Yes
No
It does. It's easier to become one therefore there will be more of them.Originally Posted by medievalelks
It is something like:
Money goes elsewhere + more prostitutes VS money stays where it is + less prostitutes
I'd choose the latter...
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Pimps exercise the power they have because they run an illegal operation. It's an unregulated black market. If it is legalized, their won't be more pimps, but fewer. Do you think bootleggers increased or decreased when prohibition was repealed in 1933?
Pimps are not related to this at all. Of course there would be less pimps. But I was talking about the real issue - the amount of prostitutes.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
I don't consider that the real issue at all. Legislating morality -- and the black markets created -- is the real issue to me.
I guess you could blame the conservative parties around the world.
Legislating morality ... well, I can see where you are coming from that angle, sort of. But I think you'd have to tolerate a little. I mean, by definition, "morality" is the same motivation for ending state-sponsored segregation and preserving the civil rights of individuals.
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/de...rality-faq.htmWhat is the definition of morality?
Morality is the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct or a system of ideas that fall into those same categories.
We often hear words about religious morality or the phrase Christian morality in society. Items that fall into the morally sound category are qualities like good, goodness, rightness, virtue, and righteousness.
When talking about a moral quality involving a course of action, we think of ethics. To define morality, a person will use the rules or habits with regard to right and wrong that he or she follows.
It is a complex system of general principles and particular judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs. Cultures and or groups regulate and generalize these concepts, thus regulating behavior. When someone conforms to the codification, you consider this person to be moral.
And yet, the notion of how we ought to behave and the reality of how we do behave are varied and real morality behaves in accordance with one's perception of morality. Often, doctrines or moral duties that support the quality of an action which renders it good, is moral.
And so a system of standards used to produce honest, decent, and ethical results are considered moral.
No amount of bickering will change that there isn't a clear majority here, though. Call me a prude but you can still have sex for free.
Yes, it was the moral thing to do, but it was also about the violation of peoples' rights, and ending those violations is a legitimate function of government. If we truly want to be a free society, people should be allowed to practice whatever behavior they wish, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
But being a prude, would you want to outlaw pre-marital sex and adultery? Those things harm people as well. If we don't limit the function of government to protect people from having their rights violated, the laws become subjective and relative. The Taliban thinks they're doing the right thing legislating morality, even though they are grossly violating peoples' rights.No amount of bickering will change that there isn't a clear majority here, though. Call me a prude but you can still have sex for free.
Last edited by medievalelks; 06-10-2008 at 08:45 AM.
You only need to go back 30 years to witness democratic states legislating morality. In Europe, and a little throughout the world as a consequence, the failed revolution of 68 ("It's forbidden to forbid") is the major contributor to a change in how governments position themselves towards morality.
Since then we went from being illegal to kiss in the streets to discussing sexuality in schools. Major steps in my opinion, that didn't even need the lifetime of a generation to be taken. As such I believe we are moving on the right direction and we are moving fast.
Some social behaviors however are harder to swallow by the still fairly common conservative types. So it takes more time. But it is certainly going to be legalized one day, I have no doubt. It's just a mater of time as governments keep moving forward in their own internal and silent revolution, as democracy becomes more corporate and less social, and as population in general, becomes more educated, self-aware, and knowledgeable, and consequently more active in the defense of their civil rights.
Morality, despite the accuracy of the definition given, can also be described up until the 20th century as being mainly the other side of ignorance. Slowly we are moving away from that and into a more free world (or so I hope) where morality/imorallity is finally scribbled off our dictionaries and decisions are based solely on laws. And laws based solely on criminal justice principles.
Last edited by Mario F.; 06-10-2008 at 09:31 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to bear some actual hatred for prostitutes. Where does that come from? I think it's pretty clear that a lot of prostitutes don't really want to be in the situation they're in, but it's difficult/impossible to get out. Some of these people made a stupid choice before they even reached adulthood, and now they're stuck. They've been raped, infected with various diseases, and beaten up by pimps. Often they seem relieved when they're hauled off to spend a night in jail.
I write what I write about this only because I'm interested in stopping human trafficking. I don't debate this subject because I'm morally opposed to what you suggest, I'm merely concerned about the ability of law enforcement to pursue other legitimate crimes under your scenario. I have no motivation nor the ability to punish people for their private personal moral decisions.
If I made you misunderstand my character or my resolve, I apologize, but if you want a quality debate, look somewhere else. I don't have an acceptable education in law and law enforcement. I only took my stance because I am aware of the problem. I have many regrets.
Eh, no, citizen. No way I meant to put you in such a position. For starters, I respect you and your opinions and its always a pleasure to read you. I Was merely addressing the issue of morality (because it is indeed the major factor against legalization of prostitution in the current societies) and not making any judgment on what your stance could be.
Meanwhile, I addressed before the issue of human trafficking - and related child prostitution - as being, in my opinion too, probably the two major cancers in the world ("terrorism" as they like to call it, comes only a distant third). But it is my opinion either process of legalization or prohibition is not going to affect them significantly.
An example can be viewed if we observe slavery in the current century. As you are well aware, currently in democratic nations people are being hauled from country to country in promise of a better life, only to meet work-under-incarceration conditions. For instance, it was revealed that still this year poor portuguese are being slaved into strawberry farms in Spain. All this under a hood of legality and performed by known mid to big size companies. The same situation, for instance, has been over and over again denounced in the USA with Mexican workers, in France with Algerian, and I still remember the tragedy of the drowned Chinese in the UK.
Anyways, the point being that human trafficking and slavery is not only more encompassing than prostitution, but also it still happens even on those areas where the destination is characterized by legality, such as a lobster fishing boat or a strawberry farm.
It is thus my view that neither legalization or prohibition will influence decisively the outcome of human trafficking or child prostitution.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
There's a good movie that shows where this kind of "moving in the right direction" leads to. Have you seen "Idiocracy"? One thing that proves it is the widely spread attitude "there's nothing else to do" which you just saw in another thread.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
I have no idea in what single way can the movie Idiocracy have to do with what I said at any time. It's in fact quite the opposite. Since the movie is a criticism to overlegislation and state dependency.
It's also a poorly made movie meant only to impress the exact same type of people it makes fun of. The cliches are so easy and have been so explored in the past (hence being cliches) that really only our I-have-nothing-to-do youth considers those 90 minutes of idiocy some kind o cult film. It wasn't worth my time.
Anyways, as I said, you must be confusing movies. The movie you so much like explores exactly the opposite... or are you telling me you didn't understand a movie about idiots?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
The movie was totally about narrow minded thinking (aka "nothing else to do") and so-called "good education" (AFAIK the standard education level in USA is very low). Plus the fact how one understands math has nothing to do with the real education, that usually comes from parents. That political crap you mentioned (overlgeigoerlg...) has nothing to do with it.
Also in the movie you can see that every second woman on the street is a prostitute which you seem to want to become reality.
Last edited by maxorator; 06-10-2008 at 11:43 AM.
"The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore
Wow... exaggeration much?
Yes. I can see you didn't understand a thing of this dumbed down movie about dumbed down people. Not even the fact it was riddled with a voice over explaining things as they were happening in the screen in plain view of everyone, helped your case.
Also,
I think I have nothing more to discuss with you.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
