Whats your opinion on the legality of Porn and Prostitution?

All laws are moral laws. I fail to see how anyone can think otherwise. Facts don't require laws to enforce. "Murder is wrong" is a moral judgement. "Theft is wrong" is a moral judgement. "Exceeding the speed limit is wrong" is a moral judgement. "Handicapped people should get their own parking spaces" is a moral judgement. I can think of exactly one rule (not a law) that has no moral content, and that's called the mailbox rule in contract law. In the US, a contract is offered or accepted when the offer is dropped in the mailbox (or the "send" button is pressed for e-mail). In the UK, a contract is not offered or accepted until the receiver gets the mail. Neither of these positions is more or less moral than the other. No other rule or law that I can think of is entirely devoid of moral content. "Prostitution is wrong" is a moral judgement, but so is "Prostitution is fine."

 

And to make that point would I perhaps go back to the rule of the church before some anointed being with an army bigger than the churches declared themselves king and the church subservient. Now one could argue that the church was government but they would be missing the point, neither could exist without that army and violence.

The Native American Indians, the Eskimo tribes of Alaska.

See B!

Not opinion at all, based on objective fact. Truth is objective, meaning that it is not based on perceptions of human beings (which is capable of wavering). Truth is simply that which is. It is that which has occurred in the past and that which is occurring in the present. That which is, no such thing as truth in the future. Perception is not reality.

And to make that point would I perhaps go back to the rule of the church before some anointed being with an army bigger than the churches declared themselves king and the church subservient. Now one could argue that the church was government but they would be missing the point, neither could exist without that army and violence.


The one true divide that separates humanity into two distinct types of individuals. The criterion for the divide is whether or not an individual believes in "authority" and therefore believes that there is legitimacy to slavery.


Statism, the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, imprison, harass, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people.

A statist is an individual who erroneously believes that there is such a thing as "authority" vested in certain human beings magically giving them the "right to rule" over other people. This "authority" means that certain people who we call "government", have the "moral right" to issue commands to those whom they rule (those under their "jurisdiction"), and that their "subjects" (slaves) have a "moral obligation" to obey the arbitrary dictates set by their masters. Most simply put, a statist is someone who believes in the legitimacy of slavery.

Conversely, an anarchist is the one who knows that there could never be legitimacy to "authority" or "government" because those terms are simply euphemisms for violence and slavery, which are always immoral and in opposition to natural law.

The one that wants to tell others how to live their lives and those that want all to be free, which would be immoral or are you under the delusion that A can be B at the same time and in the same instance?

Etymology has everything to do with reality. Etymology, the origin, the true meaning of a word allows for precise communication understood by all. Without effective communication, a society is doomed to stoop into the world of which you represent. An immoral society where everything goes but the truth.

Obviously not or you wouldn't be trying to defend, unsuccessfully mind you, this abortion you call a justice system. Working for pennies in a prison factory is slave labor and undermines fair business practices. You have no clue what real justice is about, do you?

Another logical error, your premises are in conflict. The private alternative is the one that does the work, all government does is rob a substantial portion off the top between actual customer and provider. I will point you to this little city in Georgia (use google) that proves that very point.

Another subject to which you have spent no time gaining knowledge of the facts. Just look at the argument you are trying to use where you prove my point then make a false conclusion.

G) What false assumptions? I assumed nothing, and explained everything. If this were a debate class, you'd get an F. Try again.[/QUOTE]

There is none so blind as those that refuse to see. If this where a debate in what passes for education, then I would deserve receiving an F for being an idiot and being there.

 

I have no idea what you mean here. It's just gibberish.

Proving what, exactly?

I don't think you would know a fact if it bit you in the ass. Same for truth. "Based on" objective fact means all you have is ****ing OPINION.

Same gibberish as above.

Going by this, there's a third type, namely me, who believes the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and therefore the government is the servant to the people and not vice-versa. There's actually a country based on this principle, if only I could think what it's called.

That wouldn't be me. Or most Americans, for that matter.

An anarchist is one who would knock out the pillars of the building for getting in the way without realizing that the pillars are holding up the building. Knock out enough of them and the whole edifice will come down on your head.

Generally speaking, I find anarchists only find government to be oppressive in the area of morality, that it gets in the way of their immorality, and therefore try to flip the tables and make government immoral and immorality "freedom". I'm not a Bible thumper, but the Bible described such people thousands of years ago.

Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV) 20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Incorrect. Going by the etymology of the word, "terrific," for example, you would not get across your meaning today if you said the monster that ate your child was "terrific," i.e., terrifying. And I don't stand for immorality, I stand for morality, something that cannot exist without a system of law and order. Without a system of law and order, morality is whatever you can get away with. I believe in natural law, but without an enforcement mechanism, natural law is so much vapor.

No one is competing with the prisons to make license plates or clear roadways. As for the slave labor, enforced prison labor was abandoned decades ago; prisoners today opt to work rather than lie in their cells doing nothing.

And yet there are precisely zero private roads in existence in the US today. In many other fields of endeavor, where the private market can provide a better service, it does. For highways, sewer systems, etc., no private provider exists.

You have a vivid imagination.

I'll agree with part of that statement.

 

Of course you wouldn't, I had no expectations in that direction. From your standpoint gibberish would be a very good description.

Exactly.

And you would be exactly right again. In seven decades I have never experienced nor known anyone that knew anyone that was bit in the derriere by a fact. Should that ever happen, I'm sure even the fake news guys would cover it.

And I appreciate your confession of not knowing what a truth would encompass but you really didn't need to, it shows. There is a word for this disease, it's called solipsism, from the Latin adjective solus: "alone" and the Latin pronoun ipse: "self".

The ideology that only one's own mind is sure to exist. Solipsists contend that knowledge of anything outside of one's own mind is unsure, hence there is no such thing as objective truth, and nothing about the external world and it's workings can actually be known, a perception they are god.

Well that has already been address but to control confusion on your part:

Of course you wouldn't, I had no expectations in that direction. From your standpoint gibberish would be a very good description.

And I see it's all still just gibberish to you. And that country you can't name, it's call Fairy Tale Land. Sort of like Peter Pan where Tinkerbell spreads some magic dust on you and then escape from reality. But I already understood the effect of propaganda upon you, you didn't need to declare it for my benefit.

Actually around 97% of Americans including yourself by your own admission above are statist. In fact you probably fall for that old ploy about voting too.

That pretty much shoots any idea that you know anything about which you are referring.

When you have no clue what an anarchy really encompasses, then how can you find one? The rest of your statement is just a rant not based in reality.

Perhaps you should sit down with a "bible thumper" and let them explain that passage to you, after all it is you asking to live it.

The etymology of the word is right as demonstrated by:

​

My 1969 Webster's Dictionary has the same meaning but when I look at the current on-line version of:

But to be absolutely fair as England is fairly understood to have compromised any concept of morals long ago.

Morality, by your statement you have proclaimed you have no morality. Within any culture the language is normally an accurate gauge of the morality of that society. The language is the first outward sign of the decay of morality of a society as so well outlined by Orson Wells in his book, 1984. They called it "speak easy", a language to make effective communication impossible. How can you have a moral society if effective communication is impossible.

What this demonstrates is that based on this one word, America still had a moral language but the times were a changing and now the causation has manifested into what we have today, an immoral culture based on the concept of slavery.

Are you serious? Do you even know how to do research? A few simple words typed into a search engine would show you the error of your ways such as the following that was conjured up by the search gods when one types "prison inmate slavery":

​

Crimes, what crimes, possession of a weed, that is not a crime as there is no injured party but the prison system needs slaves to exist. And it is your proclaimed morality that supports all this, shame on you.

I know you have no clue but really, so you have never used a toll road? You have never been in a gated community? You're now getting absolutely absurd.

Thank you I will accept that as a compliment even thought that is not what you are trying to imply.

Which part, your blindness or there is no education?[/quote]

 

I thinks its silly that if you pay someone to have sex its illegal..........unless you film and sell it. Can you think or ANY other crime that would be legal if you filmed it and put it on youtube or sold it? I can't.