Poll: If you could erase any proffesion from society, which one would it be?

[Hat of Controversy]

Nothing. And prostitution SHOULD by all means be legal.

You own your body, you do whatever the fuck you want with it. If you choose to provide a service for money with it, namely sex, I really don't see a problem. Because it's a LOT worse when your body doesn't ultimately belong to you. Who the fuck are the government, or anyone, to tell what you can or can't do with your body? They can advise, sure. But not force you to.

Now apparent criminal activities where people are forced into this kind of lifestyle is a problem. And, of course, just like with drugs, it's ONLY LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL. Prostitution has always existed in practically every society, and it will continue to do so. But there's a difference between a bordello with stationed security, safe rooms, frequent medical check-ups and workers who get a paycheck, can take days off, and so on... and pimping on street corner. There's a whole world of difference.

Politicians, sadly, are to some extent required. Because they're more or less leaders, even though today that position is much less about leading and much more about stupid bullshit and breaking promises. Whether a purely anarchic society can or can't work, I don't care about arguing at this point - but for democracy, and all the benefits and bad things it brings, you need some kind of a leader. Publicly elected leader. And given the intelligence or interest of general public, to gain their vote politicians pretty much have to bullshit. So it's kinda, you know, our fault to an extent.

Soldiering, conflicts always existed between groups and when said groups are countries will millions of citizens, the size of the conflict is obviously going to be rather magnified. So you can't really get rid of that.

Marketing, it doesn't trick people out of anything.

Law enforcement or lack of it doesn't magically free anyone. I do not have much love for our law enforcement and especially some of the laws they represent and their methods (Toronto G20 was a pathetic fuck up on police's side) but if you're going to have any laws, you need some kind of a deterrent to breaking them. Sure, "if you do this god will hate you!" might work for some idiots, but generally if a law isn't enforced, it pretty much doesn't exist. No matter how anarchic I may or may not be, some laws are worth being defended, at least for the time being.

Taxcollectors, that depends on your political views. I probably fit somewhere under left-wing libertarian, although I mainly focus on personal freedoms. I see nothing wrong in some social programs that are directed in a smart way, so, eh, I'm okay with some taxes. Although, of course, paying a large percentage of your paycheck to the government that isn't going to do anything beneficial to you with these money is fucking annoying... Some taxes should be voluntary, in my opinion.

So, I'm okay with every profession.

Pretty much this.

The problem isn't so much the professions themselves, but rather that most of them have just become way to big or expensive or intrusive for their (or our) own good.

I'd just like to add something about marketing. Marketing/Sales are basically the reason most any company can stay afloat. Whatever company/corporation you work at, the only reason why that company is even there (hence, making a profit, and thus providing you with your employment at said company/corporation) is because of the folks in Marketing and Sales. I know most people hate advertisements and all, but you have to get the word out about your products somehow.

If people are dumb enough to waste their money on something just because they saw it in some big, flashy, fancy commercial, then let them be stupid and face the consequences of their own idiocy.

OT: As many others have said, I'd get rid of Sports/Sports Athletes. How about you fucking go outside and play a sport with your kids or friends, rather than throwing your money at all that stupid NFL/Superbowl/Major League Basketball bullshit?

Or learn to play the banjo, or another equally awesome instrument... Tons more fulfilling.

 

[Tourette]

All of the poll nominees are vital components of a society. We may not like them but we do need them, apart from prostitution but it is the oldest profession which does mean that they will always have a trade.

Could you explain the purpose of soldiers then?

So you're trying to tell me you do not know what they are for? Either you do not fully understand the full roles they perform or are having a futile attempt at sarcasm, which has not succeeded.

 

[Musclepunch]

Confused.com marketing team, damn I hate them

 

[Woodsey]

Seconded. When the law needs an expert to interpret it then it's clear that the law is too complicated. The solution is not to build an entire profession around the law, the solution is to simplify the law so that the man in the street can understand it.

Bollocks.

The law is required to be intricate so that as many basis as possible are covered. If you make it so transparent as to no longer require lawyers then your laws are too vague and people will be wrongly convicted (or not convicted at all when they should be) due to ambiguity.

Bollocks to you too.

The reason you state for the law being so complex precisely identifies the reason why it's complete nonsense to have the law set up in that fashion.

The purpose of the law is to provide an ordered society. However if the average citizen cannot understand the laws then the law has manifestly failed in its purpose, and is no longer a tool for ordering society, but rather a tool for oppressing a citizenry who have no hope of understanding the laws they are expected to follow without either (a) consulting a lawyer every time they want to do anything, or (b) just winging it and hoping that everyone else is also as clueless as they are and doesn't complain.

Furthermore your post displays a stunning ignorance of how judgements are actually reached. Your post pretends that the law is the sole determinant of whether someone is found innocent or guilty. How then is case law made if every decision has already been pre-empted and written into the law? How does a judge decide if a crime is new and there is no specific law covering the issue? Judges still reach decisions, and thus new case law is made, which in turn becomes part of the libraries of case law that inform each subsequent decision. The problem with the reliance on case law for acedent and precedent is that it takes specialist knowledge to even find the case law you're looking for. Even many lawyers are clueless and most large law firms employ a specialist who's job it is to dig out all the case law relating to a pending case (in smaller firms they have legal secretaries and interns).

What these layers of laws, case laws, different types of law (common, constitutional, contract, etc) each having different strengths and priorities, results in is a legal system that is so insanely complex and layered with contraditions, conflicting case law, etc, that one's innocence or guilt is not determined by anything other than the amount one is willing to spend on having lawyers troll through legal tomes until they can build a case that exploits all the loopholes that have built up over the decades.

Rather strip the law down to the basics again, write it in a language that the average citizen can understand and teach it at school so that it can fulfill it's true purpose.

At the moment the law is, in the immortal words of Dickens, an ass.

But most importantly, bollocks for everyone. [small]Eww.[/small]

Alright, I'm going to just respond to certain sections, because I feel like I'm going to need a lawyer to read through all that. In all seriousness though, some of your points do make sense to me.

Here we go:

Furthermore your post displays a stunning ignorance of how judgements are actually reached. Your post pretends that the law is the sole determinant of whether someone is found innocent or guilty. How then is case law made if every decision has already been pre-empted and written into the law? How does a judge decide if a crime is new and there is no specific law covering the issue? Judges still reach decisions, and thus new case law is made, which in turn becomes part of the libraries of case law that inform each subsequent decision.

First up, my mistake: my response was poorly worded.

It is important that the law covers as much ground as possible so that it is clear what law has been breached. Of course you can't cover all instances before they've ever happened, but you can still foresee and cover variations of a crime within the law. Then of course you have to examine cases individually and whatnot; my point is that it's more important to have a basis to work up from then it is to have things put as simply as possible for the every man. My point about convictions is that if you're unsure what law's been broken or whether a law's truly been broken or not, then incorrect decisions are going to be made.

On this bit though:

Rather strip the law down to the basics again, write it in a language that the average citizen can understand and teach it at school so that it can fulfill it's true purpose.

I half agree. Remove any laws that simply don't apply to the world today (what's that one fom that advert, about men still having to practice the longbow?), omit some of the incomprehensible legal jargon, write things more plainly, fix contradictions, etc. What I disagree with is taking "the law down to the basics again".

I see no reason why the law can't remain complex in the sense that it covers as much as possible (minus all the invalid crap), whilst also being written plainly(ish).

[small] Some bits might not make much sense, I've changed quite a few sentences while writing and I can't be arsed to re-read it.[/small]

 

[SenseOfTumour]

As for prostitution, was it George Carlin who said:

'Selling is legal, and fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?'

Legalising it would solve a lot of problems, tho the social stigma would keep it from becoming too popular I'm sure, and would eradicate a lot of the human trafficking of bringing poor women into a country just a piece of meat to be used to earn money for some scummy pimp.

After all, given the choice, do you go to the clean, licensed, official, legal brothel, and pay an extra $20 or so, because of tax, or do you go to some grubby apartment and hope you don't wake up in a bath of ice and an ache where you used to have a kidney?

People are just way too obsessed with what other people do with their genitals, when, especially when it comes to public figures, surely we should be more interested in whether they're breaking laws, or lying to us, or other such position related wrongs.

 

[The Procrastinated End]

I'd probably go with professional athletes because they are so overpayed for playing a game most people do for free.

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

Anything related to sexual aspects occurring between the same gender. Which translates to no gayshit.

Unless you can provide a reason as to why we should discriminate against homosexuals then you can eat your own goddamn shit.


OT: I hate politicians mainly because the majority of them are so fucking corrupt in this country.

I also don't understand why people would have anything against prostitution. There's one argument I've come across quite a lot of times and that is the "it can spread STD's" one. A medical exam of the soon to be worker and widely availible condoms can tone that down by quite a bit giving that the reason of the STD spread is due to unhealthy working conditions. Not to mention the fact that prostitution crime rings would pretty much cease to exist. Prostitution has been around for along time. There's absolutely no reason to fight it.

Thank you for your wise review at my own personal opinion, which is highly influenced by the fact that I suffer from the condition known as homophobia. On the other hand, I can´t help but admire your "breakthroughist" racionality. I'm quite sure you have your own fundamented reasons to hate politicians and love prostitutes, which makes me believe that you've got screwed by one of those two, I'm guessing the one that you show despite for, and someone on your family or yourself actually keeps a close contact to the other, assuming to be the one you are currently defending on named post. I would also like to appreciate the gastronomic advice although I reckon to not know your contry of origin, informing you that in mine we have a tendency to avoid eating feaces but I'm not a "munchophobe" so I truly respect your food habits, to each his own correct? Maybe someday we'll get together and discuss it all on some cheeseburguers (pooburguers). I mean maybe that's why you've massed up your intelect to a point that I could not ever comprehend your complex and carefully revised thoughts, seeing as our feeding variates so extremelly. The get-together is off.

Stop the hate - ColdStorage

 

[Vykrel]

other: telemarketer...

 

[Pinstar]

A modification of the politics response: Lobbyists.

 

[Druyn]

None. Each one has a very important role in the world. As long as there is government, there will be career politicians, and they are needed to keep order and mandate laws and controversy. Marketing is needed to uphold the economy, because people will not buy what they do not know exists. Soldiers are needed because it is human nature to fight, and not having militaries will not end combat between nations. Its just not as simple as that. Prostitution, although seen as generally a crude and awful thing by the vast majority of people, gives a reliable income to people down on their luck, and generally gives us easy sex all at any time, so I dont want gone. Law enforcement is needed because not having it will not mean free everything for everyone. That would mean a total collapse of the economy. It just means there is nobody around to deal with crime, like theft and murder and such.

I cannot think of a single job that does not serve a significant purpose, but has only become a negative thing because of the state of the world today.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

FCC. this censoring bullshit has gone on too long and too far.

 

[Rattler5150]

Soldering. We need to stop killing each other.
As long as lines are drawn on a map, or country A has something country b wants. we will need soldiers to defend countries

Prostitution. We shouldn't treat our bodies like commodities
This is the oldest profession, its not going anywhere

Politics. All politicians are crooks.
I agree that the best government is the one that governs least ,but anarchy in itself is not an answer either

Marketing. It tricks people out of hard earned money
do you want communism?

Law enforcement, free everyone from everything!
See my comment on government, above

Taxcollectors, I am sentimentally attached to my money
governments will always have their hand in your pocket

 

[Eliam_Dar]

Lawyers, really they are the worse kind of "professionals" you can find.

 

[Fuzzman]

Drug dealers/makers

 

[Redweevil]

No I'm asking you to justify the purpose of soldiers. If no one had soldiers then we would have to solve things more diplomatically wouldn't we?

 

[RobJameson]

All forms of 'Dumb Fame' E.g. people being famous because the general idiots of the population like them despite the fact that they have done absolutely nothing (E.g. the Big Brother celebrities and people like Paris Hilton)

Living in a world where more people know about the life of Paris Hilton than Niels Bohr or Ernest Rutherford, Gauss, Pauli, Newton etc makes me want to vomit.

 

[yoyo13rom]

I am absolutely delighted that there are many people out there who hate marketing executives as much as I do. They're the boil on the ass of a business school.

I wouldn't even call their work a "profession". It's monkey work and to elevate it to the same level as accountants, attorneys, and doctors (who go to actual "professional schools") is to insult real honest work.

(sorry Spinwhiz!)

Ok, I though I was the only one, too.
Anyway high-five!

OT: Why can't I chose more than one option*cries*?

 

[yoyo13rom]

Prostitution. We shouldn't treat our bodies like commodities
This is the oldest profession, its not going anywhere

Totally agree(although I'm not that found of it, considering the courtesans aren't as skilled as they used to be).

Politics. All politicians are crooks.
I agree that the best government is the one that governs least ,but anarchy in itself is not an answer either

Hey, look! An other person that shares my opinion!

Marketing. It tricks people out of hard earned money
do you want communism?

Ahhhh...can't decide... isn't this a trick question?

Taxcollectors, I am sentimentally attached to my money
governments will always have their hand in your pocket

Those perverts! Wait you said pockets... sorry, I misunderstood.