Pacridge
DP Veteran
Contrarian said:Ponder this: What is the difference between a patron and a prostitute having sex for pay in a brothel, as compared to two actors getting paid to have sex in a porn flick? Why is one a felony and the other "art"?
That's quite true in some cases. But in other cases it's just regular people trying to control the lives of everyone else.Contrarian said:The idea of victimless crime is nothing more than a judicial reprise of the Christian notion of sin.
ConservativeShane said:I can't believe some idiots actually think prostitution should be legalized. I thought that at least with an issue this blatantly harmfull to society one wouldn't have to go out of ones way to defend their position. Prostitution should be illegal.
Gabo said:So you're only doing something illegal if you like doing it!
That makes sense.... :roll:
You're correct, I shouldn't have said idiots, I guess I was blinded by my bemusement.Pacridge said:I take it since people disagree with your position that, in your mind, makes it OK to call them idiots. Nice.
Since you see prostitution as such an obvious no-brainer, what other moral ills do you think we could solve by making them illegal? How about divorce? Broken homes in this country lead to all kinds of social problems, mainly with the children that emerge from them. We could just make it illegal for couples to divorce, problem solved. Alcohol causes so many problems in this country it's almost amazing. So, why not go back to Prohibition? Another problem solved.
Contrarian said:So think about this.............
I don't understand why the element of religion must be introduced into the discussion. Aren't there sufficient secular reasons to 'outlaw' prostitution?
Just another victimless crime, like narcotics. Right?
American was created as a nation for people to have freedom of religion (not freedom from religion). America was not created to get away from the wide umbrella of "government control", but more specificall to get away from taxation (specifically taxation without representation). Liberals have brought around "freedom from religion" and continually fight for increased taxation, two ideals which our nation was most definetly not founded on.Gabo said:Shane, how do you rationalize your opinions?
America was created as a nation that allowed diversity, freedom to choose for yourself, and the concept of responsibility.
America was created specifically to get away from government control, which England favored and used so much.
You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do. Saying you do is saying you have a higher claim on their life than they do.
Nobody is supposed to own anyone else, nor any part about them.
Stop trying to control things that do not concern you. What you do with your life is your own decision, and you must respect the right of everyone else to live their lives as they see fit.
Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?Gabo said:even though doing drugs is a victimless crime as of now.
Murder is an act that violates someone else's rights.ConservativeShane said:Oh, and "You, nor anyone else, has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do.", wrong. What about murder, should murder be legal? Of course not, because the government has every right to ban anything and everything that would harm society. Prostitution harms society, and therefore does concern me and the government.
That is such a lie. People who disregard others deserve no say in politics.ConservativeShane said:Now I can tell your a libertarian, and therefore will never be taken seriously in politics,
Libertarianism is NOT anarchy, and it is NOT no government.ConservativeShane said:but between you and me, between a small government conservative and an anarchist libertarian, I should tell you that the world needs government. Yes, big government is dangerous, but the only thing more dangerous than big government is no government.
Just like to add that both quotes are quite libertarian.ConservativeShane said:"I'll take big business over big government any day" -Mark W. Smith
“Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” - President Ronald Reagan
First of all, if drugs were legal a husband could afford them while still supporting his family.Fantasea said:Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
You used fifty words to avoid answering the question. Let me repeat it and ask for a simple, direct answer. One word will do.Gabo said:First of all, if drugs were legal a husband could afford them while still supporting his family.
Second, the wife shouldn't have married the husband if she disagreed with his drug habits, nor should she have had a baby with a drug user if she was afraid of the consequences.
Contrarian said:Tell me which of our laws is not based on one of the Ten Commandments’. Is it possible to construct legislation that can be construed as not being rooted in therein?I just been watching with total amusement how uncomfortable Fant and his new clone CShane become at the thought of individuals doing what they want with their own bodies. I don't think you guys will be satisfied until you regulate the moral behavior of everyone in the U.S. As you say Fant... twisted your knickers?
You said earlier: I don't understand why the element of religion must be introduced into the discussion. Aren't there sufficient secular reasons to 'outlaw' prostitution?
Just another victimless crime, like narcotics. Right?
The citing of religiousity and its influence on American Juris Prudence depicts the genesis of some of our outdated laws. These laws evolved as a direct response to religious dogma. While there may be secular reasons for curtailing prostitution or narcotics (ie. public health issues or related crime), they are not sufficient on a secular basis to directly outlaw regulated forms of these "vices".
The problem with legislatures, at every level, is that they are populated by individuals who are a little short on, among other things, honesty, integrity, intelligence, independence, and courage. As a group, they see their primary responsibility as their re-election. To this end, they pander to any and all constituencies from which they solicit support in the form of contributions and votes. They tow the party line.Our governments and laws have time and again permitted previously forbidden activities in return for profit participation by the government. I think there is selective enforcement at work here. Pick the vice that pays the most and condemn the rest.
No need to. The media did an excellent job of doing that. Speculation on things not knowable is SOP for the socialist-lib-Dems smear machine operators. Are you one of those?Shall I point out one of the favorite activities of one of your "moral", family values gurus.... Bill Bennett. The man is a compulsive gambler (and probabily doodles and occassional hooker as a high roller in casinos too!!).
Is there anyone of intelligence who does not understand that gambling, per se, is harmless for the masses much the same as alcohol? These same persons also understand that gambling, like alcohol, clutches some by the throat in the form of a horribly destructive addiction that can ruin their lives and the lives of their family members.
No. Both are economically unproductive in that they suck money out of people and give them misery in return.Do you think that more people are impacted by the negative effects of gambling in America that prostitution? Do you think it possible that more Daddy's piss away their paychecks in LEGAL casinos, leaving Mom and the kids out on the street? Is that different than a drug addict?
Case in point. It is interesting that in the Bahamas, language printed in bold letters on every casino entrance door specifically prohibits anyone residing there from even entering. Locals refer to those large, beautiful buildings as temples. Why? Because that is where the tourists go to make their donations.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.Well, they decided to allow that vice because it brings millions of dollars to the tax rolls.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.The second highest source of taxes for many states comes from the sale of alcohol. Do you think it possible (oh my!) that people under the influence of booze might do bad things like.... murder, robbery, DWI manslaughter, wife beating, assault etc etc... or that they cost the taxpayer millions from slow death in de-tox, blowing up from cirrosis of the liver, diabetes and what ever else crawls out of a bottle. But it's LEGAL because there is too much money in it.
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.Why don't we just bust all the fat people for causing a major threat to public health... afterall, they are walking death traps that will cause undue strain on the health system and ultimately leave their families abandoned when they keel over clutching their chests from a massive heart attack?
Scroll back to the paragraph that begins, “The problem with legislatures…..”.Blue Laws prevent some retail stores in certain states / cities from operation (purely motivated by religion), where others decided the sales tax revenue was too much to pass up.
While I agree with you that one should keep the discussion moving along in a totally civil and respectful manner, I must add that it is becoming increasingly more difficult to do so. It requires strong self-control to resist responding in kind to some of the disagreeable posts that show up in this forum.If you are going to apply the standard at least make it uniform. Then we can all live in Fantasea land with you Squire Shane as the guard dog of moral values and have Sunday dinner with Ozzie and Harriet!!
By the way young Shane, it is nice that you joined the forum, and I certainly appreciate intellectual banter, whether I agree with you or not. You are obviously very intelligent and seemingly raised by a nice conservative family with high moral values. But, didn't your Mother teach you to respect your elders and not to call other people idiots?
You should be ashamed of yourself... now go to your room. Hey Fant, let's bring back the old conservative rule...Children should be seen and not heard!!
In the matter of , “Children …”, children still learn much more about becoming successful, interesting adults when, in the presence of their elders, the listen politely, speak when spoken to, and, in general, while keeping their place, observe the social intercourse of persons more sophisticated they.
Parents who permit their children to ‘hog the show’ usually get what they deserve, dolts who are unwelcome outside the immediate family.
On the subject of legislatures, I think, more than anything else, it is the ‘career politician’ that is at the root of all of the ‘problems’ we lay at the feet of government. These guys, and now, gals, too, have to keep themselves busy creating new ways to inflict misery on the public.
Term limits make perfect sense to me.
No.Fantasea said:You used fifty words to avoid answering the question. Let me repeat it and ask for a simple, direct answer. One word will do.
Are the wife and children of an addict the victims of an addicted husband and father who can't support them because the money intended for their care goes up his nose?
I'm completely for small government.ConservativeShane said:Gabo, I won't quote that long winded entry because no one should have to read it again. The only point you seemed to try to make was : "Both quotes are quite libertarian". Well, both quotes were quite anti-big government (not anti-government), I was just trying to show you the similarities between your no government beliefs and my small government beliefs.
Contrarian said:1) All vices (drugs, liquor, gambling, porn, over-eating, gun ownership etc) carry with them the potential for disaster with a deep social impact. However in a free society, it is not the job of goverment to legislate morality. We are suppose to be free to make our own decisions.
The conservative right believe in smaller government, meaning economically. Low taxes, less government regulations, an end to the welfare state and less government waste, to name a few examples.Pacridge said:Contrarian, Don't you find it ironic that the mantra of the "right" seems to be "less government regulations, smaller government" But that mantra only applies to businesses and large corporations. When it comes to the individual they want to control and dictate.
Going to the right does not mean smaller government all around.ConservativeShane said:The conservative right believe in smaller government, meaning economically. Low taxes, less government regulations, an end to the welfare state and less government waste, to name a few examples.
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?