The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You pooftah
I'm sure there's more important things to do than argue in a chat forum. You two go cool off and hug a rainbow or something.
"My job can beat up your job"
**Yawn** Oh the hypocrisy of Light, who says I am swerving from discussing the topic, by posting another pile of moaning whining whinging rubbish.
Me ? I reckon you're about 50, cause you moan like an OAP in training...
But really, Light, your standards are slipping. No paragraph by paragraph stream of polite insults, no endless "you think your are right and I am wrong", this really is disappointing.
Plus we have your sooooooooo childish homosexual jokes - where the logic runs that you can joke about it because you are sure in yourself that you are heterosexual, and that by starting the joke any rebuttal you receive from the target of the joke can be treated as if said person takes it seriously.
Grow up, and if you are at work as your solicitor thing, go and do something useful like....erm.... charge somebody an extortionate fee for hardly any work.
~~Belldandy~~
Me ? I reckon you're about 50, cause you moan like an OAP in training...
But really, Light, your standards are slipping. No paragraph by paragraph stream of polite insults, no endless "you think your are right and I am wrong", this really is disappointing.
Plus we have your sooooooooo childish homosexual jokes - where the logic runs that you can joke about it because you are sure in yourself that you are heterosexual, and that by starting the joke any rebuttal you receive from the target of the joke can be treated as if said person takes it seriously.
Grow up, and if you are at work as your solicitor thing, go and do something useful like....erm.... charge somebody an extortionate fee for hardly any work.
~~Belldandy~~
Belldandy wrote:
Hmmm....looks to me like a pretty poor attempt to try and distract attention away from the fact that he has entirely failed to provide reasons for his beliefs, by desperately hoping I'll continue a slanging match.
Yes...yes, that's exactly what it is. Really pumpkin; if you're going to ape my insults I would have thought you'd do a better job than that.
Anyway, I'll look at those other 2 sites today and provide replies to them. As you haven't provided me with any original thoughts beyond p!ss weak abuse, I believe it's beginning to look like that I can safely say you're a blowhard who seems to think that it's somehow unfair when people actually debate him.
And I'm neither hypocritical (as I have pointed out, you're the only person here to talks down to others and so I feel it rather appropriate to do the same to you), nor arrogant. I'm just plain better than you.
And you don't fool me; I can spot someone in need of manlovin' a mile away.
xxx
Hmmm....looks to me like a pretty poor attempt to try and distract attention away from the fact that he has entirely failed to provide reasons for his beliefs, by desperately hoping I'll continue a slanging match.
Yes...yes, that's exactly what it is. Really pumpkin; if you're going to ape my insults I would have thought you'd do a better job than that.
Anyway, I'll look at those other 2 sites today and provide replies to them. As you haven't provided me with any original thoughts beyond p!ss weak abuse, I believe it's beginning to look like that I can safely say you're a blowhard who seems to think that it's somehow unfair when people actually debate him.
And I'm neither hypocritical (as I have pointed out, you're the only person here to talks down to others and so I feel it rather appropriate to do the same to you), nor arrogant. I'm just plain better than you.
And you don't fool me; I can spot someone in need of manlovin' a mile away.
xxx
Light wrote:
> Well I did ask, but he seems to be locked in that closet...
I'm so so sorry to disappoint you Light :) Mybe one of the other chaps here will take your fancy :P
> As to the insulting...well, I can't abide people who give their
> opinions, give no reason as to why they hold them, but think it's
> clever to throw insults at anyone who disagrees.
Mr hypocrisy or what....
>Poor BellDandy seems
> to be making the belated discovery that being on the receiving end of
> a volley of abuse for no good reason is not pleasant. And he's
> starting to use his little grey cells, which to be honest absolutely
> delights me. I have no problem 'losing' a debate if I and the other
> person has been made to think!
Not pleasant ? I hear worse shouted at people on Xbox Live, in real time, and with real voices, so if you think I find your rantings unpleasant then I suggest a reality check. Once more, note how instead of carrying on the real point of the topic you've taken it upon yourself to carry on like this, your now typical "oooh look at Belldandy, he is wrong and I am right, all hail Light" kinda argument. To be quite honest, the more attempts at this supposed unpleasantness you make - the pumpkin thing was really quite sad - the less is actually typed here about the proper topic in hand. You seem to think you are above me somehow, that you are better, well news just in that you're exactly the same - a person with a point of view, raging on about it.
~~Belldandy~~
> Well I did ask, but he seems to be locked in that closet...
I'm so so sorry to disappoint you Light :) Mybe one of the other chaps here will take your fancy :P
> As to the insulting...well, I can't abide people who give their
> opinions, give no reason as to why they hold them, but think it's
> clever to throw insults at anyone who disagrees.
Mr hypocrisy or what....
>Poor BellDandy seems
> to be making the belated discovery that being on the receiving end of
> a volley of abuse for no good reason is not pleasant. And he's
> starting to use his little grey cells, which to be honest absolutely
> delights me. I have no problem 'losing' a debate if I and the other
> person has been made to think!
Not pleasant ? I hear worse shouted at people on Xbox Live, in real time, and with real voices, so if you think I find your rantings unpleasant then I suggest a reality check. Once more, note how instead of carrying on the real point of the topic you've taken it upon yourself to carry on like this, your now typical "oooh look at Belldandy, he is wrong and I am right, all hail Light" kinda argument. To be quite honest, the more attempts at this supposed unpleasantness you make - the pumpkin thing was really quite sad - the less is actually typed here about the proper topic in hand. You seem to think you are above me somehow, that you are better, well news just in that you're exactly the same - a person with a point of view, raging on about it.
~~Belldandy~~
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Light 4 Belldandy, Light 4 Belldandy.
Well I did ask, but he seems to be locked in that closet...
>
> So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real*
> world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write
> letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than
> calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
Yup; I have indeed written to my local MP about prostitution and drug laws. And I write stuff like this and debate people to try and raise awareness.
As to the insulting...well, I can't abide people who give their opinions, give no reason as to why they hold them, but think it's clever to throw insults at anyone who disagrees. Poor BellDandy seems to be making the belated discovery that being on the receiving end of a volley of abuse for no good reason is not pleasant. And he's starting to use his little grey cells, which to be honest absolutely delights me. I have no problem 'losing' a debate if I and the other person has been made to think!
> Light 4 Belldandy, Light 4 Belldandy.
Well I did ask, but he seems to be locked in that closet...
>
> So, do either of you do anything about these views in the *real*
> world? Go on pro / anti prostitution marches or whatever? Write
> letters to MPs? Becuase that, to me, would be much more useful than
> calling each other pumpkins and stuff.
Yup; I have indeed written to my local MP about prostitution and drug laws. And I write stuff like this and debate people to try and raise awareness.
As to the insulting...well, I can't abide people who give their opinions, give no reason as to why they hold them, but think it's clever to throw insults at anyone who disagrees. Poor BellDandy seems to be making the belated discovery that being on the receiving end of a volley of abuse for no good reason is not pleasant. And he's starting to use his little grey cells, which to be honest absolutely delights me. I have no problem 'losing' a debate if I and the other person has been made to think!
Belldandy wrote:
>
> And how many web site addresses have you been to with a space in them
> eh ? Didn't you think it rather odd, or try it without the space ? SR
> has a character limit for one word, so we have to break up long URLs
> to get them on a post.
Is *that* what you do? Okay, I'll have a look at the other two and get back to you
>
> Well, if you are calling for legalised prostitution then you are no
> different to them - a person with an agenda. You yourself can offer no
> evidence as to women taking up this option when there are other
> available. you may not like what they say but;
>
> a) They are women, hence I think we have to respect they may have more
> insight into what it is like to sell yourself for money.
> b) You cannot offer evidence to contradict them.
> c) Part of the point is to show I am not the only person to think like
> this - as you seem to imply with your many, and varied, remarks.
Let me put it this way; you've given me a link to a website giving it's unsupported opinion with no reasons behind why they think that(which of course they're entitled to). And, despite the fact that you seem to have cottoned on to the meaning of "Evidence", I have offered reasons for my opinion (protection of people in a business that will exist whether illegal or not). If you like, I'll post the statistics relating to the liklihood of a prostitute being murdered by a client coupled with the liklihood of that murderer being caught? I'm quite happy to.
As to offering evidence to contradict that site; how can I? They give their opinion with absolutely no reasoning behind it. All I can do in those circumstances is say that I disagree and reiterate why I believe what I do (which includes giving the reasoning behind my beliefs. Which I've done. Again and again).
And for your other point, about them being women; yeah, and, so, what? I'm a man yet I have no insight into the life of a rent boy. Their opinion is just that, and being a woman doesn't give it extra weight. Being an ex-prostitute would of course, but I didn't see any mention of that on their website.
>
> Lets see, number of websites/evidence posted by Light, 0, number by
> me, 3. 3-0 I think. You've also made statements with no backup other
> than your say so.
And once again, you've posted websites and fair play to you. But the only one I've had a chance to look it is just more opinion. In case you're wondering why I find that disagreeable, in court an opinion cannot be offered as evidence. Only an expert opinion can, and I've given my reasons why their opinion is not that of an expert just because they're women. Essentially, you've posted the equivalent of "I'm right because these people say the same thing" 'Why do they say it? "Uhhh....dunno". Do you see?
>
> You to have a political dogma underpinning your opinions, as does
> everyone. As for not being able to access the others thats a
> misunderstanding on your part, and not my fault. Again, your
> assertions about the Victorian age are more likely those drawn from
> classical history and not a more realistic history, one such example
> can be found at;
And why do you HAVE to have political dogma underpinning it? You're giving away a lot about your own beliefs with that statement; that you're accepting what 'your' side has to say without questioning why they are saying it.
And as to those victorian sites; thats why I accused you of victorian thinking; you don't want to see it, yet are happy in your ignorance to allow some appalling suffering to go for prostitutes.
Let me also ask you another question, as most of this little debate has raged around my beliefs; do you think it's possible to make life safer for prostitutes by keeping the law as is (and once more I should correct you; prostitution is quite legal. Soliciting is not)? If so, how do you propose doing so?
>
> http://www.hackwriters.com/victorianp.htm
> http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/ burning/vicera.htm - this one in
> particular shows the levels to which some of that age sank to.
>
> So much for your idealistic Victorian morals eh ?
Talk about misunderstanding (either deliberate of accidental). I didn't mean Victorian as a compliment! I was referring to the hypocrisy of Victorian times and drawing a comparison with your own hypocritical and unrealistic beliefs. Thank you for going to the trouble of demonstrating why I insulted you in such a way.
>
>
> And you are only offering your opinion, as that is all anyone can do
> in any debateable situation - just as it was in the Israeli
> government's opinion that the Palestinian delegation for todays summit
> should be stopped from travelling. Doesn't make them right, doesn't
> make them wrong. Picking up on another point, what do you define as
> working lives that would be acceptable ? Do we start at the age of
> consent, or higher ? What's the limit to age ?Retirement age for women
> is either 60 or 65 isn't it ? Not wanting to appear sexist, but seeing
> as we're talking about realism I don't think a prostitute is going to
> be able to make that somehow....The best way, in my opinion, to
> protect prostitutes to firstly try and offer viable alternatives to
> that career/profession, and to switch attention to arresting and
> charging those who run the operations and the punters who use them.
Okay; I'll repeat what I said to Blank for your benefit. My evidence is that in countries where soliciting is legal (specifically Holland and Germany) the lives of prostitutes are better and safer. They are less likely to be drug addicts, contract STD's, or be victims of violence from their clients. Would you like the figures for that? Just say the word, and I'll be happy to provide them. Yes, it's my opinion but I can point to the reasons I have that opinion. Thus far, you've been unable to. And on the rare occasions you do, someone has been able to point out flaws in that reason which you've failed to address.
Defining working age? Why, this is where the idea of economics comes in. They can work until 64, but who will go and see a 64 year old prostitute?
These viable careers you talk about; will they offer as much money in as short a space of time? How will you offer them? How will you be able to do this for women who are being arrested and fined, and need cash quick to pay that fine? How will you get them away from their Pimps?
>
> "we want to" ? Referring to yourself in the third person ?
> Royalty are you ? :) Anyway, you're not my type, being male and all
> :P
No, I'm talking about you and me. F*cking. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
But you seem so determined to try and prove how right you are without actually explaining why you believe you're right. I'm going to post another one to you once I've looked at the other websites, but frankly if all you can offer me is more opinions with no reasons for those opinions, I don't see any more reason why we should continue. Despite your accusations of self-aggrandisment, I'm here to learn about other opinions and the reasons for them, and test my own beliefs against them to see if they pass muster. You don't seem interested in much beyond not being proved wrong and insulting people in order to make your little man get all hard at how clever you are. And frankly, I've argued with people who are far better at being insulting than you.
>
> And how many web site addresses have you been to with a space in them
> eh ? Didn't you think it rather odd, or try it without the space ? SR
> has a character limit for one word, so we have to break up long URLs
> to get them on a post.
Is *that* what you do? Okay, I'll have a look at the other two and get back to you
>
> Well, if you are calling for legalised prostitution then you are no
> different to them - a person with an agenda. You yourself can offer no
> evidence as to women taking up this option when there are other
> available. you may not like what they say but;
>
> a) They are women, hence I think we have to respect they may have more
> insight into what it is like to sell yourself for money.
> b) You cannot offer evidence to contradict them.
> c) Part of the point is to show I am not the only person to think like
> this - as you seem to imply with your many, and varied, remarks.
Let me put it this way; you've given me a link to a website giving it's unsupported opinion with no reasons behind why they think that(which of course they're entitled to). And, despite the fact that you seem to have cottoned on to the meaning of "Evidence", I have offered reasons for my opinion (protection of people in a business that will exist whether illegal or not). If you like, I'll post the statistics relating to the liklihood of a prostitute being murdered by a client coupled with the liklihood of that murderer being caught? I'm quite happy to.
As to offering evidence to contradict that site; how can I? They give their opinion with absolutely no reasoning behind it. All I can do in those circumstances is say that I disagree and reiterate why I believe what I do (which includes giving the reasoning behind my beliefs. Which I've done. Again and again).
And for your other point, about them being women; yeah, and, so, what? I'm a man yet I have no insight into the life of a rent boy. Their opinion is just that, and being a woman doesn't give it extra weight. Being an ex-prostitute would of course, but I didn't see any mention of that on their website.
>
> Lets see, number of websites/evidence posted by Light, 0, number by
> me, 3. 3-0 I think. You've also made statements with no backup other
> than your say so.
And once again, you've posted websites and fair play to you. But the only one I've had a chance to look it is just more opinion. In case you're wondering why I find that disagreeable, in court an opinion cannot be offered as evidence. Only an expert opinion can, and I've given my reasons why their opinion is not that of an expert just because they're women. Essentially, you've posted the equivalent of "I'm right because these people say the same thing" 'Why do they say it? "Uhhh....dunno". Do you see?
>
> You to have a political dogma underpinning your opinions, as does
> everyone. As for not being able to access the others thats a
> misunderstanding on your part, and not my fault. Again, your
> assertions about the Victorian age are more likely those drawn from
> classical history and not a more realistic history, one such example
> can be found at;
And why do you HAVE to have political dogma underpinning it? You're giving away a lot about your own beliefs with that statement; that you're accepting what 'your' side has to say without questioning why they are saying it.
And as to those victorian sites; thats why I accused you of victorian thinking; you don't want to see it, yet are happy in your ignorance to allow some appalling suffering to go for prostitutes.
Let me also ask you another question, as most of this little debate has raged around my beliefs; do you think it's possible to make life safer for prostitutes by keeping the law as is (and once more I should correct you; prostitution is quite legal. Soliciting is not)? If so, how do you propose doing so?
>
> http://www.hackwriters.com/victorianp.htm
> http://home.pacbell.net/tonyprey/ burning/vicera.htm - this one in
> particular shows the levels to which some of that age sank to.
>
> So much for your idealistic Victorian morals eh ?
Talk about misunderstanding (either deliberate of accidental). I didn't mean Victorian as a compliment! I was referring to the hypocrisy of Victorian times and drawing a comparison with your own hypocritical and unrealistic beliefs. Thank you for going to the trouble of demonstrating why I insulted you in such a way.
>
>
> And you are only offering your opinion, as that is all anyone can do
> in any debateable situation - just as it was in the Israeli
> government's opinion that the Palestinian delegation for todays summit
> should be stopped from travelling. Doesn't make them right, doesn't
> make them wrong. Picking up on another point, what do you define as
> working lives that would be acceptable ? Do we start at the age of
> consent, or higher ? What's the limit to age ?Retirement age for women
> is either 60 or 65 isn't it ? Not wanting to appear sexist, but seeing
> as we're talking about realism I don't think a prostitute is going to
> be able to make that somehow....The best way, in my opinion, to
> protect prostitutes to firstly try and offer viable alternatives to
> that career/profession, and to switch attention to arresting and
> charging those who run the operations and the punters who use them.
Okay; I'll repeat what I said to Blank for your benefit. My evidence is that in countries where soliciting is legal (specifically Holland and Germany) the lives of prostitutes are better and safer. They are less likely to be drug addicts, contract STD's, or be victims of violence from their clients. Would you like the figures for that? Just say the word, and I'll be happy to provide them. Yes, it's my opinion but I can point to the reasons I have that opinion. Thus far, you've been unable to. And on the rare occasions you do, someone has been able to point out flaws in that reason which you've failed to address.
Defining working age? Why, this is where the idea of economics comes in. They can work until 64, but who will go and see a 64 year old prostitute?
These viable careers you talk about; will they offer as much money in as short a space of time? How will you offer them? How will you be able to do this for women who are being arrested and fined, and need cash quick to pay that fine? How will you get them away from their Pimps?
>
> "we want to" ? Referring to yourself in the third person ?
> Royalty are you ? :) Anyway, you're not my type, being male and all
> :P
No, I'm talking about you and me. F*cking. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
But you seem so determined to try and prove how right you are without actually explaining why you believe you're right. I'm going to post another one to you once I've looked at the other websites, but frankly if all you can offer me is more opinions with no reasons for those opinions, I don't see any more reason why we should continue. Despite your accusations of self-aggrandisment, I'm here to learn about other opinions and the reasons for them, and test my own beliefs against them to see if they pass muster. You don't seem interested in much beyond not being proved wrong and insulting people in order to make your little man get all hard at how clever you are. And frankly, I've argued with people who are far better at being insulting than you.
Me neither.
But I sure get righteous from my desk, I can tell ya!
I watched James Bond last night and thought about how terrible that siege in Hackney was. Then I realised, actually, I didn't care.
But I sure get righteous from my desk, I can tell ya!
I watched James Bond last night and thought about how terrible that siege in Hackney was. Then I realised, actually, I didn't care.
Goatboy wrote:
> So that's a no then?
Thats the short version yes, unless I one day become the PM - highly unlikely - and in that case I'd not even touch upon the subject because it is hardly a vote winner ! lol :)
~~Belldandy~~
> So that's a no then?
Thats the short version yes, unless I one day become the PM - highly unlikely - and in that case I'd not even touch upon the subject because it is hardly a vote winner ! lol :)
~~Belldandy~~
Page: