Prostitution

[Pacridge]

You and I have had this discussed this question before. Living life causes certain consequences. Obesity is the single reason the life expectancy estimates in the US have receeded. Heart disease, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, various forms of cancer can be directly attributed to being fat. Shall we bust fat people coming out of a Taco Bell because they are damaging themselves, their families and the economy? BEcause they spend more time in the doctors office than they do on the job? Shall we institute a "fat squad" to have the government intervene with these people who suffer from "weakness of the flesh"? What next?

I often wonder where this is going and where it’s going to end up. Are we all going to end up being given a mandatory rightous diet? I mean there are plenty of passages in the Bible that refer to taking care of the body “God has gifted you with.” Such as "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20). There are many, many others. Just as there are passages regarding alcohol and premarital sex etc… Many religions have strict guidelines for their followers to adhered. Does that mean we should force all do so? While the religious right is dictating all morals for all people- why not have them also determine our healthy, holy diet for us as well? Soylent Green anyone?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't get how a government endorsement of promiscuity is safe sex.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Does anyone know how it is working in Las Vegas?
As a society we try to protect all our citizens as best we can. Making prostitution legal gets pimps out of it, reduce the drug abuse, you can zone it to keep it away from the general population, screen the "consumers", and the prostitutes can get some medical exams. It boils down to:

Safe Sex :lol:

I don't get how a government endorsement of promiscuity is safe sex.

 

[Pacridge]

Does anyone know how it is working in Las Vegas?
As a society we try to protect all our citizens as best we can. Making prostitution legal gets pimps out of it, reduce the drug abuse, you can zone it to keep it away from the general population, screen the "consumers", and the prostitutes can get some medical exams. It boils down to:

Safe Sex :lol:

Vegas is in Clark County. Clark County is one of the few places in Nevada where it isn't legal.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Yes, we all know that "it" is the oldest profession. However, although age may have a beneficial effect on some things, it doesn't improve distasteful conduct. Prostitution, which was a capital offense in Biblical times, fared no better in polite company than did the spat between brothers Cain and Abel.

Both offenses are still offensive. To persons of good character, that is.

Refusing to acknowledge the holy trinity was a capital offense. Refusing to worship devoutly in YOUR church could get you tied to the stake... so lets realize that passing wind in public could have been viewed as a demonic event.

Prostitution is like religion... they wouldn't exist if there wasn't a market for it. You and I may think it offensive, but there are millions of people who still buy into it. The single largest business on the internet is porn. Personally I find it dispicible, but it is not my job (or yours) to interfere with the personal choices of adults in a free society.... as I said. Just like religion

Must every possible offense be listed before you will acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right? Offensive behavior is offensive behavior without regard to who the offender may be; lay person, cleric, or anything in between.

 

[Contrarian]

Must every possible offense be listed before you will acknowledge that two wrongs don't make a right? Offensive behavior is offensive behavior without regard to who the offender may be; lay person, cleric, or anything in between.

Except if the offender is divinely inspired? You keep trying to twist free from this one but I have yet to see you fully acknowledge in direct language that MANY degenerate offenses have been perpetrated under the protection of the one true church infallibly directed by God.

It's easy to say a prostitute is a "degenerate". After all she is just a lowly woman. I guess it is too difficult to say directly in public, that pervert Priests who prey upon children are . Did you learn the sidestep cover up technique from Cardinal Laws catechism on cover-up? It's very easy to call the other kettle black.

Hypocrite

 

[Contrarian]

I don't get how a government endorsement of promiscuity is safe sex.

Welcome MOZO!

Let's see if you can follow this... with "endorsement" (aka legally sanctioned) comes regulation. To use the example that MOZO brought up (Nevada), prostitutes in state licensed brothels submit to weekly physical examinations and blood tests, paid for by the establishment. They are covered by all the normal employment laws of the state and because they are in state licensed facilities they do not have to worry about abuse from a pimp or customer. They are required to follow a health code which requires the use of condoms and antiseptics. These ladies are virtually kept disease free.

Understand? Safe sex

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Contrarian...

Would you date a prostitute?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Welcome MOZO!

Let's see if you can follow this... with "endorsement" (aka legally sanctioned) comes regulation. To use the example that MOZO brought up (Nevada), prostitutes in state licensed brothels submit to weekly physical examinations and blood tests, paid for by the establishment. They are covered by all the normal employment laws of the state and because they are in state licensed facilities they do not have to worry about abuse from a pimp or customer. They are required to follow a health code which requires the use of condoms and antiseptics. These ladies are virtually kept disease free.

Understand? Safe sex

Oh I see. So now it's the job of the government to allow that a woman sleep with whoever she wants to and they will make sure that there are no consequences for her actions. That's a wonderful idea. What's next. Do you think the government would let me sleep with whoever I wanted to and buy all my condoms and maybe a few nice martinis as well? I certainly think that ought to be the government's job don't you?

 

[Contrarian]

Contrarian...

Would you date a prostitute?

It would never happen... but that doesn't mean that I have the right to tell someone else not to. Nor do I gamble... etc... It's not my business what someone else chooses to do.

 

[Contrarian]

Oh I see. So now it's the job of the government to allow that a woman sleep with whoever she wants to and they will make sure that there are no consequences for her actions. That's a wonderful idea. What's next. Do you think the government would let me sleep with whoever I wanted to and buy all my condoms and maybe a few nice martinis as well? I certainly think that ought to be the government's job don't you?

I wish I knew what you just said... but your right it's not up to the government to tell you who to sleep with. It is however their business to regulate health and safety laws. Got it now?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Why wouldn't you date a prostitute? Any particular reason?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I wish I knew what you just said... but your right it's not up to the government to tell you who to sleep with. It is however their business to regulate health and safety laws. Got it now?

But you are arguing that they give funds so that we can regulate these things on prostitutes. I do not want my money to go to financing controsceptives and health check ups so that prostitutes can make money for selling their body. I do not want them to get sick, but I do not think that the way to prevent that is by supplying them with a safer means to commit these acts, but to show them that they do not have to commit these acts. Can we not just give that money to them so that they do not have to sleep with someone for it?

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fantasea
You seem to be a guy with all the economics answers. Help us with this one.

What is the net difference in the taxes collected on liquor and the costs in:

1. Treating the effects of alcohol related illness,
2. The welfare cost due to the inability to support one's self due to alcohol related illness,
3. The welfare cost of families in poverty because of alcoholic related illness,
4. The children who will never realize their potential because of a parent or parents who suffer from alcohol related illness,
5. The losses to business and industry because of absences due to alcohol related illness,
6. The business defalcation and retail theft because of alcohol related illness,
7. The added strain on finite medical facilities due to alcohol related illness.

The list could go on and on, but I don't want to keep you up all night doing spread sheets.

Gambling, if that's what you call it, is not gambling at all. Even the casino operators can no longer call it gambling because gambling implies that the player has a reasonable chance to win. Since that is not the case at a casino, the casino operators had to invent a euphemism. They invented the word, "gaming". Cute, huh?

All that a casino does is tempt a fool to come in and be separated from his money. Not too quickly, of course, because then the jig would be up and the dope would never return. So they manipulate the odds sufficiently in their favor so that the transition takes enough time for that the 'mark' to think he's not doing too badly. However, he still leaves with empty pockets.

I wonder how many bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, defalcations, embezzlements, and other financial woes had their genesis in a casino?

Perhaps you can tell us that, too.

We all understand that the flesh is weak. That's why it should be protected rather than exploited, don't you think?

I'm sorry Fant I didn't see this one in the flurry of posts. Thanks for directing me to it.

I agree that alcohol has it's cost, but for some reason the states feel it is economically worth that cost. In NY and CT the second highest source of tax revenue in the state is alcohol. Go figure, but I guess some economist or actuary figured out that this is a positive thing.

Yes, we all know that. However, that does not address the question to you.

As far as the "gaming" industry goes, I couldn't agree more. I have never put a coin in a slot machine. Never played a game of poker (for money). Never took a change at the local parish casino night (gee isn't that illegal for everyone else?). It is simply not my "cup of tea". I think it is a stupid waste and is potentially destructive. I choose not to do it, but it is not my domain to tell someone else they may not. As far as my PhD in Economics, I can tell you that almost 45% of the revenues generated for the state treasury in Rhode Island is from their cut of "Gaming" revenues from video slots and dog racing. They plan on opening a full service casino as do many of the states in the union. I guess someone figured out that gaming revenues were beneficial to their state.

Yes, we all know that. However, that does not address the question to you.

You and I have had this discussed this question before. Living life causes certain consequences. Obesity is the single reason the life expectancy estimates in the US have receeded. Heart disease, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, various forms of cancer can be directly attributed to being fat. Shall we bust fat people coming out of a Taco Bell because they are damaging themselves, their families and the economy? BEcause they spend more time in the doctors office than they do on the job? Shall we institute a "fat squad" to have the government intervene with these people who suffer from "weakness of the flesh"? What next?

Adding more questions without answering those already asked doesn't further the exchange of ideas and information.

 

[Contrarian]

Why wouldn't you date a prostitute? Any particular reason?

I have no need or desire to be with one. Nor do I have a need or desire to gamble, or do drugs, or jump from an airplane, or go to church, or buy designer cloths. There are just things that many of us do not desire. Some people do... good for them.

Would you "date" a prostitute?

 

[Contrarian]

But you are arguing that they give funds so that we can regulate these things on prostitutes. I do not want my money to go to financing controsceptives and health check ups so that prostitutes can make money for selling their body. I do not want them to get sick, but I do not think that the way to prevent that is by supplying them with a safer means to commit these acts, but to show them that they do not have to commit these acts. Can we not just give that money to them so that they do not have to sleep with someone for it?

You obviously need to pull your nose out of the Bible more often... Those who are licensed pay all the fees. Not tax payer money. In fact the taxes they pay to the government are pure profit. You also gain the added benefit of re-allocating police assets into fighting other crimes.

 

[Contrarian]

Fant, I believe I have answered your question numerous times. I am also suprised that as someone who demands individual responsibility for their actions, you feel compelled to assume control of everyones personal activities.

The answer is that other people do not have the right to control the personal lives of adults in a free society except when public safety or property rights are jeopardized.

What two consenting adults do in privacy is none of your business.. period.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You obviously need to pull your nose out of the Bible more often... Those who are licensed pay all the fees. Not tax payer money. In fact the taxes they pay to the government are pure profit. You also gain the added benefit of re-allocating police assets into fighting other crimes.

YOu did not originally state that you felt that they ought to have to pay for this licesence of the medical fees. But none the less, making a racket out of selling girls bodies is still such a disgusting abuse of our government. We'll use people's bodies so that we can get more money for the government to come up with even more ways to make money... Explotation of humans, endorsed by the government, is sad and incredibly greedy.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Would you "date" a prostitute?

No because they are dirty.

I think the only way we're gonna solve this is by actually debating with a Hooka.

 

[Contrarian]

YOu did not originally state that you felt that they ought to have to pay for this licesence of the medical fees. But none the less, making a racket out of selling girls bodies is still such a disgusting abuse of our government. We'll use people's bodies so that we can get more money for the government to come up with even more ways to make money... Explotation of humans, endorsed by the government, is sad and incredibly greedy.

I guess the logic still escapes you. People sell their time and skills every day to the highest bidder... it's called a job. Some people feel that it is acceptable to earn their living by providing sexual services. There are obviously millions of people who patronize this service otherwise it would no longer be a viable business... that is their choice. Other people earn their living by promoting gambling or selling alcohol. According to Fant these "vices" are equally destructive. Why do you not feel that these people are equally disgusting? You have your shorts tied up in a knot. As I've said before... stop... think about the entire problem. You can disagree, it's your right, but you have no right to tell another person what they can do to earn their living.

 

[Contrarian]

No because they are dirty.

I think the only way we're gonna solve this is by actually debating with a Hooka.

Good for you... that is your choice.

You cannot however make that choice for another adult living in a free society (he says again for the 1,000th time)

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

You don't earn a living by selling sex.

Sack grocieries. Pick fruit.

By the way I'd still like to know why you wouldn't date a prostitute. Why you wouldn't "desire" to be with one.

Go for 1,001

 

[sebastiansdreams]

It is one thing to make it illegal, but to make a law that makes it legal, is to condone it. And the government should not give the message that it is okay to solicate your body for sex. We are not that desperate for cash, I'm sorry.

 

[Contrarian]

You don't earn a living by selling sex.

Sack grocieries. Pick fruit.

By the way I'd still like to know why you wouldn't date a prostitute. Why you wouldn't "desire" to be with one.

Go for 1,001

Obviously, you are wrong because thousands of people ARE earning a living in that fashion. Aside from prostitution, the #1 business on the internet is porn.

One does not need to pay for something that one receives for free. Believe it or not I am an old fashioned guy who loves being in love... sex as described... is merely "friction".

 

[Fantasea]

Fant, I believe I have answered your question numerous times. I am also suprised that as someone who demands individual responsibility for their actions, you feel compelled to assume control of everyones personal activities.

The answer is that other people do not have the right to control the personal lives of adults in a free society except when public safety or property rights are jeopardized.

What two consenting adults do in privacy is none of your business.. period.

If this is a response to #187, I don't see the connection.