|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 2, 2006 8:29:12 GMT -5
i guess i was a bit unfriendly in my other post, but it just seemed that you'd been wasting my time all this while, and it still seems that way to an extent. I told you that from the start, but you said you wanted to discuss anyway. You'll understand when you have a daughter. Which belief of mine is irrational, and how do you reach that conclusion? It is not vague to those who use it. It refers to any misuse of reproductive organs or any activity intended to stimulate them outside of the relationship of a husband and wife. I believe the fact that 79% of the women involved in legal prostitution in the Netherlands desire to leave the business proves this. As does the fact that 60% of the women who were involved in prostitution in Sweden left the business when given the opportunity. This gets into double effect arguments, which are somewhat different. Basically, in a case where there is no inherent evil, the good and the bad are weighed against each other. But I won't pursue this line of thinking with you in this thread, for reasons already made clear. I find them appalling. One of them approaches pornography status.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 2, 2006 9:08:33 GMT -5
You seem to think that I am all for my daughters being prostitues. Not at all. I know quite well that you do not desire that -- you made it very clear. You have always expressed a high regard for morality. Yes, but do you not understand that your responsibility as a human being extends beyond your immediate family? What about all the girls who do not have fathers teaching them right from wrong? The laws are not there to govern those who know right from wrong... those people govern themselves. The laws protect those people from others who don't have well-formed consciences to govern them.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 2, 2006 13:54:25 GMT -5
Which belief of mine is irrational, and how do you reach that conclusion? the idea that "sexual immorality" is a normative concept. there are too many cultural differences across the world and throughout history that show this is simply untrue. are arranged marriages immoral? or sexual intercourse involving under 16s? or under 15s? or under 14s? what is the correct minimum age for marriage? if sexual immorality were a normative concept then the answers to these questions would be obvious and the same in every culture, but it clearly isn't. i really can't believe that you think it's a normative concept. if that is how you define "sexual immorality", do you think that making all of these acts illegal would be good? but at least with the legal option available they are able to leave the profession with greater ease and support. i'm not saying prostitution itself is a good thing, only that a society which tolerates prostitution might be better than a society which completely outlaws it, if it goes about it in the right way. it's like with your definition of "sexual immorality": whether or not that is the correct position to draw the line is one problem, but whether it would be worthwhile to make all "sexual immorality" according to that definition illegal is clearly a completely separate issue. it's this second issue that i originally intended this topic to be about (with respect to prostitution) but for the most part it seems to have been dragged into a debate about whether prostitution is right or wrong. yes i know it's different, that's why i get so annoyed when we start debating over whether prostitution is good or evil. even if there is some inherent evil there may still be a case for legalisation. and what's wrong with pornography? (don't answer that) do you want to see some essays which oppose prostitution?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 2, 2006 17:27:38 GMT -5
the idea that "sexual immorality" is a normative concept. Please show me where I said that sexual immorality is a normative concept. My answer to all of the above is, these are decisions for married adults to discuss, and, where differences cannot be prayerfully resolved, to obtain counseling from their priest or pastor. Regarding minors (those under the legal age of adulthood), the decision regarding when to marry is best left to parents. I am for enacting laws prohibiting immoral behavior if they can be enforced. In other words, I am not for laws that require entry of peoples' homes for enforcement. But I am all for laws that encourage those who engage in immoral activity to keep it out of the public eye. That could be equally provided by allowing amnesty to those who turn themselves in for help. You asked my opinion, I gave it. You didn't like it, so you dragged me into defending it. Next time when I say "no amount of discussion will cause me to regress" perhaps you'll take me at my word. Activities understood to be inherently evil are generally illegal. The problem is that today there is much confusion among many over exactly what is evil. I can answer in a single word: objectification. Not particularly. I was only asking if you had read anything based in fact rather than speculation.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 2, 2006 19:51:28 GMT -5
Please show me where I said that sexual immorality is a normative concept. here is where i got that impression from: morality would have to be a certain, normative concept to serve as a sound basis for the criminal law, but it's not, so it can't. As I see it, it is certain and should be normative. i concede that you didn't flat out say "morality is a normative concept", but that's how i read it. again i fail to see how this would lead to the criminalising of prostitution. do you mean that you would introduce laws which say "it is a crime to have extra-marital sex" but simply not enforce them, the point being that it will be an extra deterrant to people who might have extra-marital sex that they will technically be criminals? as i've said before, that would be verging on totalitarianism and would be contrary to the rule of law (the political ideal which most free societies aim towards). or do you just mean that the law should try and discourage sexual immorality? but why does it have to do this through the criminal law? in austria they have legalised prostition but only the "streetwalker" form of prostitution; brothels and any form of organised prostitution is illegal. most pro-prostitution people would agree that legitimate brothels would be the safest form of prostitution and it is the streetwalker who faces most risks but in austria they've done it the other way round, leading people to remark that this is a typical "protestant" approach to the situation: accept that sin is going to happen but force people to do it in the least glamorous environment. would you prefer this over actually giving prostitutes more protection? i think i did, though i didn't refer to it in my essay (woops!), but i'll see what i can dig up when i have the time (and the inclination).
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 3, 2006 11:06:36 GMT -5
again i fail to see how this would lead to the criminalising of prostitution. Laws against prostitution can be enforced. No, I mean just the opposite. I would oppose any criminal legislation that could not be enforced. Criminal law is not a deterrent unless it can be enforced. Because of the definition of "crime": Main Entry: crime Pronunciation: 'krIm Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin crimen accusation, reproach, crime; probably akin to Latin cernere to sift, determine 1 : an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law 2 : a grave offense especially against morality [/i][/u] 3 : criminal activity <efforts to fight crime> 4 : something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful <it's a crime to waste good food> synonym see OFFENSE - crime·less /-l&s/ adjective [/blockquote] I believe I have posted exactly the opposite. I would support legislation to force people to have to hide their immoral acts. At the heart of my philosophy on this subject is the protection of innocent people, especially children. Permitting public immoral activity legitimizes it, confusing children who do not know that it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 3, 2006 18:44:22 GMT -5
when you get down to it, though, what will that law look like?
"prostitution is against the law unless it's done behind closed doors" -- or -- "prostitution is against the law."
it will obviously be the latter, the practical upshot being that it will be enforced when it is caught - ie. when its presence is discovered, thus it is no longer hidden. which is what you want it to do, of course, isn't it? but this is where the whole debate begins, not where it ends ...
and do you think that the definition of crime means that the criminal law must and can only be justified in terms of morality? i think that would be putting the cart before the horse.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 4, 2006 5:13:19 GMT -5
No, I just think morality is the best foundation for decision making, regarding the law or anything else.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 4, 2006 8:10:03 GMT -5
there are many legal scholars who would disagree with you (formalists, economists, functionalists etc.), but you are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else.
i will ask a few more questions, however, and then we'll call it a day: do you agree that prostitution should only be illegal if society intends to punish the prostitutes themselves? and, since morality is different in different cultures, in the society which does not intend to punish the prostitutes, prositution should be legal, shouldn't it?
|
|
|
Post by teancum79 on Apr 4, 2006 14:59:46 GMT -5
economic types can only see as far as the next projected interest return. Some favor a fully free market and others some controls to prevent stock crashes.
And you could also argue from a functionalist point of view that sex serves a function to create children and keep families together and that prostitution is a dis-function of sex.
I think it is worth noting that nations with weak morels rot from the inside out (IE Rome) and a small external force simply touches them and the crumble to the ground.
The Jews on the other hand have kept a strong (even if imperfect) set of morels and they are still around.
America like any other nation will only stay strong as long as it stays good. Evil like the Nazis is a short term power trip. Good and right can and will out last the evil.
I'll wager a guy warning of a major stock market crash a week a month or 10 years before the great depression would have been laughed at quite a lot, but he would have also been right and the world saved a lot of pain if they had looked father into the future.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 4, 2006 20:09:39 GMT -5
but again, as ericsson points out (even if you disagree with everything else he says), this is where the debate begins, not where it ends ...
in the 18th century it was considered equal to prostitution for an opera singer to take money for singing on stage yet these days there are few more noble professions as the opera singer, so why is our hatred of prostitution today any more justified than the hatred of taking money for singing on stage in the 18th century?
can you answer this question without resorting to, "it just is"?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 4, 2006 21:10:46 GMT -5
there are many legal scholars who would disagree with you (formalists, economists, functionalists etc.), but you are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. Uh, thank yew.... thank y'very much. [ ] Okay... but I have questions about your questions. As opposed to what? I do not believe that only the prostitutes should be punished -- I support stronger punishments for pimps and johns than for prostitutes. And as I already said, I support amnesty and public aid for those willing to leave prostitution and make commitments (moral and financial) to pursue other careers. Morality on the subject of prostitution does not vary, regardless of the culture, because it falls into the category of "natural moral law". Here's more info on that: Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 5, 2006 9:02:14 GMT -5
there are many legal scholars who would disagree with you (formalists, economists, functionalists etc.), but you are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. Uh, thank yew.... thank y'very much. [ ] sounds like flatt & scruggs (am i right?) pimps, ponces and abusive johns should be punished, my point is merely that any criminal laws against prostitution invariably end up punishing the prostitute herself, even when those laws are meant to protect her. i would expect you would be in favour of punishing the practicing prostitute, based on what you have said so far, wouldn't you? i am vaguely familiar with natural law, but you cannot base an entire legal system on it. prostitution is wrong, we all know that, but do we all feel that the prostitute herself is worthy of punishment? in most western countries it is felt that she is not, though in the US it probably is (unless your law saying "it is illegal to be a prostitute" is completely without support). i would also hesitate to include "one's rights to property" in a list of natural rights, since there are still tribes in the south american jungle that function perfectly well with no concept of private property. in my opinion, "natural law" is just a short way of saying "law based on morality" and is nothing more than that. since morlity is clearly not a normative concept, natural law cannot be seen as a sound basis for dictating laws across the globe. indeed, in the society where it is thought unjust to punish the prostitute, natural law would dictate that prostitution be decriminalised.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Apr 5, 2006 10:47:29 GMT -5
sounds like flatt & scruggs (am i right?) Elvis Presley. It's a misdemeanor for first time offenders, carrying a term of 30 days to 18 months in most states -- and is generally suspended. Yes, I support criminal sentences for all transgressions of criminal law. Anyone who transgresses legitimate laws passed by the people is "worthy of punishment"... else there is no meaning to law. This is a different subject altogether, but I suspect you would change your tune should those tribes be threatened by someone wishing to claim the land on which they live. Natural law reflects the sense of order established in the world by its Creator.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Apr 5, 2006 12:11:50 GMT -5
It's a misdemeanor for first time offenders, carrying a term of 30 days to 18 months in most states -- and is generally suspended. Yes, I support criminal sentences for all transgressions of criminal law. good, i'm glad you aren't a civil disobedient. i agree, but we can still debate whether the laws are correct, and they can always be changed. yes, it is a different subject, my point was simply that natural law is not a normative set of rules, it is just a way of thinking about the problem. morality, in other words?
|
|