1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI used to live in Washington, D.C. I observed on more than one occasion wealthy liberal politicians stepping over homeless people as if they were cracks in the street as they went to the Capitol to discuss laws about how to tax ciitzens to tend to that problem instead.
If I can save the child myself, it would be perverse for me to refrain from doing so just in order to get you to do it.
I also used to live in Boston, the big Blue beacon of the Northeast. The amount of homeless in that city is astounding. Given that liberals are so keen on first doing what they can before imposing their will on others unwilling to help, I simply cannot reconcile how Boston can have such high numbers of both homeless and liberals, unless those liberals happen to be of the perverse variety.
Originally posted by Joe FistMy claim is, in our current situation where prostitution is still the “second oldest profession” we should have such legal guidelines in places as follows:
Originally posted by bbarr
[b] You claim that aiming for the elimination of the social conditions that gives rise to prostitution is too utopian. Then you go on to claim that there is a problem with prostitution being epidemic.
My claim is, in our current situation where prostitution is still the “second oldest profession” we should have ...[text shortened]... I think you would assume my answer to this would be “yes” granted all the above is the case.
[/b]
1.Must be of legal age
2.Must not be under the influence of any type of drug
3.Must be clean of all type of transmittable diseases
This is it, these are the only issues you see that would make it okay,
to make it legal?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThese are the guidelines but I can imagine you would think there should be more so I am open to more suggestions?
[b]My claim is, in our current situation where prostitution is still the “second oldest profession” we should have such legal guidelines in places as follows:
1.Must be of legal age
2.Must not be under the influence of any type of drug
3.Must be clean of all type of transmittable diseases
This is it, these are the only issues you see that would make it okay,
to make it legal?
Kelly
[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayQuestion.
3.Must be clean of all type of transmittable diseases [/b]
[/b]
How long are they expected to be "clean" of disease? In case you missed it. By definition they make a living by supplying Customers. Most of whom have many vendors supplying them.
Kind of like asking the deck of a fishing trawler to stay clean?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'll field this one since it originally came from me. Again, I just noted some very important guidelines to follow. I never meant to say that these should be the "only" guidelines. So, in response, have them follow some of the standards that those in the porno industry follow: Regularly monthly checkups. I don't know if they do monthly but I believe they do it several times a year. I am not debating what the standards should be and I realize they should be open to interpretation. All I am claiming is that the availability of prostitution should be allowed to exist. Whatever regulations to be set would probably be fine with me.
Question.
How long are they expected to be "clean" of disease? In case you missed it. By definition they make a living by supplying Customers. Most of whom have many vendors supplying them.
Kind of like asking the deck of a fishing trawler to stay clean?
Originally posted by StarValleyWymaybe the prostitutes could have a warning on them like cigarettes "Warning, having sex with a prostitute can seriously damage your health".
Question.
How long are they expected to be "clean" of disease? In case you missed it. By definition they make a living by supplying Customers. Most of whom have many vendors supplying them.
Kind of like asking the deck of a fishing trawler to stay clean?
1 edit
bbar -
Yes, their clients desire these services. So? Do you think it ought to be the case that we, as a society, encourage this manner of desire-fulfillment?
I think we should stay out of it and not encourage it nor discourage it unless there's a good reason otherwise. It's none of society's business.
No. Nobody is directly coercing me to continue working this afternoon, but that does not mean it is desireable to me to continue working this afternoon.
If you wanted to, you could continue working this afternoon. If you did, it would show that it was desireable to you.
Of course, I agree that such a transaction is permissible. The question, I take it, is the extent to which the prostitute has other options. If it is the case that this transaction is necessary for her in order to put food on the table or a roof over her head, then surely something has gone wrong. Just because some state of affairs is permissible, it doesn't follow that there aren't alternate realizable states of affairs that are substantially better from a moral points of view.
Since the [a] question of the thread is, should prostitution be legalized, it seems you and I have the same vote - that it should be legalized. Am I correct? I do agree that it would be a very good thing for people to be able to choose not to be prostitutes and still have a decent standard of living.
1 edit
DoctorrScribbles -
Thus, you cannot attribute the virtues of compassion and generosity to the tax law itself, and you must therefore admit that the tax law itself is inconsistent with those two virtues.
The law is evidence of an average level of compassion and generosity in the society that produced it. At least it's evidence that the majority of the people of the U.S. wanted this law at some point, and no one's been able to raise a majority to get rid of it.
Originally posted by nemesioThere is a point of view in which people play the lottery out of something other than stupidity.
I've always called lotteries 'Stupidity Tax.' It is tax on someone
who is to obtuse to realize that their chance of winning is infinitesmal.
And anyone who claims that they play the lottery to help out poor
people is bogus. They play to see if they can win. If they were really
interested in helping out poor people, they would give their money
directly to poor people through charities.
Nemesio
A dollar a week is insignificant to many people. Winning the lottery is extremely significant. The ratio of value of millions of dollars vs. one dollar can be far greater than millions to one. You can lose a dollar and not even notice it, but millions of dollars can give security for life.
Originally posted by Joe FistBased on this post, I would also mention that I think it's moral for a starving person to steal food if they cannot get it otherwise.
I see this as the difference: I would be grateful for a system to help me get back on my feet and support me when I am unable to. I also think its worthwhile, as a taxpayer, to support causes like these because I find them also in my best interest.
This is not the same as the "luxury" of having a big screen TV, like the millionaire. This is talking ...[text shortened]... f-sufficient, not giving handouts to people who can work and just continue to take the handouts.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBecause homeless go to where they can get food, housing and money.
I used to live in Washington, D.C. I observed on more than one occasion wealthy liberal politicians stepping over homeless people as if they were cracks in the street as they went to the Capitol to discuss laws about how to tax ciitzens to tend to that problem instead.
I also used to live in Boston, the big Blue beacon of the Northeast. The amou ...[text shortened]... mbers of both homeless and liberals, unless those liberals happen to be of the perverse variety.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyCondom use and examination of the client would keep this from happening for the vast majority of cases. Good record keeping, including taking ID info from clients, would allow for prosecution of those putting prostitutes and their clients at risk by going to them when diseased.
Question.
How long are they expected to be "clean" of disease? In case you missed it. By definition they make a living by supplying Customers. Most of whom have many vendors supplying them.
Kind of like asking the deck of a fishing trawler to stay clean?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhile a dollar a week may seem insignificant to the person playing the
There is a point of view in which people play the lottery out of something other than stupidity.
A dollar a week is insignificant to many people. Winning the lottery is extremely significant. The ratio of value of millions of dollars vs. one dollar can be far greater than millions to one. You can lose a dollar and not even notice it, but millions of dollars can give security for life.
lottery, that dollar is 'spent' indulging in selfishness, based on the notion
that one must 'play to be able to win.'
However, what that person fails to realize is that that dollar a week, say
50 dollars a year can be used to altruistic ends, feeding a family, say,
for a few days.
This makes the action doubly stupid in my mind, first because the odds
are very poor and second because that money can be used for greater
purposes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioThis argument supports the claim that lottery players are selfish. I don't see how that equals stupid.
While a dollar a week may seem insignificant to the person playing the
lottery, that dollar is 'spent' indulging in selfishness, based on the notion
that one must 'play to be able to win.'
However, what that person fails to realize is that that dollar a week, say
50 dollars a year can be used to altruistic ends, feeding a family, say,
for a few ...[text shortened]... odds
are very poor and second because that money can be used for greater
purposes.
Nemesio
Originally posted by bambeewhen you look at it big picture a couple who are married are prostituting. my father was married and his wife agreed to stay with him as long as he kept bringing the money in, he then moved my mother in and athird lady. so i grew up with 4 true siblings and another 3 halfs. Dads only with 2 women now cause mum shacked up with her new boyfriend in one of Dads beach houses. she was 15 when she met Dad who was a lawyer and 45 years
Should prostition be legalised? If men (and women) want casual sex, is it immoral to pay for sex, or would the fact that it would be lisenced make it safer.
The women (and men) could be health screened every 3 months or so, and the brothals be made safe and clean.
Thought it would be more interesting to start a different debate.