Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War on the Poor

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:14:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

All I had to do was read this part to call out the bull:

"A prostitution charge will haunt these women throughout the interlocking bureaucracies of their lives: filling out job applications, signing kids up for day care, renting apartments, qualifying for loans, requesting passports or visas.

Not all people who do sex work are women, but women disproportionately suffer the stigma, discrimination, and violence against sex workers. The result is a war on women that is nearly imperceptible, unless you are involved in the sex trade yourself. This war is spearheaded and defended largely by other women: a coalition of feminists, conservatives, and even some human rights activists who subject sex workers to poverty, violence, and imprisonment"all in the name of defending women"s rights."

...

What about the fact that over 50,000 women are forced in to sex, and over 25,000 children?

These people are idiots, and you for supporting them.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:18:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:14:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

All I had to do was read this part to call out the bull:

"A prostitution charge will haunt these women throughout the interlocking bureaucracies of their lives: filling out job applications, signing kids up for day care, renting apartments, qualifying for loans, requesting passports or visas.

Not all people who do sex work are women, but women disproportionately suffer the stigma, discrimination, and violence against sex workers. The result is a war on women that is nearly imperceptible, unless you are involved in the sex trade yourself. This war is spearheaded and defended largely by other women: a coalition of feminists, conservatives, and even some human rights activists who subject sex workers to poverty, violence, and imprisonment"all in the name of defending women"s rights."

...

What about the fact that over 50,000 women are forced in to sex, and over 25,000 children?

These people are idiots, and you for supporting them.

Why would you call me an idiot?

Nothing in your response contradicts anything in the article. In order to see the real idiot, look in the mirror.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:18:16 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:14:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

All I had to do was read this part to call out the bull:

"A prostitution charge will haunt these women throughout the interlocking bureaucracies of their lives: filling out job applications, signing kids up for day care, renting apartments, qualifying for loans, requesting passports or visas.

Not all people who do sex work are women, but women disproportionately suffer the stigma, discrimination, and violence against sex workers. The result is a war on women that is nearly imperceptible, unless you are involved in the sex trade yourself. This war is spearheaded and defended largely by other women: a coalition of feminists, conservatives, and even some human rights activists who subject sex workers to poverty, violence, and imprisonment"all in the name of defending women"s rights."

...

What about the fact that over 50,000 women are forced in to sex, and over 25,000 children?

These people are idiots, and you for supporting them.


Why would you call me an idiot?

Nothing in your response contradicts anything in the article. In order to see the real idiot, look in the mirror.

No, if a woman is imprisoned for prostitution, usually a counselor tries to get them off the street and offer them an alternative. Most prostitutes are forced in to what they do, 50,000 of them! Should we just ignore them and let them be beat up by their pimps and live a life of slavery and poverty?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:28:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:27:19 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:18:16 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:14:59 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

All I had to do was read this part to call out the bull:

"A prostitution charge will haunt these women throughout the interlocking bureaucracies of their lives: filling out job applications, signing kids up for day care, renting apartments, qualifying for loans, requesting passports or visas.

Not all people who do sex work are women, but women disproportionately suffer the stigma, discrimination, and violence against sex workers. The result is a war on women that is nearly imperceptible, unless you are involved in the sex trade yourself. This war is spearheaded and defended largely by other women: a coalition of feminists, conservatives, and even some human rights activists who subject sex workers to poverty, violence, and imprisonment"all in the name of defending women"s rights."

...

What about the fact that over 50,000 women are forced in to sex, and over 25,000 children?

These people are idiots, and you for supporting them.


Why would you call me an idiot?

Nothing in your response contradicts anything in the article. In order to see the real idiot, look in the mirror.

No, if a woman is imprisoned for prostitution, usually a counselor tries to get them off the street and offer them an alternative. Most prostitutes are forced in to what they do, 50,000 of them! Should we just ignore them and let them be beat up by their pimps and live a life of slavery and poverty?

If we were to legalize or loosen restrictions on prostitution, it would be more out in the open. It seems that the very fact that prostitution is illegal contributes to the fact that so many live in poverty and slavery.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:50:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the rich raged a war on the poor, the poor would be helpless because, welfare is not enough to viable profit for weaponry.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.

If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?

If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 7:56:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I agree with most of that.

As a matter of curiosity, are you a feminist conservative? If not, how would you categorize yourself?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:16:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:56:15 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.


I agree with most of that.

As a matter of curiosity, are you a feminist conservative? If not, how would you categorize yourself?

No. I am Anarcho-Feminist.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.

Well, all entertainers are basically objects for everyone's pleasure.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:28:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:18:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.

Well, all entertainers are basically objects for everyone's pleasure.

No, they aren't. Entertainers in our society are treated like stars. Sex workers are treated like sexual objects and dirt. Some people even think it's ok to rape women who dress like "sluts" (as if it's ok to rape sex workers).
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:31:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:28:48 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:18:40 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.

Well, all entertainers are basically objects for everyone's pleasure.

No, they aren't. Entertainers in our society are treated like stars. Sex workers are treated like sexual objects and dirt. Some people even think it's ok to rape women who dress like "sluts" (as if it's ok to rape sex workers).

Depending on the prostitute, but yeah I see where your coming from, definitely not a big proponent for prostitution, to many potential loopholes.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.

A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

C: I straw manned nothing.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 4:38:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.

Interesting point, I think I would have to agree with you.
However, ideally, I assume it would be much much easier for these girls to get help, as the john could go to the police to tell them that the hooker said "please, help me, they won't let me leave". Currently, a john is unlikely to help, as if he were, he may be charged with a crime, along with the girl.

Can we agree on this?
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:21:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 4:38:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.

Interesting point, I think I would have to agree with you.
However, ideally, I assume it would be much much easier for these girls to get help, as the john could go to the police to tell them that the hooker said "please, help me, they won't let me leave". Currently, a john is unlikely to help, as if he were, he may be charged with a crime, along with the girl.

Can we agree on this?

I don't think that the type of person who uses sex slaves would really care . . . Most people who visit sex workers only care about themselves and not about others. What stops him from submitting an anonymous tip right now? Nothing.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:22:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.
B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.
C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.
D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:30:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:22:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.

Not the point I was trying to make. You said "for male pleasure". But on that point, there are male prostitues aswell. In fact, in Thailand many men are forced to undergo a sex change to become a prostitute.

B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.

How so?

Is a mechanic an object for fixing your car? Is an accountant an object for doing you taxes? Is a teacher an object for educating people?

C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.

And I disagree. So either show me what I straw manned or drop the point.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.

How so? Have you never heard of a dominatrix?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:30:16 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:22:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.

Not the point I was trying to make. You said "for male pleasure". But on that point, there are male prostitues aswell. In fact, in Thailand many men are forced to undergo a sex change to become a prostitute.

If they're forced to undergo sex changes, they are not longer males. This is still objectification of females.
B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.

How so?

Because they don't matter to the customer-they're just means to an end.
Is a mechanic an object for fixing your car? Is an accountant an object for doing you taxes? Is a teacher an object for educating people?

Yes, but the are not sexual objects.
C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.

And I disagree. So either show me what I straw manned or drop the point.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.

How so? Have you never heard of a dominatrix?

I have no idea what that is.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 5:57:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:35:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:30:16 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:22:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.

Not the point I was trying to make. You said "for male pleasure". But on that point, there are male prostitues aswell. In fact, in Thailand many men are forced to undergo a sex change to become a prostitute.

If they're forced to undergo sex changes, they are not longer males. This is still objectification of females.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. They are forced to attain breasts and start acting as a female, general the penis is left in its place though.

B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.

How so?

Because they don't matter to the customer-they're just means to an end.

An assumption? Didn't your parents warn you about what those would make out of you?

Is a mechanic an object for fixing your car? Is an accountant an object for doing you taxes? Is a teacher an object for educating people?

Yes, but the are not sexual objects.

I'm slightly disturbed by your view of people with a profession. Do you believe that all objectifying is bad, or just sexual. And why do you consider these people objects for a purpose, rather then people with a job?

C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.

And I disagree. So either show me what I straw manned or drop the point.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.

How so? Have you never heard of a dominatrix?

I have no idea what that is.

First off, you forgot to tell me how prostitution degrades a woman's position of power.

Now, I am terribly surprised that you have never heard of a dominatrix. Or that, at the very least you couldn't be bothered to type it into google.

A dominatrix is a woman who is paid to degrade, humiliate, and abuse people. It is a sub-category of prostitute. And it does the exact opposite of putting them in a low position of power.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:30:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:21:24 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/13/2013 4:38:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.

Interesting point, I think I would have to agree with you.
However, ideally, I assume it would be much much easier for these girls to get help, as the john could go to the police to tell them that the hooker said "please, help me, they won't let me leave". Currently, a john is unlikely to help, as if he were, he may be charged with a crime, along with the girl.

Can we agree on this?

I don't think that the type of person who uses sex slaves would really care . . . Most people who visit sex workers only care about themselves and not about others. What stops him from submitting an anonymous tip right now? Nothing.

Sex slaves, maybe, but not what he thought was a willing participant.
I didn't even think of calling in an anonymous tip, so they might not have either. Plus, they might think the working girl may get in trouble, or that an anonymous tip isn't really anonymous.

Do you really think there would be any less of a chance of helping these slaves if it were legal? I think there would be more of a chance, albeit not huge factor. The girls could get away from the pimps, but the organized sex trade elite would be just as difficult.
My work here is, finally, done.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 6:34:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 5:57:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:35:50 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:30:16 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/13/2013 5:22:56 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:42:28 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 9:17:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 8:43:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.

Not the point I was trying to make. You said "for male pleasure". But on that point, there are male prostitues aswell. In fact, in Thailand many men are forced to undergo a sex change to become a prostitute.

If they're forced to undergo sex changes, they are not longer males. This is still objectification of females.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. They are forced to attain breasts and start acting as a female, general the penis is left in its place though.

They're being forced to act like females and to gain some sort of secondary sexual characteristics that normally belong to females. Females are therefore considered to be the "sex class" in Thailand. It's still objectification of females.
B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.

How so?

Because they don't matter to the customer-they're just means to an end.


An assumption? Didn't your parents warn you about what those would make out of you?

It's not an assumption. It's been verified by studies.
Is a mechanic an object for fixing your car? Is an accountant an object for doing you taxes? Is a teacher an object for educating people?

Yes, but the are not sexual objects.

I'm slightly disturbed by your view of people with a profession. Do you believe that all objectifying is bad, or just sexual. And why do you consider these people objects for a purpose, rather then people with a job?

I would say it's not really objectification in the case of the mechanic or accountant because they are still people who are valued for their intelligence and personality while the sex workers are considered to be objects with nothing more than a sexual purpose.
C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.

And I disagree. So either show me what I straw manned or drop the point.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.

How so? Have you never heard of a dominatrix?

I have no idea what that is.

First off, you forgot to tell me how prostitution degrades a woman's position of power.

It reduces them to sex objects. This type of objectification is generally psychologically damaging . . .
Now, I am terribly surprised that you have never heard of a dominatrix.
Sorry that I don't spend my time looking up things like that.
Or that, at the very least you couldn't be bothered to type it into google.

Again, sorry that I don't spend my time researching (or whatever you do) this stuff.
A dominatrix is a woman who is paid to degrade, humiliate, and abuse people. It is a sub-category of prostitute. And it does the exact opposite of putting them in a low position of power.

It doesn't put them in a position of power. They're still the wage slaves of the person who pays.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 7:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 9:16:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:56:15 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:53:27 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:50:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 2/12/2013 7:40:09 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
BigRat, I hate when people lie and say that if prostitution was legal, sex slavery would not exist. That is blatantly false. Sex slavery would actually thrive because it would be easier to get away with-you could just disguise it as a legitimate business. In fact, this is empirically verified by the fact that the number one city for sex trafficking is Amsterdam, in which prostitution is totally legal. India also legalized prostitution, and thousands of girls are kidnapped from Nepal and sent into Delhi as sex slaves every year. We (feminists, not conservatives) are not keeping women in slavery and poverty when we advocate against prostitution. Instead, they are seeking to give them opportunities to improve their lives in a manner that is not degrading and does not force more women into slavery just to satisfy the ludicrous fantasies of disgusting, loser men.


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.


I agree with most of that.

As a matter of curiosity, are you a feminist conservative? If not, how would you categorize yourself?

No. I am Anarcho-Feminist.

How can you be Anarcho-Feminist and agree prostitution should be regulated? This costs money, who's paying for this regulation? Don't you agree, as an Anarchist, that the gov't should be minimized to the lowest level of service possible? Anarchists believe in a collective security force that investors pay for, I already think that's absurd, because you are assuming people will care enough to pay in to this security force based on good will, and it could be corrupted pretty easily. But I am getting off topic, I think prostitution should be illegal.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 7:21:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago


If a woman has a good or service to offer (sex, for instance, is a service), she should be able to sell that good or service on an open market.

Do you hold that women do not own their own bodies?


If you do hold this, this is an different issue entirely. But, if you do believe women own their bodies, then there is no reason to keep prostitution illegal on moral grounds.

As a practical matter, prostitution is a relatively easy way for poor women to make money. By making it illegal, we are essentially telling them they cannot enter a line of work that could get them out of poverty.

Just like legalized marijuana would reduce related violence, legalized prostitution would reduce violence associated. After all, it would be out in the open and subject to regular laws.

And, you can't say that having the state tell women they cannot pursue a line of work that, in the state's opinion, is immoral somehow opens up oppurtunies for women.

I do think that women own their bodies and that prostitution should be legal. I disagree that it's a way for them to get out of poverty-actually, it traps them in poverty and is often a way for them to feed drug addictions. It needs to be highly regulated in order to make sure it is safe and consensual.

It's a totally disgusting and objectifying profession though, and I would rather starve to death than do it. If I am ever at a point in my life in which that's my only option, I'll commit suicide.

I don't know about you royal, but I wouldn't pay to have sex with an object. So I don't see how prostitution objectifies women. Though I suppose you might have a dildo you bought.

As far as I can tell, objectify is just a buzz word that feminists throw around every time someone comments on a women's looks. Which makes no sense, because I don't know a single guy who would comment on how ugly a tree is, or how beautiful his bed is, or how he would so totally do that bean bag over there.

You're strawmanning pretty badly right now. It objectifies women by turning them into sex objects that are used for male pleasure. It puts them in a ridiculous position in terms of power.


A: women buy female prostitutes as well.

That doesn't mean it isn't degrading to women.

Not the point I was trying to make. You said "for male pleasure". But on that point, there are male prostitues aswell. In fact, in Thailand many men are forced to undergo a sex change to become a prostitute.

If they're forced to undergo sex changes, they are not longer males. This is still objectification of females.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. They are forced to attain breasts and start acting as a female, general the penis is left in its place though.

They're being forced to act like females and to gain some sort of secondary sexual characteristics that normally belong to females. Females are therefore considered to be the "sex class" in Thailand. It's still objectification of females.

Wow, your pretty good at twisting things. If you can show me a definition of female, from a dictionary of course, that they fall under, then I will agree.

B: No, it simply allows them to sell a commodity. Does being a professional masseus turn someone into an object for pleasure? I think not.

Yes, it does.

How so?

Because they don't matter to the customer-they're just means to an end.


An assumption? Didn't your parents warn you about what those would make out of you?

It's not an assumption. It's been verified by studies.

And an example of one of these studies would be.......

Is a mechanic an object for fixing your car? Is an accountant an object for doing you taxes? Is a teacher an object for educating people?

Yes, but the are not sexual objects.

I'm slightly disturbed by your view of people with a profession. Do you believe that all objectifying is bad, or just sexual. And why do you consider these people objects for a purpose, rather then people with a job?

I would say it's not really objectification in the case of the mechanic or accountant because they are still people who are valued for their intelligence and personality while the sex workers are considered to be objects with nothing more than a sexual purpose.

You didn't answer any of my questions there.

Do you know anyone who values their accountant because he has a good personality? And what is the difference between intelligence, personality, and sex skills, that makes it ok to value someone for the first two, but if you value someone for the third you are objectifying them in a horrible way?

C: I straw manned nothing.

You did.

And I disagree. So either show me what I straw manned or drop the point.

D: What ridiculous position in terms of power does it put women in?
It puts them in a very low position of power.

How so? Have you never heard of a dominatrix?

I have no idea what that is.

First off, you forgot to tell me how prostitution degrades a woman's position of power.

It reduces them to sex objects. This type of objectification is generally psychologically damaging . . .

No, you assert it reduces them to sex objects. And I certainly have never heard of any studies showing that women who willingly enter the sex trade are psychologically damaged by it. If you could show me such material I would most certainly read it.

Now, I am terribly surprised that you have never heard of a dominatrix.
Sorry that I don't spend my time looking up things like that.

Dominatrix is a widely used term. It features in various movies, tv shows
And books.

Or that, at the very least you couldn't be bothered to type it into google.

Again, sorry that I don't spend my time researching (or whatever you do) this stuff.

It's ok to say it, you know. You were trying to be sly about accusing me of masturbting to such types of porn. Well, it's not really my type of fetish. I first learnt about it through movies and TV.

And I'm sorry. Is it that hard to type a term into google when you don't recognise it. Here, let me help. bit.ly/uEbu5M

A dominatrix is a woman who is paid to degrade, humiliate, and abuse people. It is a sub-category of prostitute. And it does the exact opposite of putting them in a low position of power.

It doesn't put them in a position of power. They're still the wage slaves of the person who pays.

Wow, nice emotional manipulation by referring to them as slaves. They are wage slaves in the same way that both you and I are wage slaves. That is, assuming you work.

The difference being that we don't get paid to treat someone like dirt, and show them that we are superior to them in every way. Or atleast I assume you don't.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 8:54:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/12/2013 5:54:57 PM, BigRat wrote:
The political elite and their paternalistic statism have waged a cruel war on the very people they claim to want to help: the poor.

http://www.themoneyillusion.com...

I might support your painkillers arguments (well, even this point is doubtful since the instance may be an isolated case). But for the rest (prostitution, war on drugs, and smoking etc.), I would respectfully disagree.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:06:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm a conservative and I definitely wage war on the poor. Here is how I do it:

1.> I faithfully pay my taxes, which are used to fuel entitlements. These entitlement are then abused by the poor, to the point of life-time dependency. Once the "poor" become institutionalized through free minimalistic benefits....they never recover. Muahahahaha

2.> I donate money to the homeless guy at the i-85 junction. As long as I keep supplying him with spare change, he will keep standing in the rain for hand-outs.
Muahahahahaha.

3.> I donate to the clothing drop-off every six months. It forces the poor bastards to spend more money on laundry...money they don't have. Muaahahahahahahaha.

Conservatives can be such evil bastards. Muahahahahahaaaaa....
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2013 9:14:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/13/2013 9:06:03 AM, Heineken wrote:
I'm a conservative and I definitely wage war on the poor. Here is how I do it:

1.> I faithfully pay my taxes, which are used to fuel entitlements. These entitlement are then abused by the poor, to the point of life-time dependency. Once the "poor" become institutionalized through free minimalistic benefits....they never recover. Muahahahaha

2.> I donate money to the homeless guy at the i-85 junction. As long as I keep supplying him with spare change, he will keep standing in the rain for hand-outs.
Muahahahahaha.

3.> I donate to the clothing drop-off every six months. It forces the poor bastards to spend more money on laundry...money they don't have. Muaahahahahahahaha.


Conservatives can be such evil bastards. Muahahahahahaaaaa....

How dare you Heineken! I demand you stop giving all these things to the poor, and instead give them to me. So that I can take the burden off the shoulders of those unfortunate people.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.