andrewducker | Corner Cases Example

holy crap, man.

Given that the law would presumably potentially force people to work in the defense industry, or for a tobacco manufacturer, I have no additional moral qualms about it forcing people to work in the sex industry. (Though does it really only apply to women? "any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit." -- only applying to women seems odd.)

Nope, that sodding law applies to everybody.

An Ex-German

I'm quite dubious about the requirement of taking any job offered even w/o that particular problem. However, if that law is to stand, then there needs to be exceptions of various sorts In addition to sex work, Jews who keep kosher, Hindus, Muslims, and vegetarians would all have trouble with certain aspects of food service or working in a butcher shop, so there clearly a need for a category of moral or religious exceptions. For the sake of fairness, people should likely have to list objections in advance (such as no sex work, no handling pork, etc...). OTOH, a better answer would likely be eliminating that law.

I stand about here, too, I think, once I got over the initial bogglement.

In passing that law Germany obviously didn't realise it would be creating a new Joy Division. They surely can't let it stand as it is.

They must see sense finally. But in the mean time, can I just say that I'm glad to be out of the country ... It'll be a while before this employment law will get amended; the government will be very reluctant to amend it. The right to refuse a job on moral grounds is tricky to put into law, as well.

Genius. Ta!

Makes me want to run an all-male anything-goes brothel in Detmold.

"German unemployment law states that if you've been unemployed for over a year then you must take any job offered to you."

Incorrect! I gather that German unemployment law actually states that if you've been on unemployment for over a year then you must take any job offered to you if you want to stay on the dole. I don't see the problem, if that's the case.

Which works out at the same thing:

"Due to economic conditions you must now either have sex with strangers or starve. Your choice."

Not really a choice I'd be happy making people make.

Life is hard.

And the whole point of society (outside of America, anyway) is to make it less so.

It's a question of priorities. I can think of approximately 100 things that are better uses of our limited resources than saving poor blushing virgins from the evils of working in the sex industry.

I can't even think of one.

So saving people from dying is less important than saving them from having to work as prostitutes?

Per use of resource, I think yes.

Even though -- pulling numbers out of my ass -- 10 people could be given proper health insurance for what it costs to support 1 person on a living wage for a year?

I do believe Germany already has universal healthcare.

I'm sure that people still die in Germany who would not die as soon if more money were available for health care. I'd be kinda shocked otherwise.

Oh sure, but at that point protecting people's choice not to have sex is a much better deal.

More important than protecting other people's choice to use their time in the way in which they desire?

I'd say so.

In any case, surely there are some sexual acts you would draw the line at? What about being beaten with a riding crop on live national television, or submissive behaviour, or something? I doubt any of that's illegal in Germany to accept money for.

I think that being beaten with a riding crop as part of one's job would probably be banned under laws about safe working conditions. So if you wanted to have people pay you so they could beat you with a riding crop, I guess you would have to be self-employed...

The "live national television" part gets into humiliation, which isn't necessarily sexual. If somebody had to take a job that was humiliating in a non-sexual way -- like, I don't know, being filmed running up to random unsuspecting people in the street and asking them for cookies and having it shown on national TV -- perhaps some people might think that objectionable, but presumably the reasons for that would be different than the reasons why some people would find having to take a job as a prostitute objectionable.

I've seen pornography that involves people beating each other. It's not hard to do this without more than reddening the skin.

Humiliation might not be sexual, but there is such a thing as sexual humiliation, and being shown having sex on TV might cover that. Should we deny benefits to those who refuse to do that?

And that random dig is relevant... how?

It's a dig at how difficult it is in America to get unemployment benefit compared to the rest of the civilised world.

How about,
"You'd better do boring, mind-crushing repetitive tasks all day or starve"
or
"You'd better give up any and all opportunity to realize your human potential or starve"
or
"You'd better work in conditions that expose you to dangerous, hazardous chemicals or starve"
or
"You'd better work in conditions that expose you to dangerous, hazardous coworkers or starve"

Are these better propositions than the one you cite?

Well, in reasonably progressive societies we have laws about working in hazardous situations.

And people _do_ seem to feel differently about sex than they do about other things. Otherwise 'rape' would just be 'invasion of personal space' or 'assault'.

Perhaps it makes me cruel and cold-hearted, but I don't see why my tax dollars should go toward supporting those who have special feelings that supposedly prevent them from doing useful work, rather than toward, say, building houses for homeless people or teaching kids.

I'm not saying it's simple - just that I believe most people would think it unreasonable to push people into prostitution. And that possibly it might cause mental damage to many people, making the drain on society worse, not better.

"Most people would think it unreasonable" is not, on its own, an argument in favor of anything. And most jobs cause mental damage to people. This isn't an argument about social welfare, really, it's about trying desperately to preserve the idea that women are delicate flowers in need of protection from sex.

So you're saying that rape shouldn't be a separate crime from assault?

And 'most people would think it unreasonable" is how democracy works.

Occasionally, wrong decisions are made in democracies.

I think rape should be a separate crime from assault, but only for the same reason that hate crimes are considered distinct from other crimes: assault is a crime of violence against one person, rape is a crime intended to make all women feel less safe. (Rape committed against men should, without extenuating circumstances, be considered to be the same as assault.)

How is rape inteded to make all women feel less safe? At least any more than violence can be intended to make all women feel less safe.

I would have thought that the main reason for rape is that a person wants to force a sexual act with another person for the perpetrators own gratification.

Rapists don't rape to experience sexual pleasure; they rape to exercise power.

I'm sure there are a variety of reasons - however none of this changes the basic point which is that it is wrong for them to forcibly impose a sexual act on someone else.

it is wrong for them to forcibly impose a sexual act on someone else.

I don't see where I disagreed with this.

Perhaps it makes me cruel and cold-hearted, but I don't see why my tax dollars should go toward supporting those who have special feelings that supposedly prevent them from doing useful work, rather than toward, say, building houses for homeless people or teaching kids.
Here (given the context of this discussion about said article) you seem to be saying that you think the women should have to choose between the prostitution and no money (and hence starvation). As that act is imposed on them (well unless they choose to die) it is a forcible imposition of sexual acts.

This only makes sense if you think that people are entitled to a living, and I would say not; I would say that the government grants people unemployment assistance if there are no jobs available to them, and if someone is unwilling to work at a job available to them, they aren't entitled to the privilege of public assistance. I think that anyone who has actually experienced rape would find the analogy you are making to be offensive.

What analogy that I am making? Could you be more specific about how what I have said is offensive?

This only makes sense if you think that people are entitled to a living, and I would say not;
Err.. I didn't say that at all. What I would say though is that if you are going to have a social support system like this then you shouldn't make them choose between something that will be horrendously damaging to them and starvation.

I would say that the government grants people unemployment assistance if there are no jobs available to them, and if someone is unwilling to work at a job available to them, they aren't entitled to the privilege of public assistance.
So you would argue that these women should (if I were to offer such jobs to them) take jobs being beaten, or told to repeat all day how they are worthless, or a job where I delight in women being shown video/audio/pictures which they find offensive and horrifying all day? Are there no limitations on what they should have to do?

Are there no limitations on what they should have to do?

Of course there are; these are called "labor laws". I don't really see where I said that people should be forced to take illegal jobs before receiving compensation, either. What's problematic is creating a class of legal jobs that are considered to be "too good" for most people. Either support anyone who doesn't want to work, or support only those who don't have legally permissible jobs available to them, but I'd find it rather unfair if someone who found sex offensive were paid to do nothing while I, who found it offensive to work at a job that kept me from working on my art, wasn't.

There is a recognition that the consequence of sex industry work would have a very bad psychoogical consequence for most people, but for some people it is ok. As the overwhelming majority would be severely damaged by it you do not make it mandatory. If someone is not going to be affected by it then they can choose to go into that industry, but because there is an obvious universal recognition that this kind of work would be very damaging to the majority of people we have this big uproar which will ultimately end in a sane law being introduced.

I think I'm going to leave this conversation as it is as the old saying "Don't feed the trolls" comes to mind.

There's a wide variety of reasons for rape. Sure, it's used as a form of oppression, but you seem to be saying that when some frat-boy idiot rapes a woman that they're doing it to spread terror.

You know that for a fact do you?

If so, how?

I believe that there are statistics to prove that most rapes are comitted on women of breeding age (I haven't actually checked, so pull me up if you like, I'll welcome the data) - if it was just about power, surely there would not be this noticable age range?

Sorry, should have quoted. I was responding to:

Rapists don't rape to experience sexual pleasure; they rape to exercise power

It's "intended to make all women feel less safe"? Every time it's committed that's what it's intended to do? Really, I had no idea.

Surely it's more that for many women sex is a personal/private thing of which access should be (is?) protected by their basic human rights.

Perhaps most importantly though a vast majority of women (and men) find this law (or this consequence) abhorrent and so it'll probably get changed.

If 95% of people thought that forcing them to work for a defence contractor was abhorrent I'm sure they'd ban that as well, laws work (or should work) to create the kind of society that the majority want (well, that is one aspect of what laws are for - I am of course leaving out aspects that prevent mob rule etc).

I don't think I'm obligated to agree with a decision just because a majority of the population supports that decision.

Who said you were?

However no one should be able to force their sexual beliefs on other people. I think that's the problem here, the women (generally speaking) don't want to have to be prostitutes yet legally they are forced to (or they lose their income / food / ability to survive).

Most people don't want to work at any of the jobs that are available to them, and would prefer not to work if they had the option of doing so and surviving. I still fail to see what makes it OK to force someone to spend 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for most of their life doing a job they don't want to be doing, but automatically not OK if the job involves sex.

One good reason is a balance of the consequences. If forcing that sex act has a very bad psychological effect on that person then that is a good reason not to force them to do that. Mainly because I'd rather live in a society where people are not oppressed and forced into prostitution (for reasons that hopefully you don't want explained?) but also the cost to society of supporting people so affected would massively outweigh any financial gain of them taking such a job.

In my opinion this would not just apply to sex, quite how broadly I'd define the rules and so on I'm not sure.

Until there is data on whether people who work in the sex industry are more likely to later need psychological help than anyone else, I won't assume that sex work is more psychologically damaging than any other of the possibly-demeaning jobs people work at in industrialized society. If we're to avoid forcing anyone to work at any job that is psychologically harmful, we'd have a few professors, researchers, and artists, lots of people receiving public assistance, and nobody to clean toilets or write Visual Basic code.

I wonder why it is that the view you have of the psychological impact of forced sex work differs so greatly from that held by the majority of other people.

Perhaps your experience of peoples feelings in this area is just randomly not representative of the whole and so your viewpoint is very skewed, perhaps mine is.

Do you not recognise that the emotional and psychological impact of just talking about these kinds of things, nevermind actually being forced to do them has had a significant effect on the majority of us posting?

Most people haven't done sex work, so I'm not sure why my opinion of it should be any less valid than the opinions of 10 million people who also haven't done sex work.

Your opinion should be less valid because you are making statements about how it would not be all that bad for people, when there is massive evidence of the damage done to people involved in the sexual trafficking industry, and when it flies in the face of what the majority of people believe, and indeed know to be true. I have never had my head stuck in a vice, but I know that such a thing would be pretty bad - how do I know this? Well one way is that I've experienced similar bad things in my life and its easy and obvious to extrapolate out.

Perhaps you would have no problem working in the sex industry, fair enough - but that is not the case for the majority of people.

Oh, really? Can you point me to the studies that show how people working in the sex industry in a country where the industry is legal are less psychologically healthy than the average?

I'd like to see that too.

In fact, I think I'm with catamorphism all the way through (barring the rape/power remark).

Personally, I'd probably rather work in a legal brothel than a fish factory (which I have done) or for a few of my former employers.

Any crap job can be very psychologically damaging, (though no-one takes you seriously if it's well-paid, indoors and not physically dangerous). You can get to the point of wanting to (and sometimes do) start crying in sheer misery as you get up to the office door. Of course in that situation, what you do is get another job.

I'm not sure I have any sympathy for someone so useless as to not be able to get any other job than prostitution, but who nevertheless objects to the idea.

I'm starting to see your and

catamorphism's point here, but I gotta object to that last paragraph. In a bad job market, it is not only "useless" people who have a hard time getting jobs.

Hey - I _like_ Visual Basic.

And I've known several people who were raped who said that raping someone was worse than killing them. Indicating that the mental effects are significantly worse than, say, working in an office job.

And I've known several people who were raped who said that raping someone was worse than killing them.

A person who has just had an extremely traumatic experience is entitled to say this, but it's pretty insulting for anyone else to accept it at face value -- I think you might remember a discussion on this in

kimberly_a's journal a while back.

Working as a prostitute because when the other option is not receiving unemployment compensation from the government is the same as being raped. If the idea of being a prostitute is so offensive to a person, they can panhandle for change, sponge off friends and family, eat out of dumpsters, or do any number of other things. If you say that these things would be worse than being a prostitute, you've just contradicted your earlier statements. Saying "if you don't consider this option, you won't get a monthly check from the government" is the same as saying "do this or I'll kill you".

pervert!

You are if you live in a democratic country.

useful work

Useful? It's the sex industry! The so-called pleasure industry. If there's a shortage of builders to build houses or farmers to grow crops or raise cattle etc then by all means those on benefits should be expected to do these jobs rather than sponge off society. But you can't possibly compare those sorts of jobs to forcing someone to work in the sex industry.

How would you feel if you were in this situation? Would you not mind being used for sex for the pleasure of other men and women? With no disregard for your feelings? How about being used for drug testing or other experiments?

BITCH BETTAH HAVE MAH MONEY!

Love,
A.

It's not true, it's just some urban myth put about by social conservatives as an argument against decriminalising the sex industry. In fact the German law which decriminalised prostitution put some explicit controls in place - you aren't allowed to coerce women into prostitution, prostitutes don't have to work enforced hours or work out a notice period if they resign etc. In other words, the law is set up so that nobody has to work for even one day in the sex industry without full consent.

If it were set up like this it would be appalling of course, but it could never happen in a Western social democracy.

It does seem to be a story with little foundation, as in it doesn't seem to be government policy. From here: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=664273

Mon Jan 31, 2005

A spokesman for the Federal Labour Office said that if job seekers said they were prepared to work as, for example, dancers in strip bars, advisers could put them in touch with any suitable employers, but vacancies would not be displayed in job centres.

He also stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn't specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.

Speculation has grown over recent weeks that Germany's new welfare reforms, obliging the long-term unemployed to take any available job or risk losing their benefits, could lead to women being offered jobs in the sex industry.

So, no more than speculation, with the original article Andrew cited being a bit of a beat-up, I suspect.

Surely that could count as abusing a person's human rights? Sex can hurt a LOT, for starters. And what about someone who's been raped or otherwise abused?

I think if I was a German citizen faced with that choice I'd be trying to move to a different country.

Picking strawberries on your knees for 10 hours a day hurts, too.

Forced sex has an immense psychologically damaging effect on the majority of people - that effect is long lasting and has a broad reaching effect. Picking strawberries on your knees hurts but has an immensely smaller effect.

Let's aim to stop people having to hurt their knees at some point in the future, but target the things which have a far far greater effect now.

It's disingenous to say that having sex with a customer in a brothel -- where you can yell for help if something goes wrong -- in a situation where you are basically in control is the same as being raped in an alley (by using the term "forced sex", which is typically applied to rape, you suggest these are essentially the same).

If something goes wrong!?!? The point is that the women do not want to take part in sex acts like this at all - if such a situation were to potentially occur then something has already gone wrong.

I used the term forced sex because that is basically what it is. Yeah there is a difference between someone taking a job as a prostitute because otherwise they would not have money to buy food and so starve (for example), and a woman being raped. I didn't say there wasn't but the sex is still forced, and both circumstances are very abhorrent and should be prevented.

Out of interest why are you arguing such alternative positions on this issue? Do you think that women should have to become prostitutes if that is the only job available? Do you care about the mental anguish this would cause them?

I don't think that becoming a prostitute necessarily causes more mental anguish than becoming a waitress, custodian, or factory worker, and the "sex is bad" arguments people have been advancing in this thread haven't convinced me otherwise.

It may not for you but it would for the majority of people. I am one of those people.

Are you saying that the majority of people do not believe that it would cause more mental anguish, or that they are just incorrect and they would find that it does not cause more mental anguish if they tried it?

I'm saying that most people would not suffer more mental anguish from being a prostitute than from working in any number of other occupations, despite what they might believe to the contrary. Obviously, there isn't a lot of hard evidence to support this, but there isn't a lot of hard evidence to support the contrary proposition, either.

I think there is an awfully large amount of evidence of the pain and suffering caused by people in the sexual trafficking industry for example. That you can't see this is quite frankly staggeringly mind boggling.

I find it pretty mind-boggling that you can't see the difference between sex workers in a country where prostitution is illegal, and those working in a place where the industry is legal and regulated. Why do you think prostitution was legalized to begin with? To hurt women?

And there's not a lot of hard evidence to support the idea that tax-payers suffer much from having to pay more taxes if they're unlucky enough to get on a higher wage - it's all just whinging about nothing as far as I can see.

Why don't they just get a life?

Thanks, I'd been wanting to see another example of what a "non sequitur" is! That was really helpful!

Well, you're the one whinging about where your hard-earned dollars go. The obvious choice for you is to quit your job so you won't have to pay income-tax and stop buying things so you don't have to pay sales-tax and then you'll be where you want to be.

So, you don't have to pay taxes if you don't want to, it's entirely your own choice. It's not as though you're being forced to, is it?

That's not a very good argument, since it could be used to justify any tax expenditure.

Well yes. But still no different to you believing the unemployed should have to take any job offered or have their benefits taken away. Their choice is take this job or starve. Your choice is pay your taxes or starve. If you don't want to pay any taxes you have an option that'd allow you not to. But if you're not willing to take that option then you've no right to insist others should have to.

I'd say it's social conditioning that "personal space" is to be controlled and is incredibly private and sensitive and must be pure, whereas your mind space, self-confidence, feelings of worth as a human being, are all free to be shat down the toilet. A teacher who pats you on the ass will get in a lot more trouble than a teacher who tells you to be quiet until you have something sensible to say. Which is likely to be a more genuinely damaging case, social concerns aside?

I have more nightmares about my ex-boss wreaking havoc on my life than about people who've taken control of my decisions, body, etc., away from me, or anything else along those lines. I have more personal fear of people making my life miserable through clever use of slander, libel and conspiracy than I have fear of rape or murder or ...

I want to live in a country where I can stay on the dole forever because I'm a Xenophobe.

You keep referring to "sex is bad arguments", but I think this shows your naievity. I haven't seen anyone here arguing that sex is bad, but rather that forced or non-consensual sex is bad. By saying we are arguing "sex is bad" you are setting up a straw man. I think sex is a good thing, but that forced sex is bad.

Limiting unemployment benefits to those who cannot work, rather than those who find the available jobs to be offensive, is not "forced sex". Withholding unemployment checks to those who don't wish to be sex workers is not "forced sex". No one is entitled to an unemployment check. It's a privilege extended to those who have made every effort to find work and failed, because with limited resources there are better uses for money than supporting people who don't like the jobs they might be able to do.

Um, excuse me for butting into the conversation, but telling a woman that she must take a job where she will have sex with random strangers is forced sex.

I'm just going to repeat what I said above, since it appears you didn't read it:

"Limiting unemployment benefits to those who cannot work, rather than those who find the available jobs to be offensive, is not "forced sex". Withholding unemployment checks to those who don't wish to be sex workers is not "forced sex". No one is entitled to an unemployment check. It's a privilege extended to those who have made every effort to find work and failed, because with limited resources there are better uses for money than supporting people who don't like the jobs they might be able to do."

No, I read it. I disagree. I know women who have chosen to work in the sex industry, both in countries where it is legal & where it is illegal. In both cases, I'm told that it's only a good move for those who are not coerced in any way. Withholding an unemployment check because a woman refuses to have sex with random strangers is coercion.

Kirsten, you're young and living in a city with a thriving sex industry. Go work in one of the local brothels for a week or so and THEN come back and argue this perspective.

I'm not saying this to be a smartass. I believe you are sincere (as opposed to just arguing to amuse yourself) but to anyone who knows you and what your life is like, your argument comes across as being incredibly insensitive and hypocritical. If you are going to make the argument that prostitution is no worse than data entry or picking strawberries, you have to be able to back it up.

Of course you won't get the same experience from "slumming it" as the women you're presuming to pass judgement upon - there is something horrific about entering the sex trade under coercion that you will fortunately miss out on - but even "slumming it" can be an enlightening experience. At the very least you won't be able to remain as ignorant as you are now.

If I were to do that, I'd be working in a country where prostitution is illegal. The whole context of the discussion is one where prostitution is legal.

And this is relevant because ...?

The whole point of legalizing prostitution was that conditions for prostitutes are much worse when it's illegal, IIRC.

And the point of your argument is this:
I don't think that becoming a prostitute necessarily causes more mental anguish than becoming a waitress, custodian, or factory worker

If we were arguing about the effectiveness of an algorithm, it would be entirely appropriate for me to expect you to provide some kind of proof. The same holds true for moral arguments.

From what I know of the local sex industry, the working conditions of brothels in California (at least for middle-class, US Citizens with other employment options) are not too badly affected by their illegal status. Also, as you well know, the legality of a job does not protect one from mistreatment. If you had the opportunity to work for a week in a German brothel, I'm confident you would find the two experiences comparable - or at the very least, much more relevant than no experience at all, which is where you stand now.

(I have to go to a meeting now, but I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.)

As far as I can see the point of legalising prostitution was that women who have got to the stage where prostitution is the best choice are going to do it whether or not it's illegal and so the government might as well make things easier from themselves and make a bit of money on tax at the same time, not because they really want to make things better for the women involved.

I am female and I don't find the concept of sex for pay (or else starve) necessarily abhorrent any more than I find the concept of working in any number of possibly vaugely unpleasant or menial jobs abhorrent.

I've sold timeshares, done tele-sales, worked in fish factories, and on production lines for cleaning chemicals (including PCBs, Yum, bet that did me good!). I've worked for a paranoid, control-freak, psychological bully who beat up his girlfriend (also an employee). That was all pretty nasty. I haven't worked in the sex industry, but in a legalised setting I'd try that before any of the above!

Yes, other people may have different opinions. Some people can work on a till or production line or laying bricks or being an accountant their whole life and not feel hard done by, where I certainly would be insanely miserable.

People vary - you seem to be making pretty sweeping statements that don't ( to me) seem to be taking this into account.

I would fight to protect the right of women to work in the sex industry if they want to do so, I'm no tsaying that the sex industry is universally bad - I just think that the majority of women do not want to work in that industry and that they shouldn't be forced or coerced into doing so.

There was an interview with Rammstein that I saw where they explain how, since they grew up in East Germany, they couldn't be unemployed - the condition wasn't an available option, they were all given jobs.

As a side note, the law in this country (or my perception of it when I was last unemployed) means that a variety of benefits hinge on you being actively looking for work. This doesn't stop people not bothering and still getting benefits.

The issue in this arguments is about getting forced to have a job.

Ignore what the job is, that's just heading into moralising between people who have preset opinions and will happily ignore the fact that other people can have *gasp* different opinions.

If they force you to get a job (of any kind) once you've been unemployed for year then that's a good thing, surely. Or is being unemployed somehow good, now?

Sure, if you're unable to work etc, that's different. But still.

"Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990."

So presumably, every single job in the country is filled, if there's that many unemployed.... Surely they could -make- work, somehow?

Your response is probably the most sensible, sane and coherent reply that I've seen to Andy's post.

In theory (ie if they actually cared/checked/payed attention etc) the Job Centre in the UK would cut off an awful lot of people's benefits, since there are few people that I know in a state of unemployment who are truthful about their jobsearching. Some make it up entirely.

People have different tolerance standards of what jobs horrify them, as you say, and some just don't want to work.

I suppose we're lucky that once you've been unemployed for a certain amount of time, you don't just get conscripted into the army or council work etc.

The story is likely a hoax.

The story is garbage. Forced to push leaves about cleaning a park for a euro per hour add unemployment on a fictional made up job, yes, but this is fiction. I'm curious how the Daily Telegraph got hold of this story, which Bild Zeitung reporter pulled their leg.

For a start, sex requires consent, and it's the right of any sex worker to refuse a client. They wouldn't be in the job very long.

On the subject of the Rammstein poster, the DDR hasn't existed for 15 years.

Corner Cases Example

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject