19 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut law reflects the morality of the society at large.
I think you need to get it out of your head that law = morality, and that the lack of police action means immoral anarchy with state encouragement and approval.
As for police action, one has the option of enforcing laws on the books or enforcing them with light penalties. Of course, you are casting me in the light of a hang'em high kind of law enforcer, which I have never stated.
I think these girls need help, not governmental encouragement and I think society at large is guilty if they do not offer encouragement and alternatives for these victims of poverty and/or drug abuse. However, as a society we can never get to this place if we do make the statement that prostitution is undesirable.
19 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeySo prostitutes that are neither poor nor drug users are fine?
But law reflects the morality of the society at large.
As for police action, one has the option of enforcing laws on the books or enforcing them with light penalties. Of course, you are casting me in the light of a hang'em high kind of law enforcer, which I have never stated.
I think these girls need help, not governmental encouragement and I think ...[text shortened]... hey do not offer encouragement and alternatives for these victims of poverty and/or drug abuse.
19 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaI would add street walkers to the equation. I don't think anyone here thinks that is a safe practice.
So prostitutes that are neither poor nor drug users are fine?
As I have stated, street walkers are the targets for law enforcement, and with good reason. Therefore, I see no reason to change the laws on the books because the majority of laws against prostitution in the US is not enforced.
Really, I think what is lacking today is the focus towards rehabilitation. I guess they think locking them up for a few days will cause them to want to change their ways?
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyThat's not really true. Obviously a person who never has sex has the lowest risk of all, but if you look at people whose current risk is moderate to high, the biggest change they could make is using protection consistently. The risk of HIV transmission using condoms is much, much less than 50% of the risk when having unprotected sex.
No its not....and don't call me surely.
The biggest factor regarding HIV transmission is promiscuity. Safe sex may be safer but not the answer to its cure.
It's a bit like drunk-driving. Regularly engaging in driving while sober and wearing a seatbelt, etc., is not a guarantee that you won't have an accident but it's where the focus should be as it's much safer than driving while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyStill, it's a violation of the rights of those sex workers for the laws to be on the books, even if they aren't enforced much in practice.
As I have already stated, the laws on the books in the US regarding prostitution are by in large ignored. For example, escort services run rampant and unchecked, the porno industry runs rampant and unchecked, etc. The only behavior that seems to have been checked is street walking which should be made illegal due to its inherent dangers.
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhy don't you see streetwalker psychiatrists? or street walker sports massuses? or street walker optometrists?
I would add street walkers to the equation. I don't think anyone here thinks that is a safe practice.
As I have stated, street walkers are the targets for law enforcement, and with good reason. Therefore, I see no reason to change the laws on the books because the majority of laws against prostitution in the US is not enforced.
Really, I think what ...[text shortened]... I guess they think locking them up for a few days will cause them to want to change their ways?
It is the illegality that has shaped the industry. It is the illegality that has caused more harm than good, not that I argue against your busybody rules and regs on that basis.
Don't you believe that the individual is the rightful owner of their own body?
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by WajomaI think your claim that you only have rights if you respect the rights of others needs some further elaboration. I agree with your right to self-defence if someone poses an imminent threat to your life or physical safety, but not in the case of many lesser violations of (real or perceived) rights. For example, I don't think you have the right to go around shooting anyone who thinks you should pay more tax if you earn over $200,000 per year. Also, people who are convicted of a crime and sent to prison should still have the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, even if they are in prison because they haven't respected the rights of others.
That's the grand daddy of all other rights.
HoH has some issues with this one?
Kmax has some issues with this one?
The 'right to live' is a better way of stating it. The right to life can be mistaken to mean that others must provide you with the means to sustain your life. The right to live is more accurate, just means others cannot take it away, it ...[text shortened]... . So if someone is threatening your right to live you are justified in removing that threat.
As for the right to life and to have one's basic needs met, do you think people with severe disabilities have this right? Or is there nothing wrong with disabled people being left to starve to death, if no-one cares about them enough to feed them and take care of them?
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by karnachzYes, not all rights violations should be answered by blasting the violator to valhalla with your 45.
I think your claim that you only have rights if you respect the rights of others needs some further elaboration. I agree with your right to self-defence if someone poses an imminent threat to your life or physical safety, but not in the case of many lesser violations of (real or perceived) rights. For example, I don't think you have the right to go around s ...[text shortened]... eft to starve to death, if no-one cares about them enough to feed them and take care of them?
I am trying to establish the basis for other rights. Of course there will be no honest answer from the collectivists, busybodies and control freaks, because once self ownership is realised the rest of their philosophy starts to tumble. That foul stinking philosophy that says other people have a greater claim to you then you do yourself. Who are these other people and what is their qualification? Naturally they see themselves as having a superior vision to their fellow man, their fellow man cannot be trusted with his own life.
Yes people with severe disabilities should be left to starve, but don't let the top of your head explode just yet, we both know that the number of severely disabled is tiny and that voluntary (the use of the word 'voluntary' is redundant, there is no other form of charity) charity is more than capable of taking care of them. I will also add that there are people with severe disabilities living far more successful productive lives than some some of the healthy, able, terminal-self-pity wallowers that pass their lives on welfare.
Tis' a dishonest man that consumes more than he produces.
I post this link regularly:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
20 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaI don't think people with severe disabilities should be left to starve! In fact, I'd be happy to take in my Aunt if she needed it and I could afford it. Fortunately she was a Soldier in the Army when she was disabled and the Army takes care of her financially.
Yes, not all rights violations should be answered by blasting the violator to valhalla with your 45.
I am trying to establish the basis for other rights. Of course there will be no honest answer from the collectivists, busybodies and control freaks, because once self ownership is realised the rest of their philosophy starts to tumble. That foul stinking k regularly:
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf
I might donate some cash to a food distribution center soon. I am fortunate these days, and I should spread the wealth.
I would not send the police to force money at gunpoint from anyone else for these purposes though! When you come down to it, that's what taxes are.
20 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWell judging from the data from the Netherlands making it "legal" does little in terms of its abuses. Simply put, its a seedy business to say the least no matter how you try to sanitize it.
Why don't you see streetwalker psychiatrists? or street walker sports massuses? or street walker optometrists?
It is the illegality that has shaped the industry. It is the illegality that has caused more harm than good, not that I argue against your busybody rules and regs on that basis.
Don't you believe that the individual is the rightful owner of their own body?
20 Sep 08
1 edit
I think a lot of people are struggling here with rights, so I wish to clarify for you all. A right is subject to the laws of your governing state. A right to walk around naked gets you imprisoned for "indecent exposure" because it infringes on the rights of other people to walk around without seeing naked people and believe it or not, people don't like to see other folk in the nude on their way to work etc.
Yes. "You" can still do it, but you'll be punished for it. That means it's not a right nor a freedom. "Right to bear arms" gets you arrested in moments in the UK, not so in the USA. The state decide your rights and whether they impede on others or not. Not you. You can look at it in whatever way pleases you most, but ultimately, your government are the ones that dictate whether you have a right or a freedom to anything.
Euphenisia, cannabis use, firearms, nudity etc.
As for prostitution, I fail to see the problem. Sex is very much a natural act. If men wish to pay money for a woman to sleep with them, then they're both happy. With proper regulating, the "seedy" side; which to me is the people trafficking and the other nasty aspects to prostitution, can be eliminated. It's much like the immigrants take our jobs argument. Everyone moans but ultimately, someone has to do it, so let them get on with it. You're not stopping it in a million years. It's sex, at the end of the day. You can't
20 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by relaedgcUnfortunately, this has yet to be demonstrated as I have shown. In fact, the sex industry in the US that is legalized, such as nude bars etc., are so seedy that due to criminal activity in and around such establishments cause people to file law suits if they are within reach of residential communities so as to have them removed.
Sex is very much a natural act. If men wish to pay money for a woman to sleep with them, then they're both happy. With proper regulating, the "seedy" side; which to me is the people trafficking and the other nasty aspects to prostitution, can be eliminated.
In other words, you can put lipstick on Barak but he is still Barak. 😛
20 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyPlease, elaborate. What data do you mean? Do you mean the illegal immigrant sex slaves?
Well judging from the data from the Netherlands making it "legal" does little in terms of its abuses. Simply put, its a seedy business to say the least no matter how you try to sanitize it.
That's not legal in the Netherlands. Are you trying to tell us prostitution always equals slavery?
20 Sep 08
6 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThe bias against the sex trade is so strong that people will go out of their way to find reasons to remove them even if they do nothing wrong.
Unfortunately, this has yet to be demonstrated as I have shown. In fact, the sex industry in the US that is legalized, such as nude bars etc., are so seedy that due to criminal activity in and around such establishments cause people to file law suits if they are within reach of residential communities so as to have them removed.
In other words, you can put lipstick on Barak but he is still Barak. 😛
In other words, these people who are innocent of any crime against anyone's rights are hunted down with fervor by the self-righteous...who you support, though you try to give off a gentle and loving image (kind of like Big Brother, or the pigs in Animal Farm). You're still in favor of having police violently penalize them simply because you think the police have some sort of sacred connection to morality.
I imagine you'd prefer to envision images like police valiantly getting a poor streetwalker the help she "needs" but what if she says no and tries to defend herself from being captured by these gunmen?
I see a lot of connections to witch hunting. In fact "witches" were and still are often accused of casting spells that knock off a man's penis. The sexual repression shows itself in both cases.