LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Slippery slope arguments? really?It's not a slippery slope argument. It's an equivalent argument. They're one and the same. You think it should be illegal becuase you personally think it's "icky". I happen to think so as well. But the beautiful part of our government isn't that it obeys the will of the majority. Rather, the beauty is that it protects the rights of the indivudual. If 99.9% of people think something is "gross" and "icky," and there is only one person who actually wants to do this thing, assuming it harms no one, that person should 100% be allowed to do that particular thing. Liberty doesn't mean obeying 50.1% of the people. It means defending the person that no one agrees with, so long as they do no harm to others. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 The desire to be open minded and challenge the status quo is a common one in youth.Also among intelligent people. Or are you implying that old people are close minded and don't challenge the status quo? In what universe would that ever be a good thing?Argueing the negative impact of a situation as immoral is not a bad logic. It is a logic based on how has time shown these things to be. That's why we outlaw activities. The society has determined that the most healthy activities are best, and feeding the base lusts is not. Not just for the individual, but also for the community.Your intents are pure, but your reasons are flawed. We don't outlaw prostitution because of the damage it does to society. We outlaw it because lots of people find it "morally wrong."For example, Incest is against the law. The argument that you made, I guess, is that their children could be deformed and be a drain on society and you don't want tax dollars to have to pay for that drain. Now, do you actually believe that this is the reason incest is outlawed? If this is true, shouldn't smoking, drinking, or sitting in microwaves when your pregnant be illegal (which causes much more problems than once instance of incest)? It's because of the fact that certain people frown on certain things.It's the same reason that smoking pot alone in your house is illegal. People think it's naughty. Really, it harms society in no way. It's not about impact on society.the fact that we base many of these rules on Biblical truth just shows how smart God is.Okay, now your trying to bother me on purpose Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 It's not a slippery slope argument. It's an equivalent argument. They're one and the same. You think it should be illegal becuase you personally think it's "icky". I happen to think so as well. But the beautiful part of our government isn't that it obeys the will of the majority. Rather, the beauty is that it protects the rights of the indivudual. If 99.9% of people think something is "gross" and "icky," and there is only one person who actually wants to do this thing, assuming it harms no one, that person should 100% be allowed to do that particular thing. Liberty doesn't mean obeying 50.1% of the people. It means defending the person that no one agrees with, so long as they do no harm to others. So I go out and get drunk, really really drunk. and I get in my car and drive home..and make it home okay.That should be okay.It's only if I crash and hurt someone that it should be wrong?Or is it wrong because even though most of the time nothing will happen, but those times it goes wrong are not worth your personal 'right' to drink and drive?And I don't base my belief that it's icky, I base it on compassion for the woman. Life is hard enough for some without making it easier for them to become dead inside. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Also among intelligent people. Or are you implying that old people are close minded and don't challenge the status quo? In what universe would that ever be a good thing?If we were Indians I would tell you to respect the elderYour intents are pure, but your reasons are flawed. We don't outlaw prostitution because of the damage it does to society. We outlaw it because lots of people find it "morally wrong."No we outlaw it because we have seen what happens to communities when there are prostitute houses. The moral objections were there when the brothels were open as well.For example, Incest is against the law. The argument that you made, I guess, is that their children could be deformed and be a drain on society and you don't want tax dollars to have to pay for that drain. Now, do you actually believe that this is the reason incest is outlawed? If this is true, shouldn't smoking, drinking, or sitting in microwaves when your pregnant be illegal (which causes much more problems than once instance of incest)? It's because of the fact that certain people frown on certain things.I'll let you answer you're own question here.....hurt others thingyIt's the same reason that smoking pot alone in your house is illegal. People think it's naughty. Really, it harms society in no way. It's not about impact on society.I celebrate 27 years sober on the 27th of March. I've known a lot of drug addicts. I've never met one that had to quit because of the expense. I have known all of them to need to quit because their whole life is in shambles. I will never go for the legalize drugs camp, but luckily most of them forget to vote so it won't be an issue in my lifetime.Okay, now your trying to bother me on purpose Yea, but you're a big boy, you can take it. Crow might need to buy another keyboard. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 This is basically what I was trying to say in my post too. Fact is that it's an underground economy and just illegal immigrants, prostitutes are in a situation where they can be exploited and they are. If it was made legal and the government regulated it then at least the prostitutes would have more choices available to them instead of being trapped in that way of life like some are now. And no Lois I would hate it if my daughter became a prostitute. Not what I want for her at all. I don't want her live with her boyfriend either but it's her choice to do so. Do I love her less because of it? No. There are many life choices that my kids have made that I don't agree with. It's just if my daughter were to make that a life choice I would prefer that she have other choices available to her instead of being stuck with it. And I'd want her to be healthy and safe so would want her to have health care available to her. There are some moral issues that simply do not need to be dealt with by the long arm of the law. And this is one of them. I know this will again drive you crazy Lois, . But differences of opinion is what makes life interesting. It doesn't drive me crazy. I deal with people being wrong around me everyday. Thankfully those people don't generally have to much pull in this great country of ours, and people like good ole BG and LMD seem to make the rules. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 It doesn't drive me crazy. I deal with people being wrong around me everyday. Thankfully those people don't generally have to much pull in this great country of ours, and people like good ole BG and LMD seem to make the rules.High five Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So I go out and get drunk, really really drunk. and I get in my car and drive home..and make it home okay.That should be okay.Of course, by "no harm to others" I mean no potential harm to others. Clearly drinking and driving is wrong and a serious problem. I certainly don't advocate that. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Of course, by "no harm to others" I mean no potential harm to others. Clearly drinking and driving is wrong and a serious problem. I certainly don't advocate that.But the idea that anything is okay as long as someone doesn't get hurt by it seems to always leave out the long term concerns. Do drugs affect a family? Does a person that sells her body suffer mental harm? Are there any effects to pot that can be felt elsewhere?Look at alcohol, we all agree that in moderation, not a big thing. But many many people over drink. It is involved in spousal abuse, child abuse, drunk driving etc.We still allow it because we want it. It clearly has the potential to harm others though. We make it a law that you can't drink and drive, then make it a law you can't have a bar within walking distance of a home.I do not think the absolution of control will result in better outcomes. I think people are basically good, but there are clearly enough people that want to do bad, or would start to do bad without controls. Exactly the same thing as the speed limit, we find a happy medium and stick to it. Sure some people can barely handle driving 55, others would be safe at 85, but we still make a speed limit for everyone, regardless of how good a driver you are. And a person who can easily handle 85 will get a ticket for driving 65 in a 55. They may be upset because in their case it is an unjust law, but we all see why it is a necessary law. Link to post Share on other sites
HollywoodAFD 0 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I look at prostitution as a whole though as being like marjuana possession. A basically victimless crime that is a waste of taxpayer dollars pursuing the prosecution of. We'd be much better off just staying out of America's bedrooms alltogether.Oh dear God..... neither of those are victimless crimes. You want to smoke pot and stay home...I have no problem with that. You want to go out and get AIDS form a whore and bring it home to your wife.... problem. Victimless? I think not. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 But the idea that anything is okay as long as someone doesn't get hurt by it seems to always leave out the long term concerns. Do drugs affect a family? Does a person that sells her body suffer mental harm? Are there any effects to pot that can be felt elsewhere?But certainly we can't outlaw everything that could possibly have adverse effects As a general philosophy, I don't believe that we should limit the freedoms of most based on the irresponsibilities of a few.I do not think the absolution of control will result in better outcomes. I think people are basically good, but there are clearly enough people that want to do bad, or would start to do bad without controls.I agree that people are mostly good. This is why I don't choose to punish the mostly good as a means on controlling the few who are bad.Sure some people can barely handle driving 55, others would be safe at 85, but we still make a speed limit for everyone, regardless of how good a driver you are. And a person who can easily handle 85 will get a ticket for driving 65 in a 55. They may be upset because in their case it is an unjust law, but we all see why it is a necessary law.The speed limit is different, of course, because bad driving can certainly hurt others in very obvious ways. Frankly, if it were up to me, only about a half of people who have a license today should have one. There are just way too many crappy drivers out there. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 But certainly we can't outlaw everything that could possibly have adverse effects As a general philosophy, I don't believe that we should limit the freedoms of most based on the irresponsibilities of a few.I agree that people are mostly good. This is why I don't choose to punish the mostly good as a means on controlling the few who are bad.The speed limit is different, of course, because bad driving can certainly hurt others in very obvious ways. Frankly, if it were up to me, only about a half of people who have a license today should have one. There are just way too many crappy drivers out there.Right now there are many labs working on cures for behavior induced problems. Aids, STDs, alcoholism, lung cancer, etc. If and when we find a cure for these diseases that are preventable by proper life choices, then we are really just saying that we have overcome the need to have regulations on us at all.If they cure lung cancer, does that make smokers okay for smoking? Is there a need to cure for bad choices?The Bible gave us many dietary laws that were very beneficial before refridgeration. It also gives us good practises regarding sex that would easily prevent the 1 in 4 young women with STDs that was recently announced, would prevent the need for abortions, would also result in better child rearing practises. Now I grant you that since not everyone follows these guidlines, that we must take into account people that will go against the 'best' ways. That is why we need laws such as no prostitutes.Freedom isn't free, and to ask the government to make it legal to conduct yourself in a manner that no sensible person would want to live themselves, isn't a step forward.Take into account that we have had much more strict laws in our pasts and the country was not a religious oligarcy that controlled everyone's life.And if it was up to me, I would not let anyone drive till they were 25, and owned property. Link to post Share on other sites
Southern Buddhist 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 The majority of prostitutes are trapped in a world they cannot escape. Whether from drug abuse, being enslaved by a pimp, or just being poor, most prostitutes are victims.I was raised by a feminist, read Ms mag most of my childhood, and had a mother that worked at a rape crisis center for most of my life. Prostitution is not a victimless crime.We just want to pretend it is so we can ignore the weak.I...I....I think I love you.Seriously, I support and will continue to support Obama, but thanks to this forum I just made a donation to NOW. When a female candidate doesn't get any serious discussion of her policies, but is repeatedly denigrated as "bitch," "whore," "cunt," "stupid cnt," "ho," and "the antichrist" (that one was yours) just on this forum alone, it's clear that feminists' work is nowhere near done.However, for all the high-fiving, I don't think LMD would agree with you on your last sentence. His usual response to any mention of the weak is to blame them for their own problems. He doesn't believe in victims except insofar as they can be blamed.And then there's this:I actually think that a small amount of socialism is required in a capitalist society. Be still, my heart! But again, never saw LMD high-fiving anyone about socialism. Of course, by "small" you mean "extra-large," right?I don't see us 'evolving' through these emotions, so we will always need a Judeo-Christian philosophy to give a decent foundation to a governmental institution. Buddhism works, too -- non-violent, emphasis on self-improvement and dedicated effort, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I...I....I think I love you.Seriously, I support and will continue to support Obama, but thanks to this forum I just made a donation to NOW. and "the antichrist" (that one was yours) just on this forum alone, it's clear that feminists' work is nowhere near done.You mean NAG? The National Association of Gals?Their membership numbers are a joke, I remember reading about one of their elections and the TOTAL vote count was less than 4,000. The Eagle Forum has over a million members. Much better women's org if you ask me.I also feel NOW has sold it's soul when they took Bill Clinton's side over all the women he slept with then had destroyed in the media in order to protect his job. He used his position and influence to have a girl 20 years his junior to perform sex acts on him at work, then offered her a good job to keep her mouth shut. Any other man does that and NOW would explode, Bill does it and they blamed Monica.NOW is a worthless hack orginization that has failed at ever being relevant again.However, for all the high-fiving, I don't think LMD would agree with you on your last sentence. His usual response to any mention of the weak is to blame them for their own problems. He doesn't believe in victims except insofar as they can be blamed.LMD and I agree on most things, and on this subject I know we agree.And then there's this:Be still, my heart! But again, never saw LMD high-fiving anyone about socialism. Of course, by "small" you mean "extra-large," right?Reality is better than dogmatism when it comes to governments. Ayn Rand opened my eyes to the weaknesses of capitalism, real life shows me the failures of socialism, the answer is a Theocracy, but until then we will just have to do our best.Buddhism works, too -- non-violent, emphasis on self-improvement and dedicated effort, etc.There are some things Buddhism is good at, but you know why I feel over all it is a false religion. After all, there are temples built over the 'parts' of Buddha showing he never conquered death. But most Buddhist I meet, I like. Link to post Share on other sites
seemorenuts 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 It's my contention that if prostitution was legal and taxed like any other business then the problems you cite would be greatly diminished. Plus then we'd get all those taxes on the money that the johns are spending instead of having it go to the underground economy. In fact, it could be that houses of prositution would even provide health care and retirement benefits.Prostitution is already legal. It's called marriage, dating, courting, sex etc.Nader in '08!btw, a buddy of mine won't shut up because he was hanging out with Silda when she was 21 and he was 20 for at least a month in Europe. He has pics to prove it. They were an item but when I pressed him for details, he didn't even french kiss her, due to his inexperience. Yes, they were an item, but the women outnumbered the men, and he was about as handsome as Spitzer is today. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 Seriously, I support and will continue to support Obama, but thanks to this forum I just made a donation to NOW. When a female candidate doesn't get any serious discussion of her policies, but is repeatedly denigrated as "b.. and "the antichrist" (that one was yours) just on this forum alone, it's clear that feminists' work is nowhere near done.And for the record, I was obviously joking about Hillary being the anti-christ. Bill however...and it is very inappropriate to call her any derogatory names other than liar. Which is non gender based. Using the B word etc is just wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
Southern Buddhist 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 And for the record, I was obviously joking about Hillary being the anti-christ. Bill however...and it is very inappropriate to call her any derogatory names other than liar. Which is non gender based. Using the B word etc is just wrong.I know you were joking. I don't mind knocking Hillary for her policies -- that's totally appropriate. I think I've mentioned before that I would cross party lines to vote for Christy Todd Whitman of New Jersey. She was a great governor, and the only honest Bushie, honest enough to leave early on when he kept undercutting her at the EPA.NOW has more than 4,000 members -- their elections are just like the elections to your college alumni association's board -- nobody ever bothers to vote in them. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I'm not about to argue this point anymore with BG and LMD. As much as they want to have government stay out of the business of corporate America, they want it invading every other aspect of our lives. They probably love the Patriot Act and all it's progeny and would support NAIS if they knew what it was. As for me, I don't want the government snooping around in my private life when I haven't done anything except live it raising a few farm animal. And I figure the less the government is involved in the private sex life of it's citizens the more money there will be available to work on some of the problems that really matter to most people. Just like if we were to stop this foolishness in Iraq, we'd probably have a great deal more resources to protect our borders here at home. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 <------------------------LOVES the Patriot Act.I honestly think that the word Outlaw needs to be brought back into this country.If you choose to talk on the phone to a known terrorist in another county, I completely support the idea that the government can remove all your rights and treat you like a non citizen.In fact if it is found out that the government knows you are talking to bin Ladin and DOESN'T listen in to your phone conversation, I want somebody's head to roll.And NAIS is too much a prerunner to the Mark of the beast written of in Revelations, so I am against that. Link to post Share on other sites
Southern Buddhist 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 <------------------------LOVES the Patriot Act.I honestly think that the word Outlaw needs to be brought back into this country.If you choose to talk on the phone to a known terrorist in another county, I completely support the idea that the government can remove all your rights and treat you like a non citizen.In fact if it is found out that the government knows you are talking to bin Ladin and DOESN'T listen in to your phone conversation, I want somebody's head to roll.And NAIS is too much a prerunner to the Mark of the beast written of in Revelations, so I am against that.And if it turns out that it's being used to listen to Greenpeace and "Impeach Bush" groups based in middle America, is that okay, too?I think the words "trust-buster," "robber baron," and "Bull Moose progressivism" ought to be brought back, along with "civil liberties" and the Ben Franklin quote that "those who would give up essential freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither." Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 And if it turns out that it's being used to listen to Greenpeace and "Impeach Bush" groups based in middle America, is that okay, too?I think the words "trust-buster," "robber baron," and "Bull Moose progressivism" ought to be brought back, along with "civil liberties" and the Ben Franklin quote that "those who would give up essential freedoms for temporary safety deserve neither."So you don't trust government enough to be allowed to listen to terrorist phone calls because you think they will use this power to listen to political enemies.But you trust government to handle healthcare? Link to post Share on other sites
Southern Buddhist 1 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 So you don't trust government enough to be allowed to listen to terrorist phone calls because you think they will use this power to listen to political enemies.But you trust government to handle healthcare?They HAVE used their power to listen to political enemies, and they can already see your medical records if they so desire. There's no argument there to respond to.I actually logged back on to respond to your comments about NOW and the Lewinsky scandal. I wasn't in the upper reaches of NOW, but I was in on the state-level discussions about how to react, and it was a difficult call. Everybody there was outraged and disgusted, and it was more apparent than ever that Bill Clinton has a very seriously conflicted attitude toward strong women. He was raised by one he idolized, but undercut his strong wife in the cruellest way possible, by cheating repeatedly with women who were her inferior in every way except sexually. He had a serious madonna/whore complex, that man.When you say, "he used his power and influence" to get Monica to sleep with him, you're veering mighty close to leftists talking about systemic sexism and power imbalances that do not always give the less-powerful person fully free choice. The dilemma NOW faced is that while they believe fully that those power imbalances exist, they also believe that Monica was a consenting adult, and there was no evidence that she actually felt pressured to perform for him. On the contrary, she seemed to have initiated the flirting. So while there was a power imbalance, to say that she had no free choice, or that she was incapable of making her own choice, is to infantilize her. We were caught between our own ideas of power imbalances and the retro notion that women are less capable of making decisions and should be protected from their own bad ones. Ultimately, the reason I think NOW came down on Clinton's side was pure politics -- he was, creep though he was, better for women in terms of policy than the side that was impeaching him. It wasn't a good place for them to get caught, and they maneuvered it as best they could, but it wasn't pretty. Link to post Share on other sites
seemorenuts 0 Posted March 16, 2008 Share Posted March 16, 2008 I knew a handwriting expert who was called to Washington to inspect some handwriting by both of the Clintons (remember whitewater, etc) and she told me(she claimed to have a 96% accuracy rate, whatever that's worth, apparently extremely high for hand-writing analysis) that both Hilary and Bill are huge chronic liars. This is probably true of any of the remaining candidates, only some of the dropouts who polled less than 3% earlier had some honesty. How the heck do you win an election with such a diverse population unless you are lying half the time to significant segments of the population? Just look at how McCain accepted Hagee's endorsement, you know, the guy who calls the Catholic church a whore. Link to post Share on other sites
Nimue1995 1 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 And NAIS is too much a prerunner to the Mark of the beast written of in Revelations, so I am against that.At least we agree on something BG . Not sure if that scares me or not. By the way, do you think waterboarding is torture? If not then you don't agree with your candidate. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 If you choose to talk on the phone to a known terrorist in another county, I completely support the idea that the government can remove all your rights and treat you like a non citizen.aaaaand this is reason number 1 why you are eventually going to ruin this country and all that it stands for.I think you need to ponder what the the term "rights" actually means and study up on a certain "bill" that outlines these so called "rights." It's a part of this new thing called a Constitution. Pretty radical idea, actually. It more or less outlines rules that require the government to treat its citizens fairly. I know, I know, crazy, right, but I think it'll work in the long run. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 So you don't trust government enough to be allowed to listen to terrorist phone calls because you think they will use this power to listen to political enemies.But you trust government to handle healthcare?So you don't trust government to handle health care but you trust them to go thorugh all of our information and determine who they should deny rights and send off to military prisons?See, certain things go both ways. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now