Sherman123
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,774
- Reaction score
- 3,791
- Location
- Northeast US
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's Canada and up to them, but the pimps are probably celebrating by beating down a ho tonight. My opinion is that it's terrible public policy.
Are you incapable as they are for not knowing the answer was already given?Are you incapable of answering a point directly?
I said; And the further erosion of decent standards.You lamented this ruling as a blow to 'standards of decency'
And there are those assumptions.and when confronted with the accusation that this would be merely an assault on anothers personal liberty by enforcing your morality you've automatically repeated the line about standards of decency. Answer the question. Why should you have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body?
You are making foolish and idiotic assertions, as I have not backed down one bit from what I said.
Said the one making idiotic and foolish assumptions.I do not believe I'm the one coming off as "foolish" and "idiotic" here.
And again with more assumptions. iLOLYou are continually running away from the facts that you oppose the legality of prostitution on the basis of "decency," and that said decency is more important to you than either "safety" or "liberty." If it weren't more important to you, then you wouldn't be so opposed.
Putting it a different way doesn't change the outcome.
And it was a crime for a reason. Some just don' t find that reason justifiable, which just shows a further erosion of decency.
As far as we know the Canadian Parliament could pass a 200% tax on it, or something equally as ridiculous to try to exterminate the practice.
Why it was, is irrelevant to this discussion.What was the reason that prostitution was a crime?
Just more erosion.And WA and CO are trying that taxation strategy here in the US, on legalized pot. It's all 'new' and we dont yet know what will work out economically and socially....but you dont repress individual liberty just because you dont know how to handle its decriminalization. Pot laws and laws against prostitution were never Constitutional to begin with IMO.
Said the one making idiotic and foolish assumptions.
And again with more assumptions. iLOL
:doh
I have not run from what I said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency.
It is you who wishes to assume and/or impart more to my words than I said.
Are you incapable as they are for not knowing the answer was already given?
Are you as incapable as they are for assuming emotions not present?
I said; And the further erosion of decent standards.
It is. You can not escape that.
Nor is it something that needs to be explained.
And there are those assumptions.
So you are just as incapable as they are. Figures.
This decision was not about liberty, it was about safety.
And as stated numerous times now, it is a further erosion of standards of decency.
More wrong assumptions on your part.Yes, we already know -- you oppose legalizing prostitution due to "standards of decency." As you oppose legalizing it, you find that "decency" more important than the principles of safety or liberty which would impel its legalization.
It's a simple fact . . . UNLESS you'd like to go on record as saying you favor legalizing prostitution. That's really your only out. Would you like to?
Apparently you are incapable of getting it as well. I never said I was. And it is wrong to assume such.You still haven't answered. I'm not asking about the ruling, I'm asking about you. You do need to explain why it is a collapse in decency standards and furthermore why that matters at all. By what right should you be able to control someone's decisions that they make about their body because of some nebulous and relative concept like 'standards of decency'. Please don't repeat, give an actual answer.
Why it was, is irrelevant to this discussion.
.
I said it was irrelevant to this discussion, as it is.Oh no, it is not irrelevant. If it had a legitimate reason for being illegal...how could they change it unless that no longer existed?
More wrong assumptions on your part.
Again, you should really stop making such idiotic and foolish assumptions.
Apparently you are incapable of getting it as well. I never said I was. And it is wrong to assume such.
I said it was irrelevant to this discussion, as it is.
You are again assuming that which was not presented.Yes you did, the implication was and is overwhelming. You registered clear disgust with the notion of legalized prostitution and linked it to 'standards of decency' it follows that you think these laws should remain in place to defend these standards. The question then quite easily becomes why you think you have the right to enforce these standards on other people when it concerns their body? Stop running away and answer.
You are again assuming that which was not presented.
I would suggest you stop doing so.
What was said is that this is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Anything else other than that and you are assuming that which has not been said and is not on the record.
I do not have to answer to your assumptions, or do you really not understand that?
Pimps are celebrating? Why? Because women could potentially seek police protection, employment benefits, and secure working environments that would put pimps out of business?
You are again assuming that which was not presented.
I would suggest you stop doing so.
What was said is that this is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Anything else other than that and you are assuming that which has not been said and is not on the record.
I do not have to answer to your assumptions, or do you really not understand that?
Do you, or do you not, oppose legalizing prostitution?
:dohNo, it's not irrelevant to this discussion. THere was an existing law and CA chose to remove it. They wouldnt remove a law that continues to serve a legitimate purpose, would they? How can we compare and discuss if it was the right thing to do if we dont know the previous reason(s)?
What was the original reason(s) for prostitution to be illegal?
:dohFunny how you're running away from this simple question:
:doh
The laws were struck down on the basis of safety. Why they were laws in the first place is not the discussion and is irrelevant.
Which does not change the fact that their being struck down is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Is that what you think?The state has no place in legislating morality.
:doh
Funny you don't understand that that question is irrelevant to what I said.
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?