(No quote so not sure if you were asking me the question but thought I would anyway) That prostitution should be legal because in and of itself it harms no one. I have recently settled upon morality being a function of natural law ergo innate but I make no claims as to what founded my innate moral sense as that would be heading too far into speculative territory. I have my own views on the matter, but I would never argue theological intangibles as anything other than a belief in the absence of fact. Religion is not needed for morality. I am not a member of any religion and I reject deistic dogma, yet I do not rape women... you know why? Because the thought is disgusting to me. Why is the thought disgusting to me? Hell if I know but I am glad that it is!
yguy: "That's pretty funny, considering that since the birth of Christ, no nation has come closer to the ideal of morality based law than the United States." -What evidence do you have that you are not immoral, given the many religiously based opinions? Or do you presume their beliefs are simply false?
Well, IF you are saying that our laws should be based off of Gods laws (why are you so hesitant to clarify your position?) then you are promoting Theocracy, not Democracy (are you Muslim?). The (main) problem with Theocracy is that all thats necessary for the laws governing you to change drastically from what your Gods laws (or your interpretation of Gods laws) are is for a different religion to grow within (or migrate to) your population. So tell me, how do you feel about Shariah Law?
This is exactly my point. The American Christian Right often criticizes Sharia Law, yet they are essentially supporting the same system as the Middle-Eastern nations, though instead of Islam, it is with Christianity.
As an atheist, once god and religion are trotted out in conflation with morality and/or law it's pretty much a futile discussion.
Sure I am, just like the Founders were when they published the DoI. Got that about right, haven't I? Gee, too bad a genius like you wasn't around to set Jefferson et al straight when they were drafting the DoI, huh?
God in the DoI: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...." and a mention here "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare..." Which of these mentions of God in the DoI infers that the Founders intended our laws to based off of the Bible, and please include your reasoning, as it looks pretty obvious to me that they're saying our Rights come from God, not our laws.
You mean the guy who authored the quote that is my signature? Yeah too bad. In their world and yours, unalienable rights come from a god and are inherent at birth. In my world, unalienable rights are simply inherent at birth. The result is the same whether they come from a creator (a god) or creators (my mom and dad). The difference is, unlike you I don't try to enforce my version of morality on others, that is immoral in my world and an infringement of individual rights. In my world the laissez-faire doctrine is enlightenment, the converse is slavery.
Well, I don't know if "voluntary" prostitution is even REALLY voluntary. I think most women who resort to selling their bodies are in a desperate situation. They may have too many kids to support or they may be drug addicts and/or alcoholics. Probably a good idea to avoid prostitutes because there is that double risk of disease, intravenous drug abuse plus prostitution.
It REALLY is voluntary when it's voluntary, otherwise it's not voluntary. If it's voluntary, it's likely out the desperate need to make money like any other job. Except in this case for some women it can be quite profitable. If it's voluntary they choose to earn money via prostitution for whatever reason they have that requires them to pay for the above. They could always choose a different line of work. As to disease, a condom should resolve that problem. As to drug use, that doesn't affect the client so it's a non sequitur. As to avoiding prostitutes because it's prostitution, that makes no sense.
That would certainly be a reasonable request had I ever claimed the Founders intended our laws to be based on the Bible, or that our rights come from our laws. Things being what they are... Yeah, the quote you foolishly imagine you understand. Not really, no. You could hardly be more wrong if you tried, since if your rights come from your parents, they are contingent upon the will of your parents. So you favor repeal of all the laws against murder, rape and theft. Right?
I think you're being a bit too technical with the term 'voluntary.' I work in the sewer. I don't enjoy it, its merely preferable to poverty and the other jobs currently available in my area (flipping burgers). I get paid well and dont need to work *every day* to keep up on bills, and thats worth having to literally get covered in crap... to me. I dont think it makes me desperate. Given the number of women who work in my 'field of expertise' (anecdotally its ZERO), Im guessing some women would prefer prostitution over what I do, which I think qualifies it as 'voluntary.' We cant all be astronauts... yet. Would you say that porn is substantially different from prostitution? Do you see 'porn star' as a voluntary profession? I think you're right that prostitutes are likely to be diseased and drug addicted, but I think thats more a result of the 'profession' being criminal than a result of the profession itself. I dont imagine the 'cat houses' of nevada have any higher instance of drug addiction or STDs than, say, the entry level food service industry or many college campuses... (or, the discount sewage flow monitoring industry, for that matter, if we're talking about our CA office, lol). As I understand it, the Nevada establishments screen both the 'girls' and the 'johns' for STDs, which probably makes them a cleaner option than your local hook-up club.
Dont blame me for misunderstanding your sarcastic, veiled responses. If you want to be understood, state your position -and your reasoning behind it- plainly. ...if you can.
No, the one you insultingly claim I don't understand. My English language comprehension skills are at least as good as yours and based on your post, well I won't go there, the rest of my response speaks for itself. There's no need to post insults as a perceived cover for the lack of anything intelligent to add to the discussion. I can understand your confusion since it's apparent you failed to comprehend the sentence. I never claimed that rights come from my parents or anyone's parents, I merely said they are inherent at birth and that my creators are my parents. The 2 claims are distinct. But even if they are conjunctive it doesn't automatically follow that rights are contingent upon the will of the donor(s) of rights if the same rights are allegedly granted to everyone. It's apparent you don't seem to understand the concept of rights. They are not derived from anyone or any piece of paper or are contingent on anything. The EXERCISE of rights is a whole other matter. Your post gets sillier and sillier. Where do you get this from? I guess the same place you got that you believe I "imagine I understand" a quotation by Jefferson and that I allegedly claimed my rights come from my parents.
Alas, the blame can hardly fall on anyone but you, seeing sarcasm hardly compels jumping to asinine conclusions as you did. You pretty much quoted it above, from the DoI; so since you don't understand that, it's hardly a surpise that you don't understand anything I've said either.
If the truth is insulting, not my problem. You're entitled to your opinion, however divorced from reality. In any case, I think your lack of understanding in this matter has little to do with your fluency in English. To be sure, though the relevance to anything I said is a mystery. No, you fail to comprehend its implications. That, of course, is clearly false. Here's what you said: In their world and yours, unalienable rights come from a god and are inherent at birth. In my world, unalienable rights are simply inherent at birth. The result is the same whether they come from a creator (a god) or creators (my mom and dad). Even granting the possibility of a third option in the last sentence, my response was based on the underlined claim, not some non-arguendo assertion about the source of rights. I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything I said. Certainly that's true of unalienable rights if "anyone" refers to mortals, but they may and do grant alienable rights like suffrage and citizenship; and just as such rights are granted by entities with intent, so are unalienable rights granted by an Entity with intent. From this, of course, we may reliably conclude that the only thing Hitler did wrong was lose. From the obvious fact that some perceive such laws as infringement on their right to murder, rape and steal. You're welcome.
Which conclusions were asinine? (be specific, cut n paste is our friend) You mean this?: The founders were not supporting Theocracy. Theocracy is Law based on religious doctine. The founders simply stated that our Rights come from God (Creator), not our laws. Too which you agreed by saying: So which is it? Were the Founders founding a Theocracy where Religious doctrine defines our laws, or not? It cant be both.
Not gonna do a laundry list, but here's one rat cheer: IF you are saying that our laws should be based off of Gods laws [] then you are promoting Theocracy Is that from the DoI, Brainiac? Well what a coincidence. Neither am I, genius.
So then, when you said 'Sure I am' in response to being asked if you were supporting Theocracy, you were being sarcastic?
You are correct in both cases. However it's not the truth that's insulting with reference to your post, it's you who's insulting. And that can work both ways if you're intent on posting insults rather than discuss the subject matter in a civilized and intelligent manner. Correct as to the first part. As to the second part, I stand corrected. I wrongly gave you the benefit of the doubt and your comprehension skills are severely lacking so you try to make up for your deficiencies by hurling insults. You can "think" anything you like, it's your prerogative to sound ignorant. I can play the same game. Given your posts, I can't blame you for your failures. Since I wrote the post that would be untrue. The above serves as additional confirmation that YOU failed to understand the sentence. The subject of the sentence and the discussion is unalienable rights being inherent at birth. The result (unalienable rights being inherent at birth) are such regardless of where you may believe they come from or don't. I can't explain it any clearer so that you would understand. And that also confirms what I said. You have no clue what rights are. Suffrage and citizenship are NOT unalienable rights, they are privileges. Privileges are granted, rights are not. You need to learn the difference between rights and privileges. Again no entity of any kind grants rights whether it's mythical and immortal or not. From Hitler's point of view yes. As to the subject matter of this discussion, that makes no sense. Then again since you don't understand what rights are it's understandable that you post nonsense. Then direct your silliness to those who hold such perceptions, I'm not one of those and you're responding to my post. Some also falsely perceive that rights are granted and post silliness and hurl insults based on such false perceptions.
It's not voluntary if you feel you don't have any other choices. Yes, because as you can see, most prostitutes are living the high life! Condoms are not 100% effective. Do I really need to tell this to another adult? You are an adult, right? I'm not against prostitution being legal, but it is NOT a good way to make a living. Don't try to make it sound "fabulous."
I remember, some years back, I was walking down to the street to go to the store and at the time I lived in a kind of "questionable" neighborhood. Anyways, there was a woman who was holding up her hand with all five fingers up to men in cars. I asked my boyfriend, what is she doing? He told me that she's selling herself for 5 dollars.
That's correct, if one is forced to be a prostitute then one has no choice. If one is not forced then it is a choice one makes. Ah deliberately converting what I posted to the exact opposite to try to support your argument. How does SOME women (which is what I posted) become MOST? It's not what I posted, is it now? I hope so since I'm a grandfather. Seat belts are not 100% effective either, one can still be injured or die in an auto accident while wearing seat belts. One takes precautions, there is no such thing as perfection. Do I really need to tell this to another adult? You are an adult, right? Please stick to the subject matter, I'm not it. For most (based on the facts) that would be correct, for some, that may not be true. But perhaps if it were legal, it might be a good way to make a living for more women. Throw shyt up against the wall and see if it sticks. Please point to any post where I tried to make it sound fabulous. The heart of this discussion is the legalization of prostitution, not how good it is and that's what I'm discussing, you?
