Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Most clever people belive you're right; it's the politicians you must now convince.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Where did you get this from?
    PRC = Police Recorded Crime statistics

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Telling them that they are dirty and worthless and degrading themselves is sexist, that's the only thing that's degrading them!
    I'm not telling prostitutes they are anything son.. I said that their line of work opens them up to misfortune.. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Considering sex workers objects just because of their jobs is as prejudiced and bigoted as one can get
    If only all men were as enlightened as you dear boy, objectification would be moot

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Simply education highlighting the risk and chances of winning, and dangers of addiction would solve this
    Education is often the strongest tool in our armoury tis true, though it has been shown that 'soft diplomacy', in this sense, fails to prevent certain types from falling foul of certain harmful 'habits'

    By the way I made it quite clear that I wasn't advocating banning anything in my post, I was merely answering the OP's query as to why people feel the need to ban things aye.. :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    What is "normal intimate behaviour"?
    A necessary simplification, I don't have time, nor consider it appropriate to go into further detail but the more 'animalistic', less 'intimate/romantic' side of sex, particularly in young/impressionable people, exposed to too much porn is at issue. Particularly so where such behaviour is seen by peers to be the 'norm'

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    It doesn't warp anyone's ideas don't be ridiculous, that's like saying by watching gay porn you are somehow going to turn homosexual
    Heh, slight difference between suggesting that a person can get some funny ideas and saying that their sexuality can be transformed, no?

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You claim it only serves to objectify women
    You're approaching a new record for number of times someone can misquote me/misrepresent my comments in one post, congrats! #Winning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Guns should be legal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    PRC = Police Recorded Crime statistics

    I'm not telling prostitutes they are anything son.. I said that their line of work opens them up to misfortune.. :rolleyes:
    So does the work of police officers, teachers, the army. Your point is? How does illlegalising it serve to protect sex workers by driving it underground, to back alleys?


    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    A necessary simplification, I don't have time, nor consider it appropriate to go into further detail but the more 'animalistic', less 'intimate/romantic' side of sex, particularly in young/impressionable people, exposed to too much porn is at issue. Particularly so where such behaviour is seen by peers to be the 'norm'

    Heh, slight difference between suggesting that a person can get some funny ideas and saying that their sexuality can be transformed, no?
    On what basis is "animalistic" sex "warped" and not normal? If anything that IS normal sex.

    "Animalistic sex" to be honest is a tautology. Sex IS by nature animalistic, it's what makes us animals and human.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    You're approaching a new record for number of times someone can misquote me/misrepresent my comments in one post, congrats! #Winning.
    It's you who is changing your argument when you are proved to be wrong.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    How have you reached that ridiculous conclusion? Adults should be treated and respected as adults, not children.

    I agree, many people between the ages of 15 and 18 should be treated as adults.
    What does age matter?
    Just because someone is old doesn't automatically mean they have more sense than a fairly intelligent child. Why should a particular adult be given the ability to make certain decisions when he has no more capability of making those decisions as say, a 10 year old?

    I refer you back to my relative who is an adult, but unfortunately severely mentally handicapped. He's an adult, but isn't allowed to make decisions due to lack of sense. Now some adults may be able to walk and talk, which he cannot do. But that doesn't necessarily mean they reach a standard of common sense that is "high enough". (Furthermore, there's the problem of defining exactly how high is 'high enough').

    Who are the government to decide what makes someone happy? Surely the individual can determine what makes him or her happy or not. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.
    I agree that most individuals can usually decide what makes them happy or not. I don't see what makes you think all of them can. There are plenty of people who do certain things, only to later think "I wish someone had stopped me". (For example, people who attempt to commit suicide and just end up paralysed, or people who take certain drugs and end up addicted. I was speaking toa Big Issue salesman once who said that he used to study Law at university, but ended up where he was, ultimately for no other reason than having got addicted to drugs. I find it hard to believe that this lifestyle made him 'happy').
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    What does age matter?
    Just because someone is old doesn't automatically mean they have more sense than a fairly intelligent child. Why should a particular adult be given the ability to make certain decisions when he has no more capability of making those decisions as say, a 10 year old?

    I refer you back to my relative who is an adult, but unfortunately severely mentally handicapped. He's an adult, but isn't allowed to make decisions due to lack of sense. Now some adults may be able to walk and talk, which he cannot do. But that doesn't necessarily mean they reach a standard of common sense that is "high enough". (Furthermore, there's the problem of defining exactly how high is 'high enough').



    I agree that most individuals can usually decide what makes them happy or not. I don't see what makes you think all of them can. There are plenty of people who do certain things, only to later think "I wish someone had stopped me". (For example, people who attempt to commit suicide and just end up paralysed, or people who take certain drugs and end up addicted. I was speaking toa Big Issue salesman once who said that he used to study Law at university, but ended up where he was, ultimately for no other reason than having got addicted to drugs. I find it hard to believe that this lifestyle made him 'happy').
    Tazarooni, I think you misunderstand my position. You rightly point out that both "sides", if you want to simplify it, of this argument have flaws - that is, the individual and the government. I am not arguing against that. People make mistakes, people are fallible, people are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, and foolish. Where I disagree, however, is in the ability of the government to change people. I am, at my core, a social utilitarian - I want the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Nobody, though, not the government, not other people, can force you to be happy, can force you to make what they see as the right decisions. That is why, even in illegality, these vices to flourish. Ultimately, each one of us to find happiness within. I don't care that many people fail, and make the wrong decisions - that is largely irrelevant because without that ability to fail, none would succeed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Yeah ok, lets make heroin legal... that's not gonna harm anyone. While we're at it, no point having any age restrictions on it, afterall it only harms the user...

    /sarcasm
    And how!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Are you kidding me!?

    (Some) Policymakers care about the wellbeing of people, and many people, let's face it, are not all that good at making the 'right' choices for themselves let alone others, particularly in the secular age..

    UK Recorded Fatalities 2009 (PRC)

    Prostitution
    Degrades women, opens them up to all kinds of abuse, illness and mental health/self-worth issues.. it also encourages men to think of women as objects/commodities

    Gambling
    Encourages people to part with cash they often need themselves, often ultimately meaning little more than lining the pockets of certain companies (particularly with fixed odds betting) - it can be addictive and people can ruin their lives and damage/ruin the lives of others associated with them, to suggest that gambling can only affect the individuals involved is totally naive

    Porn
    Can give young men and women warped ideas of what normal intimate behaviour is, further entrenches the oft deleterious effect that the media has on female body image, de-sensitises and de-romanticises sex and also serves as to further objectify women


    I too object to people who are too militantly opposed to this and that almost for the hell of it or because it fits with their ill-considered perceptions, social-group allegences or fashion etc - the kind that just like to get out there, wave a banner around, shout through a loud speaker and tell us all what we should be doing

    ..but dude, it would be more prescient to have to take a good look at the issues before anouncing a blanket ban on bans.. :rolleyes:
    I will start of by wondering, why do you feel that people are more prone to mistakes in the secular age? The bigotry and cruelty of organized religion was banished from the public sphere for a reason.

    Now, I must address your concerns in relation to Prostitution and Porn. Firstly, I must say that the danger in Prostitution arises from its illegality. If it were, like any other profession, subject to sufficient safety standards, then its notoriety as a dangerous profession would disappear.

    As for your concern regarding the "objectification" of women, I must say, that it is absurd. Let me let you in on a little secret, humans, by nature, objectify people. They judge them by their characteristics, both physical and mental, and place them in a little box within their own shelf of life. You do it, I do it, we all do it. Sure, maybe it isn't fair - we are all more than are most notable physical and mental traits, but you cannot change people.

    So, you ask, don't Porn and Prostitution take it further, being pure objectification? No, of course not - no more so than any other profession in a capitalist system. We are all objectified, given a monetary value for our physical and mental skills, and then are rewarded based on that value. The plumber is rewarded for his understanding of sewage, the accountant for his knowledge of numbers, the construction worker for his sturdy hands, the athlete for his strength, and the prostitute for her sex. In reality, there is no difference. They are merely jobs, all of them. To place any special value of prostitution or pornography is, in itself sexist. You are, ultimately, saying that women (because you ignore the fact that men work in both professions as well) , and their sexuality, are inherently vulnerable. I, for one, disagree.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wactm)
    This is wrong in terms of drugs at the very least.

    Look at California, ok I know it is only medical marijuana at the moment but people donate it to dispensaries and there is no crime coming from it.

    Also cigarette companies (specifically marlboro) have stated that if cannabis becomes legal they will be dominating that industry and having their spliffs next to their cigarettes in every shop in the country.

    No drug dealer or cartel can compare with the kind of cash cigarette companies can put out there. Plus said drug dealer or cartel would have to launder their money to put it to use in what would be a legitamate industry.

    In terms of prostitution, of course there will be some kind of regulation, for example drug tests, sti checks etc. The drug tests alone would eliminate pimping to a large extent. And your very close minded if you think the pimps and cartels can compare with the porn industry, companies like brazzers and playboy will be the ones who dominate legal prostitution, i guarantee that.

    Personally I dont really see gambling as a big problem?

    Anyway, my point is you are underestimating the power of big ass corporate bank acccounts.
    The crime doesn't come from the dispensaries, but from the drug cartels transporting and selling their wares illegally on the black market. Just ask any American from Southern California why they don't visit Tijuana anymore ...

    You are, of course, correct in saying no crimes come from the dispensaries. This is because they are legal, which is precisely the point I have been making ...

    I don't care if cigarette companies start selling weed - good for them, it will create jobs and bankrupt the drug cartels. That isn't a bad thing.

    The same can be said with prostitution. You seem to assume that I want the drug cartels and the pimps to transition to legitimate business, but frankly, I couldn't care less. If their ships sink in the stormy waters of legitimate capitalism, so be it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    So does the work of police officers, teachers, the army
    Are you trying to suggest that risks that these public servants face in the line of duty are no more noble than the risks faced by 'sex workers'!? Wow, you're more delluded than I thought

    The point is that they're risks that can be avoided, and that we as a community should encourage people to avoid if we give a damn about their welfare. Are you going to tell me you'd be perfectly happy for your mother/daughter to become a sex worker? Gimmie me a break son :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    "Animalistic" sex "warped" and not normal? If anything that IS normal sex
    Animalistic sex between two consenting parties kicks ass (although good luck getting it from most English girls!), however where it is not consensual e.g. where guys stray out of a girl's comfort zone (or vice versa, if you want to be pedantic) it becomes an issue, n'est pas?

    (Original post by Wucker)
    I will start of by wondering, why do you feel that people are more prone to mistakes in the secular age? The bigotry and cruelty of organized religion was banished from the public sphere for a reason
    I'm not a mad fan of religion either bro, I just recognise that the decline of the church, and concomitant erosion of the pillars of community, across large swathes of the country has left a large, malignant, ethical void in our society

    (Original post by Wucker)
    I must say that the danger in Prostitution arises from its illegality
    Sure it doesn’t help when it is a black market affair but legalising it goes against the ethical/cultural tradition of British society and statute dude, you can’t possibly hope to legalise it formally (though I accept that some authorities ‘turn a blind eye’)

    To assume that when you legalise something like this it suddenly becomes safe is also highly presumptuous, sex workers in Holland and then handful of other countries where it has been decriminalised are still subject to abuse..

    Furthermore, the (deleterious) normative aspect would proliferate considerably – are we really going to teach our children in school that (to paraphrase) “when a man loves a woman and a woman loves a man they make a baby” … “also, when a man doesn’t have time for a woman, or has difficulty relating to women, or likes to treat women in a way that doesn’t make them feel happy, he pays for a random one to let him stick his peepee inside her

    To me, and the majority of adults in this country (including the vast majority of women), the sort of implicit normative statement attached to any attempt to legalise prostitution is absolutely abhorrent. Again, I would ask the same of you as I did of the other lad, would you really be comfortable with people in your close family e.g. your mother or daughter working in the sex industry if it's just a case of same old same old?..

    (Original post by Wucker)
    Let me let you in on a little secret, humans, by nature, objectify people
    Let me let you in on a little adjunct, humans, by way of human and societal contemporary evolution, objectify/pre-judge people decreasingly along such primative lines as we become increasingly enlightened/progressive

    The infusion of the more virulent manifestations of that most treasured elixir - the female form, sex and intimacy – into the vein of popular youth culture has the unfortunate capacity to reverse the impact of such trends in susceptible individuals, under certain circumstances

    Now I for one am not about to go waving an anti-porn placard about and condemn everyone in the adult film industry, however I don’t really see that it serves a higher purpose, I do see some worrying trends emerging from the media and I don’t think porn is helping in that sense so I do not hold owt against anyone who wishes to speak out against it

    By the way I agree with your more general point that a 'healthy' level of/capacity for discrimination is part and parcel of human survival/prosperity, historically speaking at least :holmes:

    (Original post by Wucker)
    We are all objectified, given a monetary value for our physical and mental skills, and then are rewarded based on that value
    Healthy economic incentive structures is a topic for another day but I'm sure you can draw a distinction between thinking of someone in your working life in skewed monetarist terms and thinking of someone in your personal life in skewed sexual terms?

    (Original post by Wucker)
    You are, ultimately, saying that women (because you ignore the fact that men work in both professions as well), and their sexuality, are inherently vulnerable
    I'm afraid I don’t have all day to make addendums/ensure uniform PC'ness throughout all my posts, and the reality is both male and female sex workers suffer abuse, but ladies of the night tend to be the ones that wind up dead in a ditch on the news so they stick in the mind aye..
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Are you trying to suggest that risks that these public servants face in the line of duty are no more noble than the risks faced by 'sex workers'!? Wow, you're more delluded than I thought
    So you went from:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Prostitution
    Degrades women, opens them up to all kinds of abuse, illness and mental health/self-worth issues.. it also encourages men to think of women as objects/commodities
    To suggesting sex workers are somehow less "noble"? For a second, you pretending you cared about the risks of prostitution and cited that as a reason it is wrong and should be illegal, suddenly you are criticizing them for not being "noble"?

    Not prejudiced at all I see :rolleyes:

    I fail to see how government sanctioned murderers are more noble than sex workers.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    The point is that they're risks that can be avoided, and that we as a community should encourage people to avoid if we give a damn about their welfare. Are you going to tell me you'd be perfectly happy for your mother/daughter to become a sex worker? Gimmie me a break son :rolleyes:
    If they wish to, why wouldn't I? Calling people "son" doesn't help how obviously immature your perspective on the world is, plus I'm probably older and more experienced than you.

    Again as someone more deft than yourself pointed out, the illegality and deregulation is what causes the risks.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Animalistic sex between two consenting parties kicks ass (although good luck getting it from most English girls!), however where it is not consensual e.g. where guys stray out of a girl's comfort zone (or vice versa, if you want to be pedantic) it becomes an issue, n'est pas?
    You were not talking about pornography depicting rape, don't try and change your argument. You claimed anything hardcore or decent (other than two persons in the marital bed intimately doing missionary) would "warp" a young persons minds.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    I'm not a mad fan of religion either bro, I just recognise that the decline of the church, and concomitant erosion of the pillars of community, across large swathes of the country has left a large, malignant, ethical void in our society
    There is not "dark malignant ethical void", can't you see that this is a myth?
    There is no need nor rationality to the old religious morals such as "no sex before marriage" in a secular modern liberal society. If it does not cause serious harm to someone other than yourself, it should not be illegal.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Sure it doesn’t help when it is a black market affair but legalising it goes against the ethical/cultural tradition of British society and statute dude, you can’t possibly hope to legalise it formally (though I accept that some authorities ‘turn a blind eye’)
    Societies attitudes and values will hopefully change one day, governments and the media lying to us hasn't helped much but one day we will promote rationality over superstition and prejudice.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    To assume that when you legalise something like this it suddenly becomes safe is also highly presumptuous, sex workers in Holland and then handful of other countries where it has been decriminalised are still subject to abuse..
    As are all walks of life... the red light districts in Holland are policed, and they have cameras and security guards. They are being protected, unlike the ones looking for business in the back alleys of grimey industrial estates.

    Legality minimalises the harm, besides the perceived harm is far greater than the actual harm. The Dutch have it right.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Furthermore, the (deleterious) normative aspect would proliferate considerably – are we really going to teach our children in school that (to paraphrase) “when a man loves a woman and a woman loves a man they make a baby” … “also, when a man doesn’t have time for a woman, or has difficulty relating to women, or likes to treat women in a way that doesn’t make them feel happy, he pays for a random one to let him stick his peepee inside her
    Sounds good to me. Sex should not be taboo. And children should be educated, not perpetually in ignorance.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    To me, and the majority of adults in this country (including the vast majority of women), the sort of implicit normative statement attached to any attempt to legalise prostitution is absolutely abhorrent. Again, I would ask the same of you as I did of the other lad, would you really be comfortable with people in your close family e.g. your mother or daughter working in the sex industry if it's just a case of same old same old?..
    Yes I would. People always ask the same question but whichever way it is answered it is irrelevant really, what does it matter? Not many people like the idea of their family members doing anything sexually, but if it is their career why does it matter? It's like asking me what's my opinion on my sister shagging her boyfriend.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Let me let you in on a little adjunct, humans, by way of human and societal contemporary evolution, objectify/pre-judge people decreasingly along such primative lines as we become increasingly enlightened/progressive

    The infusion of the more virulent manifestations of that most treasured elixir - the female form, sex and intimacy – into the vein of popular youth culture has the unfortunate capacity to reverse the impact of such trends in susceptible individuals, under certain circumstances

    Now I for one am not about to go waving an anti-porn placard about and condemn everyone in the adult film industry, however I don’t really see that it serves a higher purpose, I do see some worrying trends emerging from the media and I don’t think porn is helping in that sense so I do not hold owt against anyone who wishes to speak out against it

    By the way I agree with your more general point that a 'healthy' level of/capacity for discrimination is part and parcel of human survival/prosperity, historically speaking at least :holmes:
    [/quote] Why does the porn industry need to serve a "higher purpose"? It serves a purpose, satisfying the sexual urges of millions. Does the football industry serve a higher purpose? Except for lining the pockets of footballers? Yes, it entertains millions.

    The inbuilt discrimination that comes from instinct is primitive. Some are racist, they are suspicious and dislike people with too different genes etc etc However this discrimination defies enlightened logic, we are still clinging onto our primitive instinct when we should be being rational. Our emotions and instincts served us great in the savannahs, and during the millions of years of our evolution, however they haven't caught up with the enlightenment, philosophy, science and rationality. Hence the backwards attitudes towards sex and drugs, prostitution and pornography.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Healthy economic incentive structures is a topic for another day but I'm sure you can draw a distinction between thinking of someone in your working life in skewed monetarist terms and thinking of someone in your personal life in skewed sexual terms?
    There shouldn't be a distinction, any distinction is an unnecessary construction. People are objectified because they are objects. Men are objects of women's sexual attraction, and vice versa. If people wish to pay for sex, and people wish to sell that service, why shouldn't they be allowed to? They obviously disagree with you demeaning them, suggesting their less noble or worth less, and they obviously don't see the harm everyone else does. So you cannot pretend you disagree with prostitution for their benefit.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    I'm afraid I don’t have all day to make addendums/ensure uniform PC'ness throughout all my posts, and the reality is both male and female sex workers suffer abuse, but ladies of the night tend to be the ones that wind up dead in a ditch on the news so they stick in the mind aye..
    That abuse should not be allowed, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. Just like any other crime, just because it's associated with prostitution therefore prostitution must be illegalised? Punish the crime, not the circumstances it came about. Same with drugs, punish those who commit crime whilst drunk or stealing to buy drugs, not ban the drugs themselves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Are you trying to suggest that risks that these public servants face in the line of duty are no more noble than the risks faced by 'sex workers'!? Wow, you're more delluded than I thought

    The point is that they're risks that can be avoided, and that we as a community should encourage people to avoid if we give a damn about their welfare. Are you going to tell me you'd be perfectly happy for your mother/daughter to become a sex worker? Gimmie me a break son :rolleyes:

    Animalistic sex between two consenting parties kicks ass (although good luck getting it from most English girls!), however where it is not consensual e.g. where guys stray out of a girl's comfort zone (or vice versa, if you want to be pedantic) it becomes an issue, n'est pas?

    I'm not a mad fan of religion either bro, I just recognise that the decline of the church, and concomitant erosion of the pillars of community, across large swathes of the country has left a large, malignant, ethical void in our society

    Sure it doesn’t help when it is a black market affair but legalising it goes against the ethical/cultural tradition of British society and statute dude, you can’t possibly hope to legalise it formally (though I accept that some authorities ‘turn a blind eye’)

    To assume that when you legalise something like this it suddenly becomes safe is also highly presumptuous, sex workers in Holland and then handful of other countries where it has been decriminalised are still subject to abuse..

    Furthermore, the (deleterious) normative aspect would proliferate considerably – are we really going to teach our children in school that (to paraphrase) “when a man loves a woman and a woman loves a man they make a baby” … “also, when a man doesn’t have time for a woman, or has difficulty relating to women, or likes to treat women in a way that doesn’t make them feel happy, he pays for a random one to let him stick his peepee inside her

    To me, and the majority of adults in this country (including the vast majority of women), the sort of implicit normative statement attached to any attempt to legalise prostitution is absolutely abhorrent. Again, I would ask the same of you as I did of the other lad, would you really be comfortable with people in your close family e.g. your mother or daughter working in the sex industry if it's just a case of same old same old?..

    Let me let you in on a little adjunct, humans, by way of human and societal contemporary evolution, objectify/pre-judge people decreasingly along such primative lines as we become increasingly enlightened/progressive

    The infusion of the more virulent manifestations of that most treasured elixir - the female form, sex and intimacy – into the vein of popular youth culture has the unfortunate capacity to reverse the impact of such trends in susceptible individuals, under certain circumstances

    Now I for one am not about to go waving an anti-porn placard about and condemn everyone in the adult film industry, however I don’t really see that it serves a higher purpose, I do see some worrying trends emerging from the media and I don’t think porn is helping in that sense so I do not hold owt against anyone who wishes to speak out against it

    By the way I agree with your more general point that a 'healthy' level of/capacity for discrimination is part and parcel of human survival/prosperity, historically speaking at least :holmes:

    Healthy economic incentive structures is a topic for another day but I'm sure you can draw a distinction between thinking of someone in your working life in skewed monetarist terms and thinking of someone in your personal life in skewed sexual terms?

    I'm afraid I don’t have all day to make addendums/ensure uniform PC'ness throughout all my posts, and the reality is both male and female sex workers suffer abuse, but ladies of the night tend to be the ones that wind up dead in a ditch on the news so they stick in the mind aye..
    Again, your objection to Prostitution is, clearly, a moral one. You find it wrong on a moral level, i.e. it objectifies women and goes against your concept of British cultural tradition, and because you find it morally wrong you want to make it illegal. Therein, sir, lies the difference between you and me. You see, just because I morally oppose something does not mean I believe it should be illegal. I want people to have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies.

    It doesn't matter whether or not you would want your sibling to be a Prostitute, or whether or not Porn serves some vague "higher purpose." That is your own moral viewpoint, and it shouldn't get in the way of other people trying to live their lives.

    It is incredibly arrogant, and quite sad, that, for whatever reason, you feel the need to legislate morality.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    sex workers are somehow less "noble"? For a second, you pretending you cared about the risks of prostitution and cited that as a reason it is wrong and should be illegal, suddenly you are criticizing them for not being "noble"?
    A noble risk is a risk worth taking, the inference is that the risks they take are not noble and if you want to infer from that that their profession is less noble than those of the public servants you mentioned then go for it - though that's kind of an aside, the central issue is risk, which only becomes worthwhile, when what's at stake is at stake, when it's for a good cause, and I'm sorry but very few people (including the sex workers themselves) see exploiting women in this way as a 'good cause'

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I fail to see how government sanctioned murderers are more noble than sex workers
    Not everyone is perfect tis true, and I would be the last person to cast blanket aspersions as to the character of individuals according to their profession (excepting lawyers and bankers of course )

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    If they wish to, why wouldn't I?
    Ok, so just to clairfy, you'd be perfectly happy if a close member of your family e.g. your mum started accepting money from strangers in exchange for sexual services.. hahaha, I hope to **** you're joking son or you are one sick puppy :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Calling people "son" doesn't help
    When you're dealing with a person demonstrating ill manners and ill conceived ideas who consistently mis-represents your own comments in his pointed rants "son" seems perfectly apt

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    The illegality and deregulation is what causes the risks
    Nothing to do with the nature of the role or the clientelle then.. God you're naive

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    You were not talking about pornography depicting rape
    Who said owt about rape? Think more harmful in a normative/self-image sense (see original comments)

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    (other than two persons in the marital bed intimately doing missionary) would "warp" a young persons minds
    Master of mis-representation strikes again..

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    There is not "dark malignant ethical void", can't you see that this is a myth?
    No myth son, I've witnessed it in my lifetime, as have a great many others older and wiser than I

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    If it does not cause serious harm to someone other than yourself, it should not be illegal
    Again, there is a responsibility to protect, granted there's a fine line between protecting people from harmful influences and being too interfering, but to give up and let everyone do exactly what the **** they want is to move backwards not forwards - hence we have social organisation in the first place and aren't all still scrabbling around in the dirt

    If lads like you had your way we'd all stay home, smoke the herb and jack off all day with the occasional trip to the neighbourhood hooker.. only problem with that is, hookers and dope-fiends don't actually produce anything that can sustain a society in the long run.. 'noble' as they may be :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They are being protected, unlike the ones looking for business in the back alleys of grimey industrial estates
    You think curb crawlers would disappear if you legalised the profession? Again, a little naive I feel..

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    (re: teaching kids that it's perfectly normal for a guy to use a hooker)…children should be educated, not perpetually in ignorance
    Wow. That is all.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    It's like asking me what's my opinion on my sister shagging her boyfriend
    How about you ask your sister if this guy you met the other day who's seen her on Facebook or somet can shag her ("he'll pay!").. see what kind of response you get

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Any distinction is an unnecessary construction
    If it's unnecessary why do you think a host of civilisations evolved standards of a similar nature concerning these issues - some of them in complete isolation? From a civilisational perspective these normative functions serve as to protect society from decay/dissolution. Rome ended up being run by Machiavellian types who preached the same Jezz-esque maxims: "If it feels good, do it".. look where that got them, they crashed and burned

    Eventually we will adapt and evolve, as individuals and in broader societal terms, to a position where instinct takes a back seat and multi-faceted libertarianism can be a sustainable source of enlightenment and progress

    For the time being though we humans are imperfect, delicate creatures that should aspire to better things and yes try to be less prescriptive/judgemental but ultimately need care, attention and guidance on many levels, from the closest family/most intimate partnerships right up to 'international governance' - a balance must be struck, life outside the jungle on one extreme and Utopia on the other is not black and white

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    They obviously don't see the harm everyone else does. So you cannot pretend you disagree with prostitution for their benefit
    Ask a sex worker if they're genuinely happy doing what they're doing. Ask their loved ones if they're happy with them doing what they're doing. Then, when the hand of cold hard reality has given you that slap in the face and you've woken up, come back and we'll continue our chat

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Punish the crime, not the circumstances it came about
    If you know owt about crime you'll know that it's pointless fighting it unless you address the root causes, and many of the themes surrounding drug/people trafficking/pimping are concentrated sources/compliments of these root causes I'm afraid

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Same with drugs, punish those who commit crime whilst drunk or stealing to buy drugs, not ban the drugs themselves
    The idea that a drug like Heroin suddenly becomes affordable if you legalise it is complete junk *if you'll pardon the pun*
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Again, your objection to Prostitution is, clearly, a moral one
    Yes, there is a moral argument against, although the main argument is about the way such a life directly affects the prostitutes themselves and the indirect impact it has on those associated with them and their gender more generally in the case of women, I believe I have made that quite clear

    (Original post by Wucker)
    It goes against your concept common conceptions* of British cultural tradition
    (Original post by Wucker)
    Because you find it morally wrong you want to make it illegal our forefathers, and, as mentioned in my response to the other guy above, the forefathers of members of a great many (great) civilisations throughout history (I spose they could all be 'wrong'), had the prescience to realise the harm that prostitution can cause*
    (Original post by Wucker)
    I want people to have the right to do whatever they wish with their bodies
    Where do you draw the line? (if anywhere) Suicide ok? You going to argue that that effects no-body?..

    (Original post by Wucker)
    It doesn't matter whether or not you would want your sibling to be a Prostitute
    If you care about each other then yes it does matter what people close to you think/feel about certain key life choices you may or may not make surely? It may not ultimately determine in some objective sense a line in the sand between 'right' and 'wrong' but to dismiss such emotive influences completely is to deny your own humanity and tantamount to nihilism

    (Original post by Wucker)
    It is incredibly arrogant, and quite sad, that, for whatever reason, you feel the need to legislate morality
    My arrogance is not in dispute, though as I've said, I haven't expressed any desire to legislate on owt personally, was fleshing out the POV of those in support of such bans to the OP in the 1st instance and have since responded to the comments y'all have made in defence of the underlying concepts, making no grand proclaimations concerning legislating this way or that, again this I have made crystal clear
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All drugs should be legal, prostitution should be fully legalised, and there should be no limits on pornographic ownership.

    I think only child-like people believe in limits.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    A noble risk is a risk worth taking, the inference is that the risks they take are not noble and if you want to infer from that that their profession is less noble than those of the public servants you mentioned then go for it - though that's kind of an aside, the central issue is risk, which only becomes worthwhile, when what's at stake is at stake, when it's for a good cause, and I'm sorry but very few people (including the sex workers themselves) see exploiting women in this way as a 'good cause'

    Not everyone is perfect tis true, and I would be the last person to cast blanket aspersions as to the character of individuals according to their profession (excepting lawyers and bankers of course )

    Ok, so just to clairfy, you'd be perfectly happy if a close member of your family e.g. your mum started accepting money from strangers in exchange for sexual services.. hahaha, I hope to **** you're joking son or you are one sick puppy :rolleyes:

    When you're dealing with a person demonstrating ill manners and ill conceived ideas who consistently mis-represents your own comments in his pointed rants "son" seems perfectly apt

    Nothing to do with the nature of the role or the clientelle then.. God you're naive

    Who said owt about rape? Think more harmful in a normative/self-image sense (see original comments)

    Master of mis-representation strikes again..

    No myth son, I've witnessed it in my lifetime, as have a great many others older and wiser than I

    Again, there is a responsibility to protect, granted there's a fine line between protecting people from harmful influences and being too interfering, but to give up and let everyone do exactly what the **** they want is to move backwards not forwards - hence we have social organisation in the first place and aren't all still scrabbling around in the dirt

    If lads like you had your way we'd all stay home, smoke the herb and jack off all day with the occasional trip to the neighbourhood hooker.. only problem with that is, hookers and dope-fiends don't actually produce anything that can sustain a society in the long run.. 'noble' as they may be :rolleyes:

    You think curb crawlers would disappear if you legalised the profession? Again, a little naive I feel..

    Wow. That is all.

    How about you ask your sister if this guy you met the other day who's seen her on Facebook or somet can shag her ("he'll pay!").. see what kind of response you get

    If it's unnecessary why do you think a host of civilisations evolved standards of a similar nature concerning these issues - some of them in complete isolation? From a civilisational perspective these normative functions serve as to protect society from decay/dissolution. Rome ended up being run by Machiavellian types who preached the same Jezz-esque maxims: "If it feels good, do it".. look where that got them, they crashed and burned

    Eventually we will adapt and evolve, as individuals and in broader societal terms, to a position where instinct takes a back seat and multi-faceted libertarianism can be a sustainable source of enlightenment and progress

    For the time being though we humans are imperfect, delicate creatures that should aspire to better things and yes try to be less prescriptive/judgemental but ultimately need care, attention and guidance on many levels, from the closest family/most intimate partnerships right up to 'international governance' - a balance must be struck, life outside the jungle on one extreme and Utopia on the other is not black and white

    Ask a sex worker if they're genuinely happy doing what they're doing. Ask their loved ones if they're happy with them doing what they're doing. Then, when the hand of cold hard reality has given you that slap in the face and you've woken up, come back and we'll continue our chat

    If you know owt about crime you'll know that it's pointless fighting it unless you address the root causes, and many of the themes surrounding drug/people trafficking/pimping are concentrated sources/compliments of these root causes I'm afraid

    The idea that a drug like Heroin suddenly becomes affordable if you legalise it is complete junk *if you'll pardon the pun*
    Yes, there is a moral argument against, although the main argument is about the way such a life directly affects the prostitutes themselves and the indirect impact it has on those associated with them and their gender more generally in the case of women, I believe I have made that quite clear





    Where do you draw the line? (if anywhere) Suicide ok? You going to argue that that effects no-body?..

    If you care about each other then yes it does matter what people close to you think/feel about certain key life choices you may or may not make surely? It may not ultimately determine in some objective sense a line in the sand between 'right' and 'wrong' but to dismiss such emotive influences completely is to deny your own humanity and tantamount to nihilism

    My arrogance is not in dispute, though as I've said, I haven't expressed any desire to legislate on owt personally, was fleshing out the POV of those in support of such bans to the OP in the 1st instance and have since responded to the comments y'all have made in defence of the underlying concepts, making no grand proclaimations concerning legislating this way or that, again this I have made crystal clear
    If your argument is, in fact, hypothetical, then it contains the same self-serving conceit as those who genuinely hold these illiberal beliefs.

    This argument, though, that people can't and shouldn't be able to control their own bodies, that some other person, group, entity, God or what not, knows better, is precisely why I started this thread.

    Something that must be debated, I think, is your, or, I suppose, your argument's, idea of women. Prostitution and Porn is inherently exploitative to women only if you think women are unable to make decisions regarding their body, or that they are somehow unable, unlike men, to have unattached sex without emotional damage.. Please, explain, without sexism, how selling your body for sex is any worse than selling your body for manual labor, or selling it to scientists for an experiment, or selling it to the military? Why are people allowed to open themselves up to mutilation, injury, death for money, but not for sex? That, sir, is absurd.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    A noble risk is a risk worth taking, the inference is that the risks they take are not noble and if you want to infer from that that their profession is less noble than those of the public servants you mentioned then go for it - though that's kind of an aside, the central issue is risk, which only becomes worthwhile, when what's at stake is at stake, when it's for a good cause, and I'm sorry but very few people (including the sex workers themselves) see exploiting women in this way as a 'good cause'
    Really? I think you'll find many women actually enjoy it and a good easy way to earn a lot of money. The 'risk' you seem to think is there, is non-existent, or the same as many other jobs.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Not everyone is perfect tis true, and I would be the last person to cast blanket aspersions as to the character of individuals according to their profession (excepting lawyers and bankers of course )

    Ok, so just to clairfy, you'd be perfectly happy if a close member of your family e.g. your mum started accepting money from strangers in exchange for sexual services.. hahaha, I hope to **** you're joking son or you are one sick puppy :rolleyes:
    Why wouldn't I? Please give me one reason. And you seem to be contradicting yourself slightly between the two above paragraphs.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Nothing to do with the nature of the role or the clientelle then.. God you're naive
    God you're so ignorant, what exactly is the "nature" of the role which is so dangerous in your opinion? (though I might regret asking)

    And what specific clientèle are you talking about? People use prostitutes from all walks of life? Are you suggesting only hardened violent criminals ever wish to pay for sex? :lol:

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Who said owt about rape? Think more harmful in a normative/self-image sense (see original comments)
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Animalistic sex between two consenting parties kicks ass (although good luck getting it from most English girls!), however where it is not consensual e.g. where guys stray out of a girl's comfort zone (or vice versa, if you want to be pedantic) it becomes an issue, n'est pas?
    Try not to contradict yourself :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    No myth son, I've witnessed it in my lifetime, as have a great many others older and wiser than I
    It's non-existent, you are stuck in a time warp with a superstitious mentality based on outdated morality.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Again, there is a responsibility to protect, granted there's a fine line between protecting people from harmful influences and being too interfering, but to give up and let everyone do exactly what the **** they want is to move backwards not forwards - hence we have social organisation in the first place and aren't all still scrabbling around in the dirt
    Again, there is no proof of these "harmful" things, you are simply prejudiced against certain things. Harm does not come into it.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    If lads like you had your way we'd all stay home, smoke the herb and jack off all day with the occasional trip to the neighbourhood hooker.. only problem with that is, hookers and dope-fiends don't actually produce anything that can sustain a society in the long run.. 'noble' as they may be :rolleyes:
    That sounds pretty good to me, why do you value yourself upon your worth to society? You are your own person, with individual needs and desires. Why should society's opinion (if you can call it that) have any say on what you can do to your own body? Society does not own my body. I am not property.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    You think curb crawlers would disappear if you legalised the profession? Again, a little naive I feel..
    Why would there be a need for kerb crawlers in a secure environment such as a regulated brothel? Who wants to do it in the back of a car when you can have a nice air-conditioned room?

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Wow. That is all.
    Saying wow suggests you can't think of an answer. Please give a reason why paying for sex is so wrong.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    How about you ask your sister if this guy you met the other day who's seen her on Facebook or somet can shag her ("he'll pay!").. see what kind of response you get
    That's COMPLETELY irrelevant. That's not even a an argument, why are you so stupid to think saying that somehow proves your point :facepalm:

    If my sister happened to be someone who liked the idea of being a sex worker, then saying that might cause a different reaction. Just because she isn't DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

    Saying "what would your sister say?" "what would you think about your sister?" DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. And is MEANINGLESS. Why would my sister or my opinion of my sister have ANY relevance to this discussion? As you can see I am completely dumbfounded to why you would ask that.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    If it's unnecessary why do you think a host of civilisations evolved standards of a similar nature concerning these issues - some of them in complete isolation? From a civilisational perspective these normative functions serve as to protect society from decay/dissolution. Rome ended up being run by Machiavellian types who preached the same Jezz-esque maxims: "If it feels good, do it".. look where that got them, they crashed and burned
    Yes, that is why Rome fell. Not because of Barbarian invasion :rolleyes: It fell because their culture was different from ours :rolleyes: Please study Roman history before using it as an example.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Eventually we will adapt and evolve, as individuals and in broader societal terms, to a position where instinct takes a back seat and multi-faceted libertarianism can be a sustainable source of enlightenment and progress
    Why do you start talking sense after spouting all that trash?

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    For the time being though we humans are imperfect, delicate creatures that should aspire to better things and yes try to be less prescriptive/judgemental but ultimately need care, attention and guidance on many levels, from the closest family/most intimate partnerships right up to 'international governance' - a balance must be struck, life outside the jungle on one extreme and Utopia on the other is not black and white

    Ask a sex worker if they're genuinely happy doing what they're doing. Ask their loved ones if they're happy with them doing what they're doing. Then, when the hand of cold hard reality has given you that slap in the face and you've woken up, come back and we'll continue our chat
    Why does it matter what their family might think? Since when should we illegalise things JUST IN CASE someone's family might object. Family members might object to you being homosexual, becoming Christian, taking up a career in politics, how can you legislate against prostitution just because someone's family out their might object? SORRY BUT WHAT A LOAD OF *******S.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    If you know owt about crime you'll know that it's pointless fighting it unless you address the root causes, and many of the themes surrounding drug/people trafficking/pimping are concentrated sources/compliments of these root causes I'm afraid
    But why are they fighting it in the first place?

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Where do you draw the line? (if anywhere) Suicide ok? You going to argue that that effects no-body?..
    Suicide most definitely SHOULD be okay, if the person is thinking rationally and not emotionally about the issue, and has thought about it thoroughly, then yes surely you should be permitted to take your own life?

    The line is that unless it directly causes serious harm to another person, it should be legal. It's called the Harm principle.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    If you care about each other then yes it does matter what people close to you think/feel about certain key life choices you may or may not make surely? It may not ultimately determine in some objective sense a line in the sand between 'right' and 'wrong' but to dismiss such emotive influences completely is to deny your own humanity and tantamount to nihilism
    Nihilism is not about denying your own humanity, nihilism is about realising the truth that there is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe, and that in the grand scheme of things nothing matters.

    Emotion should not be used to determine morality, it is inferior and primitive compared to reasoned logic. It is years behind, useful for when we were deciding who to eat and kill in the savannah, it hasn't caught up with what we know now. Using emotion/instinct to determine morality is the reason for prejudice, racism, genocide.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    In essence, your whole argument is a slippery slope fallacy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    Yeah ok, lets make heroin legal... that's not gonna harm anyone. While we're at it, no point having any age restrictions on it, afterall it only harms the user...

    /sarcasm
    So making heroin illegal and making it a criminal offence to possess it is good is it? Yeah that really helps the addicts, thanks state!

    Come on, really! There is a massive difference between criminalising something and encouraging its use. There should be no drug offences - if somebody wants to (ab)use a drug it's up to them, once they start getting health problems or annoying other people while they're on it, then the state can step in. Merely taking or possessing drugs shouldn't be a crime though.

    With regard to heroin though, I think it should be available to addicts on the NHS, where they can be provided with clean needles and weened off with no shame of the criminal justice system hanging over their heads. Similar systems work in Portugal, why can't a lenient policy work here? The prohibition of drugs is one of the most shameful things we as humans have presided over.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thompsonbassman)
    So making heroin illegal and making it a criminal offence to possess it is good is it? Yeah that really helps the addicts, thanks state!
    Any addict who became hooked before heroin was made illegal would be... what, over 100 years old by now?

    It was illegal when they took their first hit, the state tried to stop that from happening, the addict knew the risks and knew that they'd be forever tied to the criminal underworld due to their addiction.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wucker)
    This argument, though, that people can't and shouldn't be able to control their own bodies
    Sure people can and should have control over their own bodies.. it's just two parties may not form a legal contract based around the exchange of monies for human flesh, to allow this is to commoditise and/or cheapen said flesh, most people buy into this notion, regardless of their cultural/religious/ethical heritage - though I will concede it is a subjective value statement

    (Original post by Wucker)
    Prostitution and Porn is inherently exploitative to women only if you think women are unable to make decisions regarding their body, or that they are somehow unable, unlike men, to have unattached sex without emotional damage
    Indeed there is nothing inherently exploitative about anything where parties involved are totally empowered and secure in themselves

    Unfortunately this does not tend to be the case where prostitution is concerned, in spite of what the secret diary of a call girl and other such glamorisations - of what is ultimately a pretty unpleasant industry for almost all involved, except perhaps the clientele (or rather those who get away with it) - may have us believe

    Where porn is concerned the exploitation argument is perhaps weaker, however a great many young women who get into the game, be it porn or prostitution, do so to correct a 'market failure' if you will e.g. to pay college fees, because they get into debt, because they are convinced to do something they're not entirely comfortable with but then get sucked in deeper and deeper etc

    In that sense it is exploitative where these women would not ordinarily 'debase' themselves. Many women, including some of the ones we're talking about, buy into this idea that what they're doing is 'debasing'/'dehumanising' - which I'm sure you're aware can cause them direct mental/indirect reputational social trauma - but they do so as they feel they have little choice, not typically because it's a life of thrills and spills

    These industries literally capitalise on their misfortune/desperation, and we as a society, and more specifically as men, are party to that exploitation the moment we proliferate/pay for such 'services'/'entertainment'

    (Original post by Wucker)
    Please, explain, without sexism, how selling your body for sex is any worse than selling your body for manual labour, or selling it to scientists for an experiment, or selling it to the military?
    Few people serve their country for the money, any squaddie will tell you there's **** all money in it

    Selling your body, or rather risking ill health, in the name of science, medicine or some combination of the above and commercialism is not something I would advise anyone to do. We get one life and our bodies are more precious than material wealth in my view. We have outlawed certain types of animal testing and rightly so, many types of testing on humans are either similarly outlawed or subject to serious scrutiny for precisely the reason that human life is precious and suffering should be avoided

    I can see where you’re coming from on the ethical double standard but the main distinctions that spring to mind are threefold:

    1) That medical testing can bring great benefits to mankind and reduce suffering in a way that just edges it over relieving a guy's hornyness

    2) Prostitution has been illegal for a very long time whereas scientific testing has, as far as I'm aware, been legal for a very long time

    3) The attached normative statements are quite different:

    It is ok to go on a drug trial, lying in bed being pumped with (already fairly well tested) substances for a few hundred or thousand pounds

    vs.

    It is ok to go to a crack-house, lying on a dirty mattress being pumped by a series of complete strangers who may or may not turn violent and who may or may not leave you with more than you bargained for in the STD department, being treated like a sexual rag-doll, day in day out, for a few hundred or thousand pounds

    Selling/renting yourself out for the most intimate acts - that can be infused with all kinds of emotions and, for want of some serious cringe, can be very 'special' - with complete strangers, turning such intimate behaviour into a cold, hard, tradable commodity typically devoid of almost any emotion, and opening yourself up to abuse, injury, ill health and potential mortality, to me does not seem like something we should in any way encourage

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I think you'll find many women actually enjoy it and a good easy way to earn a lot of money. The 'risk' you seem to think is there, is non-existent, or the same as many other jobs
    My God you never cease to amaze me - try telling this to someone who's been in the game, or a social worker or cop who's worked with these people, your rosy view of the world of prostitution is a shameful indictment of society/the media (see above comment on glamorisation)

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    What exactly is the "nature" of the role which is so dangerous in your opinion?
    As you alluded to, there is a primeval/animalistic element involved in sex. When you accept strangers into your life in a sexual context you open yourself up to their animalistic side. I'm sure more often than not that works out ok but actually you are exposing yourself to risk, particularly with the type of male who uses sex workers, though I'm not about to suggest they're all deviants or owt, I'm sure many are perfectly regular guys..

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Try not to contradict yourself
    No contradiction there son, just two distinct vestiges of 'animalistic sex' :rolleyes: Points for effort but poor execution, must try harder C-

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    There is no proof of these "harmful" things
    Pretty sure there's evidence out there to support the harm element in a number of the factors at issue here - though we would all accept I'm sure that in many cases it shouldn't be as black and white as totally banning/coming down super hard on everything or stepping back completely and allowing things to roll

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why would there be a need for kerb crawlers in a secure environment such as a regulated brothel? Who wants to do it in the back of a car when you can have a nice air-conditioned room?
    Apparently quite a few people, you do know there are many private brothels/'massage parlours' in the UK right? Doesn’t stop people ‘undercutting’ or 'tapping' certain markets..

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    That's COMPLETELY irrelevant
    It's quite relevant when you consider that some of my points have concerned the subjective interpretation of the vast majority of women concerning the morality of such practices and/or the ways in which they have the capacity to undermine the (perceived) value of women in general..

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Not because of Barbarian invasion
    The Visigoths/Vandals were n00bs compared to the Romans, and in Rome's heyday they couldn't touch the empire - heh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to suggest instead that you study ancient history son, as you'll find that their empire crumbled from within, not due to some almighty Barbarian force that suddenly sprung up out of the forests of murky, misty Germania like a shining star out of a sack of **** :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Why do you start talking sense after spouting all that trash?
    On the one hand I have acknowledged and explained the position of those who feel that the activities the OP mentioned are harmful enough for them to be or remain banned, and explored some of the ways in which I too think of them as potentially harmful, on the other I remain hopeful that one day we will be delivered from our current predicament, that's how - shouldn't be too hard to reconcile

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Since when should we illegalise things JUST IN CASE someone's family might object
    Again this is slightly misconstrued.. my point pertained to points made about these practices 'impacting on no-one else' - this is a fallacy, granted it's no grounds for making owt illegal but a fair point nonetheless

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    But why are they fighting it in the first place?
    That's a whole other can of worms - part of the answer lies in the positions I've discussed but only a small part and I don't have the time/energy to get into a wider general debate concerning: why certain laws exist/why institutions are pitched against certain phenomena that (may) seem (fairly) harmless to certain people

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Surely you should be permitted to take your own life?
    Again, asserting that such actions only effect the people taking their own lives is folly and I think people should be encouraged to see the value/sanctity in the life we have. That said, I don't see it as necessarily practical to legislate for suicide - my question was did he think it was 'ok'

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Nihilism is about realising the truth that there is no inherent meaning to anything in the universe, and that in the grand scheme of things nothing matters
    Aye.. to include human relationships and emotional interconnectivity.. e.g. humanity, or important aspects thereof :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Emotion should not be used to determine morality, it is inferior and primitive compared to reasoned logic
    Indeed not, but whilst cutting yourself off from emotion completely may in some senses be a good survival mechanism for certain individuals/in certain circumstances, a society full of sociopaths is probably not a recipe for GREAT SUCCESS :borat:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.