Don't need to explain because you are playing a game.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.
Your pretending that you later didn't know/understand, is, and was, a game you are playing.
What do you mean, decent standards? Who's standards?
Yes you were. It is more than obvious.Sorry, no; I'm not playing a game. You just can't back up what you say. :shrug:
You notice he ignored you completely?
http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/ae/a5/4f41400e4baca9a411e266811715/tumbleweed-lebowski.jpg/img][/QUOTE]No I haven' ignored him. He is a new player and I am busy here at home.
I will prepare my answer and post when time permits.
But way to be wrong with your assumptions again.
:doh
Yes you were. It is more than obvious.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.
Your pretending that you later didn't know/understand, is, and was, a game you are playing.
No I haven' ignored him. He is a new player and I am busy here at home.
I will prepare my answer and post when time permits.
But way to be wrong with your assumptions again.
:doh
More dishonesty. Figures.and you say you've already answered it, and call people dishonest for saying you haven't . . . what's to "prepare"?
I do not believe for one moment that you are asking an honest question, as the information you request is already present.What do you mean, decent standards? Who's standards?
And you, as well as others, keep ignoring that we are talking about what a Court in Canada did.
You keep ignoring that the standards being discussed are those that the Court changed.
You keep ignoring that those standards were codified into law and were not personal standards.
You keep ignoring that the removal of those standards is a further erosion.
Stop playing games.
No one -- I promise you, NO ONE -- is going to read this thread and see it even remotely in the way you describe.
Your OP provided none, zip, zero, nada "standards of decency" that the "court removed." None. At all. Neither have you. At all.
And you accuse people of being dishonest for saying so.
Your entire line of argument is "what I said is true, and I don't have to back it up, because you all KNOW it's true, and if you say it isn't, you're being dishonest." <--------- That is this thread in a nutshell. I defy anyone to read through it honestly and not agree. And anyone with half a brain knows how pathetic that is.
Wrong. And stop whining.This was an EXTREMELY accurate thread summary.
Has a single person in the past 24 pages even remotely sided with him? All I've seen is his whining for pages and pages telling dozens of people they're all liars playing "games" and being dishonest, while simultaneously refusing to ever explain his point. I'm thinking of a new rule for myself that I won't get involved in the 1 man vs the world threads, because it's usually just some troll pushing his extremist views.
Wrong. And stop whining.
Here is a clue. We can see that they were dishonest in there assertions.Did you just copy-paste the same rebuttal you've used this entire thread? Mad skills.
Here's a hint: If not a single person on this thread has agreed with you, you're probably wrong as ****.
Here is a clue. We can see that they were dishonest in there assertions.
Just as you are.
Not once did I say I was for or against the ruling. Not once. And my opinion of whether I was or wasn't has no bearing on the observation made.
But people like you want to assume because you think you know something you don't.
My acknowledgement that it is a further erosion of the standards which were in place, is no different than a person noticing the sun is setting.
It was nothing more than a factual observation.
Saying the information wasn't there, when it is, is dishonesty.
And because bigoted idiots want to try an pigeonhole someone, they assert that which wasn't true. Again, just more dishonesty.
They make themselves to be nothing but liars.
You do realize that to use the plural pronoun "we", you have to have more than one person on your side, right?
You have shown you know exactly what was being said,
but falsely claim they are my standards, (just like the others), when they are not my standards.
"prevailing standards of propriety or modesty"
Don't need to. That is the definition of decency.Define that for me. And explain why your definition should govern other people's behavior.It is common knowledge what it is. Which is apparent from peoples responses."Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty."
Maybe you didn't know, but I doubt it.
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution
By Randall Palmer, Reuters
OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada struck down all current restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and on street solicitation, declaring the laws were unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.
The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.
[...]
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said many prostitutes "have no meaningful choice" but to "engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution," and that the law should not make such lawful activity more dangerous.
"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," she wrote.
"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."
[...]
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution - World News
And the further erosion of decent standards.
The Justice's reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?
:blink:And, today, Mayor Rob Ford is a happy camper. LOL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?