Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a MAJOR mistake many people make. They think that you need to make something legal to encourage that behavior, or make it illegal to discourage it...and that legalizing something means that society supports it/outlawing it means society is against it. This belief causes all kinds of problems.
Apply this to freedom of speech. Allowing people to speak their mind does NOT mean you support anything they say. Most people (outside of SJWs) understand that. People didn't have freedom of speech in the past because people thought that by allowing "bad ideas" to be spoken, they were supporting those ideas.
A lot of people think that letting businesses refuse service to whoever they want means society supports them doing that. That is wrong.
Some people think legalizing prostitution means society is supporting or encouraging it. NOT true.
Here's one that I used to think growing up in a religious household...it should be the law that everyone needs to be Christian. If I let people choose other religions, that's sending the message that I think it's okay. I finally realized that you can both disagree with something and support it being legal...that was my first step to where I am today.
It's all the same thing. Leave people alone who aren't initiating force or stealing/committing fraud. Change people's minds non-violently if you don't like their choices in life.
Your logic is weird. Freedom of speech is about letting people speak out. This should be encouraged in most cases. We NEVER encourage women to sell themselves, NEVER.
Legal behaviors are not necessarily good, but illegal behaviors are perceived bad in a society, which should include prostitution.
I would want my daughter to have full rights over how she chooses to live her life. We do not legislate and should not legislate how people live their lives.
There are people in my life that I consider family and they are denied his right and tare not free to seek authorities for the same!e protections the rest of us are privy to.
The only victims I see here are those that are subject t to abuse because they know that the authorities will not be involved
"Legality" or "illegality" has no relationship in any way whatsoever to what is "good" or "bad". It is simply what the thugs have imposed upon everyone else. The only real crimes that exist are initiations of force, every other "crime" is simply the fictional delusion of tyrants.
But that is what puzzles me. You don't have to believe that you are wrong to accept the absolute morality of the non-aggression principle.
You only have to accept that you have no right to initiate force upon others. Which no one would argue against if the roles were reversed....who would allow/approve/condone/consent to their neighbor imposing their will upon them by force???
To be against the non-aggression principle is to be the ultimate hypocrite...
I 100% agree. I just remember my mindset before thinking about the NAP, and it didn't even occur to me that I was being hypocritical...I even understand why people deny that it's hypocritical. The human mind is a tough puzzle to solve sometimes.
Is it any worse than the secretary who sleeps with the boss to climb the corporate ladder?
Yes, it's worse. Nobody is stopping you from receiving a sexual service from
someone in exchange for a dining room table.
Those who argue for "legal prostitution" haven't thought it through.
My posts in this thread stand complete now. They may be referenced
accordingly by those seeking a higher interpretation of the controversies
suggested by this proposal.
Your logic is weird. Freedom of speech is about letting people speak out. This should be encouraged in most cases. We NEVER encourage women to sell themselves, NEVER.
Legal behaviors are not necessarily good, but illegal behaviors are perceived bad in a society, which should include prostitution.
The argument you'd hear from someone against free speech is..let's say I'm convinced that Hitler was a good guy and I supported what he said and did. A person might want to make that illegal because making it illegal would be a statement saying "We don't support this AT ALL". I understand the temptation to do that.
What argument would you make against that person's argument?
Those who argue for "legal prostitution" haven't thought it through.
My posts in this thread stand complete now. They may be referenced
accordingly by those seeking a higher interpretation of the controversies
suggested by this proposal.
Well, I have thought it through. You, nor anyone else, has a right to impose your personal beliefs or interests upon anyone else through force. If someone has not initiated force upon you, you have no right to retaliation. When you impose your personal beliefs, interests, upon another through force you are ultimately saying that you are Divine, a God, who owns that other person. Surely you do not believe that.
No person, group, or government ever has a right to initiate force upon any person, group, or government for any reason, goal, interest, or outcome.
All initiations of force are evil and immoral, no matter what you believe you are "accomplishing".
If no one is forcing you to participate in prostitution, you have no "right" to interfere or use force upon those who do. Period.
Unless of course you believe yourself to be God and that you own your fellow man and they exist only to serve your personal interests and beliefs.
I have 3 and yes I stand behind what I have written. I would rather them live in a world where all human-beings have rights and live how they want to live and not in a world where girls can be snatched up and prostituted against their will by human-traffickers just because we cover our eyes and pretend it isn't happening.
Now would you rather YOUR daughter choose to be a prostitute or have her be a sex-slave against her will?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,349 posts, read 54,490,349 times
Reputation: 40799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7
Yes, it's worse. Nobody is stopping you from receiving a sexual service from
someone in exchange for a dining room table.
Really? Does the law specifically state only payment for sex with $$$ constitutes prostitution?
If so I think there'd be a lot of brothels out there accepting payment in goods with no concern about getting busted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
