The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
Page:
Shut Up Shut Up Shut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut UpShut Up Shut Up
Please.
Just have a cockfight and get it done with already.
Sheesh!
Please.
Just have a cockfight and get it done with already.
Sheesh!
Light wrote:
>His usual load of rubbish not actually addressing any of the points that >I had actually given him an answer to, hence avoiding the whole point of >the topic entirely.
Seeing as you cannot give a proper reply I guess you've conceded defeat eh ? And yes, this is provacation :P
Ho hum....
~~Belldandy~~
>His usual load of rubbish not actually addressing any of the points that >I had actually given him an answer to, hence avoiding the whole point of >the topic entirely.
Seeing as you cannot give a proper reply I guess you've conceded defeat eh ? And yes, this is provacation :P
Ho hum....
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
>Blah blah blah nasty man blah blah blah arrogant blah blah blah my opinion blah blah blah I'm right blah blah hate you.
That seemed to be the gist of it anyway.
Listen, I'm sure it's very upsetting for you to find that you're being outdone at the only thing you're even remotely good at (being condescending and arrogant). However, crying like a child about it doesn't help, nor does mewling about being insulted when thats all you ever do to others. Try actually rebutting one of my arguments instead. I mean, it's not like you don't have the time on your hands; as a non-drinking, non-drug taking student who doesn't seem to like sex, I'm sure you'll be relatively untroubled by such trifling matters as fun, friends, and lady-related frolics.
Jesus...how priggish are you Belldandy? The long winter nights must just fly by in your house. Can I check something? Are you still living at home whilst attending Uni? It's just that opinions like yours don't tend to last long when faced with the real world...
>Blah blah blah nasty man blah blah blah arrogant blah blah blah my opinion blah blah blah I'm right blah blah hate you.
That seemed to be the gist of it anyway.
Listen, I'm sure it's very upsetting for you to find that you're being outdone at the only thing you're even remotely good at (being condescending and arrogant). However, crying like a child about it doesn't help, nor does mewling about being insulted when thats all you ever do to others. Try actually rebutting one of my arguments instead. I mean, it's not like you don't have the time on your hands; as a non-drinking, non-drug taking student who doesn't seem to like sex, I'm sure you'll be relatively untroubled by such trifling matters as fun, friends, and lady-related frolics.
Jesus...how priggish are you Belldandy? The long winter nights must just fly by in your house. Can I check something? Are you still living at home whilst attending Uni? It's just that opinions like yours don't tend to last long when faced with the real world...
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Yeah, but more importantly - if you put a slinky on an escalator going
> upwards, would it stay there forever?
---
Once the answer to that has been found, there is no reason to live.
Not at all.
> Yeah, but more importantly - if you put a slinky on an escalator going
> upwards, would it stay there forever?
---
Once the answer to that has been found, there is no reason to live.
Not at all.
Yeah, but more importantly - if you put a slinky on an escalator going upwards, would it stay there forever?
Light wrote:
> The thing is Belldandy, writing something like that when you're quite
> stunningly arrogant yourself (and with SO little reason) doesn't, in
> fact, make you look big and clever. It makes you look like a rather
> sad vaginal scraping who thinks he can dish it out and KNOWS he can't
> take it.
Sad vaginal scraping ? What a great, sad, insult that is. Public school boy humour at its best. Arrogant ? I'm elpying to the most arrogant person I've ever seen on here right now. Sorry Goatboy to keep comparing you like this - if you are reading - but you are great when replying to things like this, unlike Light here who uses it as an ego trip for the day.
> So...it doesn't bother you that the journalists were hunting for the
> story anyway on the basis of the conspiracy theory that they had
> hatched? Okay....
>
No, it does not. Without the informant, Deep Throat, they had nothing. Deep Throat had motivations to give them the information. The classic reasons are money, religion, and conscience. So, let us look; Money ? No, he gained nothing because he remained annonymous (apologies if it was spelt wrong). Religion and conscience come down to much the same, did something happen to him that prompted him to do what he did ? Most certainly. This event would not possibly be caused by the journalists so they were, in effect, just the intermediaries for the information.
> It's "whilst YOU'RE on about jobs", not "your".
Sorry oh god of English....
> Also, saying something like "...that sums up your
> aspirations" when solicitors are some of the top paid professions
> in the country...well, it sort of makes you look like an unimaginative
> fool who is incapable of thinking of a decent scathing comment.
Like "sad vaginal scraping" ? Yup, that is one hot scathing comment sir. Also when you said "country...well" you needed a capital "w" and a space. To me, a solicitor is not something I wish to aim for, despite the great financial side to it. I want something I'll actualyl enjoy you see.
> How peculiar; you haven't answered this point. Strange how you're
> incapable of dealing with points supported by evidence, isn't it
> pumpkin?
"Pumpkin" ? What are you, some kind of old woman ? Evidence ? You've typed a sentence and that was it, hardly evidence...
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
And where would your facts and figures be then, eh ? Oh dear, no sources mentioned, just vague statements. Yet you're saying I do the same. Rather hypocritical don't you think ?
> Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those
> places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal
> prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be
> reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity.
> There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr
> solicitor...
>
> Sorry but once more you have used entirely flawed logic. Illegal
> prostitution: In countries where it is legal? Please, I'm all ears as
> to how you're going to define that one. Therefore as your definition
> is spurious you've sort of ruined your ill-thought out point.
> Basically, you seem to be saying that a prostitute is unlikely to
> report crimes committed against her if she's an illegal prostitute (by
> which I assume you mean a "held against her will" sex slave;
> do try and be clear pumpkin!) So therefore, using your logic it would
> be better to legalise it to lower the chances of this happening.
If prostitution is legalised then obviously earnings from it will be taxed, along with NI contributions e.t.c deducted from it. Now if someone is already a prostitute, or decides they need to be ( I think it is rarely a chosen profession...) they can either be legal - and earn less - or illegal and earn more. If you legalise it, then anyone who is acting illegally in it is less likely to report crimes because itwould be a more serious offence than under today's system where it is all illegal.
> Finally, you're basing your argument on unreported crime figures
> (incidentally, nice to see that you don't have an inferiority complex
> about my former profession; I've mentioned once and you seem to feel
> the need to get it in every other paragraph...), could you give me any
> evidence supporting your assertion? Any at all? Or is this a "I
> think these crimes will happen, ergo they will" argument on your
> behalf?
You are seriously telling me you do not believe many crimes do not go reported ? Oooookay....
> Again; were is your evidence for that? Homosexuality is not hidden (I
> note you've avoided answering my point about your laughable idea that
> "Anything that meets with resistance is a bad thing"),
Actually I answered this lower down - Nazism.
> even if you broke the habit of a lifetime and were correct in what you
> say then surely you'd be happier with a hidden profession where the
> prostitutes are protected than a hidden profession where they are
> criminalised and vulnerable. Or does the idea of vulnerable women turn
> you on? You're not related to Peter Sutcliffe, are you?
And now your argument starts to get really desperate and insulting. Happy ? I'm not particularly happy with the idea of prostitution as a whole, but I recognise some women find they have no option but to do it. As for the crime element of it - it is not just the women who are the criminals but their male customers as well - incidentally legalisation would protect customers as well, lessening the risk to them of being mugged, hijacked, blackmailed e.t.c As for your Peter Sutcliffe comments, I find it sad that, because my morals clash with yours, that you compare me to a monster. Still, it shows desperattion on your part. Presumably I'll be related to Adolf Hitler next...
> Ok; it's acceptable to me because it is just sex. A woman owns her own
> body and thus is allowed to do with it whatsoever she pleases. If she
> chooses to offer people sex in exchange for money, why shouldn't
> she.
Because it's illegal in this country. The law is the law, just because we cannot control something does not mean we negate it by surrendering.
> So, that's your (one and only) valied point answered. As to it not
> being a valid life choice...well, the points you make can easily be
> applied to being a checkout girl, shelf stacker, or Pick n Mix guard
> at Woolies. Yet I don't hear you criticising those professions, my
> prudish little headswamp. And besides, if you want to get really
> pedantic, a lot of prostitutes must end up learning some superb acting
> skills (case in point: Rupert Everett was a rent boy for a few years.
> Can you offer evidence for your assertion?)
Which is why many retail managers and senior managers started out at the bottom of a business....okay. How many women prostitutes have become actors in this country ? Oh, look, none ! Where is your evidence, apart from Mr Everett...
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide
> comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're
> incapable
> of getting your idea across.
You've got the same problem as well....you're like a demented child, jumping up and down for attention and shouting out rubbish.
> Oh I don't want you to check grammar: I'd like you to write sentences
> in coherent English. It's not much to ask, and I would have thought
> you'd prefer it if people understood what you imagine to be your
> stunning and witty putdowns, no?
It doesn't bother me because I know that only you are actually reading this, everyone else got bored long ago :P
> Hmmm...so it doesn't bother you that National Socialism received huge
> support in Germany (and indeed, Europe)? Doesn't it worry you that
> your example is, in fact, more useful to me in my argument than to you
> in your neverending quest to try and get people to accept what you say
> without question?
No. Shall I tell you why ? The Nazi's came to power and popularity by using fear, manipulation, and false promises. They blamed the failings of a country on a minority in that country that could not do anything in retaliation. They ruled with force, and had to commit terrible atrocities to get what they wanted. It did face resistance - but a resistance to late in acknowledging a threat.
> Rather a weak example to back up...well, what are you backing up? Once
> again you've implied something (in this case, that I am no more well
> informed about this than you), given a very poor example to support
> it, then just left it at that and not rebutted the original point?
> About typical of an unimaginative groupthinker such as yourself.
Your point earlier about new ideas that may be good often facing resistance because they are new, and that being new does not make them bad ideas. This was my counter point, if you bothered reading it....
> Your evidence for this is? Not that I necessarily disagree with you,
> but I find it rather sweet that you think turning back the clock is
> the answer.
How can it be turning back the clock when I am in favour of existing legislation ? With rising crime, unemployment, rising consumer spending, higher house prices, discontent towards asylum seekers, growing racism, movements to join the ESC....and with President Blair's cabinet involved in fighting itself rather than tackling issues, I'd say it was a pretty fair comment. Oh yes, and Pop Idol....
> *L* Said the hypocrite. As I say; I'm only like this with sad,
> arrogant, and bullying sorts with an inflated sense of their own
> abilities. You in fact. Yet I note once again you fail to offer
> anything in rebuttal aside from an insult that you quite possibly
> cribbed from an 8 year old.
Yawn.
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all,
> do
> you pumpkin?)
You yourself refer to prostitution being illegal, so this is nitpicking and desperation...
> Yes, but you fail to give any reasons as to WHY you believe in this
> particular moral code. Why is that? Didn't the Daily Mail explain why
> it was that you should think what you do? Seriously; try thinking
> about what you believe instead of attempting to shout down anyone who
> doesn't agree with you. You may find yourself learning something,
> instead of going away for 5 days after being thoroughly owned.
First off I don't read the Daily Mail because it is largely reactionary trash, in my opinion, as are all the tabloids, again in my opinion.
I believe what I believe because I do not see the point in changing a law simply to solve a problem which could be tackled differently. To me, prostitution is only made possible by the fact that men will pay for sex - one would assume this is because they either cannot get it elsewhere, or they need more than they are getting. Crack down on the source of the problem in the first place and make prostitution a less profitable source of income.
But, as you're undoubtedly about to type in reply, this does not really relate to WHY I think like this. Well, sex, to me, is something you do with the person you actually love - rather than anyone who'll drop their panties for a sum of money. You can say what right do I, or anyone, inculding the current government, have to impose a moral belief on people who do not share the same moral. But look at our society and you'll see it happens all the time. It is a given moral that murder is bad, child abuse is bad, illegal pornography is bad, that legalised gun ownership would be bad, and so on. All arguments come down to a clash of morals, between those who agree with doing something, and those who do not.
With reference to prostitution, you argue the point well that legalisation would benefit those in it in many ways, whilst avoiding the fact it benefits customers also. Still, thats for another discussion. The real point is that, a person with certain morals can do the same for any point, in the way I defend my point that legalisation would be bad. It all comes down to morals that we have, and probably cannot truly explain why we have them.
Whilst you continue to obsess with somewhat bizarre (could be a spelling mistake here) insults, you miss the point that, whilst I oppose you, I'm one of the few who actually care about it anyway, enough to reply. There are tons of people registered on here, yet a minority come in here, and when all you can do is degrade every topic you do into insulting those who disagree with you strongly, and engaging in virtual backslapping with people who post a small reply agreeing with you, then that is unlikely to change is it ?
Still, the above statement is probably me saying I'm right and you are an evil liberal socialist whatever....*joke*
~~Belldandy~~
> The thing is Belldandy, writing something like that when you're quite
> stunningly arrogant yourself (and with SO little reason) doesn't, in
> fact, make you look big and clever. It makes you look like a rather
> sad vaginal scraping who thinks he can dish it out and KNOWS he can't
> take it.
Sad vaginal scraping ? What a great, sad, insult that is. Public school boy humour at its best. Arrogant ? I'm elpying to the most arrogant person I've ever seen on here right now. Sorry Goatboy to keep comparing you like this - if you are reading - but you are great when replying to things like this, unlike Light here who uses it as an ego trip for the day.
> So...it doesn't bother you that the journalists were hunting for the
> story anyway on the basis of the conspiracy theory that they had
> hatched? Okay....
>
No, it does not. Without the informant, Deep Throat, they had nothing. Deep Throat had motivations to give them the information. The classic reasons are money, religion, and conscience. So, let us look; Money ? No, he gained nothing because he remained annonymous (apologies if it was spelt wrong). Religion and conscience come down to much the same, did something happen to him that prompted him to do what he did ? Most certainly. This event would not possibly be caused by the journalists so they were, in effect, just the intermediaries for the information.
> It's "whilst YOU'RE on about jobs", not "your".
Sorry oh god of English....
> Also, saying something like "...that sums up your
> aspirations" when solicitors are some of the top paid professions
> in the country...well, it sort of makes you look like an unimaginative
> fool who is incapable of thinking of a decent scathing comment.
Like "sad vaginal scraping" ? Yup, that is one hot scathing comment sir. Also when you said "country...well" you needed a capital "w" and a space. To me, a solicitor is not something I wish to aim for, despite the great financial side to it. I want something I'll actualyl enjoy you see.
> How peculiar; you haven't answered this point. Strange how you're
> incapable of dealing with points supported by evidence, isn't it
> pumpkin?
"Pumpkin" ? What are you, some kind of old woman ? Evidence ? You've typed a sentence and that was it, hardly evidence...
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
And where would your facts and figures be then, eh ? Oh dear, no sources mentioned, just vague statements. Yet you're saying I do the same. Rather hypocritical don't you think ?
> Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those
> places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal
> prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be
> reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity.
> There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr
> solicitor...
>
> Sorry but once more you have used entirely flawed logic. Illegal
> prostitution: In countries where it is legal? Please, I'm all ears as
> to how you're going to define that one. Therefore as your definition
> is spurious you've sort of ruined your ill-thought out point.
> Basically, you seem to be saying that a prostitute is unlikely to
> report crimes committed against her if she's an illegal prostitute (by
> which I assume you mean a "held against her will" sex slave;
> do try and be clear pumpkin!) So therefore, using your logic it would
> be better to legalise it to lower the chances of this happening.
If prostitution is legalised then obviously earnings from it will be taxed, along with NI contributions e.t.c deducted from it. Now if someone is already a prostitute, or decides they need to be ( I think it is rarely a chosen profession...) they can either be legal - and earn less - or illegal and earn more. If you legalise it, then anyone who is acting illegally in it is less likely to report crimes because itwould be a more serious offence than under today's system where it is all illegal.
> Finally, you're basing your argument on unreported crime figures
> (incidentally, nice to see that you don't have an inferiority complex
> about my former profession; I've mentioned once and you seem to feel
> the need to get it in every other paragraph...), could you give me any
> evidence supporting your assertion? Any at all? Or is this a "I
> think these crimes will happen, ergo they will" argument on your
> behalf?
You are seriously telling me you do not believe many crimes do not go reported ? Oooookay....
> Again; were is your evidence for that? Homosexuality is not hidden (I
> note you've avoided answering my point about your laughable idea that
> "Anything that meets with resistance is a bad thing"),
Actually I answered this lower down - Nazism.
> even if you broke the habit of a lifetime and were correct in what you
> say then surely you'd be happier with a hidden profession where the
> prostitutes are protected than a hidden profession where they are
> criminalised and vulnerable. Or does the idea of vulnerable women turn
> you on? You're not related to Peter Sutcliffe, are you?
And now your argument starts to get really desperate and insulting. Happy ? I'm not particularly happy with the idea of prostitution as a whole, but I recognise some women find they have no option but to do it. As for the crime element of it - it is not just the women who are the criminals but their male customers as well - incidentally legalisation would protect customers as well, lessening the risk to them of being mugged, hijacked, blackmailed e.t.c As for your Peter Sutcliffe comments, I find it sad that, because my morals clash with yours, that you compare me to a monster. Still, it shows desperattion on your part. Presumably I'll be related to Adolf Hitler next...
> Ok; it's acceptable to me because it is just sex. A woman owns her own
> body and thus is allowed to do with it whatsoever she pleases. If she
> chooses to offer people sex in exchange for money, why shouldn't
> she.
Because it's illegal in this country. The law is the law, just because we cannot control something does not mean we negate it by surrendering.
> So, that's your (one and only) valied point answered. As to it not
> being a valid life choice...well, the points you make can easily be
> applied to being a checkout girl, shelf stacker, or Pick n Mix guard
> at Woolies. Yet I don't hear you criticising those professions, my
> prudish little headswamp. And besides, if you want to get really
> pedantic, a lot of prostitutes must end up learning some superb acting
> skills (case in point: Rupert Everett was a rent boy for a few years.
> Can you offer evidence for your assertion?)
Which is why many retail managers and senior managers started out at the bottom of a business....okay. How many women prostitutes have become actors in this country ? Oh, look, none ! Where is your evidence, apart from Mr Everett...
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide
> comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're
> incapable
> of getting your idea across.
You've got the same problem as well....you're like a demented child, jumping up and down for attention and shouting out rubbish.
> Oh I don't want you to check grammar: I'd like you to write sentences
> in coherent English. It's not much to ask, and I would have thought
> you'd prefer it if people understood what you imagine to be your
> stunning and witty putdowns, no?
It doesn't bother me because I know that only you are actually reading this, everyone else got bored long ago :P
> Hmmm...so it doesn't bother you that National Socialism received huge
> support in Germany (and indeed, Europe)? Doesn't it worry you that
> your example is, in fact, more useful to me in my argument than to you
> in your neverending quest to try and get people to accept what you say
> without question?
No. Shall I tell you why ? The Nazi's came to power and popularity by using fear, manipulation, and false promises. They blamed the failings of a country on a minority in that country that could not do anything in retaliation. They ruled with force, and had to commit terrible atrocities to get what they wanted. It did face resistance - but a resistance to late in acknowledging a threat.
> Rather a weak example to back up...well, what are you backing up? Once
> again you've implied something (in this case, that I am no more well
> informed about this than you), given a very poor example to support
> it, then just left it at that and not rebutted the original point?
> About typical of an unimaginative groupthinker such as yourself.
Your point earlier about new ideas that may be good often facing resistance because they are new, and that being new does not make them bad ideas. This was my counter point, if you bothered reading it....
> Your evidence for this is? Not that I necessarily disagree with you,
> but I find it rather sweet that you think turning back the clock is
> the answer.
How can it be turning back the clock when I am in favour of existing legislation ? With rising crime, unemployment, rising consumer spending, higher house prices, discontent towards asylum seekers, growing racism, movements to join the ESC....and with President Blair's cabinet involved in fighting itself rather than tackling issues, I'd say it was a pretty fair comment. Oh yes, and Pop Idol....
> *L* Said the hypocrite. As I say; I'm only like this with sad,
> arrogant, and bullying sorts with an inflated sense of their own
> abilities. You in fact. Yet I note once again you fail to offer
> anything in rebuttal aside from an insult that you quite possibly
> cribbed from an 8 year old.
Yawn.
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all,
> do
> you pumpkin?)
You yourself refer to prostitution being illegal, so this is nitpicking and desperation...
> Yes, but you fail to give any reasons as to WHY you believe in this
> particular moral code. Why is that? Didn't the Daily Mail explain why
> it was that you should think what you do? Seriously; try thinking
> about what you believe instead of attempting to shout down anyone who
> doesn't agree with you. You may find yourself learning something,
> instead of going away for 5 days after being thoroughly owned.
First off I don't read the Daily Mail because it is largely reactionary trash, in my opinion, as are all the tabloids, again in my opinion.
I believe what I believe because I do not see the point in changing a law simply to solve a problem which could be tackled differently. To me, prostitution is only made possible by the fact that men will pay for sex - one would assume this is because they either cannot get it elsewhere, or they need more than they are getting. Crack down on the source of the problem in the first place and make prostitution a less profitable source of income.
But, as you're undoubtedly about to type in reply, this does not really relate to WHY I think like this. Well, sex, to me, is something you do with the person you actually love - rather than anyone who'll drop their panties for a sum of money. You can say what right do I, or anyone, inculding the current government, have to impose a moral belief on people who do not share the same moral. But look at our society and you'll see it happens all the time. It is a given moral that murder is bad, child abuse is bad, illegal pornography is bad, that legalised gun ownership would be bad, and so on. All arguments come down to a clash of morals, between those who agree with doing something, and those who do not.
With reference to prostitution, you argue the point well that legalisation would benefit those in it in many ways, whilst avoiding the fact it benefits customers also. Still, thats for another discussion. The real point is that, a person with certain morals can do the same for any point, in the way I defend my point that legalisation would be bad. It all comes down to morals that we have, and probably cannot truly explain why we have them.
Whilst you continue to obsess with somewhat bizarre (could be a spelling mistake here) insults, you miss the point that, whilst I oppose you, I'm one of the few who actually care about it anyway, enough to reply. There are tons of people registered on here, yet a minority come in here, and when all you can do is degrade every topic you do into insulting those who disagree with you strongly, and engaging in virtual backslapping with people who post a small reply agreeing with you, then that is unlikely to change is it ?
Still, the above statement is probably me saying I'm right and you are an evil liberal socialist whatever....*joke*
~~Belldandy~~
*Has pity on anyone who was reading thread before he and light launched into insult and ego bashing exercise*
*Inserts long tedious reply*
*yawns*
~~Belldandy~~
*Inserts long tedious reply*
*yawns*
~~Belldandy~~
Right...thanks for being so patient with me! Whenever I see the arrogant bullies like BellEndy getting uppity it tends to distract me from real debate. So...
Blank wrote:
> So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you
> seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she
> does
> to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting.
> Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes,
> asking
> someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this
> will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a
> complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without
> soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without
> getting any livestock or crops.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's possible - although I'm not really in a fit state
> to discuss or think about things properly at the moment, having oonly
> been to sleep once in the last three nights. I may be wrong about it
> though. I'll try anyway - if a woman just stands on a street corner,
> saying nothing, and a man comes up to her and says "How
> much?", she replies, then they have sex for the exchange of
> money, she wouldn't have solicited at all. Just standing there, I
> belive, is not soliciting. I think that's why the police always go for
> curb crawlers rather than prostitutes.
Hmmm...thing is, if a man believes that the woman he is propositioning is a prostitute then she's basically going to be dressed for the part, and that (believe it or not; I'm damn sure I didn't!) counts as soliciting for sex. Which puts most women aged 16-30 in trouble on a Friday and Saturday night...
>
> And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use;
> lawyers
> are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they
> were
> claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate
> offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens
> herself
> up to arrest for soliciting.
>
> ...only if she has actually solicited - I still think you can be a
> prostitute without soliciting.
I agree that it's technically possible. However, I would say that a prostitute who doesn't solicit is going to be an unsuccessful one.
>
>
> True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of
> prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that
> legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more
> undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
>
> So do you mean that if it was legal they would do it anyway and drop
> the pimp? I think they're more likely to not do it at all. And there's
> nothing stopping the pimp forcing them to do something LEGAL. In fact
> I suppose it might be more likely. Although I suppose that the pimp
> would be her boss, and she could take him to a tribunal for unfair
> treatment, or if he wasn't considered a boss then just for theft of
> her earnings.
Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate Boss, yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify the REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
>
>
> Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the
> horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it
> considerably.
> I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a
> decent standard of living is a good thing.
>
> I'm not really sure how it would improve the standard of living for a
> "sex slave", or really reduce it much.
Basically, if a 'sex slave' (which I'm defining as a woman, usually from Eastern Europe, who is trapped in the prostitution business to pay off whichever criminal organisation brought her over) is in a country where prostitution is legal, they are more likely to be viewed sympathetically by the government should she be able to come forward. Secondly, the legal outfits are more likely to inform the police about girls being trapped in this sort of thing because, basically, it's bad for their own business.
I've read that back and I'm not sure I've explained myself very well. Let me know if you want me to explain my view further (it's after work and I'm tired!)
>
>
> No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a
> sack
> of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone
> dirty.
>
> ...hopefully not literally dirty.
>
>
> Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a
> biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls
> under
> their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's
> moral
> principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The
> state?
> You? Me?
>
> It HAS to involve moral principle - not because I have any moral
> principles, heck I'm all for it, I have no moral principles (at least
> none I would apply to or oppose on anyone else) - but because the
> whole world has moral principle and won't drop it. Therefore our
> actions must have moral principle.
>
> The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like
> they
> do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no
> such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse.
> Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a
> full part in the international community.
>
> Holland? People just think of Holland as totally laid back and....I'm
> not sure how to describe it. Dirty? Remember that Harry Enfield sketch
> with teh Dutch cops in the car? "There has been a lot of problems
> recently with burglary, so we made burglary illegal and since then we
> have had no problem. We've all been sitting around smoking a spliff
> having a good time", that's how people see Holland. Well
> whatever, if you asked someone which country they respected more I'm
> sure they're more likely to say us. Because of their moral principles.
> Obviously it would have to be a neutral person - ie not Dutch,
> English, or anyone who has a bias for or against one country (eg the
> French might be biased against us).
...and by the time we've put those conditions on whom we ask, doesn't the question become meaningless? Especially as we've been at war with just about every other nation on the planet at one time or other! Again though, maybe people do think that about Holland but it doesn't stop them being very successful internationally and economically.
>
> The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been
> excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to
> the
> point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the
> Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once
> claimed
> to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
>
> Well that bit wasn't exactly serious, and I'd find it terribly funny
> if he did do something. And it's funny that even after all these
> scacndals involved with the Catholic church such as acts of
> paedophilia, it still makes news headlines. Hell, even Cilla makes
> news headlines.
Heh. Sorry about that. Religion is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I plead guilty to taking that bit too seriously!
>
>
> Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their
> preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations
> morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done?
> It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean
> to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral
> unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported
> belief
> that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but
> give
> me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
>
> I'm not saying can't be done, but won't be done. There would be a
> price to pay. The government would lose a lot of their voters, plus
> there is the fear of outsiders looking down on us - even if it never
> happened. And even the countries that wouldn't see it as a bad thing
> wouldn't exactly be glad would they? They wouldn't care. There would
> only be upset/disappointed countries and indifferent countries. None
> one would give us a pat on the back.
Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to be liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English here so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are a proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading us to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
Again, why would the other countries be disappointed? Most other nations (well...in Europe anyway) have a far more liberal attitude toward sex than us (though France seems to be beginning to ape our hypocritical attitude). They'd probably applaud us for dragging ourselves into the 20th century just in time for the 21st.
>
> And it's really not my moral unease - as I've said I don't have any
> moral principles except those that I apply only to myself. I'm an
> aethist who despises organised religion, so there's no bias there. I'm
> just objective.
Fair enough. My apologies for assuming that it was. But I hope I've at least given you food for thought in answering your points. I can see why you believe what you do about this subject, but I honestly believe that your belief is flawed for the reasons I've given.
Cheers
Light
Blank wrote:
> So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you
> seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she
> does
> to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting.
> Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes,
> asking
> someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this
> will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a
> complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without
> soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without
> getting any livestock or crops.
>
> I'm pretty sure it's possible - although I'm not really in a fit state
> to discuss or think about things properly at the moment, having oonly
> been to sleep once in the last three nights. I may be wrong about it
> though. I'll try anyway - if a woman just stands on a street corner,
> saying nothing, and a man comes up to her and says "How
> much?", she replies, then they have sex for the exchange of
> money, she wouldn't have solicited at all. Just standing there, I
> belive, is not soliciting. I think that's why the police always go for
> curb crawlers rather than prostitutes.
Hmmm...thing is, if a man believes that the woman he is propositioning is a prostitute then she's basically going to be dressed for the part, and that (believe it or not; I'm damn sure I didn't!) counts as soliciting for sex. Which puts most women aged 16-30 in trouble on a Friday and Saturday night...
>
> And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use;
> lawyers
> are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they
> were
> claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate
> offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens
> herself
> up to arrest for soliciting.
>
> ...only if she has actually solicited - I still think you can be a
> prostitute without soliciting.
I agree that it's technically possible. However, I would say that a prostitute who doesn't solicit is going to be an unsuccessful one.
>
>
> True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of
> prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that
> legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more
> undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
>
> So do you mean that if it was legal they would do it anyway and drop
> the pimp? I think they're more likely to not do it at all. And there's
> nothing stopping the pimp forcing them to do something LEGAL. In fact
> I suppose it might be more likely. Although I suppose that the pimp
> would be her boss, and she could take him to a tribunal for unfair
> treatment, or if he wasn't considered a boss then just for theft of
> her earnings.
Basically, it would mean that the pimp would become a legitimate Boss, yeah. And that would mean he's got to comply with all sorts of rules and regulations, not which of least would be the ones pertaining to safe working conditions for employees. I accept that they won't just fade away, but this would in my opinion make it easier to identify the REALLY bad apples and make life safer for prostitutes.
>
>
> Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the
> horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it
> considerably.
> I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a
> decent standard of living is a good thing.
>
> I'm not really sure how it would improve the standard of living for a
> "sex slave", or really reduce it much.
Basically, if a 'sex slave' (which I'm defining as a woman, usually from Eastern Europe, who is trapped in the prostitution business to pay off whichever criminal organisation brought her over) is in a country where prostitution is legal, they are more likely to be viewed sympathetically by the government should she be able to come forward. Secondly, the legal outfits are more likely to inform the police about girls being trapped in this sort of thing because, basically, it's bad for their own business.
I've read that back and I'm not sure I've explained myself very well. Let me know if you want me to explain my view further (it's after work and I'm tired!)
>
>
> No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a
> sack
> of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone
> dirty.
>
> ...hopefully not literally dirty.
>
>
> Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a
> biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls
> under
> their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's
> moral
> principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The
> state?
> You? Me?
>
> It HAS to involve moral principle - not because I have any moral
> principles, heck I'm all for it, I have no moral principles (at least
> none I would apply to or oppose on anyone else) - but because the
> whole world has moral principle and won't drop it. Therefore our
> actions must have moral principle.
>
> The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like
> they
> do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no
> such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse.
> Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a
> full part in the international community.
>
> Holland? People just think of Holland as totally laid back and....I'm
> not sure how to describe it. Dirty? Remember that Harry Enfield sketch
> with teh Dutch cops in the car? "There has been a lot of problems
> recently with burglary, so we made burglary illegal and since then we
> have had no problem. We've all been sitting around smoking a spliff
> having a good time", that's how people see Holland. Well
> whatever, if you asked someone which country they respected more I'm
> sure they're more likely to say us. Because of their moral principles.
> Obviously it would have to be a neutral person - ie not Dutch,
> English, or anyone who has a bias for or against one country (eg the
> French might be biased against us).
...and by the time we've put those conditions on whom we ask, doesn't the question become meaningless? Especially as we've been at war with just about every other nation on the planet at one time or other! Again though, maybe people do think that about Holland but it doesn't stop them being very successful internationally and economically.
>
> The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been
> excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to
> the
> point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the
> Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once
> claimed
> to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
>
> Well that bit wasn't exactly serious, and I'd find it terribly funny
> if he did do something. And it's funny that even after all these
> scacndals involved with the Catholic church such as acts of
> paedophilia, it still makes news headlines. Hell, even Cilla makes
> news headlines.
Heh. Sorry about that. Religion is a bit of a bugbear of mine. I plead guilty to taking that bit too seriously!
>
>
> Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their
> preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations
> morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done?
> It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean
> to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral
> unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported
> belief
> that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but
> give
> me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
>
> I'm not saying can't be done, but won't be done. There would be a
> price to pay. The government would lose a lot of their voters, plus
> there is the fear of outsiders looking down on us - even if it never
> happened. And even the countries that wouldn't see it as a bad thing
> wouldn't exactly be glad would they? They wouldn't care. There would
> only be upset/disappointed countries and indifferent countries. None
> one would give us a pat on the back.
Why won't it be done? They'll lose voters, but over 40% of this country don't vote. Many of my friends fall into this category, and they all agree that they'd vote for a party that was not afraid to be liberal as long as they used their heads as well.
The fear of outsiders looking down on us; then how come we're still supporting Dubya and his Daddy's war despite the entire rest of the known world thinking it's a dreadful idea? I agree with you're implication that the UK (well...I can only speak for the English here so apologies to the Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish) population are a proud bunch, yet we're currently going down a road that is leading us to being seen as a faithful lapdog.
Again, why would the other countries be disappointed? Most other nations (well...in Europe anyway) have a far more liberal attitude toward sex than us (though France seems to be beginning to ape our hypocritical attitude). They'd probably applaud us for dragging ourselves into the 20th century just in time for the 21st.
>
> And it's really not my moral unease - as I've said I don't have any
> moral principles except those that I apply only to myself. I'm an
> aethist who despises organised religion, so there's no bias there. I'm
> just objective.
Fair enough. My apologies for assuming that it was. But I hope I've at least given you food for thought in answering your points. I can see why you believe what you do about this subject, but I honestly believe that your belief is flawed for the reasons I've given.
Cheers
Light
Coises! Just noticed all the spelling mistakes in my own reply! Ah well, live by the sword, die by the sword...
Belldandy wrote:
> Oh joy; you've started to get offensive again. I do enjoy slapping
> down children with delusions of adequacy...
>
> Yeah yeah oh great supreme ruler Light, sorry oh great god Light yadda
> yadda yadda
The thing is Belldandy, writing something like that when you're quite stunningly arrogant yourself (and with SO little reason) doesn't, in fact, make you look big and clever. It makes you look like a rather sad vaginal scraping who thinks he can dish it out and KNOWS he can't take it.
>
> So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the
> efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)?
> Right...and your evidence for this is?
>
> The story cracked when the informant gave them the information - as
> this informant received no payment, or publicity, it suggests another
> reason than wanting to give two journalists a story...
>
So...it doesn't bother you that the journalists were hunting for the story anyway on the basis of the conspiracy theory that they had hatched? Okay....
> Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on
> your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same
> time
> showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen
> mate;
> I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of
> shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to
> get laid.
>
> First off, about my ex-job, its a part time thing you idiot, whilst
> I'm at Uni, and whilst your on about jobs your own one of solicitor is
> hardly the heights of aspirations either... And yes, sad idiots just
> about sums it up nicely.
>
It's "whilst YOU'RE on about jobs", not "your". Also, saying something like "...that sums up your aspirations" when solicitors are some of the top paid professions in the country...well, it sort of makes you look like an unimaginative fool who is incapable of thinking of a decent scathing comment. Oh, and you're doing the old "This is my opinion, ergo it is fact" whilst not giving any evidence with the "Sad idiots" thing. Again.
> So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said,
> people
> still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just
> because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may
> find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there
> who
> don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would
> 'rather happen'.
How peculiar; you haven't answered this point. Strange how you're incapable of dealing with points supported by evidence, isn't it pumpkin?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
>
> Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those
> places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal
> prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be
> reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity.
> There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr
> solicitor...
Sorry but once more you have used entirely flawed logic. Illegal prostitution: In countries where it is legal? Please, I'm all ears as to how you're going to define that one. Therefore as your definition is spurious you've sort of ruined your ill-thought out point. Basically, you seem to be saying that a prostitute is unlikely to report crimes committed against her if she's an illegal prostitute (by which I assume you mean a "held against her will" sex slave; do try and be clear pumpkin!) So therefore, using your logic it would be better to legalise it to lower the chances of this happening.
Finally, you're basing your argument on unreported crime figures (incidentally, nice to see that you don't have an inferiority complex about my former profession; I've mentioned once and you seem to feel the need to get it in every other paragraph...), could you give me any evidence supporting your assertion? Any at all? Or is this a "I think these crimes will happen, ergo they will" argument on your behalf?
>
> And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and
> hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your
> "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that
> is
> your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you
> care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life?
> Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral
> unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience)
> about sex?
>
> You think legalisation will make it un hidden ? Hilarious, you do know
> this is Britain ? If anything legalisation will hide it further by
> wrapping it up into nice little buildings away from the eyes of
> everyone but the punters.
Again; were is your evidence for that? Homosexuality is not hidden (I note you've avoided answering my point about your laughable idea that "Anything that meets with resistance is a bad thing"), and even if you broke the habit of a lifetime and were correct in what you say then surely you'd be happier with a hidden profession where the prostitutes are protected than a hidden profession where they are criminalised and vulnerable. Or does the idea of vulnerable women turn you on? You're not related to Peter Sutcliffe, are you?
> Valid life choice ? Well lets see; no long
> term prospects, no qualifications, no transferable skills, and all the
> rest. Get real. Moral unease ? you want to talk about that when it's
> two males talking about something which mainly effects women ? that'd
> be funny, give me your moral reason that makes it acceptable to you -
> which you haven't yet, do you want to buy everything ? :)
Ok; it's acceptable to me because it is just sex. A woman owns her own body and thus is allowed to do with it whatsoever she pleases. If she chooses to offer people sex in exchange for money, why shouldn't she.
So, that's your (one and only) valied point answered. As to it not being a valid life choice...well, the points you make can easily be applied to being a checkout girl, shelf stacker, or Pick n Mix guard at Woolies. Yet I don't hear you criticising those professions, my prudish little headswamp. And besides, if you want to get really pedantic, a lot of prostitutes must end up learning some superb acting skills (case in point: Rupert Everett was a rent boy for a few years. Can you offer evidence for your assertion?)
>
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide
> comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're
> incapable
> of getting your idea across.
>
> Yawn. Christ, you take this rather seriously don't you ? Going ot have
> to start checking replies in Word pretty soon. You might not have
> noticed Light, but this is a forum, and I can't really be bothered to
> perfectly check grammar on this !
Oh I don't want you to check grammar: I'd like you to write sentences in coherent English. It's not much to ask, and I would have thought you'd prefer it if people understood what you imagine to be your stunning and witty putdowns, no?
>
> So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the
> subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and
> offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be
> regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's
> that
> meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women,
> the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour,
>
> "Extra knowledge" ? *collapses laughing* Your examples of
> resistance are selective and you know it. How about Nazism - which met
> considerable resistance and was most definitely a bad idea ? Selective
> examples rule eh ?
Hmmm...so it doesn't bother you that National Socialism received huge support in Germany (and indeed, Europe)? Doesn't it worry you that your example is, in fact, more useful to me in my argument than to you in your neverending quest to try and get people to accept what you say without question?
Rather a weak example to back up...well, what are you backing up? Once again you've implied something (in this case, that I am no more well informed about this than you), given a very poor example to support it, then just left it at that and not rebutted the original point? About typical of an unimaginative groupthinker such as yourself.
>
> And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in
> mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative
> party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that
> you
> so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think
> that
> there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that
> you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you
> seem
> incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with
> you...
>
> And the country is going down the biggest sinkhole ever....
Your evidence for this is? Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I find it rather sweet that you think turning back the clock is the answer.
>
> Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what
> I
> said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might
> have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good),
>
> Yawn, your posts would be so much better without all this "I'm
> clever look at me everyone" crap.
*L* Said the hypocrite. As I say; I'm only like this with sad, arrogant, and bullying sorts with an inflated sense of their own abilities. You in fact. Yet I note once again you fail to offer anything in rebuttal aside from an insult that you quite possibly cribbed from an 8 year old.
>
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all,
> do
> you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no
> reason
> at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes
> other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex.
> Did
> you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for
> objections other than that.
>
> Strangly enough, most topics come down to morality. You can ask and
> tell people to respond however you wish, but until you're made god of
> the forums then go wish for that happening. Without morals we're all
> animals.
Yes, but you fail to give any reasons as to WHY you believe in this particular moral code. Why is that? Didn't the Daily Mail explain why it was that you should think what you do? Seriously; try thinking about what you believe instead of attempting to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. You may find yourself learning something, instead of going away for 5 days after being thoroughly owned.
>
> Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would.
> Beyond
> "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty
> liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your
> beliefs.
>
> You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's
> because
> all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments
> of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an
> idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun,
> then
> I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content
> myself
> with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy
> again.
>
> Yawn, is this the best you can do ? At least Goatboy is really
> entertaining in replies and doesnt turn a reply into a mindless tirade
> or ego growing...
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! I really couldn't begin to comment on the hypocrisy of that statement. Once you can respond to the points I've made without checking to see what the Sun and Daily Mail say about it, that's when we'll talk again pumpkin.
>
> Good day.
>
> Most certainly is, I've got someone who actually does a proper job, as
> opposed to me, a bored student whose only stressful thing this month
> is one 2 hour exam, all in a flutter, over my vague ramblings. I'm
> guessing you have less spare time than me, so you're wasting your time
> on this, rather than something useful and fun. Good Evening :P
You're guessing wrong my dear boy; I'm sat in front of the computer all day so it's no real time out of my day. As to trying to make me jealous of your lifestyle....well, obviously it was my life dream to have a part time job in Woolworth's when I was younger, so you've got me there...
Jesus; did you really run to your room crying for 5 days and only manage to produce THIS in response? One valid point (answered) and some truly dreadful efforts in the "You must accept my opinion even though I have nothing to support it" area? Go and change your nappy and try again.
>
> ~~BellEndy~~
> Oh joy; you've started to get offensive again. I do enjoy slapping
> down children with delusions of adequacy...
>
> Yeah yeah oh great supreme ruler Light, sorry oh great god Light yadda
> yadda yadda
The thing is Belldandy, writing something like that when you're quite stunningly arrogant yourself (and with SO little reason) doesn't, in fact, make you look big and clever. It makes you look like a rather sad vaginal scraping who thinks he can dish it out and KNOWS he can't take it.
>
> So...you're telling me that the story would have broke without the
> efforts of the two journalists (who hatched the conspiracy theory)?
> Right...and your evidence for this is?
>
> The story cracked when the informant gave them the information - as
> this informant received no payment, or publicity, it suggests another
> reason than wanting to give two journalists a story...
>
So...it doesn't bother you that the journalists were hunting for the story anyway on the basis of the conspiracy theory that they had hatched? Okay....
> Why do you think not? You see, what you've done there is expanded on
> your opinion but not given any reason for it, whilst at the same
> time
> showing how little you know about prostition. Sad idiots? Listen
> mate;
> I would have thought someone who has reached the dizzying heights of
> shop assistant at Woolies would be ~delighted~ at the opportunity to
> get laid.
>
> First off, about my ex-job, its a part time thing you idiot, whilst
> I'm at Uni, and whilst your on about jobs your own one of solicitor is
> hardly the heights of aspirations either... And yes, sad idiots just
> about sums it up nicely.
>
It's "whilst YOU'RE on about jobs", not "your". Also, saying something like "...that sums up your aspirations" when solicitors are some of the top paid professions in the country...well, it sort of makes you look like an unimaginative fool who is incapable of thinking of a decent scathing comment. Oh, and you're doing the old "This is my opinion, ergo it is fact" whilst not giving any evidence with the "Sad idiots" thing. Again.
> So you'd rather they made a better choice? Fine. But as I said,
> people
> still become prostitutes despite the illegality of it now. Just
> because you'd rather it happen, doesn't mean it's going to. You may
> find this hard to comprehend, but there is a whole world out there
> who
> don't give the first piece of dogsmeg about what you or I would
> 'rather happen'.
How peculiar; you haven't answered this point. Strange how you're incapable of dealing with points supported by evidence, isn't it pumpkin?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now; legalisation would not reduce the risks you mention? Then how
> come the rates of STD infection, violence toward prostitutes etc are
> lower in Germany and Holland? You've done your usual trick of making
> an unsupported statement, tried to pass it off as fact, and entirely
> failed to provide any evidence for it. Pathetic. I had hoped you had
> learned better.
>
> Yawn, get off the white horse eh ? Prostitution is legal in those
> places so incidents are recorded officially, hence any illegal
> prostitution, and incidents involving it, are less likely to be
> reported because doing os implicates the victim in illegal activity.
> There is a difference in reported and unreported crime yknow, Mr
> solicitor...
Sorry but once more you have used entirely flawed logic. Illegal prostitution: In countries where it is legal? Please, I'm all ears as to how you're going to define that one. Therefore as your definition is spurious you've sort of ruined your ill-thought out point. Basically, you seem to be saying that a prostitute is unlikely to report crimes committed against her if she's an illegal prostitute (by which I assume you mean a "held against her will" sex slave; do try and be clear pumpkin!) So therefore, using your logic it would be better to legalise it to lower the chances of this happening.
Finally, you're basing your argument on unreported crime figures (incidentally, nice to see that you don't have an inferiority complex about my former profession; I've mentioned once and you seem to feel the need to get it in every other paragraph...), could you give me any evidence supporting your assertion? Any at all? Or is this a "I think these crimes will happen, ergo they will" argument on your behalf?
>
> And your implication that it should remain illegal, sordid, and
> hidden; well done! The victorians would have been proud of your
> "If I can't see it, it isn't there" attitude. Still, that
> is
> your opinion and I duly afford it the respect it is due. Would you
> care to tell me just WHY it shouldn't be a valid choice of life?
> Seriously; can you come up with a reason beyond your vague moral
> unease (and, by the sounds of things, lack of first hand experience)
> about sex?
>
> You think legalisation will make it un hidden ? Hilarious, you do know
> this is Britain ? If anything legalisation will hide it further by
> wrapping it up into nice little buildings away from the eyes of
> everyone but the punters.
Again; were is your evidence for that? Homosexuality is not hidden (I note you've avoided answering my point about your laughable idea that "Anything that meets with resistance is a bad thing"), and even if you broke the habit of a lifetime and were correct in what you say then surely you'd be happier with a hidden profession where the prostitutes are protected than a hidden profession where they are criminalised and vulnerable. Or does the idea of vulnerable women turn you on? You're not related to Peter Sutcliffe, are you?
> Valid life choice ? Well lets see; no long
> term prospects, no qualifications, no transferable skills, and all the
> rest. Get real. Moral unease ? you want to talk about that when it's
> two males talking about something which mainly effects women ? that'd
> be funny, give me your moral reason that makes it acceptable to you -
> which you haven't yet, do you want to buy everything ? :)
Ok; it's acceptable to me because it is just sex. A woman owns her own body and thus is allowed to do with it whatsoever she pleases. If she chooses to offer people sex in exchange for money, why shouldn't she.
So, that's your (one and only) valied point answered. As to it not being a valid life choice...well, the points you make can easily be applied to being a checkout girl, shelf stacker, or Pick n Mix guard at Woolies. Yet I don't hear you criticising those professions, my prudish little headswamp. And besides, if you want to get really pedantic, a lot of prostitutes must end up learning some superb acting skills (case in point: Rupert Everett was a rent boy for a few years. Can you offer evidence for your assertion?)
>
> Sorry, you've not actually constructed a sentence in this paragraph.
> Could you stick to writing in coherent English please? Snide
> comments
> are one thing, but they sort of lose their effect if you're
> incapable
> of getting your idea across.
>
> Yawn. Christ, you take this rather seriously don't you ? Going ot have
> to start checking replies in Word pretty soon. You might not have
> noticed Light, but this is a forum, and I can't really be bothered to
> perfectly check grammar on this !
Oh I don't want you to check grammar: I'd like you to write sentences in coherent English. It's not much to ask, and I would have thought you'd prefer it if people understood what you imagine to be your stunning and witty putdowns, no?
>
> So; you've had a bit of a go about my extra knowledge on the
> subject...and offered nothing to rebut it. Would you care to try and
> offer any arguments, or are you happy with the insults that would be
> regarded as ineffective in the lowliest schoolyard? As to idea's
> that
> meet with resistance being bad; what, you mean like votes for women,
> the emancipation proclaimation, abolition of child labour,
>
> "Extra knowledge" ? *collapses laughing* Your examples of
> resistance are selective and you know it. How about Nazism - which met
> considerable resistance and was most definitely a bad idea ? Selective
> examples rule eh ?
Hmmm...so it doesn't bother you that National Socialism received huge support in Germany (and indeed, Europe)? Doesn't it worry you that your example is, in fact, more useful to me in my argument than to you in your neverending quest to try and get people to accept what you say without question?
Rather a weak example to back up...well, what are you backing up? Once again you've implied something (in this case, that I am no more well informed about this than you), given a very poor example to support it, then just left it at that and not rebutted the original point? About typical of an unimaginative groupthinker such as yourself.
>
> And once more, you say that the response would be huge; bearing in
> mind that thus far all you've done is push forward the Conservative
> party ideaology, and bearing in mind the Conservative mindset that
> you
> so love is at it's lowest ebb ever, what on earth makes you think
> that
> there would be a huge response? Apart, of course, from the fact that
> you think that there would be and you are so egocentric that you
> seem
> incapable of comprehending that people could ~ever~ disagree with
> you...
>
> And the country is going down the biggest sinkhole ever....
Your evidence for this is? Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I find it rather sweet that you think turning back the clock is the answer.
>
> Yes, they are the ideas put forward. This may surprise you (see what
> I
> said about egocentricity; I realise that's a big word so you might
> have to check a dictionary first....are you done? Good),
>
> Yawn, your posts would be so much better without all this "I'm
> clever look at me everyone" crap.
*L* Said the hypocrite. As I say; I'm only like this with sad, arrogant, and bullying sorts with an inflated sense of their own abilities. You in fact. Yet I note once again you fail to offer anything in rebuttal aside from an insult that you quite possibly cribbed from an 8 year old.
>
> You mention again the illegality. The fact that soliciting is
> illegal(not prostitution itself; you really don't know much at all,
> do
> you pumpkin?) seems to be your only objection. Yet you give no
> reason
> at all for fear of not arresting men or women who use prostitutes
> other than (once more) your vague moral objections concerning sex.
> Did
> you read the last paragraph of the original post? I asked for
> objections other than that.
>
> Strangly enough, most topics come down to morality. You can ask and
> tell people to respond however you wish, but until you're made god of
> the forums then go wish for that happening. Without morals we're all
> animals.
Yes, but you fail to give any reasons as to WHY you believe in this particular moral code. Why is that? Didn't the Daily Mail explain why it was that you should think what you do? Seriously; try thinking about what you believe instead of attempting to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with you. You may find yourself learning something, instead of going away for 5 days after being thoroughly owned.
>
> Well, I'm at something of a loss as to why you think it would.
> Beyond
> "I think men who go to prostitutes are sad, and you're a nasty
> liberal, and I'm right", you've yet to give a reason for your
> beliefs.
>
> You'll note I haven't made any further new points here. That's
> because
> all you did was post a mixture of poor quality abuse and restatments
> of your own opinion. Should you find yourself able to formulate an
> idea that did not have it's genesis within the pages of The Sun,
> then
> I'll be happy to address what you say. Until then, I'll content
> myself
> with poking you until you foam at the mouth and fill your nappy
> again.
>
> Yawn, is this the best you can do ? At least Goatboy is really
> entertaining in replies and doesnt turn a reply into a mindless tirade
> or ego growing...
Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa! I really couldn't begin to comment on the hypocrisy of that statement. Once you can respond to the points I've made without checking to see what the Sun and Daily Mail say about it, that's when we'll talk again pumpkin.
>
> Good day.
>
> Most certainly is, I've got someone who actually does a proper job, as
> opposed to me, a bored student whose only stressful thing this month
> is one 2 hour exam, all in a flutter, over my vague ramblings. I'm
> guessing you have less spare time than me, so you're wasting your time
> on this, rather than something useful and fun. Good Evening :P
You're guessing wrong my dear boy; I'm sat in front of the computer all day so it's no real time out of my day. As to trying to make me jealous of your lifestyle....well, obviously it was my life dream to have a part time job in Woolworth's when I was younger, so you've got me there...
Jesus; did you really run to your room crying for 5 days and only manage to produce THIS in response? One valid point (answered) and some truly dreadful efforts in the "You must accept my opinion even though I have nothing to support it" area? Go and change your nappy and try again.
>
> ~~BellEndy~~
Page: