Proposition K

[Chris Fleming]

Chris,
You state that the reason that you are continually referencing the 'daughter issue' is to reveal the inherent hypocrisy of those who support the legalization of prostitution and by extension to prove that such support is wrong. Personally I think this is more inflammatory than a genuine or logical argument. I support the right of free speech but would be repulsed by my daughter expressing revolting ideas. Is that hypocritical? Should I then withdraw my support of free speech? I support freedom of religion even though I am disdainful of organized religion and would be disgusted if my daughter were to become an evangelical Christian for example. Is this hypocritical? Should I be against freedom of religious choice?

I follow the line of thinking you are talking about here, and it is close to what I'm talking about, but not quite. For some on here, people are still saying that I am implying that if you don't like something it should be illegal. Nope. Others are getting all mad and emotional, which is amusing. What I asked about the family member (wife, daughter, son, whatever) was simply a test to see if when push comes to shove, people are willing to stick by their own support. I asked probing and confrontational questions when the answers I got were, at least to me, ambiguous and dodging.

If envisioning one's own daughter is too much, we could use drugs as an example. If a person wanted to legalize drugs, and I mean, really supported the issue, only to find out that his son (OR WHOEVER!!!!!!!!) became a drug addict who sold everything he had to keep buying drugs, who at its final stages negatively affected every part of his life until the end where he lost even that, don't you think that perhaps, with his newly acquired experience, the father of that child (OR WHOEVER!!!!!!) would have a different view of the subject?

If you don't like that above story, then make up your own that seems more fitting as an example.

To answer the above question, from the looks of things it sounds like some people on here would say "no". I personally find that hard to believe. My position is that a similar ruining or corruption or even loss of life would occur to your loved one should she (OR WHOEVER!!!!!!!!!!) follow the "career" of prostitution, even with all the so called regulation that is believed that will be enacted. I also highly doubt all the things like drug use would go away with legalization of prostitution either, but again, that's just me. If you don't feel that way, then so be it. It's just something to consider.

[Steve James]

I asked probing and confrontational questions when the answers I got were, at least to me, ambiguous and dodging.

Well, when people do answer the questions straight up, you call it dodging no matter what it is. If someone says, "I wouldn't mind if my daughter was a prostitute", you don't believe it. If he says, "I would mind," you call him a hypocrite. If he says that, "I would mind, but I still wouldn't want her to go to jail for it", that's too ambiguous. Point is: you have a position; you are not really asking questions, because you already have the answers. And, if the answers you get aren't acceptable, you just add another question. This turns what you do into rhetoric, not argument or discussion.

Re: drugs. The same argument could be used for "food." The only difference is that "drugs" are illegal. And, the question is why some drugs are legal and others are not. Why, for ex., is tobacco "legal" when it kills more people than marijuana? But, this gets back to the issue of "why" something is illegal, especially something that one does with one's own body.

[Chris Fleming]

I asked probing and confrontational questions when the answers I got were, at least to me, ambiguous and dodging.

Well, when people do answer the questions straight up, you call it dodging no matter what it is. If someone says, "I wouldn't mind if my daughter was a prostitute", you don't believe it. If he says, "I would mind," you call him a hypocrite. If he says that, "I would mind, but I still wouldn't want her to go to jail for it", that's too ambiguous. Point is: you have a position; you are not really asking questions, because you already have the answers. And, if the answers you get aren't acceptable, you just add another question. This turns what you do into rhetoric, not argument or discussion.

Naw. When someone says, I don't know how I feel, I wanted to hear more about that. When "darth" said he wouldn't mind, I said at least there is someone who sticks to his position straightforwardly. And yes, I do have my own opinions about what people say (duh).

"The same argument could be used for "food."

Doubt it. At least not within this framework.

"The only difference is that "drugs" are illegal."

So is prostitution.

[Dmitri]

It's amazing, you're still continuing to ignore apparently uncomfortable questions asked of you on this subject and completely ignore points being made.

Why no reply to this post? Tell me what is so amusing or dodgy or ambiguous about it?

Why no reply to the question asked at the end of this post?
Talk about dodging.
Instead of amusing yourself at people honestly answering your decidedly "challenging" (read "offensive") questions, why only reply to things to which you feel comfortable replying?

Oh well. Go on with your circular argumentation.

Discussing this subject matter with you is like debating whether god exists with a religious person, or whether Obama will be a good president with steelincotton.
It's simply pointless; your position is founded on an underlying premise that is based in faith and emotion, not in facts. Many consider it false, but it doesn't matter because you believe in it.

[Chris Fleming]

Sorry D there's a lot going on with this thread. I can't answer everything all at once. The topic forms and twists and turns especially with more than one person chipping in. That and some of the responses have, in my opinion, been kind of rhetorical, that is, it sounded like people didn't expect an answer, but were rather making a statement with their "question". For instance, your question regarding my experience in talking to prostitutes seemed to imply that I certainly had never done so. If that's what you want to think, then so be it. I didn't really see a need to answer every single accusation.

[Dmitri]

I don't "want to think" anything, that's why I asked the question. if I wanted to assume I wouldn't need to ask.

You of course don't have to answer, that is completely your right, but I wanted to point out that your comments re. getting amused over emotional content of others' answers (mine in particular) to your "challenging" questions is inappropriate and unfair.
I.e. you are continuing to be mildly offensive, although perhaps without meaning to or even realizing it.
Just FYI.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Just as an aside,

a) i apologize for missing the joke.

b) do cocks sweat? really? mine doesn't.

[Chris Fleming]

I don't "want to think" anything, that's why I asked the question. if I wanted to assume I wouldn't need to ask.

You of course don't have to answer, that is completely your right, but I wanted to point out that your comments re. getting amused over emotional content of others' answers (mine in particular) to your "challenging" questions is inappropriate and unfair.
I.e. you are continuing to be mildly offensive, although perhaps without meaning to or even realizing it.
Just FYI.

Yeah, but it was in the way you asked it. If I'm not mistaken, the first time you said something like "speaking of ivory towers..." you had your answer before you asked it.

In any case, as to my amusement, I don't have to remind you that your feelings and reactions are actually entirely within your own domain to control. In any event, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

[meeks]

do cocks sweat? really? mine doesn't.

only if they ever get used... *rim shot*

Some of the girls DO choose to be on the street - I've spoken to a couple that I went to high school with or knew threw working in bars; have a friend in USA that owns an escort service. Some of them have an 'exit strategy' coming in to it, wanting to make lots of money doing something they enjoy so they can buy a place and relax.

[Dmitri]

If I'm not mistaken, the first time you said something like "speaking of ivory towers..." you had your answer before you asked it.

Wrong again, that wasn't the first time -- this was the first time. You were the one who brought up "ivory towers" -- later.

In any case, as to my amusement, I don't have to remind you that your feelings and reactions are actually entirely within your own domain to control. In any event, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

I will be indeed, but your argument re. control over one's feelings is inapplicable here. Imagine someone come and poop on your lawn, and you'd tell them that it's not cool and ask them to stop doing it, and then in response they'd come closer and poop on your doorstep this time, and then when you get mad they'd laugh and tell you that your reaction is amusing to them and that you should be in control of your feelings and emotions. (It's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point I'm making.)

[Chris Fleming]

If I'm not mistaken, the first time you said something like "speaking of ivory towers..." you had your answer before you asked it.

Wrong again, that wasn't the first time -- this was the first time. You were the one who brought up "ivory towers" -- later.

In any case, as to my amusement, I don't have to remind you that your feelings and reactions are actually entirely within your own domain to control. In any event, I'm sure you'll be just fine.

I will be indeed, but your argument re. control over one's feelings is inapplicable here. Imagine someone come and poop on your lawn, and you'd tell them that it's not cool and ask them to stop doing it, and then in response they'd come closer and poop on your doorstep this time, and then when you get mad they'd laugh and tell you that your reaction is amusing to them and that you should be in control of your feelings and emotions. (It's an exaggeration, but I hope you get the point I'm making.)

Yes I remember I said it first, saying that people's assumptions as to the results of legalization were coming from the ivory tower. Considering that you asked your question that way in response, I could only surmise that you already had what you wanted and the question was rhetorical.

As for pooping on your lawn, doorstep, dining room table, etc sorry, I don't buy your point or example or that responsibility for ones reactions is ever inapplicable or ever outside your locus of control. I'm not going to be moved on that, especially considering the context of this issue and the points I maintain about your reactions.

[Dmitri]

Wasn't trying to "move" you, just making my point.

I guess this can finally put this thing to rest already...
Man that was tiring.

Peace.

[Chris Fleming]

[I-mon]

do cocks sweat? really? mine doesn't.

maybe you should see a doctor.

[wiesiek]

Wow. I knew lots on here have liberal views but I didn't know it went that far. Learn something new everyday.

Firstly I'd like to challenge the premise that not legalizing prostitution is a human rights violation. You've got to be kidding me.

Secondly, could anyone name a time in history when prostitution was respected by society or when whores had dignity? Really?

Firstly - don`t hurt the others ,
you can do anything you like with your body

important point here is to cut off the pimps!

Secondly, - you must be kidding,
just open ancient history book, there is aLOT of such storys thru milenia,
but
they call them "kurtyzana" /sorry if englisch version of this word is different/ not a prostitute

if my brain cells are in good shape
one of them become China ruler once