IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 31st August 2022, 05:08 PM   #801
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You do realize that all of our schools, technical colleges and universities do drug education, and are required to carry similar H&S manuals with the same sorts of advice in them? Right? Drug use and addiction must be rife at all our educational institutions, aye?

I reckon you think you've found a gotcha, but what you have really found is a big, fat nothingburger!
...in case anyone is interested: here is the original Occupational Health and Safety in the sex work industry documentation. It can get quite technical.

https://www.nzpc.org.nz/pdfs/OHS.Sex-Industry.pdf
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 05:17 AM   #802
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No it doesn't - in the one example, Nevada (or rather 10 counties in Nevada), there are no restrictions on out of state visitors and tourists availing themselves of their services.

And why would there be?
I didn't say it does, I said it would, if state laws were written per Myriad's "If for some silly reason a state wanted to legalize prostitution only for state residents (or only for tourists from out of state) I assume they could write the laws that way." that you linked to below.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
This post of shuttlt's...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=775

... my reply...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=776

... and then Myriad's reply to me...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=780

...is what kicked this sub-topic off. Others have sidetracked to specific, cherry picked examples of interstate-restrictions. What I have been addressing all along is even questioning the idea that legal prostitution should even have some kind of interstate restriction in the first place.
I don't think anyone is claiming it should have some kind of interstate restriction. We're disputing your claim that if there were an interstate restriction it would be too difficult to enforce with examples of how enforcement on interstate or age restricted purchases are already done. And if you think that here in the "land of the free," where I have to prove my age every single week to people that have known me for a decade before they can sell me another beer, that there would be no age restrictions on using a legal prostitute's services with state ID checks mandated, then you're out of touch.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 02:11 PM   #803
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I don't think anyone is claiming it should have some kind of interstate restriction..
shuttlt did. He implied that it would be a problem
...

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Amsterdam get's sex tourists from all over the place. Where prostitution has been legalised in the US, I wonder if you don't get people coming from out of state to take advantage of the laws. I doubt a lot of people are flying to New Zealand for the legal prostitutes when they could fly to Thailand or Amsterdam instead.

When debunking that argument, I think you have to deal with the geographic isolation of both countries. One could have the most liberal, anything goes, attitude to prostitution on Easter Island. The consequences could not be compared to implementing the same policy in some similarly populated community in an easy travelling distance from major US population centres.
This is a clear & obvious implication that people coming from interstate to use prostitutes would be problem, with "consequences", therefore a reason why legalized prostitution should not be implemented - otherwise, why even bring it up?

As is usual with shuttlt, these consequences are never stated, even with repeated requests to do so.

As for this business of enforcing out of state id to make all purchases in the US, sorry, I'm not buying it. Sure, certain items can have ID enforcement - you can see the approximate age of the buyer, and you can see what they are buying. How are you going to enforce an out of state restriction against a person buying vegetables at a farmer's market, or a person buying breakfast cereal at a supermarket. You have observational clue as to where the person comes from, and you can see they are not buying restricted items. The only way to do it is for each and every transaction requires the checkout operations to ask the the shopper for their some form of ID that proves they live in-state. A passport doesn't do that so perhaps a driver's license might, but the problem there is that people can hold multiple driver's licenses for different stares.

I will grant that such enforcement might not be 100% impossible, but it would be both impractical and an administrative nightmare.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 02:34 PM   #804
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
shuttlt did. He implied that it would be a problem
...



This is a clear & obvious implication that people coming from interstate to use prostitutes would be problem, with "consequences", therefore a reason why legalized prostitution should not be implemented - otherwise, why even bring it up?

As is usual with shuttlt, these consequences are never stated, even with repeated requests to do so.
Pointing out very obvious differences in the consequences for enacting a policy in the middle of nowhere, from implementing the same policy where everybody can come and take advantage of it cheaply and easily is not a recommendation for any particular course of action.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 04:05 PM   #805
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
For starters, let's compare a license that costs "100-200 large per year" to the cost in NZ to apply for an Operator's licence: $250.

Who has got the money and resources to be able to drop "200 large" and also run a profitable brothel? "Sound financial backing" really doesn't need to be a priority here. It means that owning a brothel is restricted to people who expect to make over a million a year. It's WHY organized crime and corrupt, profit-motivated businessmen run the industry. Because the onerous licence fees shut everyone else out.

That's problematic.
Fair point, but that's just a different model. Having it at $250 basically allows any street corner pimp to continue his operation with a new legal haircut. The same reasoning was used when legalizing gambling in Atlantic City; a 500 room hotel had to be part of the casino operation license. This kept every street corner store from running dice, which is essentially no different than the illegal version, except the tax man gets a cut. As long as the casino stays solvent, of course.

Eta: this is the United States. If you have a strong model and business plan, investors will pony up the cash with no problem. We had a patent for edible earrings that sold for something like $1.7 mil to a freaking high schooler some years back. IIRC, they didn't even go into mass production before the buyer lost interest.

What were the other laws you assert are bad?

Quote:
There is a VERY strong active movement that have been fighting for decriminalization. For
example Coyote were formed in 1973.

https://www.nswp.org/timeline/coyote-founded-california

That you haven't heard of their efforts is just part of the whole "start listening" thing.
You're joking, right? Everyone around in the '80s remembers COYOTE, but they disappeared off the public radar years ago. I wasn't referring to historical activists; I am speaking in the present tense. Since I note you didn't link to the primary source, that's a tell that you looked at it and tried to bluff your way through. Again. Here:

http://coyotela.org/

The site has not even been updated for nearly a decade. Dead links all over.

"But wait" says banquetbear, moving the goalposts again. "They just rebranded as ISWFACE and continue the fight!"

No they didn't. The President, Norma Jean Almodovar, and evidently the sole member, runs a bunch of other related sites, also not current. All the websites are registered at her personal IP address. Seems she is hawking her arts and crafts on one of the few relatively active ones.

This is the "VERY active" movement, huh? One woman who has posted less online in the last decade on this topic than you or I have in the last week? Weak sauce, man.

Quote:
And what do we have here? A Vox article from 2019 giving a general overview, an article from Progressive Magazine (?) that you lifted from the third link, which is another small outfit. I don't have FB or Insta, so I can't see their stats, but I see they have about 3600 Twitter followers, and 250 subscribers to their YouTube channel. Nobody individuals have higher subscribers and followers, so I would put this organization in the "small groups" category I mentioned already.

Couple interesting things I saw though. Advocates in the recent New York proposals were strongly against the Nordic Model, and strongly favor decriminalization over legalization. Maybe they want to maintain their operational methods, but without getting arrested?

The bottom line seems to be that 66x more money is spent on the illegal variety over the legal when clients are given the choice of both in the Las Vegas area. That's really saying something. Seems to.me that, were I in the market, I would favor that scrumptious lineup that throws down for $200 while you can flip off police, rather than a streetwalkers that can land you in jail. But that's not what the market seems to want, from either end.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 1st September 2022 at 04:38 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 05:35 PM   #806
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
No, it won't. We have such Romeo & Juliet exceptions - they only apply to under aged people and their sexual partners.

I will repeat what I said in my post...

[INDENT]"IIRC...


I think I found the problem...

Quote:
...the main reason we chose to have 18 years-old as the minimum legal age for a sex-worker, even though the age of consent is 16 years, surrounded the fact, among other things, that 16 and 17 year-olds were likely to still be at school. It was considered that, while girls under the age of 18 were mature enough to make their own decisions regarding intimacy with their boyfriends, they probably were not mature enough to make good judgements around whether or not they should be bonking with older adults. "[/indent]
Quote:
I will keep repeating this until you either get it, or you get pissed off with asking me about it.
Repeat all you like. It's been debunked. Not a legal word that applies to being prohibitive of sex work, as opposed to any other part time student employment. What you personally think, or choose to recall, is not codified in the law.

Quote:
You seem to be obsessed with comparing sex work with one, cherry picked, part time occupation. I have no idea why.

And no, there is no unspoken moral anything. I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that sex-work is just anther job involving supply and demand. My objection to 16 to 18 year olds being involved in sex work has nothing whatever to do with morality and everything to do with the unpredictability of their emotional maturity and sense of judgement. I would no more want a 16 year old employed in sex work than I would want them driving a long distance truck, or operating a heavy piece of machinery like a digger or a bulldozer, or serving drinks in a pub. (You're in construction - would you want a 16 year-old operating a 10 ton Komatsu digger in a constriction yard?)
I operated my fathers Case backhoe at 16, for whatever that's worth, and my father wouldn't allow workers in their 20's to do so, because they were knuckleheads. I wasn't.

Your examples show where children could make grave mistakes that would hurt themselves or others or cause property damage. What damage and hurt are you posing that sex causes minors above the AoC?

Quote:
Because no person involved in any other trade, job or profession, has ever taken recreational drugs of any kind, ever! Seriously? I mean, that is the basis of your argument?
No. And I think you know that.

Quote:
Try looking up the NZ ministry of Health website some time. You will find, ahem, oh yes.. needle exchange programs. I have owned two businesses in my lifetime... BOTH were required by law to have a Health and Safety manual, and in that manual you will find all kinds of guidelines, both specific to the business, and general in nature, including advice on drug use and addiction, and where to find help such as... ahem, oh yes.. needle exchange programs. Drug use and addiction must be rife at the Ministry of Health, in Sporting Goods stores, and in One Hour Photo labs, aye?

You do realize that all of our schools, technical colleges and universities do drug education, and are required to carry similar H&S manuals with the same sorts of advice in them? Right? Drug use and addiction must be rife at all our educational institutions, aye?
Are you seriously claiming that a brochure or a help link is the same as actually running your own needle exchange centers, like the Collective does?

Hey, did you run a needle exchange center for your photomart? I think I know the answer, without even peeking.

Quote:
I reckon you think you've found a gotcha, but what you have really found is a big, fat nothingburger!
No, you just are trying your hand at misdirection. And it's right there for all to see.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 1st September 2022 at 05:37 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 06:49 PM   #807
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Pointing out very obvious differences in the consequences for enacting a policy in the middle of nowhere, from implementing the same policy where everybody can come and take advantage of it cheaply and easily is not a recommendation for any particular course of action.
Neither is it a recommendation against any particular course of action.
Come back when you can explain what the consequences will be in allowing people to cross state borders to avail themselves of the services of sex workers, that would not also apply to any other service. If you cannot do that, then you have no valid argument, i.e. you have nothingburger
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 07:08 PM   #808
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Fair point, but that's just a different model. Having it at $250 basically allows any street corner pimp to continue his operation with a new legal haircut. The same reasoning was used when legalizing gambling in Atlantic City; a 500 room hotel had to be part of the casino operation license. This kept every street corner store from running dice, which is essentially no different than the illegal version, except the tax man gets a cut. As long as the casino stays solvent, of course.
...here in New Zealand, any "street corner pimp" wouldn't be able to continue his operation if they had previously had a criminal conviction. The reforms bought competition. For most sex workers that meant they didn't need to work with the "street corner pimp" any more. They could work independently without the need for "protection." And any "street corner pimp" who didn't comply with all the relevant employment legislation would be subject to sanction.

The money isn't supposed to be a barrier. It covers basic administration. The barriers to "bad actors" are the criminal background check, and the requirement to comply with wage, tax, employment and health and safety laws. It is fundamentally different to the illegal version.

Quote:
What were the other laws you assert are bad?
To be clear, it isn't just the laws. It's the framework.

Requiring sex workers to register with the county sheriff and submit for invasive regular checkups which they have to pay for themselves. While working they are treated like employees (including being made to stay at the brothel for days, sometimes weeks) but are actually independent contractors which means no health benefits, vacation, pay their own taxes, and some up to $750.00 in county fees.

Sex workers have little agency. In order to work within the Nevada legalized framework, they have to submit to the demands of the brothel owners. They cannot decide to work for themselves. They cannot work for a smaller business, because smaller businesses cannot afford to get into the market, they have to register with the cops and regularly check in. Its a framework where organized crime and corrupt, profit-motivated businessmen have ALL of the power and control. And that's problematic.

Quote:
You're joking, right? Everyone around in the '80s remembers COYOTE, but they disappeared off the public radar years ago. I wasn't referring to historical activists; I am speaking in the present tense. Since I note you didn't link to the primary source, that's a tell that you looked at it and tried to bluff your way through. Again. Here:

http://coyotela.org/

The site has not even been updated for nearly a decade. Dead links all over.
I don't know why you are so interested in these "gotchas." The statement you are responding to was "There is a VERY strong active movement that have been fighting for decriminalization. For example Coyote were formed in 1973." I provided additional context later in the thread. But my point was that the fight didn't just start yesterday. That's it. Nothing more.


Quote:
"But wait" says banquetbear, moving the goalposts again. "They just rebranded as ISWFACE and continue the fight!"

No they didn't. The President, Norma Jean Almodovar, and evidently the sole member, runs a bunch of other related sites, also not current. Seems she is hawking her arts and crafts on one.

This is the "VERY active" movement, huh? One woman who has posted less online in the last decade on this topic than you or I have in the last week? Weak sauce, man.
LOL.

I never moved any goalposts. I didn't say anything about the ISWFACE. The movement has been active since at least 1973. That's the only reason I cited Coyote.

Quote:
And what do we have here? A Vox article from 2019 giving a general overview, an article from Progressive Magazine (?) that you lifted from the third link, which is another small outfit. I don't have FB or Insta, so I can't see their stats, but I see they have about 3600 Twitter followers, and 250 subscribers to their YouTube channel. Nobody individuals have higher subscribers and followers, so I would put this organization in the "small groups" category I mentioned already.
I mean: I've literally thrown the ACLU link at you several times already, who have taken up the battle on behalf of sex workers. I'll link to them again, just in case you missed it the first couple of times.

https://www.aclu.org/news/topic/its-...alize-sex-work

They've taken up the fight because do you know how hard it is to advocate for yourself when you are constantly under threat of being arrested?

And this is the result of that advocacy work. 52 percent of Americans and two-thirds of voters age 18 to 44 years support decriminalizing sex work. Cite.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/30/...g%20sex%20work.

If you hadn't noticed the shift in public sentiment due to years of campaigning by a variety of organizations who support the rights of sex workers, it isn't due to their lack of effort. Fortunately, others are paying more attention.

Quote:
Couple interesting things I saw though. Advocates in the recent New York proposals were strongly against the Nordic Model, and strongly favor decriminalization over legalization. Maybe they want to maintain their operational methods, but without getting arrested?
Maybe its because the Nordic Model centres eliminating sex work at its core, it doesn't really seek to make sex work safer, and in the case of Ireland, made things orders of magnitude worse.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...sed-buying-sex

The motivations between the three models are fundamentally different. Decriminalization centres harm reduction and health and safety. The Nevada model centres profit. The Nordic Model centres abolitionism.

Quote:
The bottom line seems to be that 66x more money is spent on the illegal variety over the legal when clients are given the choice of both in the Las Vegas area. That's really saying something. Seems to.me that, were I in the market, I would favor that scrumptious lineup that throws down for $200 while you can flip off police, rather than a streetwalkers that can land you in jail. But that's not what the market seems to want, from either end.
Legalized sex work isn't a "free market" in Nevada. Its a monopoly. As a sex worker you either submit to being forced to live on a "farm" for days or weeks at a time, not only paying half your fee to the house, but also having to pay them for rent and food out to them from the remaining money as well. Or you take your chances on the streets.

The bottom line is the framework that exists in Nevada is fundamentally exploitive at its core. It removes agency from sex workers, forcing them to have regular contact with the police, it dictates to them where they live, what food they eat, all for the profit of a tiny number of already rich men.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 11:20 PM   #809
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think I found the problem...
You think wrong!

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Repeat all you like. It's been debunked.
No, it hasn't

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
INot a legal word that applies to being prohibitive of sex work, as opposed to any other part time student employment. What you personally think, or choose to recall, is not codified in the law.
My recollection of the reasons why 16 to 18 year olds are not allowed to be employed in sex work trumps your evidence-free assertion to the contrary, by the simple fact that the highlighted above is codified in law, despite what you are falsely asserting here

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I operated my fathers Case backhoe at 16, for whatever that's worth, and my father wouldn't allow workers in their 20's to do so, because they were knuckleheads. I wasn't.
Well good for you, but I want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for giving an example which illustrates exactly what I was saying about the range of maturity and judgement in young people so perfectly.

Additionally, you might want to consider the possibility that your father was breaking federal law by allowing you operate that CaseIH backhoe.

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fac...on-agriculture
"HO 17. Trenching and excavation operations—bans most jobs in trenching and excavation work, including working in a trench more than four feet deep."
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Your examples show where children could make grave mistakes that would hurt themselves or others or cause property damage. What damage and hurt are you posing that sex causes minors above the AoC?
Because emotional and mental damage isn't real and can never lead to long term issues.

Seriously, if you are unable to understand the difference between a 16 year-old girl getting it on with her 17 year-old boyfriend on the weekends, and a 16 year-old girl getting bonked five or six times a day by adult strangers, then you are truly unreachable and well beyond any help I can give you.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Are you seriously claiming that a brochure or a help link is the same as actually running your own needle exchange centers, like the Collective does?
Your understanding of this is so ******-up I hardly know where to begin.

Firstly, The NZPC runs community "drop in" centres where sex workers can get support & information, new worker information packs, condoms and other safe-sex products, free and confidential sexual health advice for sex workers (but only in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, for other areas you get referrals Needle exchange services (but only in Auckland and Tauranga) as well as referral services to other useful sex worker friendly agencies, support with employment issues and disputes, and support support for people who want to change direction, either inside or outside of sex work.

Secondly, did you even realize that The New Zealand Needle Exchange Programme (NZNEP) is a government endorsed, nationwide initiative with over 200 participating pharmacies and community centres throughout the country, and with a history that predates legalized prostitution by over 10 years!!!? Did you know that the NZPC DOES NOT RUN ITS OWN needle exchange programme, it is simply a partner in the NZNEP, just like universities, hospitals, medical centres and pharmacies and other organizations? Well, of course you didn't, because you are completely and utterly ignorant about this country, simply relying in Googleversity to find what little you think you know in a vain attempt to win internet brownie points.

To quote Jay Utah again"You can Google for information but you can't Google for understanding"

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Hey, did you run a needle exchange center for your photomart? I think I know the answer, without even peeking.
Well of course I didn't, I was a business not a ******* charitable organization - a needle exchange program costs a lot of money to run. However, like any other business, I complied with the law. The shop had an official Occupational Health and Safety Manual (OSHM) which had to be kept up to date. This was compulsory reading for all employees. They had to read and sign for doing so when they began employment, and every six months after that.

In that OSHM were sections that included where to get help for a variety of personal medical and mental health issues, for example, the address and contact details of the nearest hospital, medical centre or doctor's surgery, Alcoholics Anonymous, Child & Youth services, Narcotics Anonymous, and yes, the nearest pharmacy that participates in the NZNEP.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
No, you just are trying your hand at misdirection. And it's right there for all to see.
You literally have absolutely no ******* idea what you are talking about.
.
.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

Last edited by smartcooky; 1st September 2022 at 11:24 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 11:45 PM   #810
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yes, I see what you are doing. You're changing the subject to a pedantic squabble, and turn my argument upside down. As I said, I'm using the term as is used by UK and US legal systems. For the purposes of this discussion, further dissection is unnecessary.
No, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to turn this into a pedantic squabble. I'm trying to understand why you want prostitution classified as a vice.
Do you think that sex work harms sex workers? if not, it doesn't fit the definition of a vice.
If you think sex work is more open to abuse than other professions, you need to say why.
If your position is not based on puritanical moralising, it would be helpful to say that, too.
One reason this debate is so heated and controversial is because of the use of terms like 'vice', 'immoral', 'decadent' and 'debauched'. To my mind, these just obscure the issues, which are really more about pragmatic attempts to protect people in a certain profession. That's why I'm trying to get a definition out of you, to clarify your stance here.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It takes more time for me to trawl back through the posts and link them for you than it would for you to just read the thread. The onus is not on me to recite the thread back to you and re-argue the whole damn thing.
OK, this once I will accept the shifting of the burden of proof. After I've finished this post, I will do a thread search for 'incest'. I'll get back to you.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Correction: it has wrongly been claimed. No evidence whatsoever to support it. That which is claimed without evidence, etc
Adults (i.e. over the age of 18) having sex with a minor ( i.e. under the age of 18) is considered sexual abuse in the UK in certain circumstances:
Quote:
Child sexual exploitation is a form of child sexual abuse. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a child or young person under the age of 18 into sexual activity (a) in exchange for something the victim needs or wants, and/or (b) for the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator.
The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears consensual.
https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-rec...d-sexual-abuse

I would argue that giving someone money in exchange for sex constitutes abuse, given that definition.
If it didn't, I would argue that it ought to.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
See the thread-repeating discussion above.
Sorry, but I'm going with your earlier comment about things being asserted without evidence, in this case.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You asked if my post meant that "it shouldn't be legalized because X", when I have said consistently and repeatedly that I was not arguing against legalization, or rescinding it. That there is what I am arguing against, making the rest moot.
Then apologies if I have misunderstood, because I have the impression that you are against legalisation, or even decriminalisation.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Btw, I just noticed I am being kind of short with you. Apologies, man. Nothing personal, just need to get laid I guess. Can you guys recommend a good servicing center?
Not a problem.
I'm all for robust debate, so long as it's honest and well-intentioned.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st September 2022, 11:58 PM   #811
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
OK, this once I will accept the shifting of the burden of proof. After I've finished this post, I will do a thread search for 'incest'. I'll get back to you.
OK, I have searched this thread. This is what I found:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post

But normalization is a squirelly thing. You can't clearly demonstrate it with a spreadsheet. If one is sincere in treating sex as the same as flipping burgers, there is no reason to view incest as problematic. Minors above the Age of Consent flip burgers; so what is the sound argument against underage brothel work?
This is the only reference to incest outside of quotes from other sources, or references to this post, and it's from you. Literally no-one has advocated legalising incest, in this thread at least. You have created a strawman out of your own post.
If you don't believe me, you are welcome to do a search of your own.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 05:49 AM   #812
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
As for this business of enforcing out of state id to make all purchases in the US, sorry, I'm not buying it. Sure, certain items can have ID enforcement - you can see the approximate age of the buyer, and you can see what they are buying. How are you going to enforce an out of state restriction against a person buying vegetables at a farmer's market, or a person buying breakfast cereal at a supermarket. You have observational clue as to where the person comes from, and you can see they are not buying restricted items. The only way to do it is for each and every transaction requires the checkout operations to ask the the shopper for their some form of ID that proves they live in-state. A passport doesn't do that so perhaps a driver's license might, but the problem there is that people can hold multiple driver's licenses for different stares.

I will grant that such enforcement might not be 100% impossible, but it would be both impractical and an administrative nightmare.
Nobody said that ID's were required to make all purchases, only purchases that are restricted by age, state or residence, or other restrictions. The entire point is that if there were a law restricting the sale of goods or services to residents of a state, then an ID can, would, and already is required to buy those goods or services. It's so common already that your insistence it would be impractical and an administrative nightmare to enforce is just bizarre.

Last edited by wareyin; 2nd September 2022 at 05:58 AM.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 06:17 AM   #813
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This is the only reference to incest outside of quotes from other sources, or references to this post, and it's from you. Literally no-one has advocated legalising incest, in this thread at least. You have created a strawman out of your own post.
If you don't believe me, you are welcome to do a search of your own.
Did Thermal actually say or imply that anybody had advocated this?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 06:34 AM   #814
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Did Thermal actually say or imply that anybody had advocated this?
Yes, he did.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I must have missed the posts calling for the legalisation of incest. Care to link to them?
It takes more time for me to trawl back through the posts and link them for you than it would for you to just read the thread. The onus is not on me to recite the thread back to you and re-argue the whole damn thing.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 06:52 AM   #815
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Yes, he did.
It didn't look to me as if he was making that claim prior to you saying you had been looking for such posts. He doesn't actually claim there are such posts there. I can find him saying to smartycooky that this was the implication of smartycooky's argument. That's rather different though. Where are you getting the idea that Thermal was saying people had advocated for legalised incest?

I'll try and unpick it.

The best I can tell, it starts on the 28th with Thermal saying this to Smartycooky:
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
But normalization is a squirelly thing. You can't clearly demonstrate it with a spreadsheet. If one is sincere in treating sex as the same as flipping burgers, there is no reason to view incest as problematic. Minors above the Age of Consent flip burgers; so what is the sound argument against underage brothel work?
He looks to be making the argument that if the posters who see prostitution as no different from burger flipping, then they would have no objection to incest or under age prostitutes. That certainly has been argued.

You then came in on the 29th:
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Originally Posted by CY
I'm not sure I get the distinction you are making here.
Alcohol and tobacco are normalised, but controlled, in many countries. I, for one, was working under the assumption that prostitution would fall into the same category. I also never envisaged legalised prostitution as being literally on a par with burger flipping, in terms of the age of those permitted to take up such employment at least.
I should add that restaurants and food/alcohol outlets are licensed and inspected, at least in the UK.
Then that particular angle wouldn't apply to your argument. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are different positions being put forth and not all arguments apply to all posters. The argument that sex is no different than flipping burgers is pretty stone dumb, to my ears, and pretty easily shown that it's advocates really hadn't thought it through.
<snip>

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Originally Posted by CY
I am awaiting the howls of disapproval that greeted me when I said much the same thing.

Utterly ridiculous. Incest is genetically harmful, and often involves abuse. (Abuse of minors and abuse of position of authority, to be precise.)
You're late to the party I take it? I already anticipated those cop-outs in my earlier hypothetical, and adjusted the illustrations for them.
I don't see where you are getting that Thermal is arguing people are advocating incest. It seems to me to be exactly the opposite. My reading is that he is saying that posters are being inconsistent and making exceptions to their own arguments when ever it suits them.

Am I missing something here? I should think if you look for "burger" you will find the posts he was originally talking about.

Last edited by shuttlt; 2nd September 2022 at 06:57 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 07:18 AM   #816
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
OK, I have searched this thread. This is what I found:



This is the only reference to incest outside of quotes from other sources, or references to this post, and it's from you. Literally no-one has advocated legalising incest, in this thread at least. You have created a strawman out of your own post.
If you don't believe me, you are welcome to do a search of your own.
I don't know how you possibly missed the following post, and others:

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Sort of. Whether they are happy or not with such a decision is not where I was going. At the very least, there would be a spectrum of feelings about it, rather than a y/n. What I am trying to suss out is whether posters seriously think that prostitution is no big deal, comparable to washing dishes. Just another job. I don't think they really believe that. I think it's something that sounds like the right thing to say, but when the rubber hits the road, it's a hard pass. Like a lot of discussions about sex, there is a weird disjointed kind of thinking, with little logical consistency. So I ask whether it would be something they would be comfortable recommending to their own children, hopefully to highlight just how 'no big deal' they really think it is.

I personally think sex is too personal and intimate for commercial sale. Humankind has historically disagreed, obviously. So to focus on modern legalization: should it be? I think to answer that, we have to be real about what we think of sexual intimacy, without the knee-jerk posturing.

If sex is just a no big deal mechanical act, all sorts of taboos come into question. A second question, then: as my wife will attest, Thermal loves him a bj. Would it be wrong for me to accept one as a tip from a grateful customer? No relationship thing to betray our marital fidelity, just a friendly show of appreciation with an impersonal act?

Ratcheting it up a notch: if I help my wife's sister out, could she similarly show her appreciation? It's not a personal intimacy thing, right? It's no different than me offering to do the heavy or mechanical work at her house. I offer my skills and muscle willingly to help her, so she reciprocates with a friendly gesture from her wheelhouse, right? If sex is not 'special' as some resident trolls claim, there shouldn't be an issue.

Taking it over the top: It's brother's birthday. Sis knows what brother would like. Not a big deal? We are not talking about the inbred stuff that can genetically backfire so bad. Just a friendly hummer. Since doing so with a complete stranger for cash is fully acceptable, why not between two people that actually care for each other, in a non-romantic setting? Shouldn't be any different than me rubbing my sister in law's sore shoulders, right? If not, why not?

And before the Troll Brigade starts up again, no, I'm not advocating incest. I can't quite figure out where you guys have the line, and more importantly, why. I think it goes a long way in how we feel as a culture about women, and consequently how we treat legalized prostitution. There is an icky undercurrent of thought that 'my fam is better than that'. No bueno.
...but I'll stop with that one because it clarifies what I was saying and why I was saying it. The argument being volleyed was that sex is a transactional service, like cleaning toilets or trash collection or flipping the proverbial burgers. I strongly think that advocates of this POV have moralizing woven into their views, but are not facing it, knowingly or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Yes, he did.
No, he didn't. He pointed out that it is implied by the "just like cleaning toilets" argument. We have all kinds of moral baggage attached to sex. The current talking point is 16 year old sex worker. If the girl is above the AoC, where she can consent to sexual activity with partners of any age or quantity of her choosing (by law, mind), then she should be free to charge for it. But some here are bracing against that with nothing but their personal feelings (and unsupported 'recollections' ) to back their position up.

You torqued this argument a bit to present it as "advocating incest". That was not my take; I asked about it, as I see it was implied. Never got much of a straight answer, except from The Atheist.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd September 2022 at 07:20 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 07:25 AM   #817
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Thermal and shuttlt:
All Thermal had to do was to say that no-one in this thread was advocating legalising incest. Simples.
Instead, Thermal told me to search the thread for examples of this, which I did.
I only found one example, which came from Thermal themself.
Thermal: are you now saying, for the sake of clarity, that no-one on this thread has advocated legalising incest? It would have been much simpler had you said this in the first place, but I'm asking again now for a clear answer.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 07:27 AM   #818
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It didn't look to me as if he was making that claim prior to you saying you had been looking for such posts. He doesn't actually claim there are such posts there. I can find him saying to smartycooky that this was the implication of smartycooky's argument. That's rather different though. Where are you getting the idea that Thermal was saying people had advocated for legalised incest?

I'll try and unpick it.

The best I can tell, it starts on the 28th with Thermal saying this to Smartycooky:


He looks to be making the argument that if the posters who see prostitution as no different from burger flipping, then they would have no objection to incest or under age prostitutes. That certainly has been argued.

You then came in on the 29th:


<snip>



I don't see where you are getting that Thermal is arguing people are advocating incest. It seems to me to be exactly the opposite. My reading is that he is saying that posters are being inconsistent and making exceptions to their own arguments when ever it suits them.

Am I missing something here? I should think if you look for "burger" you will find the posts he was originally talking about.
Yes, this is pretty much where I was going. I simply prefer the immediacy of dropping the horse's head in your bed to make my point, rather than eloquent discussion.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 07:33 AM   #819
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Thermal and shuttlt:
All Thermal had to do was to say that no-one in this thread was advocating legalising incest. Simples.
Instead, Thermal told me to search the thread for examples of this, which I did.
I only found one example, which came from Thermal themself.
Thermal: are you now saying, for the sake of clarity, that no-one on this thread has advocated legalising incest? It would have been much simpler had you said this in the first place, but I'm asking again now for a clear answer.
I pointed out that their own arguments would seem to condone incest, and invited clarification. They changed the subject or abruptly remembered that they had to go do the dishes or something and left the exchange. So it remains an unresolved point. That's quite a bit away from an accusation, which is where you leap-frogged to.

Eta: that's why I encouraged you to catch up on the argument, instead of starting it over. That way, both the point you were asking about and it's attendant context and fleshing-out are all handled in one swoop.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd September 2022 at 07:35 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 08:00 AM   #820
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, you misunderstand me. I'm not trying to turn this into a pedantic squabble. I'm trying to understand why you want prostitution classified as a vice.
Do you think that sex work harms sex workers? if not, it doesn't fit the definition of a vice.
If you think sex work is more open to abuse than other professions, you need to say why.
If your position is not based on puritanical moralising, it would be helpful to say that, too.
One reason this debate is so heated and controversial is because of the use of terms like 'vice', 'immoral', 'decadent' and 'debauched'. To my mind, these just obscure the issues, which are really more about pragmatic attempts to protect people in a certain profession. That's why I'm trying to get a definition out of you, to clarify your stance here.
You make a solid point, but one I have addressed. I'm employing the same use as the US govt uses. You could broadlyJeopardy categorize it as "Things Subject to Abuse in High Crime Areas".

Tobacco is considered a vice, but the occasional high-end cigar smoker is not the common abuser. Alcohol is considered a vice, but an occasional Scotch aficionado is not an abuser in the sense of a drunk driver or parking lot alchy. And the $1000 per evening call girl is not facing the trials of a streetwalking addict. The lines are not sharp and exclusive.


Quote:
OK, this once I will accept the shifting of the burden of proof. After I've finished this post, I will do a thread search for 'incest'. I'll get back to you.
I guess it's debatable who's burden of proof it would be. I mean, fairly. Is it fair to be demanded that I link the same posts in this very thread over and over? The burden of proof should lie where evidence has not been presented in the thread. If it already has, I see no burden on my part to keep repeating it.

Quote:
Adults (i.e. over the age of 18) having sex with a minor ( i.e. under the age of 18) is considered sexual abuse in the UK in certain circumstances:


https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-rec...d-sexual-abuse
True, but demonstrates an edge case of a kind of illicit coersion. The general AoC is 16 in the UK, meaning she can boff octonagarians in a train, should she please.

Quote:
I would argue that giving someone money in exchange for sex constitutes abuse, given that definition.
If it didn't, I would argue that it ought to.
You said "someone". For clarification, do you mean a minor or just anyone?

Quote:
Then apologies if I have misunderstood, because I have the impression that you are against legalisation, or even decriminalisation.
I have been repeatedly clear on that. My issues are how we go about reconciling what we have to work with. Rather than For v Against, I'm arguing Position 3. "How, exactly, and why?"

Quote:
Not a problem.
I'm all for robust debate, so long as it's honest and well-intentioned.
Cool bro. I always argue in good faith, but I do like that horse's head. Gets you to the endgame so much faster.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 09:32 AM   #821
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...here in New Zealand, any "street corner pimp" wouldn't be able to continue his operation if they had previously had a criminal conviction.
As is the case with many forms of licensing. However, it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. It takes little effort for a pimp to isolate himself from prosecution, as he is not typically hanging on the corner with the workers in a white fedora with fearhers and mink coat. If he was to have a record, surely you realize how trivially easy it is to get a clean front man to run a clean LLC in the States? You don't even propose a minor obstacle.

Quote:
To be clear, it isn't just the laws. It's the framework.
To be clear, I'm asking you about the bad laws you assert. We'll criticize your framework argument further down.

You assert bad laws while citing none. I cited two (steep license fees and population restrictions). Does this mean you had no other laws that you refer to?

You mention things like STI exams. Well, a prostitute is having sex with multiple men per day, unlike the average client. It stands to reason that their odds of infection are much higher (one source said that while the workers used condoms at work, per law, they didn't use them in their private lives).

Quote:
I don't know why you are so interested in these "gotchas."
I'm not. I am however interested in calling out dishonest or deliberately deceptive arguments.

Quote:
The statement you are responding to was "There is a VERY strong active movement that have been fighting for decriminalization. For example Coyote were formed in 1973." I provided additional context later in the thread. But my point was that the fight didn't just start yesterday. That's it. Nothing more.
Bull ****. You tacked on more, such as an outright lie that "I hadn't heard of COYOTE".That smug condescension gets under a brother's skin.

You said, in the present tense, that they were "VERY active". Capitalized VERY and everything. Then you cite a dead advocacy group.

You seriously don't get that saying a man "is VERY active" while we stand next to his ten year old tombstone might be perceived as a little squirrelly?

Quote:
If you hadn't noticed the shift in public sentiment due to years of campaigning by a variety of organizations who support the rights of sex workers, it isn't due to their lack of effort. Fortunately, others are paying more attention.
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the shift in public opinion might be happening regardless of the work of advocacy groups? Might they ignore or placate domestic groups and simply look at the NZ model to weigh out a cost/benefit for themselves?

I truly don't think lawmakers give a fat rat's ass about prostitutes. They give a fat rat's ass about money and influence. Maybe a little about rhetoric to satisfy the rabble.

Quote:
Legalized sex work isn't a "free market" in Nevada. Its a monopoly. As a sex worker you either submit to being forced to live on a "farm" for days or weeks at a time, not only paying half your fee to the house, but also having to pay them for rent and food out to them from the remaining money as well. Or you take your chances on the streets.
Ok. You assert there is a restrictive framework in place. Disagreed. There is a status quo that works against a worker. Kind of like saying no one can open a resteraunt because someone else already owns them.

Do tell: what is stopping a group of sex workers from opening their own shop, on their own terms? The licensing fee? I have bad news for you: that is not an insurmountable obstacle in the cash-flush US. Certainly hasn't been a problem over the last half a ******* century, when banks were throwing massive credit lines at freaking unemployed college students. Lately, I'll grant you, it would be a bit tougher. But let's go back to the hoary antiquity of the 1980-90's. Cash and credit lines were pouring out of American ears. Can you think of a single reason that working girls couldn't have flipped the table and set up shop, by them and for them? Money was flowing at much larger scales and available to even the unemployed. Land and construction/remodeling costs were dirt cheap in rural Nevada.

It was legal, which was by far the biggest hurdle. Being right outside the prostitution capitol of the US of A put them smack in a target rich environment (recall that Vegas itself was built in the middle of a ******* desert and it's vices made it an instant hit that people flew in from all over to enjoy). Why did they, as you assert, have no other options?

Quote:
The bottom line is the framework that exists in Nevada is fundamentally exploitive at its core. It removes agency from sex workers, forcing them to have regular contact with the police, it dictates to them where they live, what food they eat, all for the profit of a tiny number of already rich men.
Mysoginist. Women own brothels even today.

You assert that there is a restrictive framework that workers just physically cannot get past. Disagreed. Or rather agreed, one is legally in place, but not the only possibility, as you seem to assert. Why do you think an owner-operated House was not set up? A strong business plan would have secured that crucial first-year financing, and the wide public support in Nevada might have even greased those wheels. Why do you suppose it didn't happen?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd September 2022 at 09:50 AM. Reason: typos galore
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 09:45 AM   #822
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I pointed out that their own arguments would seem to condone incest, and invited clarification. They changed the subject or abruptly remembered that they had to go do the dishes or something and left the exchange. So it remains an unresolved point. That's quite a bit away from an accusation, which is where you leap-frogged to.

Eta: that's why I encouraged you to catch up on the argument, instead of starting it over. That way, both the point you were asking about and it's attendant context and fleshing-out are all handled in one swoop.
To repeat: all you had to do was say that, instead of sending me off on a wild goose chase.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 09:59 AM   #823
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You make a solid point, but one I have addressed. I'm employing the same use as the US govt uses. You could broadlyJeopardy categorize it as "Things Subject to Abuse in High Crime Areas".
I have mentioned catering/hospitality before, as an area in which a great deal of abuse takes place. We could add domestic servants to that list, as well as seasonal agricultural work, among others. These are arguments for oversight and legal protections, not for making such professions illegal.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Tobacco is considered a vice, but the occasional high-end cigar smoker is not the common abuser. Alcohol is considered a vice, but an occasional Scotch aficionado is not an abuser in the sense of a drunk driver or parking lot alchy. And the $1000 per evening call girl is not facing the trials of a streetwalking addict. The lines are not sharp and exclusive.
And I never said they were. I'm also not clear on the point you are making here. Are you saying that someone who visits a sex worker more than some arbitrary number of times is an abuser? Presumably not, so I would welcome some clarification here.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
True, but demonstrates an edge case of a kind of illicit coersion. The general AoC is 16 in the UK, meaning she can boff octonagarians in a train, should she please.
As her own (and I note the exclusive use of the feminine pronoun here as something of an assumption) choice, yes, she can- although probably not on a train. However, that ignores the qualifications I posted. Financial gain is a kind of inducement, which is mentioned in the UK definition of abuse. I think, if we are going to protect minors, going with the assumption that a minor is not allowed to have sex as a job is reasonable. Over 18, sure, not a problem, but-and I accept that such lines are somewhat arbitrary, but we've got to draw them somewhere- under 16, the potential for abuse is too strong to permit sex workers of that age. In my opinion.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You said "someone". For clarification, do you mean a minor or just anyone?
Following on from my point above, I would say anyone. The question is the ability of a minor to give informed consent to becoming a sex worker, which is something I doubt.


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I have been repeatedly clear on that. My issues are how we go about reconciling what we have to work with. Rather than For v Against, I'm arguing Position 3. "How, exactly, and why?"
OK, fine.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 11:32 AM   #824
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
To repeat: all you had to do was say that, instead of sending me off on a wild goose chase.
To repeat: it is never my job to read the thread back to you. It is my job to cite a source for a claim not presented here. If it is already here, you are just being lazy at my expense.

For example, you claimed "incest" appeared only once. How was I able to find the post I was referring to that also included the word "incest", as well as others?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I have mentioned catering/hospitality before, as an area in which a great deal of abuse takes place. We could add domestic servants to that list, as well as seasonal agricultural work, among others. These are arguments for oversight and legal protections, not for making such professions illegal.
How many times can I possibly repeat that I am not arguing against legality? Come on, man.

Quote:
And I never said they were. I'm also not clear on the point you are making here. Are you saying that someone who visits a sex worker more than some arbitrary number of times is an abuser? Presumably not, so I would welcome some clarification here.
Abuses work in more than one direction. For instance, an addict streetwalker may not be able to choose as freely what she will do, and with whom, if she is deep in an addictive craving. That has been my criticism of higher end prostitution to some degree, too: even the choosier worker might have to make rent, and do things she doesn't want with men she doesn't want to. That's toeing a very ugly line that is darker than a burger flipper that does not care much for flipping burgers.

Quote:
As her own (and I note the exclusive use of the feminine pronoun here as something of an assumption) ...
Hardly. It has already been cited that women servicing men accounts for well over 90% of prostitution (with the last less than 10% being men servicing men, and something less than 1% women servicing women or men servicing women). Perfectly fine to use "she" instead of "they", as the plural pronoun can cause confusion sometimes.

Quote:
...choice, yes, she can- although probably not on a train.
Um...wrong kind of train. Think more base when interacting with yours truly.

Quote:
However, that ignores the qualifications I posted. Financial gain is a kind of inducement, which is mentioned in the UK definition of abuse. I think, if we are going to protect minors, going with the assumption that a minor is not allowed to have sex as a job is reasonable. Over 18, sure, not a problem, but-and I accept that such lines are somewhat arbitrary, but we've got to draw them somewhere- under 16, the potential for abuse is too strong to permit sex workers of that age. In my opinion.
Ok. 18 is fine, you say. 16 is not. Since both are above the AoC, what is your determination based on? If the young person is considered responsible enough to have whatever kind of sex she wants with whoever she chooses, what is the issue with getting paid for it?

Quote:
Following on from my point above, I would say anyone. The question is the ability of a minor to give informed consent to becoming a sex worker, which is something I doubt.
I don't follow? You just said fine for over 18, but now you say not okay for anyone?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 11:47 AM   #825
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Abuses work in more than one direction. For instance, an addict streetwalker may not be able to choose as freely what she will do, and with whom, if she is deep in an addictive craving. That has been my criticism of higher end prostitution to some degree, too: even the choosier worker might have to make rent, and do things she doesn't want with men she doesn't want to. That's toeing a very ugly line that is darker than a burger flipper that does not care much for flipping burgers.
Is any other job regulated according to whether the person performing that job is doing so to feed an addiction? If not, why should prostitution be any different?


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Um...wrong kind of train. Think more base when interacting with yours truly.
No, you've lost me. What is the right kind of train, and how is that relevant to this discussion?


Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Ok. 18 is fine, you say. 16 is not. Since both are above the AoC, what is your determination based on? If the young person is considered responsible enough to have whatever kind of sex she wants with whoever she chooses, what is the issue with getting paid for it?
I have already explained this several times. Please re-read my earlier comments.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I don't follow? You just said fine for over 18, but now you say not okay for anyone?
No, I didn't say that at all, and I'm wondering where you got that from.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 11:55 AM   #826
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Is any other job regulated according to whether the person performing that job is doing so to feed an addiction? If not, why should prostitution be any different?
Because as I just alluded to, an unwilling sex worker is basically being ******* raped. A burger flipper is annoyed or bored.

Quote:
No, you've lost me. What is the right kind of train, and how is that relevant to this discussion?
Skip the choo-choo definition and descend into the depths of my world at your peril:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=train


Quote:
I have already explained this several times. Please re-read my earlier comments.

No, I didn't say that at all, and I'm wondering where you got that from.
I just damned cited it in the post you are quoting. You said "over 18, sure" referring to taking money for sex, but not under. Then you immediately say that you mean taking money for sex is a no-go for anyone, when I asked you to clarify if you meant "anyone", or specifically a minor.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 12:01 PM   #827
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because as I just alluded to, an unwilling sex worker is basically being ******* raped. A burger flipper is annoyed or bored.
Follow the logic further.... see where the rabbit hole goes. If being a prostitute is no different from being a burger flipper, then maybe your assumption here is wrong? There seems to be an anti-work movement, if Twitter and Reddit are anything to go by (a dangerous assumption, I know). Maybe having to flip burgers when you don't want to is rape, or maybe having to be a prostitute is just annoying?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 12:14 PM   #828
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Follow the logic further.... see where the rabbit hole goes. If being a prostitute is no different from being a burger flipper...
I rather pointedly do not think so

Quote:
..., then maybe your assumption here is wrong? There seems to be an anti-work movement, if Twitter and Reddit are anything to go by (a dangerous assumption, I know). Maybe having to flip burgers when you don't want to is rape, or maybe having to be a prostitute is just annoying?
While I get your point, I'm pretty sure that the physical invasiveness of unwilling sex (rape) goes a notch or two beyond unwilling commercial fast food preparation.

Which would you prefer: having to make more hamburgers than you would like, or being sodomized by a creepy stranger?

Eta: whoops. Thought you were CY and was on a different wavelength
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 2nd September 2022 at 12:19 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 12:34 PM   #829
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,094
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I rather pointedly do not think so



While I get your point, I'm pretty sure that the physical invasiveness of unwilling sex (rape) goes a notch or two beyond unwilling commercial fast food preparation.

Which would you prefer: having to make more hamburgers than you would like, or being sodomized by a creepy stranger?

Eta: whoops. Thought you were CY and was on a different wavelength
:-) No worries.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd September 2022, 07:11 PM   #830
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,765
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
As is the case with many forms of licensing. However, it has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. It takes little effort for a pimp to isolate himself from prosecution, as he is not typically hanging on the corner with the workers in a white fedora with fearhers and mink coat. If he was to have a record, surely you realize how trivially easy it is to get a clean front man to run a clean LLC in the States? You don't even propose a minor obstacle.
...it has everything to do with what we are talking about. You don't need a "clean front man" if you want to run an illegal brothel. You just run an illegal brothel. If you have an Operators licence you are required to do your taxes, comply with health and safety regulations, not abuse your staff and not compel them to do anything without explicit consent.

If an operator is doing all of this: then they are just a normal business doing normal things. They are NOT street corner pimp continuing their previous operation. If they did choose to do the things they did previously, they would not be in compliance with the law and would lose their Operator's certificate.

In a legal framework with relatively few barriers to entry you end up in a situation where you have plenty of competition. A "street corner pimp" continuing to work using the "old rules" is simply not competitive. There is no reason for a sex worker to chose to work for them. That doesn't mean that old-style "street corner pimps" no longer exist. It does mean they are largely exist where they have always existed, on the street corners exploiting the most vulnerable. But they work underground outside of the existing legal framework.

Quote:
To be clear, I'm asking you about the bad laws you assert. We'll criticize your framework argument further down.
To be clear, everything I talked about were tied explicitly to the existing laws, regulations and county ordnances. Did you think that sex workers check-in every week or month with the local sheriffs voluntarily?

Quote:
You assert bad laws while citing none. I cited two (steep license fees and population restrictions). Does this mean you had no other laws that you refer to?
I cited them as explicitly as you did: I glanced over them and then talked about them. If you wanted me to quote them chapter and verse, then I would have expected you to do the very same.

Quote:
You mention things like STI exams. Well, a prostitute is having sex with multiple men per day, unlike the average client. It stands to reason that their odds of infection are much higher (one source said that while the workers used condoms at work, per law, they didn't use them in their private lives).
"Stands to reason" isn't an objective standard. New Zealand hasn't required mandatory STI exams at all. By your logic, it would "stand to reason" that this would be problematic, and that there would be plenty of evidence to show that it was a problem.

So is it? And if it is, can you provide the evidence?

Requiring mandatory regular medical exams in a free and open society should be something that should ONLY be required if the evidence strongly suggests that not doing so would be a major threat to public health. "Stands to reason" is not a sufficiently good reason at all.

Quote:
I'm not. I am however interested in calling out dishonest or deliberately deceptive arguments.
LOL.

Quote:
Bull ****. You tacked on more, such as an outright lie that "I hadn't heard of COYOTE".That smug condescension gets under a brother's skin.
ROFL.

Quote:
You said, in the present tense, that they were "VERY active". Capitalized VERY and everything. Then you cite a dead advocacy group.
I acknowledge that my wording was unclear, and "tacked on more" to provide additional context.

You can either accept what I said in good faith, or you can continue to call me a liar. Your call.

Quote:
You seriously don't get that saying a man "is VERY active" while we stand next to his ten year old tombstone might be perceived as a little squirrelly?
I can accept that my wording was unclear. Typing at early hours of the morning sometimes does that to you.

Quote:
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that the shift in public opinion might be happening regardless of the work of advocacy groups? Might they ignore or placate domestic groups and simply look at the NZ model to weigh out a cost/benefit for themselves?
I don't suppose it has occurred to you that sex workers don't like working in an environment where they are treated like **** by the legal system, by enforcement, in the media (remember when the TV show COPS used to have an annual episode called "Ho Ho Ho"?) and by society in general, and have been fighting for just basic civil and human rights for a very long time, and in the last few years organizations like the ACLU and Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have had to take up their cause because it was becoming clear that many people (including many in the United States) were perfectly happy for sex workers to be treated like dirt?

Without advocacy, opinions don't change.

Quote:
I truly don't think lawmakers give a fat rat's ass about prostitutes. They give a fat rat's ass about money and influence. Maybe a little about rhetoric to satisfy the rabble.
Then the rabble needs to get louder. They could do with your support.

Quote:
Ok. You assert there is a restrictive framework in place. Disagreed. There is a status quo that works against a worker. Kind of like saying no one can open a resteraunt because someone else already owns them.
There isn't a law that says you can't open more than 4 restaurants in a county, but in Lyon County they are not allowed to issue any more than 4 licences. So it kinda is like saying nobody can open a restaurant because somebody already owns them.

Quote:
Do tell: what is stopping a group of sex workers from opening their own shop, on their own terms? The licensing fee? I have bad news for you: that is not an insurmountable obstacle in the cash-flush US. Certainly hasn't been a problem over the last half a ******* century, when banks were throwing massive credit lines at freaking unemployed college students.
Banks aren't throwing massive credit lines at freaking unemployed college students in order to buy into a McDonalds franchise. And the licence fee to open a McDonalds is LESS than the typical brothel licence fee in Nevada.

If the licence fee is $200,000, then you have to be making substantially more than that in order to be profitable. You are paying rent, you are paying for cleaners, for cooks, for power and water and all the other typical business expenses. McDonalds requires potential franchisors to have millions in unencumbered funds. And the reality is that anyone wanting to get into the brothel business in Nevada would have to have at least that in the bank before they even got started. There is a reason why there are only 20 legal brothels in Nevada.

(As an aide: a lot of that money is generated from the sex workers themselves, kinda like how Multi-Level-Marketing upline make money by selling audio-tapes to their downline. Sheri’s Ranch charged the sex-workers staying in house back in 2015 $46 per day for a dorm room. At 20 workers at a time, the Ranch was generating over $300,000 per year just in rent.)

Quote:
Lately, I'll grant you, it would be a bit tougher. But let's go back to the hoary antiquity of the 1980-90's. Cash and credit lines were pouring out of American ears. Can you think of a single reason that working girls couldn't have flipped the table and set up shop, by them and for them? Money was flowing at much larger scales and available to even the unemployed. Land and construction/remodeling costs were dirt cheap in rural Nevada.
Misogyny was even a bigger factor in the 80's and 90's as it is now. A woman wasn't even able to get a credit card in their own name in the US until 1974. Do you really think a sex worker would be able to access the same line of credit as everyone else back then? I mean, this sort of thing still happens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/b...stigation.html

Quote:
It was legal, which was by far the biggest hurdle.
It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the biggest hurdle.

Quote:
Being right outside the prostitution capitol of the US of A put them smack in a target rich environment (recall that Vegas itself was built in the middle of a ******* desert and it's vices made it an instant hit that people flew in from all over to enjoy). Why did they, as you assert, have no other options?
I think the burden is on you to show me that a sex worker in 1980's America actually had these options. Because so far your argument is far from convincing. Perhaps start with showing me how easy it would have been for a sex worker to access a line of credit sufficient for opening a brothel back then.

Quote:
You assert that there is a restrictive framework that workers just physically cannot get past. Disagreed. Or rather agreed, one is legally in place, but not the only possibility, as you seem to assert. Why do you think an owner-operated House was not set up? A strong business plan would have secured that crucial first-year financing, and the wide public support in Nevada might have even greased those wheels. Why do you suppose it didn't happen?
Because (as you appear to have acknowledged) it's a framework where organized crime and corrupt, profit-motivated businessmen have ALL of the power and control. They don't want competition. So they've stacked the deck. It's why licence fees are so high. It's why some counties have limits on how many licences are issued. It's why law enforcement is so heavily involved, down to keeping a regular eye on all of the legal sex workers in the trade.

Systematic power imbalances don't magically disappear just because you think they don't actually exist. Sex workers have been historically treated poorly by most in society. There are people who will casually call them "sluts" to their cherished friends. Who seem to take delight in describing the job that they do in explicit, gratuitous detail. There are many people who pretend to support decriminalization, but will actually argue against decriminalization at every single opportunity.

People that are so casually treated as a "lower form of life" do not easily secure "crucial first-year financing" no matter how good the business plan. They do not get "wide public support."
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2022, 02:09 AM   #831
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because as I just alluded to, an unwilling sex worker is basically being ******* raped. A burger flipper is annoyed or bored.
Which has nothing to do with whether they are doing that job to feed an addiction.
You are also clearly not aware of the kinds of abuse that go on in trades such as catering, nor of how often it occurs. Being bored or annoyed is the least of the worries.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Skip the choo-choo definition and descend into the depths of my world at your peril:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=train
Wow. Charming, that.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I just damned cited it in the post you are quoting. You said "over 18, sure" referring to taking money for sex, but not under. Then you immediately say that you mean taking money for sex is a no-go for anyone, when I asked you to clarify if you meant "anyone", or specifically a minor.
No, this is a miscommunication.
I am opposed to anyone paying money to a minor for sex work, whether the person paying is under or over the age of 18.
Hope that clarifies it.
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Cosmic Yak on this forum.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2022, 08:49 AM   #832
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 106,004
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
To repeat: it is never my job to read the thread back to you. It is my job to cite a source for a claim not presented here. If it is already here, you are just being lazy at my expense.



For example, you claimed "incest" appeared only once. How was I able to find the post I was referring to that also included the word "incest", as well as others?







How many times can I possibly repeat that I am not arguing against legality? Come on, man.







Abuses work in more than one direction. For instance, an addict streetwalker may not be able to choose as freely what she will do, and with whom, if she is deep in an addictive craving. That has been my criticism of higher end prostitution to some degree, too: even the choosier worker might have to make rent, and do things she doesn't want with men she doesn't want to. That's toeing a very ugly line that is darker than a burger flipper that does not care much for flipping burgers.







Hardly. It has already been cited that women servicing men accounts for well over 90% of prostitution (with the last less than 10% being men servicing men, and something less than 1% women servicing women or men servicing women). Perfectly fine to use "she" instead of "they", as the plural pronoun can cause confusion sometimes.







Um...wrong kind of train. Think more base when interacting with yours truly.







Ok. 18 is fine, you say. 16 is not. Since both are above the AoC, what is your determination based on? If the young person is considered responsible enough to have whatever kind of sex she wants with whoever she chooses, what is the issue with getting paid for it?







I don't follow? You just said fine for over 18, but now you say not okay for anyone?
At 16 a UK citizen is not free to have sex with whoever they want, there are still certain legal restrictions. Only at 18 are there no longer exceptions.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd September 2022, 09:43 AM   #833
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Home.
Posts: 10,515
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
At 16 a UK citizen is not free to have sex with whoever they want, there are still certain legal restrictions.
Which, apart from with people in a position of authority and those unable to consent due to diminished mental capacity, are?

It's hardly an onerous list.
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 02:00 AM   #834
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 106,004
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Which, apart from with people in a position of authority and those unable to consent due to diminished mental capacity, are?

It's hardly an onerous list.
Who claimed it was an onerous list?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 04:45 AM   #835
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Home.
Posts: 10,515
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Who claimed it was an onerous list?
Nobody, and nobody suggested that anyone claimed it was so.

Now we've got that out of the way, could you answer my question? "Certain legal restrictions", suggests more than the two I cited?
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 05:14 AM   #836
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Nobody, and nobody suggested that anyone claimed it was so.

Now we've got that out of the way, could you answer my question? "Certain legal restrictions", suggests more than the two I cited?
Of course it does. Consider for example the restrictions on people who refuse sex with you. Of people that you physically can't have sex with due to geography or their professional security details. No, Darat was right. There is a chasm of restrictions on sex partner opportunity specifically at 16. Unique, that.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 4th September 2022 at 06:35 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 06:11 AM   #837
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Doing some housecleaning on the arguments:

It is claimed that prostitutes benefit from legalization. This is true, but it is a stunningly foolish thing to say. Anyone involved in a currently criminal activity would benefit from legal protections. Some really stupid **** to argue, right there.

What we are really arguing is whether it should be illegal or legal in the first place. Fair enough. We have two broad scenarios for a legal model: the Happy Entrepenourial Hooker living her wild and crazy life full of the never-ending fountain of cock on her own terms. Great. That's the whole consenting adults thing, and it does make sense that it should be decriminalized at least.

And in the other corner, we have desperate women with nothing else to trade but their bodies. Whether feeding an addiction or simple desperation, they are allowing themselves to be raped for money. I have a very serious problem with perpetuating this second lifestyle.

Some guys here (and yes, most advocates here are surprisingly and overwhelmingly male) seem to want to focus on the first group and not on the more massive second, based on available statistics. Kind of says it all, really.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 4th September 2022 at 06:28 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 06:17 AM   #838
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51,937
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Doing some housecleaning on the arguments:

It is claimed that prostitutes benefit from legalization. This is true, but it is a stunningly follish thing to say. Anyone involved in a currently criminal activity would benefit from legal protections. Some really stupid **** to argue, right there.

What we are really arguing is whether it should be illegal or legal in the first place. Fair enough. We have two broad scenarios for a legal model: the Happy Entrepenourial Hooker living her wild and crazy life full of the never-ending fountain of cock on her own terms. Great. That's a whole consenting adults thing, and it does make sense that it should be decriminalize at least.
This post of yours is ridiculous beyond belief.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 06:55 AM   #839
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 106,004
Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post
Nobody, and nobody suggested that anyone claimed it was so. …snip…


Originally Posted by bluesjnr View Post

Now we've got that out of the way, could you answer my question? "Certain legal restrictions", suggests more than the two I cited?
No it doesn’t.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th September 2022, 06:55 AM   #840
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section
Posts: 20,659
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
This post of yours is ridiculous beyond belief.
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to post content-free. It's good for the environment to not clutter up the threads with substantial arguments.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.