The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
...here we are. Got any more thoughts about this Bell? I'm not looking for you to admit you're wrong or anything. I'm just looking for you to admit that maybe, just maybe, you're not right about everything. Y'know, like you seem to think you are.
Belldandy wrote:
> You're actually proving her theory, in that paper, right, y'know....
>
So let me see if I've got this right; to bolster your case as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalised, you posted a link to a dissertation arguing the case for why it should be legalised? Okay...
>
> And, as she says, Neo-liberal reasoning to explain the legalisation.
And what is neo-liberal reasoning Bell? I mean, that's what SHE says, but what about what YOU say?
>
> But, as has been pointed out before, alcohol legalisation is not fit
> for comparison to prostitution legalisation, nor was prohibition on
> the same scale. As you well know.
Yes, as has been pointed out before. By you. And no-one else. As to it not being on the same scale, prohibition affected the USA, one of the largest nations in the world even then. My original post referred to the UK. So prohibition is in fact on a larger scale that the legalisation of prostitution.
>
> How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when
> legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens
> in Holland already.
>
> Christ, I thought you supposed to be smart....
Heh. Yes, I am. That's why you're reduced to hollow comments; because you're incapable of refuting the arguments being put forward. Sorry Bell; you're not going to rile me into a war of words on this one. So, I re-iterate: How does it let the exploitation continue? Answers rather than half-hearted goading please.
Oh, and just to show how smart I am and how rather pathetic your attempt to avoid answering the question is, here is a link to a news article about UK prostitutes joining the GMB Union;
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_536183.html
>
>
> Why can't it be solved eh ? Maybe if so many weren't putting so much
> effort into legalising the various things caused by it then we'd be a
> lot closer. If you legalise then you'll still have a problem with
> illegal workers and underage ones so don't kid yourself that the magic
> "legal" marker will make it all right. And those who are
> illegal workers will be even more exploited than ever before, because
> they won't even be able to approach the police, as they will have to
> crack down more on illegal workers in prostitution if it is legalised,
> and the liberals who support legalisation won't support the illegal
> ones because, after all, they'd be illegal.
Those who are illegal workers? Who would they be then? The sex slaves? They'll be victims under the law if prostitution was legalised, so they'll be able to approach the police. Why would they crack down on victims? That's like saying that a 13 year old child prostitute will be unable to approach the police because they will be treated as a criminal. That would be insane...oh, that's right; until recently that was the case. In other words, your logic is flawed. You are assuming that those falling outside the scope of legalisation (sex slaves, child prostitutes) will be criminalised. Not so; the laws I have in mind would treat them as victims. Something like this in fact: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes /uk.htm
In fact, the contiued demonisation of prostitution by people such as you has actually increased the dangers faced by prostitutes:
http://www.med.vu.nl/hcc/artikelen/ kinnell.htm
As to it not solving all the problems; if you cast your eyes down this thread, you'll see that I've already said as much. I'm simply saying that legalisation will reduce the problems dramatically. You've not actually been able to put forward many arguments to refute this, and those few that you have have been rebutted.
>
> Why is it right ? It's not an aversion to sex, it's a moral belief
> that you do not solve a problem which exploits people, for the most
> part, by making it okay. Who, exactly, will be your proposed legal
> prostitutes eh ? And just where would you set a limit on age ? 16 ? 18
> ? 21 ? Just about every police force in the country is against this
> yet you seem quite the cheerleader.....
Firstly; Prostitution is not illegal. So anyone of any age can do it. If it were legalised, it could be regulated. Remember; it's soliciting that's illegal. Not prostitution.
Why is it right? Because people want to get laid. Even ugly or shy people who don't get much. Prostitution sort of overcomes that barrier.
Exploits people? They're exploited by their pimps, certainly. Legalisations circumvents much of this problem. Legalisation paves the way for unionisation, pension rights (both of which are now in place in Holland).
Legal limits? Me personally I would set the age limit at 18, but that would be a matter for parliament. That's what parliament does you know; makes laws.
Just about every police force against it? That must be why Lothian and Borders Police stated that they would prefer brothels to be legal as it was safer for prostitutes than being on the streets:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/scotland/ 1491278.stm
As are Merseyside police:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/ localgovt/story/ 0,7890,913673,00.html
As to it me being in favour, here is yet another link for you to ignore giving more detailed reasons for the legalisation of prostitution;
http://www.ex.ac.uk/ politics/ pol_data/undergrad/aac/pro.htm
So, with all that in mind, could you please come up with an argument against legalisation that:
1. Doesn't make reference to the dissertation (as you now seem to be admitting that it says legalising prostitution will solve many of the problems of sex slavery).
2. Doesn't try to claim that child prostitutes and sex slaves will be some sort of ultra-criminal (because they would be treated as victims)
3. Isn't a rather weak attempt to insult me in the hope that I'll get annoyed and not notice that you haven't answered the question.
I await your response with interest.
> You're actually proving her theory, in that paper, right, y'know....
>
So let me see if I've got this right; to bolster your case as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalised, you posted a link to a dissertation arguing the case for why it should be legalised? Okay...
>
> And, as she says, Neo-liberal reasoning to explain the legalisation.
And what is neo-liberal reasoning Bell? I mean, that's what SHE says, but what about what YOU say?
>
> But, as has been pointed out before, alcohol legalisation is not fit
> for comparison to prostitution legalisation, nor was prohibition on
> the same scale. As you well know.
Yes, as has been pointed out before. By you. And no-one else. As to it not being on the same scale, prohibition affected the USA, one of the largest nations in the world even then. My original post referred to the UK. So prohibition is in fact on a larger scale that the legalisation of prostitution.
>
> How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when
> legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens
> in Holland already.
>
> Christ, I thought you supposed to be smart....
Heh. Yes, I am. That's why you're reduced to hollow comments; because you're incapable of refuting the arguments being put forward. Sorry Bell; you're not going to rile me into a war of words on this one. So, I re-iterate: How does it let the exploitation continue? Answers rather than half-hearted goading please.
Oh, and just to show how smart I am and how rather pathetic your attempt to avoid answering the question is, here is a link to a news article about UK prostitutes joining the GMB Union;
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_536183.html
>
>
> Why can't it be solved eh ? Maybe if so many weren't putting so much
> effort into legalising the various things caused by it then we'd be a
> lot closer. If you legalise then you'll still have a problem with
> illegal workers and underage ones so don't kid yourself that the magic
> "legal" marker will make it all right. And those who are
> illegal workers will be even more exploited than ever before, because
> they won't even be able to approach the police, as they will have to
> crack down more on illegal workers in prostitution if it is legalised,
> and the liberals who support legalisation won't support the illegal
> ones because, after all, they'd be illegal.
Those who are illegal workers? Who would they be then? The sex slaves? They'll be victims under the law if prostitution was legalised, so they'll be able to approach the police. Why would they crack down on victims? That's like saying that a 13 year old child prostitute will be unable to approach the police because they will be treated as a criminal. That would be insane...oh, that's right; until recently that was the case. In other words, your logic is flawed. You are assuming that those falling outside the scope of legalisation (sex slaves, child prostitutes) will be criminalised. Not so; the laws I have in mind would treat them as victims. Something like this in fact: http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes /uk.htm
In fact, the contiued demonisation of prostitution by people such as you has actually increased the dangers faced by prostitutes:
http://www.med.vu.nl/hcc/artikelen/ kinnell.htm
As to it not solving all the problems; if you cast your eyes down this thread, you'll see that I've already said as much. I'm simply saying that legalisation will reduce the problems dramatically. You've not actually been able to put forward many arguments to refute this, and those few that you have have been rebutted.
>
> Why is it right ? It's not an aversion to sex, it's a moral belief
> that you do not solve a problem which exploits people, for the most
> part, by making it okay. Who, exactly, will be your proposed legal
> prostitutes eh ? And just where would you set a limit on age ? 16 ? 18
> ? 21 ? Just about every police force in the country is against this
> yet you seem quite the cheerleader.....
Firstly; Prostitution is not illegal. So anyone of any age can do it. If it were legalised, it could be regulated. Remember; it's soliciting that's illegal. Not prostitution.
Why is it right? Because people want to get laid. Even ugly or shy people who don't get much. Prostitution sort of overcomes that barrier.
Exploits people? They're exploited by their pimps, certainly. Legalisations circumvents much of this problem. Legalisation paves the way for unionisation, pension rights (both of which are now in place in Holland).
Legal limits? Me personally I would set the age limit at 18, but that would be a matter for parliament. That's what parliament does you know; makes laws.
Just about every police force against it? That must be why Lothian and Borders Police stated that they would prefer brothels to be legal as it was safer for prostitutes than being on the streets:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 1/hi/scotland/ 1491278.stm
As are Merseyside police:
http://society.guardian.co.uk/ localgovt/story/ 0,7890,913673,00.html
As to it me being in favour, here is yet another link for you to ignore giving more detailed reasons for the legalisation of prostitution;
http://www.ex.ac.uk/ politics/ pol_data/undergrad/aac/pro.htm
So, with all that in mind, could you please come up with an argument against legalisation that:
1. Doesn't make reference to the dissertation (as you now seem to be admitting that it says legalising prostitution will solve many of the problems of sex slavery).
2. Doesn't try to claim that child prostitutes and sex slaves will be some sort of ultra-criminal (because they would be treated as victims)
3. Isn't a rather weak attempt to insult me in the hope that I'll get annoyed and not notice that you haven't answered the question.
I await your response with interest.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> If they legalise prostitution, what are the chances on somebody doing
> loyalty cards?
I was saying something similar the other day. :)
> If they legalise prostitution, what are the chances on somebody doing
> loyalty cards?
I was saying something similar the other day. :)
If they legalise prostitution, what are the chances on somebody doing loyalty cards?
Light wrote:
> If that's the case, then there is no point in keeping it illegal as it
> will aid that governments economy. If however it is legalised, the
> govt still get income and prostitutes rights are protected. Everyone
> is a winner. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
You're actually proving her theory, in that paper, right, y'know....
> Sex slavery aside, you still don't give any reasons as to why the
> income shouldn't be legitimised. As I said previously, there is a
> category of income tax specifically created to cover the earnings of
> prostitutes. In that respect, the earnings are already legitimate.
And, as she says, Neo-liberal reasoning to explain the legalisation.
> As to legalising to remove the problem; that's exactly what happened
> in prohibition. The simple fact is that the illegality of booze in
> prohibition, and prostitution now CAUSES the problem in the first
> place.
But, as has been pointed out before, alcohol legalisation is not fit for comparison to prostitution legalisation, nor was prohibition on the same scale. As you well know.
> This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the
> disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become
> involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping
> that group.
>
> How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when
> legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens
> in Holland already.
Christ, I thought you supposed to be smart....
> Why is the idea of creating more prostitutes (by which I mean people
> willing to be prostitutes; not sex slaves. And yes, they do exist;
> read that article I gave you the link for if you don't believe me) so
> bad?
Because the overwhelming majority of those involved would not be if there socio-economic situation was better that it is right now.
> Solve the socio economic problems no-one wants to be a prostitute;
> cool. But those problems are wide ranging and deep; poverty is the
> root of them all, and that particular problem won't be solved in our
> lifetime. So with that in mind, why criminalise a way of earning
> money? Indeed, by criminalising it, it is made more dangerous for
> prostitutes and encourages sex slavery.
Why can't it be solved eh ? Maybe if so many weren't putting so much effort into legalising the various things caused by it then we'd be a lot closer. If you legalise then you'll still have a problem with illegal workers and underage ones so don't kid yourself that the magic "legal" marker will make it all right. And those who are illegal workers will be even more exploited than ever before, because they won't even be able to approach the police, as they will have to crack down more on illegal workers in prostitution if it is legalised, and the liberals who support legalisation won't support the illegal ones because, after all, they'd be illegal.
> I note you've not actually given a reason why it should be illegal
> that has not already been addressed, and many of your reasons centre
> on the idea that prostitution is 'wrong'. Beyond a vague moral
> compunction about sex, can you explain just why it is wrong?
Why is it right ? It's not an aversion to sex, it's a moral belief that you do not solve a problem which exploits people, for the most part, by making it okay. Who, exactly, will be your proposed legal prostitutes eh ? And just where would you set a limit on age ? 16 ? 18 ? 21 ? Just about every police force in the country is against this yet you seem quite the cheerleader.....
> If that's the case, then there is no point in keeping it illegal as it
> will aid that governments economy. If however it is legalised, the
> govt still get income and prostitutes rights are protected. Everyone
> is a winner. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
You're actually proving her theory, in that paper, right, y'know....
> Sex slavery aside, you still don't give any reasons as to why the
> income shouldn't be legitimised. As I said previously, there is a
> category of income tax specifically created to cover the earnings of
> prostitutes. In that respect, the earnings are already legitimate.
And, as she says, Neo-liberal reasoning to explain the legalisation.
> As to legalising to remove the problem; that's exactly what happened
> in prohibition. The simple fact is that the illegality of booze in
> prohibition, and prostitution now CAUSES the problem in the first
> place.
But, as has been pointed out before, alcohol legalisation is not fit for comparison to prostitution legalisation, nor was prohibition on the same scale. As you well know.
> This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the
> disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become
> involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping
> that group.
>
> How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when
> legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens
> in Holland already.
Christ, I thought you supposed to be smart....
> Why is the idea of creating more prostitutes (by which I mean people
> willing to be prostitutes; not sex slaves. And yes, they do exist;
> read that article I gave you the link for if you don't believe me) so
> bad?
Because the overwhelming majority of those involved would not be if there socio-economic situation was better that it is right now.
> Solve the socio economic problems no-one wants to be a prostitute;
> cool. But those problems are wide ranging and deep; poverty is the
> root of them all, and that particular problem won't be solved in our
> lifetime. So with that in mind, why criminalise a way of earning
> money? Indeed, by criminalising it, it is made more dangerous for
> prostitutes and encourages sex slavery.
Why can't it be solved eh ? Maybe if so many weren't putting so much effort into legalising the various things caused by it then we'd be a lot closer. If you legalise then you'll still have a problem with illegal workers and underage ones so don't kid yourself that the magic "legal" marker will make it all right. And those who are illegal workers will be even more exploited than ever before, because they won't even be able to approach the police, as they will have to crack down more on illegal workers in prostitution if it is legalised, and the liberals who support legalisation won't support the illegal ones because, after all, they'd be illegal.
> I note you've not actually given a reason why it should be illegal
> that has not already been addressed, and many of your reasons centre
> on the idea that prostitution is 'wrong'. Beyond a vague moral
> compunction about sex, can you explain just why it is wrong?
Why is it right ? It's not an aversion to sex, it's a moral belief that you do not solve a problem which exploits people, for the most part, by making it okay. Who, exactly, will be your proposed legal prostitutes eh ? And just where would you set a limit on age ? 16 ? 18 ? 21 ? Just about every police force in the country is against this yet you seem quite the cheerleader.....
Belldandy wrote:
>
> There was demonstration and people voicing opinion, but not resistance
> as I'd define it. Those who were arrested were not doing anything
> which would actually stop a war.
Yet they were breaking the law; previously you defined resistance as "breaking the law". Are you changing your definition?
>
> You are, you're suggesting that you stop a crime by changing the law.
> Besides, no one is taking any of you "legalise prostitution"
> folk seriously. If it came down to the stage where someone was
> planning where to open legalised brothels in every town and city
> across the country then I would suggest that the level of public
> disorder would far exceed that during the Poll Tax riots. You have no
> serious resistance at this stage because no one would believe it will
> happen. I'd also argue that some of those arguing for legalisation use
> prostitutes themselves, though this is not proven, hence they would be
> breaking the law.
Erm...since when is it illegal to suggest changing the law to make something legal? That makes no sense here whatsoever.
Also, how is a prostitute campaigning for legalisation of soliciting illegal? Prostitutes aren't criminals remember; soliciting is. And even if that were not the case, does the mere fact of someone having a criminal record rend all of their protests illegal?
Oh, and you've tried the "public disorder..." tack before, and couldn't come up with any reasons why that would be the case other than "I think so".
As to your little attempt to rile me, well once more I would ask you for evidence as to "no-one taking (legalisation of prostitution) seriously. Apart from you of course.
>
> 5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl
> for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly
> opposed
> to it's legalisation.
>
> Isn't this stating the blinding obvious ?
Yes. Which is why I'm stating it again, because you said that prostitution is meeting resistance because prostitution is illegal (even though it's not, soliciting is). Would you like me to find the post and bring that to the top of the list again? I'm more than happy to point out yet another inconsistency in your argument.
>
> Read above. The war in Iraq did not, by my definition, meet
> resistance, instead it met several movements who organised largely
> peaceful protests, and never stood a remote chance of changing a
> thing.
And I'm saying that your definition has changed from what it was previously. Whether or not is was going to change anything is by the by; your original definition was simply "idea's that meet resistance". It's in this thread, so it's not as if you can deny that.
So, all in all, that has answered all of your justifications and left you in the same position as before. So please; unless you can rebutt what I have said in this post with something other than your own opinion, it would appear that you have been shown as someone who is inconsistent in his own beliefs. I await your response with interest.
>
> There was demonstration and people voicing opinion, but not resistance
> as I'd define it. Those who were arrested were not doing anything
> which would actually stop a war.
Yet they were breaking the law; previously you defined resistance as "breaking the law". Are you changing your definition?
>
> You are, you're suggesting that you stop a crime by changing the law.
> Besides, no one is taking any of you "legalise prostitution"
> folk seriously. If it came down to the stage where someone was
> planning where to open legalised brothels in every town and city
> across the country then I would suggest that the level of public
> disorder would far exceed that during the Poll Tax riots. You have no
> serious resistance at this stage because no one would believe it will
> happen. I'd also argue that some of those arguing for legalisation use
> prostitutes themselves, though this is not proven, hence they would be
> breaking the law.
Erm...since when is it illegal to suggest changing the law to make something legal? That makes no sense here whatsoever.
Also, how is a prostitute campaigning for legalisation of soliciting illegal? Prostitutes aren't criminals remember; soliciting is. And even if that were not the case, does the mere fact of someone having a criminal record rend all of their protests illegal?
Oh, and you've tried the "public disorder..." tack before, and couldn't come up with any reasons why that would be the case other than "I think so".
As to your little attempt to rile me, well once more I would ask you for evidence as to "no-one taking (legalisation of prostitution) seriously. Apart from you of course.
>
> 5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl
> for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly
> opposed
> to it's legalisation.
>
> Isn't this stating the blinding obvious ?
Yes. Which is why I'm stating it again, because you said that prostitution is meeting resistance because prostitution is illegal (even though it's not, soliciting is). Would you like me to find the post and bring that to the top of the list again? I'm more than happy to point out yet another inconsistency in your argument.
>
> Read above. The war in Iraq did not, by my definition, meet
> resistance, instead it met several movements who organised largely
> peaceful protests, and never stood a remote chance of changing a
> thing.
And I'm saying that your definition has changed from what it was previously. Whether or not is was going to change anything is by the by; your original definition was simply "idea's that meet resistance". It's in this thread, so it's not as if you can deny that.
So, all in all, that has answered all of your justifications and left you in the same position as before. So please; unless you can rebutt what I have said in this post with something other than your own opinion, it would appear that you have been shown as someone who is inconsistent in his own beliefs. I await your response with interest.
Belldandy wrote:
> Er Light, Saskia Sassen is a woman, so what did you read ?
>
Saskia? Oh yeah, that's a girls name...
> Globalisation has created inequalities all around the world, and has
> especially hit certain groups of people. She's arguing that certain
> groups are exploited under the neo-liberalism of globalisation and
> that, where this exploitation is illegal, governments in many
> countries do not wish to end activites, like sex trafficking, totally
> because it still provides income which helps the state's economy.
If that's the case, then there is no point in keeping it illegal as it will aid that governments economy. If however it is legalised, the govt still get income and prostitutes rights are protected. Everyone is a winner. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
>
> Furthermore, some will move to partly legalise the activity rather
> than stop it, and that neo-liberal arguments are put forth to justify
> the legalisation of previously illegal activities, legitimising the
> income created by it. Those who wish to legalise often have little to
> no real connection with their cause, and instead of implementing
> strategies to eliviate the causes of the illegal activity, seek to
> legalise it thus removing the problem.
Sex slavery aside, you still don't give any reasons as to why the income shouldn't be legitimised. As I said previously, there is a category of income tax specifically created to cover the earnings of prostitutes. In that respect, the earnings are already legitimate.
As to legalising to remove the problem; that's exactly what happened in prohibition. The simple fact is that the illegality of booze in prohibition, and prostitution now CAUSES the problem in the first place.
>
> This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the
> disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become
> involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping
> that group.
How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens in Holland already.
>
> Or, put simply, taken in the context of the argument to legalise
> prostitution; legalise and you create more prostitutes, solve the
> social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one
> wants to be one.
Why is the idea of creating more prostitutes (by which I mean people willing to be prostitutes; not sex slaves. And yes, they do exist; read that article I gave you the link for if you don't believe me) so bad?
Solve the socio economic problems no-one wants to be a prostitute; cool. But those problems are wide ranging and deep; poverty is the root of them all, and that particular problem won't be solved in our lifetime. So with that in mind, why criminalise a way of earning money? Indeed, by criminalising it, it is made more dangerous for prostitutes and encourages sex slavery.
I note you've not actually given a reason why it should be illegal that has not already been addressed, and many of your reasons centre on the idea that prostitution is 'wrong'. Beyond a vague moral compunction about sex, can you explain just why it is wrong?
> Er Light, Saskia Sassen is a woman, so what did you read ?
>
Saskia? Oh yeah, that's a girls name...
> Globalisation has created inequalities all around the world, and has
> especially hit certain groups of people. She's arguing that certain
> groups are exploited under the neo-liberalism of globalisation and
> that, where this exploitation is illegal, governments in many
> countries do not wish to end activites, like sex trafficking, totally
> because it still provides income which helps the state's economy.
If that's the case, then there is no point in keeping it illegal as it will aid that governments economy. If however it is legalised, the govt still get income and prostitutes rights are protected. Everyone is a winner. That's called logic. That'll help you in life.
>
> Furthermore, some will move to partly legalise the activity rather
> than stop it, and that neo-liberal arguments are put forth to justify
> the legalisation of previously illegal activities, legitimising the
> income created by it. Those who wish to legalise often have little to
> no real connection with their cause, and instead of implementing
> strategies to eliviate the causes of the illegal activity, seek to
> legalise it thus removing the problem.
Sex slavery aside, you still don't give any reasons as to why the income shouldn't be legitimised. As I said previously, there is a category of income tax specifically created to cover the earnings of prostitutes. In that respect, the earnings are already legitimate.
As to legalising to remove the problem; that's exactly what happened in prohibition. The simple fact is that the illegality of booze in prohibition, and prostitution now CAUSES the problem in the first place.
>
> This simply lets exploitation continue, and forces more of the
> disadvanted groups employed within it the illegal activity to become
> involved as a coping strategy for them, rather than actually helping
> that group.
How? How does it let the exploitation continue? As I've said, when legal, prostitutes rights are recognised and protected. This happens in Holland already.
>
> Or, put simply, taken in the context of the argument to legalise
> prostitution; legalise and you create more prostitutes, solve the
> social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one
> wants to be one.
Why is the idea of creating more prostitutes (by which I mean people willing to be prostitutes; not sex slaves. And yes, they do exist; read that article I gave you the link for if you don't believe me) so bad?
Solve the socio economic problems no-one wants to be a prostitute; cool. But those problems are wide ranging and deep; poverty is the root of them all, and that particular problem won't be solved in our lifetime. So with that in mind, why criminalise a way of earning money? Indeed, by criminalising it, it is made more dangerous for prostitutes and encourages sex slavery.
I note you've not actually given a reason why it should be illegal that has not already been addressed, and many of your reasons centre on the idea that prostitution is 'wrong'. Beyond a vague moral compunction about sex, can you explain just why it is wrong?
Light wrote:
> To summarise;
>
> 1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
>
> 2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the
> idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
>
> 3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent
> war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various
> demo's...)
There was demonstration and people voicing opinion, but not resistance as I'd define it. Those who were arrested were not doing anything which would actually stop a war.
> 4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to
> legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not
> breaking the law.
You are, you're suggesting that you stop a crime by changing the law. Besides, no one is taking any of you "legalise prostitution" folk seriously. If it came down to the stage where someone was planning where to open legalised brothels in every town and city across the country then I would suggest that the level of public disorder would far exceed that during the Poll Tax riots. You have no serious resistance at this stage because no one would believe it will happen. I'd also argue that some of those arguing for legalisation use prostitutes themselves, though this is not proven, hence they would be breaking the law.
> 5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl
> for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed
> to it's legalisation.
Isn't this stating the blinding obvious ?
> 6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
> a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
> b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
Read above. The war in Iraq did not, by my definition, meet resistance, instead it met several movements who organised largely peaceful protests, and never stood a remote chance of changing a thing.
> To summarise;
>
> 1. You said that any idea that meets resistance is a bad one
>
> 2. You defined "resistance" as "people opposed to the
> idea are willing to break the law in order to resist it"
>
> 3. Therefore, according to you, there was no resistance to the recent
> war (we'll ignore the arrests that were made at the various
> demo's...)
There was demonstration and people voicing opinion, but not resistance as I'd define it. Those who were arrested were not doing anything which would actually stop a war.
> 4. However, according to that same logic, there is no resistance to
> legalising prostitution as those opposed to it's legalisation are not
> breaking the law.
You are, you're suggesting that you stop a crime by changing the law. Besides, no one is taking any of you "legalise prostitution" folk seriously. If it came down to the stage where someone was planning where to open legalised brothels in every town and city across the country then I would suggest that the level of public disorder would far exceed that during the Poll Tax riots. You have no serious resistance at this stage because no one would believe it will happen. I'd also argue that some of those arguing for legalisation use prostitutes themselves, though this is not proven, hence they would be breaking the law.
> 5. You tried to say it was as it is illegal for example, kerb crawl
> for prostitutes. However, people using prostitutes are hardly opposed
> to it's legalisation.
Isn't this stating the blinding obvious ?
> 6. Therefore, using your own logic either -
> a: the War in Iraq met with resistance and was a bad idea, or
> b: Legalising prostitution has not resistance and is not a bad idea
Read above. The war in Iraq did not, by my definition, meet resistance, instead it met several movements who organised largely peaceful protests, and never stood a remote chance of changing a thing.
Belldandy wrote: solve the
> social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one
> wants to be one.
--
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*wipes tears and takes breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oldest profession in the world.
Want to know how to stop prostitution? The *only* way?
Take our nobs off.
Men (and some women) want sex. They are willing to pay for it.
The end.
It's not social and economic problems that create prostitution, it's basic human need.
Even in the bible.
> social and economic problems which create prostitution and no one
> wants to be one.
--
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*wipes tears and takes breath*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oldest profession in the world.
Want to know how to stop prostitution? The *only* way?
Take our nobs off.
Men (and some women) want sex. They are willing to pay for it.
The end.
It's not social and economic problems that create prostitution, it's basic human need.
Even in the bible.
Light wrote:
you should know that you appear
> as laughable as the Black Knight in "Monty Python...Holy
> Grail"; refusing to accept the reality of the situation whilst
> being utterly destroyed by those you challenge.
--
Heh
"I've cut yer bloody arm off!"
"No you havent"
"Yes I have, look"
"Tis but a scratch"
"Rumsfeld approved North Korean nuclear program then said it was bad"
"He did that last year"
"I'll have your leg"
"I'm invincible!"
"Hussein wasn't a terrorist, never has been"
"WOMD"
"You're a loony"
you should know that you appear
> as laughable as the Black Knight in "Monty Python...Holy
> Grail"; refusing to accept the reality of the situation whilst
> being utterly destroyed by those you challenge.
--
Heh
"I've cut yer bloody arm off!"
"No you havent"
"Yes I have, look"
"Tis but a scratch"
"Rumsfeld approved North Korean nuclear program then said it was bad"
"He did that last year"
"I'll have your leg"
"I'm invincible!"
"Hussein wasn't a terrorist, never has been"
"WOMD"
"You're a loony"
Page: