- Joined
- Jul 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,542
- Reaction score
- 7,685
- Location
- Philadelphia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's fine?Sex is fine if its free. Or is that degrading also?
It's fine?Sex is fine if its free. Or is that degrading also?
What about the opposite? Destroying everyone else's life who is poorest and least influential because someone who "had one too many beers" had to-snip-
We do still have laws against cruel, excessive, and unusual punishments. Destroying someone's life because they had one too many beers is ludicrous when the person themself didn't actually cause any harm.
Any ban reduces the usage of what is being banned. Prohibition greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol, the problem was it also had high societal costs due to all the crime that resulted from it.Which of the following things could the United States ban with successful results? Which would fail, and or potentially cause even bigger problems if we try to ban them.
If you believe there are some, but not others, you must explain why some work, while others do not.
I'll start...
Bans would work on... Severe Drugs, Assault Weapons, Cars without Airbags, Chlorofluorocarbons.
Bans would fail on... MJ, Alcohol, Guns in General, Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Prostitution.
Why...? Supply, Demand, and Enforcement.
Demand for Marijuana is high. There is a very large chunk of the population that will always seek out a high. A supply will always follow, and so no matter what you try and do you will never prevent people from getting high. A black market supply will always exist, and you will never stop it. the same is true of Alcohol.
Demand for coke and heroin is much lower. It exists, but much of the black market for these drugs comes from dealers who got their start selling weed. Legalize weed, and you radically reduce the demand for illegal drugs in general. The result is that the supply for the remainder of illegal drugs would plummet.
The same principles apply to guns in general vs Assault Weapons.
Bans on Chlorofluorocarbons and cars without airbags have been incredibly successful. The reason is that there is absolutely no demand for them. Nobody actually wants CFCs. They want bottles that spray things...bug spray, sunblock, cleaners... ban them, and companies simply come up with alternative methods to produce the spray canisters people really want. The Ozone layer is saved.
Nobody wants an unsafe car. Car companies don't want to produce unsafe cars. There's no demand for that. Customers might choose one car over another because it's slightly cheaper, but if all cars are required to have airbags, seatbelts, catalytic converters... there is no competitive advantage and therefore all car companies comply. The bans are also incredibly easy to enforce with basic inspections.
Those who want an abortion and illegal immigration want it so desperately that they will obtain it at almost any cost. Furthermore, the people who want it can generally obtain them on their own without any need for a supply. Thus making enforcement virtually impossible.
We do ban crime, that is what criminal laws are. For example, it is against the law to murder someone. Thus we have a ban on murder. That doesn't mean there are no murders, but it does mean that there are far fewer murders than there would be if it wasn't criminalized/banned.Since all these bans is the prevention of crime. Why don't you just ban crime?
Wow,4th offense in 10 years? That's sad. In the US, they want to put people in prison for 3 years and take away their rights to ever own a gun for the rest of their lives, for putting an adjustable shoulder stock on a semiautomatic rifle.
Imagine if that were the penalty for drunk driving, on the first offense.
Sex worker, Porn Star, Hooker, Whore, Escort whatever you want to call them, they would be under certain regulation if it were legal. The Porn industry is already under age restriction, because it is legal to have sex & act like it is enjoyable. Child porn is illegal & it's producers are hunted down & prosecuted. Your hangup seems to be with sex, or is it paying for sex. A legal & well regulated sex industry will not end illegal exploitation of children. But illegal exploitation of children should not be the reason sex between consenting adults is a crime if money changes hands.I think my last post was pretty polite. Since you chose to open with this sentence, this post will be less polite.
No it's not. And the people who pretend to believe this know perfectly well that it's not. If your child, spouse, friend, or relative got this particular job, would you congratulate them on pursuing their dreams? If a person on unemployment refused to take a job as a prostitute for which they were qualified, would you regard them as a lazy bum? If a little girl wanted to grow up to be a prostitute just like mommy, would you see this as a heartwarming story of family loyalty?
Waiters and mechanics aren't being trafficked in record numbers. We don't have an entire class of laws dedicating to waitering offenses like we do for sex offenses. We don't have an age of consent for waitering aside from general child labor laws. We don't have major scandals where public figures are secretly hiring waiters. We don't consider it a tragedy if teenagers get jobs as waiters; if anything it shows ambition.
Getting a job that requires a driver's license implies that you have a certain set of skills. Your argument is that the only reason child prostitution is bad is that children lack the required technical skills in pleasuring perverts? And that if they were better at the job, it would be OK?
The evil shit is perpetrated by the assholes who exploit prostitutes. If it were up to me, the criminal penalties would be much harsher than a slap on the wrist. You'd do some serious prison time for sexual assault if you violated someone who only "consented" because you dangled a dollar bill in front of their face.
The reason Prohibition didn't work is the people didn't want it. Prohibition proved to be the cure being worse than the disease. Not only did people die & go blind from amature liquiur production, using ingredients such as wood alcohol, sterno, but there was also gang wars over distributing both smuggled & moonshined booze.The actions enforcing prohibition simply weren't strong enough. If the anti-alcohol force had been 30 million instead of just 3k we might have made a dent.
It is not legal to have nonconsensual sex, which is what's happening when someone only does it for money.The Porn industry is already under age restriction, because it is legal to have sex & act like it is enjoyable.
Right. But I think it's instructive that no one in favor of buying prostitutes seems to be able to explain WHY this should be the case, or why it's morally different from adult prostitution.Child porn is illegal & it's producers are hunted down & prosecuted.
The latter. For the same reason I have a "hangup" about sex with people who are intoxicated, asleep, under duress, underage, verbally saying no, or saying no with their body language. As long as people find someone who consents (and is capable of consenting), then we have no problem.Your hangup seems to be with sex, or is it paying for sex.
The reason I brought up children is because no one seems to be able to explain why that is a horrifying crime, but exploiting adults in exactly the same way becomes A-OK. It's still sexual exploitation even if the victim is an adult.A legal & well regulated sex industry will not end illegal exploitation of children. But illegal exploitation of children should not be the reason sex between consenting adults is a crime if money changes hands.
And if you were given the opportunity to have instead spent the past 50 years as a prostitute in one of those "cathouses," would you trade your job as a construction worker for that?I have sold my body to the construction industry in various positions for almost 50 years & my back is a mess & I have a twisted lumpy finger.
I know. The demand for chlorofluorocarbons is huge in my neighborhood. The black market is exploding all around us.Bans dont work. Period.
Your whole objection is based on the illegal trade in sex & also that consenting adults are fine with sex as long as no money changes hands. Like there isn't sexual abuse & degradation among the married. That tickets to see Elton John & a fine dinner aren't seen as payment for sex by both partners.I am disputing your premise that they are consenting in the first place.
It's not about the wage.
I do think buying sex should be illegal across the board.
Selling sex shouldn't be illegal for the same reason that we don't charge rape victims with being accessories to rape. The whole purpose of the law is (or should be) to protect the victim, not to punish them.
What about the Elton John tickets, does that make one person nonconsenting? Dumb primis.It is not legal to have nonconsensual sex, which is what's happening when someone only does it for money.
Right. But I think it's instructive that no one in favor of buying prostitutes seems to be able to explain WHY this should be the case, or why it's morally different from adult prostitution.
The latter. For the same reason I have a "hangup" about sex with people who are intoxicated, asleep, under duress, underage, verbally saying no, or saying no with their body language. As long as people find someone who consents (and is capable of consenting), then we have no problem.
The reason I brought up children is because no one seems to be able to explain why that is a horrifying crime, but exploiting adults in exactly the same way becomes A-OK. It's still sexual exploitation even if the victim is an adult.
And if you were given the opportunity to have instead spent the past 50 years as a prostitute in one of those "cathouses," would you trade your job as a construction worker for that?
My objection is based on what I said my objection was based on. That prostitutes aren't consenting if money changes hands.Your whole objection is based on the illegal trade in sex & also that consenting adults are fine with sex as long as no money changes hands.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.Like there isn't sexual abuse & degradation among the married.
If that's the way that you view your relationship with your wife, that's your business, but if I approached relationships that way I think I'd personally seek some counseling.That tickets to see Elton John & a fine dinner aren't seen as payment for sex by both partners.
None of which would address my objection.Legalizing the trade in cat would come with some restrictions, age being one, health certification (including drug testing), protection & eliminate getting into the cars of strangers.
I think it should be illegal to exploit men in the sex trade too.I know you think you are defending the fairer sex,
I am opposed to banning selling sex.but in reality you are defending illegal prostitution, because it's called the oldest profession for a reason, & will stay in the shadows endangering woman & children as long as it's disparaged & prosecuted & woman & girls will continue to disappear.
So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers, the status quo. No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere. Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.My objection is based on what I said my objection was based on. That prostitutes aren't consenting if money changes hands.
Irrelevant to the subject at hand.
If that's the way that you view your relationship with your wife, that's your business, but if I approached relationships that way I think I'd personally seek some counseling.
None of which would address my objection.
I think it should be illegal to exploit men in the sex trade too.
I am opposed to banning selling sex.
Buying sex *should* stay in the shadows. Like all unethical behaviors, banning it won't get rid of it entirely. But it will reduce it via deterrence and remove dangerous sex offenders from the general population.
Another way to see this is: reform still isn't, and maybe cannot, address(ing) the root issue of exploitation. Prostitution is an exploitative relation, and its transactional structure enhances the exploitive aspects.So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers, the status quo. No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere. Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.
I've said all I can. to explain how it could be safer for worker & customers .
We disagree.
Bans didn’t reduce alcohol consumption at all.Any ban reduces the usage of what is being banned. Prohibition greatly reduced the consumption of alcohol, the problem was it also had high societal costs due to all the crime that resulted from it.
You have less of neither. It’s actually easier to get drugs (banned) than it is to get guns (not banned).If you ban guns you will have less guns, if you ban drugs, you will have less drugs, the question is always whether the benefits of the ban are outweighed by the consequences of it which is usually higher crime depending on what is being banned.
Why do you people always trot out the prohibition on alcohol as "evidence" that outlawing something won't work?With the experience of the roaring twenties and the centuries-long 'ban' on cannabis I'd say there is ample proof that bans don't do anything but guarantee high pricesl.
The United States created a few hundred millionaires, perhaps billionaires here in British Columbia because of "the WAR ON DRUGS!"
I know growers who have retired at 50-60 and now live in places like Belize; the DEA, FBI, ATF and local police assured there would always be high prices below the 49th...the longest undefended border in the world where our countries are divided by no more than a white line painted on the road.
Did anyone ever go to jail?
Nope. Not one.
The highest fines occurred in the 80's, $5,000 to $7,000 less than the cost of a business license.
Let me know what you're going to ban next, I'll invest,
Nope, I am for arresting and incarcerating the people who victimize prostitutes instead of giving them a slap on the wrist and/or ignoring it entirely.So you are for BJ's in alleys & the backs of cars, disappearing sex workers,
Nope, the status quo (at least in the United States) is that selling sex is illegal in 49 states, so it's usually the prostitutes themselves who are arrested.the status quo.
Who said no regulations? If someone hires a prostitute, I think they should do serious prison time for sexual assault. That's a pretty substantial regulation.No regulations on a business that ain't going nowhere.
Good thing that isn't what I said.Saying your against reform is being for it as it exists now.
The way for it to be safer for the workers is to stop arresting them and instead arrest the men who exploit them.I've said all I can. to explain how it could be safer for worker & customers .
We disagree.
You are wrong. Alcohol consumption was reduced to 30% of its pre-prohibition level at first, and by the end of prohibition was 60% of its previous level. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdfBans didn’t reduce alcohol consumption at all.
You have less of neither. It’s actually easier to get drugs (banned) than it is to get guns (not banned).
I’m not.You are wrong.
No it wasn’t.Alcohol consumption was reduced to 30% of its pre-prohibition level at first, and by the end of prohibition was 60% of its previous level. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w3675/w3675.pdf
They aren’t easier to make.Of course it is easier to get drugs, they are easier to make. The easier something is to make, the less effective a ban is.
It had no effect non the consumption of alcohol. It’s why bootlegging existed, and why it was eventually repealed. It was a complete failure.It's is why prohibition reduced, but did not eliminate the consumption of alcohol.
There is no point in arguing with someone that ignores evidence. I provided you evidence that it indeed reduced the consumption of alcohol. The problem with prohibition is not that it didn't reduce the consumption of alcohol, it did, and significantly. The problem was it wasn't worth the organized crime that went along with it.I’m not.
No it wasn’t.
They aren’t easier to make.
It had no effect non the consumption of alcohol. It’s why bootlegging existed, and why it was eventually repealed. It was a complete failure.
If you read it all you will see there are other proofs (pardon the pun) such as "THE WAR ON DRUGS!"Why do you people always trot out the prohibition on alcohol as "evidence" that outlawing something won't work?
Learn some of the history of "prohibition"
While TECHNICALLY we had prohibition of alcohol, in reality we never did. Even with prohibition there were so many exceptions and carve outs that EFFECTIVELY alcohol was still largely legal. For medical reasons (which is how Walgreens became a huge chain, to aboard ships (Booze cruises) and various other exceptions.
What "war on porn"?If you read it all you will see there are other proofs (pardon the pun) such as "THE WAR ON DRUGS!"
How'd that work out for ya.......?
Hope it helped the US but what is did was make some pot growers extremely wealthy who retired to Belize a decade ago.
Try banning sex....
Oh right, you tried that with the war on porn....
Sex for money, in any aspect. Sex not for procreation...What "war on porn"?
I agreeThere is no point in arguing with someone that ignores evidence.
no, you didn't.I provided you evidence that it indeed reduced the consumption of alcohol.
It did not. That's why bootlegging was so profitable.The problem with prohibition is not that it didn't reduce the consumption of alcohol, it did, and significantly.
It didn't go along with it, which is why bootlegging flourished.The problem was it wasn't worth the organized crime that went along with it.
Then don't make them.Here is the thing, I am a gun owner. Been a gun owner my entire life. I probably own more guns than most members of this forum. I believe we have a constitutional right to own firearms. However, I don't like bad arguments.
Except I'm not actually. We know prohibition did not reduce alcohol consumption. We know drug prohibition does not reduce drug consumption. We know a gun ban would not reduce gun availability.I don't like bad arguments from the anti-2A side, and I don't like bad arguments from the pro-2A side and by ignoring evidence presented to you, you making a bad argument.