|
Post by littlepea on May 29, 2006 6:48:51 GMT -5
Sounds like a stalemate to me. I agreed to disagree several pages ago... why are you not able to do so? i can agree to disagree over our personal opinions - you believe that decriminalisation cannot be beneficial, i think that it can. i will not agree to disagree that you have proven your opinion to be fact since this isn't a matter of opinion and i can only echo polytheist's feelings that you seem to be avoiding the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on May 29, 2006 8:08:17 GMT -5
Premise 1 and Premise 2 are pure speculation, as we have agreed. Premise 3 ("no doubt there would still be problems and probably some new ones") is true. Premise 4 ("these problems are nonetheless not as severe") is false and will never be proven, because it is contrary to natural law. Therefore your conclusion is also false. An argument is only as good as its premises. Is this by chance what you are refering to when you claim to have proven a false premise? It doesn't, since it is based upon your 'natural law' which is a weasel words way of saying "the morals I have chosen to follow". (since you have such a problem with them being called your morals) why? why shouldn't it be decriminalised if decriminalisation would be beneficial? If it is shown that decriminalizing prostitution will lower the prolbems associated with prostitution, then yes it should be decriminalized.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 29, 2006 9:26:05 GMT -5
why? why shouldn't it be decriminalised if decriminalisation would be beneficial? If it is shown that decriminalizing prostitution will lower the prolbems associated with prostitution, then yes it should be decriminalized. hurray hurrah, at least someone can answer the question. now that we know decriminalisation will be an option if it is beneficial then we will set about looking for forms of decriminalisation which might in fact be beneficial - that's the whole point i've been trying to make when i keep going on about this. it will be difficult to prove with complete certainty that any individual proposal will be beneficial and to what extent, but the theory behind it is extremely important and to believe otherwise would be utterly foolish in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 29, 2006 11:15:15 GMT -5
Only the two of you would characterize 24 pages of discussion as "avoiding the issue".
Heaven help you both.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 29, 2006 11:19:13 GMT -5
I posted this yesterday, but for some reason it is not here now. Prostitutes in Sweden are not fans of the current legal situation -- they call it "very difficult," "dangerous," and "inhumane." Read all about it.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 29, 2006 14:41:46 GMT -5
Only the two of you would characterize 24 pages of discussion as "avoiding the issue". Heaven help you both. and once again avoiding the issue ... throughout this discussion you've been twisting my words (or misunderstanding them) and twisting the facts (or misunderstanding them) to make it sound as though i'm being inconsistent or unreasonable when i'm not (and since you always deny any misunderstanding, does that mean that you really have been intentionally - or even malisciously - twisting my words and twisting the facts?). you've set yourself up as my enemy (in this topic at least) therefore you must disagree with everything i say - is that wise? is it conducive to rational discussion? al that i'm asking is for you to tell me where i'm going wrong - this might require you to repeat yourself but that's ok, i give you permission to repeat yourself here. i'm not trying to catch you out or force you to admit defeat, i just really really want to know where you think i'm going wrong but at the moment it looks as though you are leading us on a wild goose chase and have nothing new to say ... I posted this yesterday, but for some reason it is not here now. Prostitutes in Sweden are not fans of the current legal situation -- they call it "very difficult," "dangerous," and "inhumane." Read all about it.and here's an example of you twisting the facts. prostitutes in sweden are not fans of the law and they would like to see complete decriminalisation, yet you point to this source as if it backs your side of the argument ... the main reasons for this are that criminalisation forces prostitution underground which makes the prostitute's life worse (as i pointed out earlier) and the criminalisation doesn't reduce the problem (as i pointed out earlier). however complete decriminalisation would almost certainly see an increase in prostitution and would probably bring its own problems with it (as i've been saying all along) and it may be that the current state of affairs is preferable to that (a possibility which i have never denied), but if complete decriminalisation would be beneficial then it might as well be completely decriminalised (as i've been saying all along). the swedish laws have reduced the number of prostitutes on the street by a massive amount, however, and this must be seen as a great success.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 29, 2006 17:16:44 GMT -5
throughout this discussion you've been twisting my words (or misunderstanding them) and twisting the facts (or misunderstanding them) to make it sound as though i'm being inconsistent or unreasonable when i'm not Like you are now with me? What you fail to understand, littlepea, is that misunderstanding goes both ways. You do not understand why I don't see it your way, and I sure do not understand why you don't see it my way. Hence, agree to disagree. I'm not sure what you're referring to. I understand your point of view... what I don't understand is why you hold it so tenaciously in spite of all the evidence I have posted. Of course not. Why would you jump to such an extreme conclusion? I most certainly have not. I have never considered you my enemy. Is that how you think of me?? Again, I have not disagreed with everything you say. Only with things you post that I truly disagree with -- which in this thread has admittedly been most of your posts. Where I believe you go wrong is right at the beginning -- in believing there is not an objective standard for morality. If we cannot agree that there is a certain level of "wrongness" that automatically categorizes behavior as so strongly undesirable as to make it a candidate for criminalization, we cannot agree. Hence, agree to disagree. I did no such thing. I posted it because it was relevant and because it counters your posts that Sweden is "a success". I happen to agree that it is not support for my argument -- but it is evidence that decriminalization in the form Sweden embraced has major problems. Meanwhile, Sweden has been your one and only "poster child" country for legalized prostitution. My interpretation of what this says: "I don't care that there is no evidence whatsoever that decriminalization would make things better -- in fact, I admit that there is evidence that it would make things worse -- but the chances of that are not absolutely-positively-100% so I prefer to continue wasting time trying to get you to discuss it anyway." Hey, if I'm going to be accused of twisting words, might as well milk that for all it's worth....... Now I question that. According to that web site, the numbers are not reduced at all -- they have all just migrated to surrounding countries, thus increasing problems for those countries. That's hardly a "great success".
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 29, 2006 20:30:05 GMT -5
for the benefit of all concerned, i have put in bold the most important parts of this reply which i feel deserve special attention ... normally this wouldn't be necessary but diana and i have gone back and forth like this many times before in this thread and the important points always seem to get lost amongst the bile, so maybe this will help keep the focus on them. throughout this discussion you've been twisting my words (or misunderstanding them) and twisting the facts (or misunderstanding them) to make it sound as though i'm being inconsistent or unreasonable when i'm not Like you are now with me? not at all. i'm pointing out what you've been doing for most of this topic, intentionally (ie. twisting) or unintentionally (ie. misunderstanding). i am not putting words in your mouth or intentionally misunderstanding you or presenting facts as anything other than what they actually are. that's because you won't tell me where i'm wrong in my judgement of your arguments - you think it's a proven fact that decriminalisation cannot be beneficial when it patently isn't, we can't agree to disagree about facts and the fact is that it isn't a proven fact.you've just gone and done it again, denied any misunderstanding ... my point of view is that until proven otherwise decriminalisation should be an option to consider if it can reduce the problems of prostitution in society. there are two key factors in that opinion: the goal for public policy on the issue should be "what's best for society", all things considered; and the possibility that decriminalisation could be beneficial in this context. you have not countered either of these and i haven't changed my mind - you believe that you have countered both of them when you simply have not, and this is a fact, there is no "agree to disagree" on this point, you are simply wrong.hey, i was just asking ... i have a specific quote of something you said in mind, though it'll take me a while to find it and i can't really be bothered just now but i'll come back to you with it on this point ... no, i am trying to conduct this discussion as rationally as possible and i am fighting tooth and nail against your attempts to dismiss complex analysis.opinions are what they are, it's when you state your opinion as proven fact that you'll get no sympathy from me. we cannot agree to disagree that your opinion is proven fact, either it is or it isn't. as i have said before when talking about natural law (rephrased here for morality, since they are practically the same idea): what does morality tell us about prostitution? it tells us that it's bad, it says nothing about how we should tackle it. so even if morality can be considered objective evidence it still does not require complete criminalisation. to use your gut feelings as a basis for what form of decriminsalition/criminalisation to impose would basically be to say that you are not going to give any reasons for your decision and that cannot be seen as a sound basis for public policy (or even individual actions, much of the time).any form of criminalisation/decriminalisation will have some people complaining about it but some will be less harmful on the whole than others (i'm sure you would agree) and you cannot reasonably suggest that complete criminalisation is proven to be definitely the best way to go (though i'm sure you would disagree with that, unless you have suddenly changed your mind?).*sigh* this doesn't even deserve the response i'm giving - stop being such a fool. i think this contradicts one of your fundamental feelings about the law - that you are in favour of laws which can be enforced and therefore keep immorality behind closed doors (correct me if i'm at all mistaken). this is better than that: the immorality is not just behind closed doors it is in an entirely different country ... i'm sure the swedish government are more concerned about their own country than those of their neighbours since even if the problem has merely shifted (though i can't imagine that every single one of them has moved to another country rather than just giving up), at least it's not their problem any more. regardless, my position does not rest on the extent of sweden's success with decriminalisation.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 29, 2006 21:42:23 GMT -5
More repetition, littlepea. I will only address what you had in bold. you think it's a proven fact that decriminalisation cannot be beneficial when it patently isn't, we can't agree to disagree about facts and the fact is that it isn't a proven fact. I believe I have supported my argument. You believe I have not. Agree to disagree. What is your problem? Yes, I got that the first time you posted it. No need to repeat yourself. We agreed on that point a long time ago. (See, I don't disagree with everything you say...) I will post for the hundredth time, this is false. It is false because of the nature of what you wish to consider for decriminalization -- namely, prostitution, which brings with it disease, violence, drug abuse, human trafficking, child abuse, degradation of women, hatred of men by the women involved, a burden on society in the form of health care issues, child care issues, unemployment issues, retirement issues, etc. etc. etc. Now we can add to the list migration issues given the information I recently posted from Sweden. Stating your opinion as fact again. Which complex analysis would that be? When I review the posts, I see complex analysis on my part. For your part, you have stated your false premise about a thousand times, but with no support other than "it's not absolutely-positively-100% sure that it's false so it's worth discussing". Ditto. The above issues that accompany prostitution are not my "gut feelings" -- they are, in fact, proven over and over -- do you deny this??? And it is overwhelming evidence that prostitution in any form is detrimental to women, to children, to men... what more do you want? ? Reasonably or not, I have maintained from the start, and I maintain now, that complete criminalization is the best way to go. You have posted nothing to contradict any of the evidence I have posted in support of that view. All you do is continue to challenge me with the charge that it is my opinion. Once again, I have posted my case. Where is yours? WHAT? You think I would agree that it is "better" that Sweden handed off its problems to other countries instead of addressing them? Not on your life. Yeah, that's responsible public policy. Next you will suggest that instead of maintaining their own landfills they should just dump their garbage over the border. This was ridiculous... I certainly hope you don't pursue this line of thought further. Be aware that if you do, I will interpret it as nothing more than provocation and will not respond. Fine. On what evidence does your position rest?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on May 29, 2006 22:57:15 GMT -5
I will post for the hundredth time, this is false. It is false because of the nature of what you wish to consider for decriminalization -- namely, prostitution, which brings with it disease, violence, drug abuse, human trafficking, child abuse, degradation of women, hatred of men by the women involved, a burden on society in the form of health care issues, child care issues, unemployment issues, retirement issues, etc. etc. etc. Now we can add to the list migration issues given the information I recently posted from Sweden. And criminalizing prostitution has stopped all that, right?
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 30, 2006 5:23:04 GMT -5
I will only address what you had in bold. good, that was what i really wanted who says that decriminalisation will bring an increase in the problems you list? i know you have pointed to many attempts at decriminalisation in the past which have resulted in an increase in the problems, but while this is evidence of your position, it does not definitively prove it. you have provided a lot of information, none of which proves your case or counters my arguments. the complex analysis that i'm referring to is the question, "if decriminalisation would be beneficial then it should be done, shouldn't it?" - you have said this is absolutely pointless and not worth discussing, but it's one of the most important issues on this topic, namely what is the rationale behind your rejection of decriminalisation? but you tell me that it is "absolutely-positively-100% sure that it's false" when it isn't ... (and you've just done it again by referring to it as a "false premise") see this is why i keep thinking that you are misunderstanding the basic issue: just because it's bad doesn't mean that it should be illegal (which i pointed out on page 1). you are starting to change your tune, up until now you have maintained that it is perfectly reasonable, and in fact the only reasonable option. that's because it is your opinion yet you state it as fact. my case is that decriminalisation cannot yet be ruled out as a viable possibility - you state that this is proven to be false when it clearly isn't. that's my only major disagreement with you. i don't think it's morally better, or better on the whole, but it can be seen as a result from sweden's point of view. it's the same as your argument that laws should keep immorality behind closed doors, though, just taken a step or two further. ironically my argument involves that slippery notion of morality, though this comes in when judging "what's best for society" rather than simply dismissing decriminalisation because we don't like the sound of it. fair enough, it just depends how you judge what's best for society. if we can have a world where in every single country 0.002% of people will be murdered each year or a world where different countries' murder rates vary from anything between 0.00001% and 0.004%, i think you'll find that most people would prefer to live in the country with 0.00001% even if this means that some countries will be drastically worse. it is selfish but the fact of the matter is that some countries do act in their own interests and unless there is a combined international approach to the problem (which the EU attempts every now and then in a kind of drawn out and ineffective fashion) then countries can only act in their own interests ... it rests on the fact that decriminalisation cannot yet be ruled out as a viable possibility - which by your own standards is stronger than your argument which rests on the opinion that complete criminalisation is the only way to go (since you say that "a conclusion is only as strong as its premises", my premise is based on fact, yours is based on personal opinion).
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 30, 2006 9:12:28 GMT -5
OHHHH!!! Now I see the problem -- I wish I had realized this a long time ago and we could have saved valuable time.
You are confused as to what is a premise, what is an argument, and what is a conclusion. Let me straighten that out for you.
Your premise is "If decriminalization would benefit society, then prostitution should be decriminalized."
I believe this premise is false. To prove this, I have provided evidence to support the contrapositive: "If decriminalization would not benefit society, then prostitution should not be decriminalized."
Since that is my premise, my argument provides reasons why it is true -- reasons that are not my opinion, but are documented fact. Prostitution brings with it disease, drug abuse, etc. etc. etc., as shown by the personal testimony of prostitutes, the statistics from various countries that have attempted decriminalization, etc. etc. etc. Based on all of that evidence[/u] (not my opinion), I believe it is reasonable to conclude that my premise is true.
Now, let's look at your argument:
Your premise: "If decriminalization would benefit society, then prostitution should be decriminalized."
Your evidence: Nobody has proven 100% that it isn't true.
So sorry, littlepea. I don't know where you've been taught that this suffices as an argument. I'm still waiting for your case to be shown.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 30, 2006 17:07:46 GMT -5
"If decriminalization would not benefit society, then prostitution should not be decriminalized." - you think that proving this to be true would therefore prove my argument to be false? what planet are you on? i fully agree with that statement, it concurs with what i've been saying all along, it is not opposed to it ...
i don't know the technical terms that you are using (and i don't need to know them in order to have a rational discussion), all i'm saying is that "since nobody has proven 100% that it isn't true" then it remains possible that it is true (ie. if decriminalisation could benefit society). this makes perfect sense and i won't let your jargon confuse me into letting this go.
nevertheless, the point i'm trying to make with the statement "If decriminalization would benefit society, then prostitution should be decriminalized" has nothing to do with the viability of decriminalisation, i just want to know if you are against decriminalisation in principle (and if so, why?) or do you just think that it cannot be benficial?
if you think your last post means that my argument isn't worth discussing, then either you don't understand my argument or you have confused yourself with your own artificial analysis of our arguments or, if you do understand my argument but still think it's not worth discussing, you are a fool.
and although it's not got a lot to do with me personally, i'd hate to see you ignore polytheist's last post ...
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 30, 2006 17:22:13 GMT -5
by the way, i don't know why i didn't post this in my 2nd last reply on this topic because it noticed it at the time yet for some reason didn't point it out ... The above issues that accompany prostitution are not my "gut feelings" -- they are, in fact, proven over and over -- do you deny this??? And it is overwhelming evidence that prostitution in any form is detrimental to women, to children, to men... what more do you want? ? the point i was originally making was that morality only tells us that prostitution is bad, it doesn't tell us what form of criminalisation/decriminalisation should be imposed. so even if (*notice once again that i am capable of considering an argument involving something which i believe to be completely false) morality can be seen as objective evidence it doesn't provide an answer when it comes to the question of decriminalisation. to cite morality as requiring complete criminalisation is basically to refuse to give any reasons, and this cannot be sufficient while we require public policy to be based on reason. all the things that you have listed as being associated with prostitution back up the point that prostitution is very bad and that we should seek to reduce the problems as much as possible - why do you still fail to see that this does not necessarily mean complete criminalisation?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 30, 2006 21:20:01 GMT -5
And criminalizing prostitution has stopped all that, right? Polytheist... from page 8: Decriminalization of prostitution implies its acceptability as part of the norm for occupations. This is unacceptable in societies that value families and desire to protect their children. Statistics have shown that decriminalization does not help prostitutes; in fact it heightens the negative impacts and consequences. The only thing proven to help prostitutes are social programs meant to help them leave prostitution. And even there, a strong argument can be made that such programs fall into the realm of charitible organizations versus government. And from page 9: Yes, women should be protected from the evils of prostitution -- in part by laws that clearly direct them away from that behavior. No, prostitutes who are breaking the law should not be protected by the law -- they should be charged with the crimes they commit.
|
|