimization of performers is too high for my tastes.

While Hollywood does have its excesses, my understanding is that it is much, much more clean than porn.  Given my personal skills, I'd probably be in the animation or special effects end of the house, which is only about as bad as any other business, by my understanding.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.




Yup.  I'd even act if the circumstances were right.  Never much minded people watching.



> ...as a car salesman?




Nope.  I could sell the hell out of cars cuz I know 'em and like 'em and I'm very charismatic when I want to be plus I can present myself in a very trustworthy way.  The reason I say no is because I don't want to live on commission.  I like a salary.  I did sort of seasonal work at one time and never knowing how much money my check was gonna be for until the week was over sucked pretty hard.



> ...as a drug traffickers?




Nope.  Too much risk.



> ...as a politician?




Nope.  Too much bureaucracy and, you know, bribes.  That's all good until you get caught. 



> ...as a soldier?




This is one I could do but I don't think I want to.  Er, at least not at 35 years old.



> ...as a tabacco PR rep?




Yep.  Hell, it'd be a lot of fun to expose all of the lies Truth tells.



> ... in the Hollywood movie industry?




Free money?  Sign me up.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Right, yet there seems to be a pretty big problem with drugs. Lots of child stars seem to end up in rehab. It's not as if drug use is a minor thing in Hollywood.



Again, we're talking about degrees.  Sure there's drug use in Hollywood.  Add to that on the stage of Broadway and in rock venues everywhere around the world.  And in corporate boardrooms.  And in parish rectories.  Drug use is not unique to porn.

What is different is that in the porn industry, some performers are either self-medicating or being drugged in order to enable them to perform, begging the question of ability to legally consent.  This isn't speculation, this is a spectre raised by performers themselves.



> As for the underage sex?  There's a lot of people who have come forward and said they have been sexually abused as kids in Hollywood. Cory Felman and Cory Heim seem to be two of the worst. Then there is the guy who played Elmo, and there has been managers, talent agents, and others. It's not as if it doesn't happen, it's just not made very public.




Sexual abuse of the underaged occurs to some degree in _every_ business or institution in which there is mixing of adults in kids- but only (a subset of) pornographers actually market it as a product for sale.  That's a key distinction.



> In any case, my actual point is that regardless of industry, you're going to find that there is an unsavory side to it. The adult industry isn't the only industry with this kind of stuff. It makes me wonder why people have a moral dilemma with working in the adult industry and not hollywood




It's a matter of degrees.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, we're talking about degrees.  Sure there's drug use in Hollywood.  Add to that on the stage of Broadway and in rock venues everywhere around the world.  And in corporate boardrooms.  And in parish rectories.  Drug use is not unique to porn.
> 
> What is different is that in the porn industry, some performers are either self-medicating or being drugged in order to enable them to perform, begging the question of ability to legally consent.  This isn't speculation, this is a spectre raised by performers themselves.



Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?


> Sexual abuse of the underaged occurs to some degree in _every_ business or institution in which there is mixing of adults in kids- but only (a subset of) pornographers actually market it as a product for sale.  That's a key distinction.



Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.


> It's a matter of degrees.



So really your "moral dilemma" isn't so much what is happening, just the extent to which you perceive it to be happening? The only difference between Hollywood and porn is the amount of coverage it gets when something happens.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?




I'm not saying it, they are.  Self-reported rates of being under the influence while on screen vary from 70-99%.



> Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.



Sexualizatuon of kids is bad, and it's not limited to Hollywood.

But films of sex with the underaged released as a product is worse.



> So really your "moral dilemma" isn't so much what is happening, just the extent to which you perceive it to be happening? The only difference between Hollywood and porn is the amount of coverage it gets when something happens.



No, the difference is the degrees of _actual problematic behavior_.  Media attention has zero to do with it- the incidental vices of Hollywood are the business model of porn.

The 2 Coreys were drugged out and abused, but they weren't drugged so that they could perform; they weren't sexually abused on screen as part of one of their films.  They didn't make films against their will or without knowing they were being filmed.  OTOH, there are porn actors who had _exactly_ those things happen to them.

Don't get me wrong- there are activists who are doing their damndest to clean up the porn industry, and it IS getting better.  But the porn world is orders of magnitude more dependent on victimization of "the talent" than is Hollywood.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 24, 2014)

Underage porn is illegal and falls outside the bounds of what we consider 'porn'.  HS didn't ask if you'd work in kiddie porn, he asked if you'd work in porn.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 24, 2014)

delericho said:
			
		

> Like Bullgrit, I find that each of these inherently conflicts with something in my ethics.



Huh? Did you just confuse Dannyalcatraz for me?

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Underage porn is illegal and falls outside the bounds of what we consider 'porn'.  HS didn't ask if you'd work in kiddie porn, he asked if you'd work in porn.




He gave reasoning upthread already:

"Ex1) Though they're doing a lot better with their self-policing, the industry still has problems with underage performers. See the Tracy Lords & GGW controversies, separated by decades."

Not speaking for him, but it sounds like there's too high an incidence of failure to enforce age requirements to make it seem an ethical choice.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not saying it, they are.  Self-reported rates of being under the influence while on screen vary from 70-99%.



Citation?


> Sexualizatuon of kids is bad, and it's not limited to Hollywood.
> 
> But films of sex with the underaged released as a product is worse.



Right, but those kids are still being taken advantage of and exploited, and possibly sexually abused behind closed doors. The point is, they are still selling underage sex.



> No, the difference is the degrees of _actual problematic behavior_.  Media attention has zero to do with it- the incidental vices of Hollywood are the business model of porn.



Of course it does. This goes back to the other thread Bullgrit started about the one nighters, and the U.S. having all these sexual hangups. The porn industry has always been seen as some evil thing because sex is bad. Whenever you get one of these news stories about some underage kid performing in it, it's a _gotcha!_ moment, and the media jumps all over it. The same rarely happens in Hollywood, it seems. 


> The 2 Coreys were drugged out and abused, but they weren't drugged so that they could perform; they weren't sexually abused on screen as part of one of their films.  They didn't make films against their will or without knowing they were being filmed.  OTOH, there are porn actors who had _exactly_ those things happen to them.



So because the Coreys' sexual abuse wasn't sold as a product it isn't as bad? Also, have you considered the B-movie side of Hollywood? Most of those movies are just T&A movies where young girls and put on screen and they simulate sex. While it's not actual sex (assuming that actual sex never occurs), I'm betting there are some actors who also use drugs to get through those scenes.



> Don't get me wrong- there are activists who are doing their damndest to clean up the porn industry, and it IS getting better.  But the porn world is orders of magnitude more dependent on victimization of "the talent" than is Hollywood.



The fact is, there is no way to prove that claim. There is no way you can prove that more people are victimized in porn than in Hollywood. Sure, you might be right, the porn industry _could_ be significantly worse than Hollywood. You could also be wrong, and Hollywood could be significantly worse than the porn industry. In fact, the rate of victimization _could _be exactly the same in both industries. By the way, I'm not saying one is better/worse than the other. I'm saying we can't be sure.

In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out. It's still occurring in both industries. So it isn't what is happening in the industry that bothers you, it's just how much you think it happens.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 24, 2014)

> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.



No real problem.


> ...as a car salesman?



Certainly. No reason not to. I doubt a significant number of car salesmen are liars.


> ...as a drug traffickers?



Probably not, for the hugely increased likelihood of a sudden and violent death, or years of imprisonment. If it was what I had to do to put food on the table, though, sure.


> ...as a politician?



Have no problem with that.


> ...as a soldier?



Have no problem with that.


> ...as a tobacco PR rep?



That would be pretty dicey. I'd either have to need to money pretty badly, or it be a really, really good check.


> ... in the Hollywood movie industry?



Have no problem with that.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The fact is, there is no way to prove that claim.




Well, he's not trying to indict someone.  He's just trying to determine, for himself, if he'd work in that industry.  This isn't a court of law, and the standards of proof need only be his own.

Is this thread about stating our own thoughts, or about justifying them to your personal satisfaction and standards of proof, rather than our own?



> In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out.




Hardly.  Perfection is not allowed to us in this world, but that doesn't mean we cannot set minimum personal standards.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Well, he's not trying to indict someone.  He's just trying to determine, for himself, if he'd work in that industry.  This isn't a court of law, and the standards of proof need only be his own.



Right, so as I mentioned, it isn't about what actually happens, it's about how much it is perceived to happen that determines why someone wouldn't want to work in a particular industry. Which is why I don't understand the "moral dilemma" people keep claiming. If it's just that it occurs at a higher rate that makes it unsavory to someone, fine, I can accept that. However, that isn't what has been said. Or maybe it was, and I just missed it.


> Is this thread about stating our own thoughts, or about justifying them to your personal satisfaction and standards of proof, rather than our own?



It's about you bowing down to me and worshiping me as your true Squirrel God.

Or, you know, just me wondering about why people don't want to work in a particular industry. I figured it would be fine to ask for clarification about a reason if it wasn't clear to me. Have I overstepped some rule/boundary by asking? Is that not allowed? 



> Hardly.  Perfection is not allowed to us in this world, but that doesn't mean we cannot set minimum personal standards.



So what's your set minimum? Why is it set at that minimum?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> He gave reasoning upthread already:
> 
> "Ex1) Though they're doing a lot better with their self-policing, the industry still has problems with underage performers. See the Tracy Lords & GGW controversies, separated by decades."
> 
> Not speaking for him, but it sounds like there's too high an incidence of failure to enforce age requirements to make it seem an ethical choice.




That's sort of taking a company or two and saying the entire industry is to blame for what they did.  That's ... nuts and it would mean that - if you're (general) true to your moral code - you'd not be able to work for anyone anywhere.  Hell, he's a lawyer.  Lawyers have done some horrendously unethical stuff, no?  So how come the law as a business gets a pass when porn as a business doesn't?  It's bad logic, IMO.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 24, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> 1] never - those folks are parasites
> *2] never - moral reasons*
> 3]  never - those folks are parasites
> 4] I would, I did I am happy to have done this, I wanted to do this for life.
> ...



I just noticed the "moral reasons" response to the car saleman job. I'm curious, what moral reasons do you have for not working as a car salesman?


----------



## delericho (Feb 24, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Huh? Did you just confuse Dannyalcatraz for me?




Oops. Yes, it appears I did - a reading failure on my part. My apologies to you both.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 24, 2014)

delericho said:
			
		

> Oops. Yes, it appears I did - a reading failure on my part. My apologies to you both.



LOL! He may need an apology for our being confused, but I'm flattered 

Bullgrit


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I just noticed the "moral reasons" response to the car salesman job. I'm curious, what moral reasons do you have for not working as a car salesman?




I have know many car sales persons and I would not trust any of them as far as I could comfortably spit a rat. Since I would never put a rat in my mouth to spit it out in the first place, I defiantly couldn't COMFORTABLY  spit one. They were all just as bad as slick talkin politicians


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I have know many car sales persons and I would not trust any of them as far as I could comfortably spit a rat. Since I would never put a rat in my mouth to spit it out in the first place, I defiantly couldn't COMFORTABLY  spit one. They were all just as bad as slick talkin politicians



Okay, that makes sense. However, do you think you have to be like them in order to be good at the position? Do you have to be like them to even just sell cars?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Okay, that makes sense. However, do you think you have to be like them in order to be good at the position? Do you have to be like them to even just sell cars?




I would feel like I have dived dove into a cesspool, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Okay, that makes sense. However, do you think you have to be like them in order to be good at the position? Do you have to be like them to even just sell cars?



Assuming that working in the industry means making a good faith effort to succeed, it seems entirely possible to me that holding down a job in sales means resorting to unethical tactics just to keep up.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I would feel like I have dived into a cesspool, if you know what I mean.



Yeah, I can see that. I mean, I can understand not wanting to be around people like that. I have a friend who, along with his dad, owns a Ford dealership down here. I've met a lot of the sales people. Some are complete A-holes, and others are actually not bad. There are those who try to make enough money to pay their bills without trying to bilk you out of all your money, and there are those who try to bend you over and give it to you roughly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Assuming that working in the industry means making a good faith effort to succeed, it seems entirely possible to me that holding down a job in sales means resorting to unethical tactics just to keep up.



Not necessarily. i think it all depends on the dealership, and how the sales people get paid. Not all dealerships pay their sales staff solely by commission.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Not necessarily. i think it all depends on the dealership, and how the sales people get paid. Not all dealerships pay their sales staff solely by commission.



True. Maybe I'm just naive, but I thought the dealer I bought my car from was decent. I lived right near a place that does non-negotiated pricing so maybe that makes a difference.

My own sales experience in selling much smaller things suggests to me that commissions are bad. I was paid by the hour, and as a consequence I consider myself to have been a fairly objective and honest salesman. There were performance incentives, but they failed, which I thought was a good thing. When the place reformed and added in more meaningful performance metrics (among other things), I left.

And I think, in general, any sort of system that attempts to tie compensation to specific performance measures is a bad idea, because it creates an incentive to game the system. The same thing happens with police departments and crime numbers, health care providers that are paid by the procedure, brokerages that charge per transaction fees, and so on.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> True. Maybe I'm just naive, but I thought the dealer I bought my car from was decent. I lived right near a place that does non-negotiated pricing so maybe that makes a difference.
> 
> My own sales experience in selling much smaller things suggests to me that commissions are bad. I was paid by the hour, and as a consequence I consider myself to have been a fairly objective and honest salesman. There were performance incentives, but they failed, which I thought was a good thing. When the place reformed and added in more meaningful performance metrics (among other things), I left.
> 
> And I think, in general, any sort of system that attempts to tie compensation to specific performance measures is a bad idea, because it creates an incentive to game the system. The same thing happens with police departments and crime numbers, health care providers that are paid by the procedure, brokerages that charge per transaction fees, and so on.



Yeah, pretty much. I've been to dealerships where the sales people only earn commission, and that usually leads to the sales person trying to get as much out of the buyer. The other part of care sale I hate is when you go in to finance the car. From my experience, whenever the first thing they ask you is "How much can you afford to pay per month," you're in for a bad time. I mean, what does it matter how much I can afford to pay if we don't even know what the car costs?


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> good stuff mentioned . . . . .  I mean, what does it matter how much I can afford to pay if we don't even know what the car costs?




This.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Not necessarily. i think it all  depends on the dealership, and how the sales people get paid. Not all  dealerships pay their sales staff solely by commission.




this true. I do acknowledge this. I am trying to not generalize. I hope I do not come across as such



Ahnehnois said:


> Assuming that working in the industry means  making a good faith effort to succeed, it seems entirely possible to me  that holding down a job in sales means resorting to unethical tactics  just to keep up.




I have been in various sales jobs and I know this happens. I know many people of great repute and character that tried sales but got out because of what is expected of you to do to meet the sales goals would have the to ignore what they know to be right in their hearts.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> . . . . . and there are those who try to bend you over and give it to you roughly.




those are the ones I am talking about


----------



## Umbran (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Or, you know, just me wondering about why people don't want to work in a particular industry. I figured it would be fine to ask for clarification about a reason if it wasn't clear to me. Have I overstepped some rule/boundary by asking? Is that not allowed?




It's allowed, but.. the method left something to be desired.  Check your your "seeking clarification":

_"In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out. It's still occurring in both industries. So it isn't what is happening in the industry that bothers you, it's just how much you think it happens."_

I dunno about you, but when I want to know something, I ask a question.  "Dude, that's a cop out!" is not a question, it is a judgement.  How is it seeking anything, except in a passive-aggressive way?  



> So what's your set minimum? Why is it set at that minimum?




My minimum, clearly, is somewhere between movies and porn.  I don't think I can articulate it in a consistent and clear way beyond that - too much of ethical judgement is dependent on the details.

Why is it where it is?  Because it makes *sense* to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Citation?




Actually, I already provided a link to a website where porn performers reported their own experiences with drugs and their perception of the drug use of their fellow performers.

Here's another post, though, from Shelley Lubben (who, BTW quotes another porn star's blog on use):
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/29/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-part-2/

And another: http://henrymakow.com/the_porn_industry.html

You can also find non-Grandma friendly (language) discussions of it from ex-performers like Jennie Ketcham, a drunken interview with Taylor Rain and testimony from Regan Starr, Jersey Jaxin, Trent Roe, Linda Lovelace and others.


Further, in the International Journal of Sexual Health in September 2012, Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania psychologist James Griffith and his colleagues reported (among other things) that the stereotype that porn stars use more drugs (esp. marijuana) than the average person was at least partially true. 

(Caveat: porn stars are reluctant to cooperate with researchers, so his data does have issues.  They also have an average career in the biz of 18 months or less, so that skews things as well.)

We also have testimony that drug use in the porn industry is not universal- Kayden Kross, an adult film actress and writer, claims to be drug free and refuses to work on screen with those who indulge.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Umbran said:


> It's allowed, but.. the method left something to be desired.  Check your your "seeking clarification":
> 
> _"In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out. It's still occurring in both industries. So it isn't what is happening in the industry that bothers you, it's just how much you think it happens."_
> 
> I dunno about you, but when I want to know something, I ask a question.  "Dude, that's a cop out!" is not a question, it is a judgement.  How is it seeking anything, except in a passive-aggressive way?



The question was asked in a previous post:


Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?
> *Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.
> So really your "moral dilemma" isn't so much what is happening, just the extent to which you perceive it to be happening? *The only difference between Hollywood and porn is the amount of coverage it gets when something happens.



The post you quoted was a restatement, which I didn't think required for it to be stated as a question again.


> My minimum, clearly, is somewhere between movies and porn.  I don't think I can articulate it in a consistent and clear way beyond that - too much of ethical judgement is dependent on the details.
> 
> Why is it where it is?  Because it makes *sense* to me.



That's not very clear, actually. Would you mind sharing some of those details?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's not very clear, actually. Would you mind sharing some of those details?




I'm not actually interested in getting into the details with you.  Sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2014)

> > Sexualizatuon of kids is bad, and it's not limited to Hollywood.
> >
> > But films of sex with the underaged released as a product is worse.
> 
> ...




Again, one is an incidental and potential crime versus the intentional product of the industry.  The first is peripheral, the second is the entire point.  One is a fiction, the other is a crime.



> > No, the difference is the degrees of actual problematic behavior. Media attention has zero to do with it- the incidental vices of Hollywood are the business model of porn.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. This goes back to the other thread Bullgrit started about the one nighters, and the U.S. having all these sexual hangups. The porn industry has always been seen as some evil thing because sex is bad. Whenever you get one of these news stories about some underage kid performing in it, it's a _gotcha!_ moment, and the media jumps all over it. The same rarely happens in Hollywood, it seems.




I have no problem with porn per se.  I have a problem with the porn industry as it currently operates.  Big difference.



> So because the Coreys' sexual abuse wasn't sold as a product it isn't as bad?




No, but the opprobrium does not intrinsically attach to Hollywood.  Again, their victimization was incidental to the product.  They were not drugged it sexually assaulted in order to produce their movies.   In porn, however, such victimization is crucial to the production of the product.  Sometimes, it is even the point,



> Also, have you considered the B-movie side of Hollywood? Most of those movies are just T&A movies where young girls and put on screen and they simulate sex. While it's not actual sex (assuming that actual sex never occurs), I'm betting there are some actors who also use drugs to get through those scenes.




And while that is much closer to the porn industry in overall sleaze, it still doesn't rise to...errr...sink to the same depths.



> > Don't get me wrong- there are activists who are doing their damndest to clean up the porn industry, and it IS getting better. But the porn world is orders of magnitude more dependent on victimization of "the talent" than is Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, there is no way to prove that claim. There is no way you can prove that more people are victimized in porn than in Hollywood. Sure, you might be right, the porn industry _could_ be significantly worse than Hollywood. You could also be wrong, and Hollywood could be significantly worse than the porn industry. In fact, the rate of victimization _could _be exactly the same in both industries. By the way, I'm not saying one is better/worse than the other. I'm saying we can't be sure.




About 50% of human trafficking cases prosecuted in the USA are sexual exploitation cases.  Most are just prostitution cases, but a subset of those are for the primary purpose of the production of porn- usually child porn, but some adults (almost all women) as well. 

Here's a couple of cases from the USDoJ where the human trafficking victims were filmed and had their images sold for profit:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2013/stokes.sen.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/2012/120217-03.html

Hollywood simply doesn't do that.  They don't need to.



> In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out. It's still occurring in both industries. So it isn't what is happening in the industry that bothers you, it's just how much you think it happens.



Again, Hollywood doesn't need to drug or kidnap its actors to make movies.  Enough in the porn industry do, though.

Does Hollywood exploit children?  To a certain extent yes, but that is n the decline, and in most cases that remain, the parents are complicit.  And the commercial product released to the public is one of fiction.

In contrast, when porn exploits children, it is with force, drugs, and without family consent.  The end product is also evidence of an actual crime.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I already provided a link to a website where porn performers reported their own experiences with drugs and their perception of the drug use of their fellow performers.



I missed it. Which one is that Was it in this thread?


> Here's another post, though, from Shelley Lubben (who, BTW quotes another porn star's blog on use):
> http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/29/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-part-2/
> 
> And another: http://henrymakow.com/the_porn_industry.html
> ...



I've heard of the Pink Cross people. They seem to be wanting to do the right thing, but Shelley Lubben some times comes off as kind of crazy. In any case, I'm sure they are right about some of the cases they are talking about; however, I know that isn't the case for all. I know because I have a friend who does porn. So yeah, it's true that some of them take drugs to do the sex scenes. My friend for example took some herbal version of viagra in order to hump some really fat girl he said had a face like a bulldog and was sweating like crazy. Funny enough, his girlfriend was the one that got him into the porn industry. 


> Further, in the International Journal of Sexual Health in September 2012, Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania psychologist James Griffith and his colleagues reported (among other things) that *the stereotype that porn stars use more drugs (esp. marijuana) than the average person was at least partially true. *



Does that study indicate what the drug use is for? Why they do it? I'm sure a similar study conducted about Hollywood actors would probably turn out similar results. I'm betting alcohol abuse is a problem in both industries.


> (Caveat: porn stars are reluctant to cooperate with researchers, so his data does have issues.  They also have an average career in the biz of 18 months or less, so that skews things as well.)
> 
> We also have testimony that drug use in the porn industry is not universal- Kayden Kross, an adult film actress and writer, claims to be drug free and refuses to work on screen with those who indulge.



Exactly my point. I'm not denying that this kind of stuff happens in the porn industry. I'm just wondering why, if similar things happen in Hollywood's entertainment industry, you would have a moral dilemma with one industry but not the other. To me, it appears that it is based off of the rate of occurrance, not what is actually occurring.

In any case, I think we've derailed this thread enough, and there are others who seem to be getting a bit upset about the discussion we are having, for one reason or another. So, in order to not further derail this thread, I created another thread. Let's just get back to the original topic here, and if you want, we can go further into this porn VS Hollywood topic in the other thread.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I'm not actually interested in getting into the details with you.  Sorry.



Your loss. 

/Moving on.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> [sblock]Again, one is an incidental and potential crime versus the intentional product of the industry.  The first is peripheral, the second is the entire point.  One is a fiction, the other is a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All very interesting, but it's just going further off topic in this thread. I started a thread where that discussion would fit better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2014)

To answer your question, I provided the first such link in post #25 in this thread, HS.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To answer your question, I provided the first such link in post #25 in this thread, HS.



Yup, I totally missed it. I thought your link was going to be to an actual study where a certain number of adult performers were surveyed. 

So here is another question, would you work in the diamond industry?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 25, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> I would feel like I have dived dove into a cesspool, if you know what I mean.




Funny, thats to be how I feel when I watch most popular drama series these days.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So here is another question, would you work in the diamond industry?




What kind of data are you mining for, HS?  Every industry has an unsavory side.

Diamond mining?  The Blood/Conflict diamond controversy is well documented, as is the fact that most mines that aren't involved at all, and that the industry sandard involves a lot of engraving and tracking of diamonds.

And mining of diamonds and other materials have other issues as well: labor, environmental hazards, conflicts over land & water usage with other land owners, etc.

Furniture & instruments?  The acquisition of rare woods and organic materials has been linked to environmental waste, poaching, murder and even terrorism.

And?


----------



## Umbran (Feb 25, 2014)

It seems I must remind people that EN World does not accept the use of foul language.  If your post invokes the language filter, you're over the line.  Please, folks, keep it clean.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What kind of data are you mining for, HS? Don't be so paranoid, I'm just asking a question. I wanted to bring the discussion back on topic, and I was listening to the song Grillz by Nelly while thinking of a question.
> 
> In any case, I take it you wouldn't work for the diamond industry?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 25, 2014)

Don't forget the DeBiers Diamond Cartel is exactly that: a Cartel. They control the vast majority of the diamonds in the world. Try to work without them? They flood the market with whatever type of diamonds you have, making yours worthless. And they've built up a reserve to be able to do that.
The fact that the world is mostly convinced that diamonds are still rare stones is a testimony to their power.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 25, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Don't forget the DeBiers Diamond Cartel is exactly that: a Cartel. They control the vast majority of the diamonds in the world. Try to work without them? They flood the market with whatever type of diamonds you have, making yours worthless. And they've built up a reserve to be able to do that.
> The fact that the world is mostly convinced that diamonds are still rare stones is a testimony to their power.



So is that a yes or a no on working in the diamond industry?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2014)

DeBeers is actually a broken cartel- big finds in Australia, Canada and _especially_ Russia broke their power back in the mid-1990s.

You may reacall, Russia needed wheat, and wanted loans to buy it.  South Africa blocked them.  So Russia invited _60 Minutes_ to tour a couple of their diamond vaults.  The display of multiple rows of _only_ industrial storage racks (the shelves they use at Sam's) filled with shoebox-sized bins of 1 carat D-color flawless brilliant cut diamonds in a single vault was what hit the air, with the tour guide noting that this is what Russia would have to sell if they couldn't get loans.

South Africa caved.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 25, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What kind of data are you mining for, HS?  Every industry has an unsavory side.
> 
> Diamond mining?  The Blood/Conflict diamond controversy is well documented, as is the fact that most mines that aren't involved at all, and that the industry sandard involves a lot of engraving and tracking of diamonds.
> 
> ...




Actually the participation in the certification process is voluntary and not well enforced.  Blood diamonds are laundered and passed as non-blood diamonds pretty easily.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 26, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Funny, thats to be how I feel when I watch most popular drama series these days.




heh, so do I. I also only watch tv on hulu, where if I don't like a show or episode I can delete or I can speed past a portion of an episode if I like.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 26, 2014)

And to counter, If I recall, you can determine the origins of a diamond to an area by the mineral impurities as detected by spectrograph analysts or sometimes by the same tech that they determine color/clarity.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 26, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> DeBeers is actually a broken cartel- big finds in Australia, Canada and _especially_ Russia broke their power back in the mid-1990s.
> 
> You may reacall, Russia needed wheat, and wanted loans to buy it.  South Africa blocked them.  So Russia invited _60 Minutes_ to tour a couple of their diamond vaults.  The display of multiple rows of _only_ industrial storage racks (the shelves they use at Sam's) filled with shoebox-sized bins of 1 carat D-color flawless brilliant cut diamonds in a single vault was what hit the air, with the tour guide noting that this is what Russia would have to sell if they couldn't get loans.
> 
> South Africa caved.




And yet diamonds are still considered precious stones worth thousands of $. 60-minutes did another piece on DeBiers in 2000-2002. Cartel may be "broken", but it is still a strong influence with no sign of releasing control.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 26, 2014)

I remember a .95 c diamond was worth 10,000 us in the early 90's. now you can get the same for 3-5 thousand, i think.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> And yet diamonds are still considered precious stones worth thousands of $. 60-minutes did another piece on DeBiers in 2000-2002. Cartel may be "broken", but it is still a strong influence with no sign of releasing control.



It's illusory.

The only reason they still have any pull is because the major players outside their control- especially Russia- are perfectly happy with the prices diamonds command.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 26, 2014)

Scott DeWar said:


> And to counter, If I recall, you can determine the origins of a diamond to an area by the mineral impurities as detected by spectrograph analysts or sometimes by the same tech that they determine color/clarity.




Sure you can.  How many diamonds on the market, though, do you think have gone through that analysis?  The way that you can gauge how many blood diamonds are coming through, though, is by the stone's recorded place of origin.  In some areas diamonds are only found in rivers and the process to find them is labor intensive, low tech as hell and not efficient.  Countries typically produce roughly the same amount of stones annually so when you see one of these low volume countries suddenly spiking to ten times production, well, it's a safe bet that they're taking on stones from neighboring areas that are on the no-no list.  And guess what these countries do: They certify these illegal stones as legal since they're a signatory nation and the stones - technically speaking - come from them.  

Like I said, it's incredibly easy to fake and incredibly difficult to prove.  Too much money in it for these poor nations to stop, too.

Re: DeBeers: 

They set the market cuz they buy the most stones.  At one point they had just about all of the available stuff out there.  Russia, though, invited some countries to showcase their mining equipment in a diamond mine.  Once things were moving along swimmingly, they booted everyone that wasn't Russian out, took the equipment and stones and threatened to blow up DeBeers' spot by flooding the market with cheap stones cuz, you know, diamonds aren't really rare at all.  Someone mentioned why this didn't happen.

Anyhoo, there's major diamond sales annually and the major players buy.  Once they do, they hold onto the stones and release them slowly in order to maintain demand.

Oh, what _is _getting more rare are large diamonds.  The big mines like The Kimberly (Big Hole) use huge ass gear to mine as much as possible as fast as possible.  They pull diamonds out of stone by way of a massive rock crusher.  This crusher, incidentally, has the power to break up the bigger gems.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 26, 2014)

So not much chance we'll ever see another Kohinoor.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 26, 2014)

Actually a pretty massive stone was found recently.  Can't remember the name or weight but it sold or was expected to sell in the tens of millions.  They're probably still there and we'll probably see 'em from time to time but yes, big operations make 'em more difficult to find ... which makes me wonder if DeBeers has a vault somewhere full of 20 carat plus stones.  They obviously don't really care about losing the stuff.  Maybe there's a reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2014)

I think it was 157ct.

As for DeBeers having a big stones vault, I'd bet you're right.  Russia probably does as well.

The big mystery in precious stones is what actually happened to the stuff in the Persian (Iranian) Crown Jewels.  I studied under Dr. Freed- for whom Freedite was named- who was among the last in the Western world to see them before they were (probably) sold to buy weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

He and several other gemologists were invited in to do an appraisal of what was then considered to be the most valuable collection in the world.  They couldn't do the job.   His pictures, he said, didn't do it justice.  He described it as a real-world version of the Ritchie Rich comic book.  His words, not mine.

The collection was so staggeringly vast that they couldn't even start the job.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 26, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think it was 157ct.
> 
> As for DeBeers having a big stones vault, I'd bet you're right.  Russia probably does as well.
> 
> ...




Yeah, Russia has good diamonds and they learned the game from the people that know.  Odds are they've got some awesome stuff secreted away, too.

I'd love to see a collection like that and it sounds like an interesting story to boot.  I'm not terribly familiar with it but I think I'll have to check it out.  Thanks for mentioning it, bro.  Sounds like it'll be a good read.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2014)

I don't know if Dr. Freed's tales ever got told outside his classrooms.  He and his colleagues were allowed to take pictures of the stuff on display- which he showed to us- but nothing from the vaults.  His imagery was vivid, though- he described the first emerald vault as being stacked to its 20ft ceiling with bushel baskets of uncut stones...and how they had to kick fist-sized ones out of their way just to look into the baskets.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 26, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't know if Dr. Freed's tales ever got told outside his classrooms.  He and his colleagues were allowed to take pictures of the stuff on display- which he showed to us- but nothing from the vaults.  His imagery was vivid, though- he described the first emerald vault as being stacked to its 20ft ceiling with bushel baskets of uncut stones...and how they had to kick fist-sized ones out of their way just to look into the baskets.




Nooooo!  Oh well, thanks for relaying the bit you did, then.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 27, 2014)

Huh, was looking about and found a platinum cast of an 18th century skull encrusted with 8,601 flawless diamonds made in 2007. It was called "for the Love of God"


----------



## the Jester (Feb 27, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.




Sure. Nothing wrong with sex, or with filming it/taking pictures. As far as acting/performing, I'd be leery for health reasons, but with the right people (e.g. amateur porn with friends), why not?



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a car salesman?




Yeah, but I'd rather not. It's one of the ultimate jobs for coming across as sleazy, whether you are or not. (Yes, even moreso than being a porn star IMHO.)



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a drug traffickers?




Oooh, I guess this one depends. Slinging weed or psychedelics in a situation where I was confident that I wouldn't get caught or face any repercussions? Sure, maybe. Building a meth empire? Hell no. As a rule of thumb, I'd be very uncomfortable dealing drugs that I won't have around me (you brought some pot over? no biggee; but you bring some crank or heroin into my house, and you're leaving as soon as I know about it). Not all drugs are the same.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a politician?




Erm.... speaking of sleazebag jobs... but yeah, if I had to, or if I was working to better the country (or state, or city, or whatever). This is another "rather not, but reluctantly" kind of job for me.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a soldier?




Only if prosecuting a war I believed in; generally speaking, a defensive war (either in defense of my country, an ally or human rights in general, and that last one is almost never the real reason for a war). Otherwise, no; a soldier must fundamentally be ready to kill on command, and that's not a position I ever want to be in.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...as a tabacco PR rep?




Big fat nope. I don't have a problem selling tobacco (though I find it generally distasteful), but I can't imagine taking a job where I'm working in an industry more duplicitous than politics. 



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ... in the Hollywood movie industry?




Sure. Why not? I'd even flap my testes at the paparazzi.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 27, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> ...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
> ...as a car salesman?
> ...as a drug traffickers?
> ...as a politician?
> ...




1. Yes. I have nothing against it and have worked in strip clubs. 
2. Probably not. The sliminess and pressure/inconsistency aren't my thing. 
3. Pharmaceutical sales? That's a stretch. As Goldo, maybe pot as it's legalized. 
4. Sure, maybe even feel like I'm making a difference for the better, or at least have some choice concubines/groupies ;-). 
5. Not anymore. At one time, yeah but I can run fro president now though one of my friends enlisted on his 40th birthday.
6. No.
7. Yeah, there's lots of things I could see doing in the movie industry to writing/concepting, storyboarding, editing, voice work, soundtrack, on camera, whatever.


----------

