|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 25, 2006 13:04:26 GMT -5
ok - i'm not trying to convince you that prostitution isn't wrong (if my daughter were a prostitute i'd feel terrible), Basically, if you think it would be terrible for your daughter, that's a pretty good clue that it's terrible... period. I disagree. This runs the same lines as the old "If you wouldn't do it in front of your parents, then you shouldn't do it in front of God and God sees all" attitude. Since I would not want to have sex with my wife in front of my parents... There are several movies that I like that I think my daughters are to young to see... Half the time I think the news is inappropriate, not because of the stories themselves, but the way those stories are presented.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 25, 2006 13:06:43 GMT -5
When will you consider them old enough that it's okay for them to be prostitutes?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 25, 2006 23:01:49 GMT -5
When will you consider them old enough that it's okay for them to be prostitutes? 18 Unless she still lives under my roof.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 26, 2006 4:50:00 GMT -5
it's also similar to the argument that before you do anything you should ask yourself, "what if everyone did what i'm about to do?" to decide whether it's right or wrong. this argument can be taken too far, though, since you might say to yourself, "i need to go to the shops, but what if everyone went to the shops right now? the queues would be horrendous ... i'll go later." etc.
i wouldn't be happy about my daughter being a prostitute, but if she were going to do it anyway then i'd still be there for her while not actually encouraging her. the law doesn't work like this, however, so it's pointless using this line of argument - if my daughter killed someone then i'd still love her, but the law can't let murderers go unpunished.
so i'm still waiting for a good reason why we should use the criminal law to regulate prostitution. i don't expect an accurate, legal answer, but it basically boils down to - why do you want to punish the prostitute? most western countries (eg. the UK, but not the USA where actually being a prostitute is illegal) believe that the prostitutes themselves don't deserve to be punished, and some of the criminal offences introduced which harm prostitutes the most were originally intended to protect her - in the UK it is illegal to "live off immoral earnings", ie. it's illegal to live off the earnings of a prostitute. this was designed to make it illegal to be a ponce, since most ponces are abusive male figures in the prostitute's life who force her into prostitution to feed his drug habit and pay the rent, but in effect it means that the prostitute herself isn't allowed to use her earnings to live off, which punishes those most desperately in need (the ones who are only working as a prostitute because they need the money). also, in the UK it is illegal to let property to a prostitute, which means that prostitutes have to rent from unscrupulous landlords and pay extortionate rents, thus making their lives even more miserable.
when ever well-intentioned criminal offences leave the prostitute worse off, shouldn't the criminal law just stay completely out of it? other than where other criminal offences are committed, of course (eg. assault, rape, extortion etc.)
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 4:56:22 GMT -5
When will you consider them old enough that it's okay for them to be prostitutes? 18 Unless she still lives under my roof. And you see nothing inconsistent in that answer? If there was nothing wrong with it, you could say 18 without qualifying the answer. The bottom line is that we all know prostitutes are selling themselves short. There are very few occupations in which this is a given, and most of them are currently illegal. (The exceptions being occupations that lead to others that are more dangerous, such as stripping or acting in pornography.)
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 5:09:29 GMT -5
it's also similar to the argument that before you do anything you should ask yourself, "what if everyone did what i'm about to do?" to decide whether it's right or wrong. this argument can be taken too far, though, since you might say to yourself, "i need to go to the shops, but what if everyone went to the shops right now? the queues would be horrendous ... i'll go later." etc. More false logic. In Polytheist's example, there is a difference between hiding an action due to modesty and hiding an action because it is wrong. In your example, there is a difference between delaying an action for convenience and refusing to act because it is wrong. Are your moral compasses really that far gone, or are you just arguing for argument's sake? Of course you would, else what kind of parent would you be? But that's not the point. There is a difference between supporting a child who is doing wrong for love's sake and supporing a child in[/i][/u] doing wrong. You argue that morality is not a good basis for the law; I argue that it is the ONLY basis for the law. There isn't an action on earth that SOMEONE doesn't consider to be okay. If you abandon morality as a basis, you abandon law... you abandon order, and all you are left with is chaos. That's why the world is more chaotic than it was in the time of my parents. Why do you want to punish drug dealers who sell only to adults? Why do you want to punish murderers who only kill adults? Why do you want to punish hit men who only take contracts from adults for adults? If something isn't good for children, what makes that something okay for adults? (I think we forget that all adults were once someone's children, and that someday they will be ours.) The main answer is, I would prefer that it not be legal for men to take advantage of your daughters that way... because by all the evidence presented here, your daughters won't be equipped to realize that they are being taken advantage of in that occupation. If you don't hold these concerns for your daughters, someone else has to. You previous post suggested that if left alone, the prostitution industry would "regulate itself". This is the mob mentality and is false. Vices left to regulate themselves deteriorate to greater vices. When a prostitute is no longer useful (due to age or disease), who cares for her? Who retrains her? I'll tell you who -- taxpayers. Not the industry itself. And if you say you'll regulate the industry, who does that? Taxpayers. That means that money which could go to better educating your daughters so that they believe they have better options will instead go to paying for their retirement as prostitutes. Be careful what causes you choose to which you lend your support. If you feel sorry for prostitutes, start a charity that helps them.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 6:25:27 GMT -5
18 Unless she still lives under my roof. And you see nothing inconsistent in that answer? Nope. If there was nothing wrong with it, you could say 18 without qualifying the answer. When did I say that there was nothing wrong with it? The bottom line is that we all know prostitutes are selling themselves short. We do? I will agree if you said that some are, but you will be hard pressed to convince me that they all are. There are very few occupations in which this is a given, and most of them are currently illegal. (The exceptions being occupations that lead to others that are more dangerous, such as stripping or acting in pornography.) Slippery slope argument.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 6:41:01 GMT -5
it's also similar to the argument that before you do anything you should ask yourself, "what if everyone did what i'm about to do?" to decide whether it's right or wrong. this argument can be taken too far, though, since you might say to yourself, "i need to go to the shops, but what if everyone went to the shops right now? the queues would be horrendous ... i'll go later." etc. More false logic. In Polytheist's example, there is a difference between hiding an action due to modesty and hiding an action because it is wrong. In your example, there is a difference between delaying an action for convenience and refusing to act because it is wrong. Are your moral compasses really that far gone, or are you just arguing for argument's sake? Please be so kind as to see my signature. Of course you would, else what kind of parent would you be? But that's not the point. There is a difference between supporting a child who is doing wrong for love's sake and supporing a child in[/i][/u] doing wrong.[/quote] ever heard of "love the sinner not the sin"? You argue that morality is not a good basis for the law; I argue that it is the ONLY basis for the law. Please see my signature. Morality is subjective, not absolute. There isn't an action on earth that SOMEONE doesn't consider to be okay. Nor is there an action that someone doesn't consider wrong. Whats your point? If you abandon morality as a basis, you abandon law... you abandon order, and all you are left with is chaos. That's why the world is more chaotic than it was in the time of my parents. Key words in your statement as a basis[/u]. Why do you want to punish drug dealers who sell only to adults? Why do you want to punish murderers who only kill adults? Why do you want to punish hit men who only take contracts from adults for adults? If something isn't good for children, what makes that something okay for adults? non sequitur argument. I already explained the difference. The main answer is, I would prefer that it not be legal for men to take advantage of your daughters that way... because by all the evidence presented here, your daughters won't be equipped to realize that they are being taken advantage of in that occupation. And this is based upon what exactly? That because my 'moral compass' isn't aligned with yours, my children will be stupid? Or is this merely a sad attempt at ad hominem? If you don't hold these concerns for your daughters, someone else has to. More ad hominem. Interesting how you are so sure that you inderstand my position. The truth is you do not. You are to busy with this strawman you are setting up to attack. You previous post suggested that if left alone, the prostitution industry would "regulate itself". This is the mob mentality and is false. Vices left to regulate themselves deteriorate to greater vices. More slippery slope. When a prostitute is no longer useful (due to age or disease), who cares for her? Who retrains her? The same people who take care of the poor, elderly, disabled, and veterans. I'll tell you who -- taxpayers. Not the industry itself. And if you say you'll regulate the industry, who does that? Taxpayers. That means that money which could go to better educating your daughters so that they believe they have better options will instead go to paying for their retirement as prostitutes. I don't have any idea where this came from. Entertaining though. Be careful what causes you choose to which you lend your support. If you feel sorry for prostitutes, start a charity that helps them. HUH? When did I even hint that I support prostitution? Or is this merely another strawman you created?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 7:05:14 GMT -5
Polytheist, I do not understand your position, and I don't anticipate you being forthcoming enough for me to come close. Which is fine -- I tend not to be forthcoming either if I don't perceive interest.
At any rate, although I will grant you that my post would have been hasty had I been responding only to what you have posted in this thread, you forget that I have been reading your responses for about 18 months now. Your positions on morality suggest that your children will grow up with moral compasses even further out of whack than your own.
At any rate, my post was primarily for littlepea's benefit, since he seems to enjoy discussion regardless of differing viewpoints.
Oh, and regarding who cares for the indigent -- the government feeds them. It isn't government's role to care for them. That falls to the charitable.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Mar 26, 2006 13:29:32 GMT -5
it's also similar to the argument that before you do anything you should ask yourself, "what if everyone did what i'm about to do?" to decide whether it's right or wrong. this argument can be taken too far, though, since you might say to yourself, "i need to go to the shops, but what if everyone went to the shops right now? the queues would be horrendous ... i'll go later." etc. More false logic. In Polytheist's example, there is a difference between hiding an action due to modesty and hiding an action because it is wrong. In your example, there is a difference between delaying an action for convenience and refusing to act because it is wrong. Are your moral compasses really that far gone, or are you just arguing for argument's sake? what i originally said was: "if my daughter were a prostitute i'd feel terrible". your response to this was "if you think it would be terrible for your daughter, that's a pretty good clue that it's terrible" - slightly different, don't you agree? i would feel terrible not just because she'd be having sex with people for money, but also because of the lifestyle that comes with being a prostitute and the dangers of disease, depression, assault, rape and drug abuse that comes with it. all these factors could be aided by decriminalisation (even the feelings of immorality), since the fact of the matter is that there will always be prostitutes. ericsson in his article goes so far to argue that "sound prostitution" would be beneficial to society, but i don't think you need to go that far to advocate decriminalisation. [/i][/u] doing wrong.[/quote] i would do everything i could to persuade her to stop the prostitution, but if she was adamant that this would never happen i would not force her to do it behind my back, since that would only make things worse. tolerating is not the same as encouraging (many people fail to see that decriminalisation is tolerance, not encouragement). i have said in the past (even on here) that the standard morality of a country can often be reflected in the laws of the country (not just the criminal law, even taxation and property law etc.). the question really is simply, do you feel that the prostitute herself deserves to be punished for what she does? i don't believe she does, and this sentiment is echoed by the british government, but their attempts to regulate prostitution via the criminal law effectively do punish the prostitute, so in the UK at least, prostitution should be decriminalised (ie. the offences surrounding it which effectively make the prostitute's life worse). criminal offences which involve victims are obvious if everyone is equal in the eyes of the law and respected as individuals. they can also be justified on an economic basis, though a legal system justified on purely economics would not lead to a very pleasant society, from what i've read so far. victimless crimes are harder to justify, eg. drug abuse and prostitution. that is why there is so much debate about such issues - can it only be justified on morality or are there better reasons for it? sex is not good for children, yet the human species could not survive without it. children need protecting, when the state assumes that people need protecting it is called paternalism. every time a criminal offence is introduced it restricts our liberty and as such it must be properly justified. but do you want to punish our daughters? that is the effect of using the criminal law to regulate prostitution. it is not the appropriate means to tackle the issue of prostitution. paternalism, again, must have strong justification. well, there could be certain regulations imposed to control it, but as long as there is a legal option available for people who either choose or feel the need to become prostitutes then the problem will be greatly reduced. i haven't been close enough to any real life cases to feel genuine pity for prostitutes, but the bottom line is that i don't think prostitutes deserve to be punished so the criminal law should stay out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 15:35:12 GMT -5
Polytheist, I do not understand your position, and I don't anticipate you being forthcoming enough for me to come close. Which is fine -- I tend not to be forthcoming either if I don't perceive interest. Quite simple really. Just because you and a handful of other people deem something immoral, does not mean it should be against the law. Adultry is a prime example. Adultry is not illegal in 49 of the 50 states, it is just grounds for divorce. You whole argument against prostitution is merely that you believe it immoral. It's immoral, enough said. The fact is that it isn't anywhere near the black and white picture you would so much like for it to be. At any rate, although I will grant you that my post would have been hasty had I been responding only to what you have posted in this thread, you forget that I have been reading your responses for about 18 months now. Your positions on morality suggest that your children will grow up with moral compasses even further out of whack than your own. Awefully arrogant of you, is it not? To think that your own moral compass should be the basis for alignment the world over.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 21:24:59 GMT -5
because of the lifestyle that comes with being a prostitute and the dangers of disease, depression, assault, rape and drug abuse that comes with it. Exactly. Anything that results in such terrible things should be illegal. More mob mentality. Decriminalization of vice leads to an increase in vice. Polytheist calls this a "slippery slope" argument. Be that as it may, towns with prostitution soon have drugs, then robberies, then murders. I have chosen to live in a town without prostitution and we have none of the other stuff either. I did once see a woman I have little doubt was a prostitute in our town. Did I call to have her arrested? No -- I offered and she accepted a ride to Mass. We talked about Baptists and Catholics (she was familar with both) and her sons (both teenagers but both not working). She sat through most of Mass but left during the Eucharist for the restroom, returning toward the end of it. As we drove back to my town, she mentioned that she needed "gas money". I dropped her off where I'd found her and gave her all I had -- probably about $200. So as you can see, I have nothing against this "sinner". But there is not a doubt in my mind that what she had been attempting to do should remain illegal. And had she been arrested that day (as she likely would have been) instead of choosing to go to Mass with me, I'd not have bailed her out. Tolerance is a form of encouragement. Absolutely. She offers husbands the opportunity to secretly engage in adultery, no strings attached. I can think of very few worse things than helping to destroy a marriage and family. (I equally believe the johns should be prosecuted. If there is no demand, there will be no supply.) Prostitution is not victimless. Other than the prostitute herself, the victims include the husbands, the wives, and the children of the johns... not to mention future generations who may also suffer the consequences. And yes, there are victims even if the john is not married... if not his future wife, certainly his mother. He is not honoring her by treating another woman as a sexual object for hire. If you raise them in such a way as to view prostitution as an honorable profession, yes -- I definitely do. Please punish them when they are young so that the government won't have to do it for you later.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Mar 26, 2006 21:26:44 GMT -5
To think that your own moral compass should be the basis for alignment the world over. The basis for alignment the world over should be its Creator. Oh, and you are 0-for-2 on what is my own.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 22:25:20 GMT -5
To think that your own moral compass should be the basis for alignment the world over. The basis for alignment the world over should be its Creator. Oh, and you are 0-for-2 on what is my own. Since a creator has yet to be proven, let alone which of the alledged creators actually did it... Your own what? Moral compass? Believe it or not Christians do not have a monopoly on morality, much as they would like to think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Mar 26, 2006 22:36:40 GMT -5
Polytheist, I do not understand your position, and I don't anticipate you being forthcoming enough for me to come close. Which is fine -- I tend not to be forthcoming either if I don't perceive interest. You seem to have an extremely hard time accepting the fact that I do not see the world as black and white. Right or wrong. With us or against us. Good or evil. I choose to deal with the realities in this world. And one of those realities is that you are not going to stop cheating husbands from cheating. Period. I do not care how many books you hold up that state it is immoral and or a sin, it just isn't going to happen. Furthermore, I do not believe that I have the right, authority, obligation, or responsibility of telling everyone else how they are supposed to live thier lives. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill" yet turns around and tells you to stone homosexuals and sorcerors on site. I say, make up your mind.
|
|