You guys need to understand that whether or not you think prostitution is right / wrong has NOTHING TO DO THE SITUATION.
Prostitution is something that WILL NEVER GO AWAY. It's a part of human nature and it is here to stay until the extinction of humanity.
As long as humans exist, there will be humans that are okay with trading their vagina for money and humans that are okay with paying money to have a vagina for a night.
Nothing you do in terms of legislation / policies / bla bla bla will ever change that.
Instead of trying to shut your eyes and blinders to the situation, open your eyes and realize that you'd do a lot more for the prostitutes and the entire industry by accepting it and help introduce proper legislation to regulate it.
All in all, you guys would be surprised how "clean" a prostitute is compared to some other "normal" girls.
Its inevitable that it will be here! Embrace it! Dont try and fight it?! hahah Stealing, murder, incest etc.. all are things human beings have and will do for all of time! So instead of fighting it just fucking embrace it!
Disagree with me? You must have blinders on! You must be ignorant! Dont do these things, open your mind! Free your selves!
I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Thats fine. The way you were talking about it leaves me very little in terms of considering your opinion. I started off by saying you have a valid and important opinion. You responded by calling me a moron some more and generally being a prick! So in reply I will respond to Tien's amazingly retarded logic with some "cute" logic of my own as you would put it.
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
I was far from being a prick. How was I anything but thorough in the representation of my thoughts? I may have side stepped the debate but when asked why I said what I said I answered clearly and thoroughly without insulting you.[EDIT: Insulting(see: Poking Fun At) you came on responding to different sections of the post. The answering and the insults are separate thoughts ]
I insulted your methods and your behavior. I've said you are cute when you are being stupid. You act very stupidly when you get this way. It's somewhat unfortunate that you are so argumentative, stubborn and passionate, it seems to keep you from thinking clearly. Those aren't really bad qualities, but when they get in the way of you clearly and rationally having a discussion they are. I don't actually think you're stupid, you just behave stupidly a lot of the time. There is a difference.
I love how you were going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
I don't have an opinion on either side of the argument, but we had a similar debate in class the other day. I think I actually lean slightly toward legalizing it.
Just to play devil's advocate to Freak & the pro-legalization side, studies have shown that at least in America, prostitution has very closely been tied to women who have psychological problems and a history of physical abuse. Whether these are causes or effects of illegal prostitution we are not sure. Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of prostitutes who tolerate or even like their job, but I find this as the minority--most of these women are forced through dire circumstances to do this.
It can be argued that it's impossible to separate these sorts of problems that plague women in (either driving them to or originating from) the prostitution profession.
Now, wouldn't you find it more efficient to use the resources we have to actually stop the systemic problems that cause women to go into prostitution? That legalizing it would be basically ignoring the larger, underlying problem of womens' rights in the United States? That until this grander, more systemic problem is fixed, legalizing prostitution is simply not an option?
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Usually, people have sex when with a prostitute. You might want to try that first.
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Usually, people have sex when with a prostitute. You might want to try that first.
On November 28 2007 11:58 {88}iNcontroL wrote: I love it how you going on some diabtribe about the dangers of assuming and making presumptions based on assertions... then you make an entire post on just that hahaha.
SMurg: I like the word rimjob That is all really. I wouldnt know the first thing you would do with a prostitute.
Those assumptions are where?
None at all! I Made it up. Your entire post is factual and brilliant as usual! Oh freak, you are so adorable!
On November 28 2007 11:40 ManaBlue wrote: I am throughly impressed with the quality of debate that has sprung from this thread. Nice stuff. I wish I had gotten more involved earlier.
As a moderate, but still identifiable, libertarian I tend to automatically side with free will and minimalist regulation. However, STDs are deadly and more importantly, terrifying. I do agree with many of the points baal made about regulation being more safe than the current black market.
However, the fact that it would be safer doesn't necessarily mean that we should automatically condone it as a society.
Here's an example, which in it's extremism is stupid but better serves to prove a point. If we regulated death matches in place of every murder, which netted us less deaths due to a lack of bystanders and collateral damage (accept this hypothetical, I know it's retarded), would it be okay for us to regulate and thus condone such killing?
Based entirely on the consequences, less people would die, so it would be good. However, would that fact free us of our responsibility to stand against the morally repulsive act of murder?
I know there are a gajillian holes in that hypothetical, but run with me on this. It's kind of an ends justifying the means question I suppose.
Regulation has nothing to do with condoning it. It is an acceptance of the world existing as it does and attempting to mold your society for the best possible outcome for everybody. Unless you can think of a way to abolish the sex trade(or murder as in your hypothetical) then your only option is to find a method in which to best exist with it.
It has nothing to do with morality. That's my issue with the people arguing the anti-prostitution side of the argument.
Good point. But how do we define how to "best exist with it"?
Perhaps we should track every John in our society and out them in a national advertising campaign! We could ruin reputations and increase the exposure of the terrifying stigma of being a hooker's trick.
Would that be okay? What if it decreased the number of contracted STDs by a noticable amount? What if it decreased violence against women by a noticable amount? Or increased the education and general success of people that would otherwise be taken into the sex trade?
What if it accomplished none of this? What exactly do we need to accomplish to "best exist" with prostitution?
After the first 2 sentences you basically gave me no desire to respond to this. What are you expecting from this post? Your suggestion is horrible and you already know it is.
Please post something a bit less ridiculous if you actually want to have a debate. I'm not trying to be offensive but seriously...
On November 28 2007 10:24 lilsusie wrote: Have I ever had a prostitute? No.
If a woman wants to do it, or feels that it is the best way for her to make money, so be it. It's her decision. Who are you (society) to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body? She is not outwardly "harming" anyone or her community and if you are a man who wishes her company on lonely nights, then it's your responsibility to choose one you feel would not be "harming" to you in the sense of STD's or whatnot. If you do not care for that and only have X amount of dollars/euros/won/whatever, then that is your choice to take what you can get or to be picky.
edit: I really hate the word 'whore'. Double standards for the lose.
This argument really does not hold, for the reasons I stated in my post a few posts up. It's not really a free choice made by a fully-aware adult, as a lot of the time it's psychologically disturbed women with histories of abuse.
Society definitely has the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their bodies. Are you saying that if someone wanted to mutilate themselves and eat their own flesh, we shouldn't have laws preventing this? It's their own body and they are making their own decision.
However, from a public policy standpoint, there exists a level of moral depravity that WILL damage society regardless of how localized the "damage" is to one individual.
Whether prostitution gets to that level of moral depravity is another question, but the whole "it's her decision, what's society's place to tell her no??" is just not a good argument.
What about selling organs? Should people be allowed to sell their own organs? After all, it's their own body! We could have thousands of cheap Indonesian kidneys on the American market right now, because hey, they value their organs at $5 a pop since they are so poor.
Hey guys, let's stop all this and talk about how good BBQ Pork Bulgogi is, I just found out they sold it at my local shops...normally I have to go the next suburb up to get it, but this is awesome.
Lilsusie, I'd probably talk with her and see where she's at...see if I was rich I think I'd go on a mission saving all these prostitutes world wide and returning them to their families in smaller and poorer Eastern European countries.
There would be some scraps, shoot-out situations, run ins with the law, bribes...dark alleys, snow and a general sense of adventure filled with adrenaline, but the satisfaction with liberating an unlimited amount of girls who are forced to be hookers would be cool.
I guess they'd want to have sex with you for being so nice to them, but then you'd really be wary, possibly even inclined to say no.
So I guess if I were rich the reward would be the philanthropic qualities of freeing slaves basically.
EPT
]
