Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

When does morality become immoral?

Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 3:46:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

On the pretext of liberty and justice a person ought be free to do as they choose. If they do somethin and no one has their rights infringed involuntarily as a result, why would you make a law inhibiting the freedom of the parties involved?

The first question is whether or not prostitution will do harm or other wise be immoral by effect in terms of established rights of the people involved. If you voluntarily rent your body it is obvious there is no injustice done and you are acting to your own will. So we look at the rights of others. Are there any inherent issues that cannot be addressed in decent manner of regulation, and so require abolition?

"It" refer's to prostitution in the context that was written.
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.

"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.


"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled

If you replace the "it" with legal prostitution or illegal prostitution then the question becomes comprehensible.

"Does legal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

"Does illegal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2017 6:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

Whatever the reason for it is, people are not rational about sex. I think a lot can be written about why sexual activity is considered immoral and we probably all have a pet theory about it, but sex is one area where even the most intelligent and sensible of people can end up making fools of themselves. But its not rational! If you feel hungry there is no shame in going to a restaurant but no-one wants to be seen going into a brothel.

In theory, 'prostitute' could be a honourable profession like 'bus driver' or 'teacher', except for our absurd hang-ups about sex, especially 'sex for pleasure'. But because of the social taboos around sex, it was driven into the criminal underground so it came to be inextricably linked with exploitation, greed, trickery, theft and so on.

I think there are good reason why cruelty and meanness are immoral, but why sex should be 'immoral' is a bit more problematic - perhaps it isn't really 'immoral' at all?
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2017 8:57:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/23/2017 6:14:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

Whatever the reason for it is, people are not rational about sex. I think a lot can be written about why sexual activity is considered immoral and we probably all have a pet theory about it, but sex is one area where even the most intelligent and sensible of people can end up making fools of themselves. But its not rational! If you feel hungry there is no shame in going to a restaurant but no-one wants to be seen going into a brothel.

In theory, 'prostitute' could be a honourable profession like 'bus driver' or 'teacher', except for our absurd hang-ups about sex, especially 'sex for pleasure'. But because of the social taboos around sex, it was driven into the criminal underground so it came to be inextricably linked with exploitation, greed, trickery, theft and so on.

I think there are good reason why cruelty and meanness are immoral, but why sex should be 'immoral' is a bit more problematic - perhaps it isn't really 'immoral' at all?

I don't think sex is immoral and I don't think that legal prostitution is immoral. I do think that the people that support illegal prostitution are deeply immoral. They create so much unnecessary pain and suffering just so they can have the luxury of having their personal views upheld and enforced by law.

There are even consequences for those that enjoy the luxury of having their personal views upheld and enforced by law and it is that it costs a lot of money to do that, then those same idiots turn around and complain that their taxes are too high.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2017 1:26:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.


"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled

If you replace the "it" with legal prostitution or illegal prostitution then the question becomes comprehensible.

"Does legal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

"Does illegal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

You generally replace it with the preceding term in context.
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2017 5:02:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2017 1:26:42 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.


"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled

If you replace the "it" with legal prostitution or illegal prostitution then the question becomes comprehensible.

"Does legal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

"Does illegal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

You generally replace it with the preceding term in context.

Do I just not like illegal prostitution or legal prostitution?
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
Quadrunner
Posts: 5,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2017 7:32:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2017 5:02:03 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/31/2017 1:26:42 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.


"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled

If you replace the "it" with legal prostitution or illegal prostitution then the question becomes comprehensible.

"Does legal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

"Does illegal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

You generally replace it with the preceding term in context.

Do I just not like illegal prostitution or legal prostitution?

Prostitution, just prostitution. The Legal Status Is IRRELEVANT To How People Are AFFECTED By it
Accipiter
Posts: 2,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2017 10:14:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2017 7:32:59 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/31/2017 5:02:03 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/31/2017 1:26:42 AM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/10/2017 2:57:06 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 11:16:42 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:55:36 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:44:37 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 10:32:31 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/9/2017 3:57:50 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/9/2017 2:36:43 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/8/2017 11:37:01 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 1/8/2017 10:16:32 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I was looking at a debate in an entirely different forum where people were debating the pros and cons of legal prostitution and one person said:

"Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. The fact that a pimp or customer gives money to a prostitute for submitting to these acts does not alter the fact that child sexual abuse, rape, and/or battery occurs; it merely redefines these crimes as prostitution."

I think that we all would agree that this is the way things are now. Ironically this person submitted this post as an argument against legalizing prostitution when the truth is all that stuff goes away with legal prostitution and you only need to look to Nevada for the evidence.

I see the situation as something where people think that the standard morality must be upheld for some reason no matter how much harm to people it creates. At what point does it become immoral to support the pain, suffering, exploitation, disease and death that illegal prostitution creates?

So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that?

The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?

I don't think I understand your post, do I just not like what?

Oh I think I see the issue. I say "you" arbitrarily and it gets confused occasionally as something meant to apply directly to you personally. I usually intend things to be presented to an audience unless it's a personAL matter over the internet. That's how I write sometimes. It's really saying "does the person against this just not like it" but that just doesn't jive

You nuts man.

Well how the hell could you not get such a simple sentense. It's the only way I could figure

You don't make sense.


"So if a prostitute decides to rent her body legally or illegally, am I supporting that? The question is whether or not prostitution is immoral in effect of the rights of others. Does it hurt anything or do you just not like it?""

What does not make sense here? I'm baffled

If you replace the "it" with legal prostitution or illegal prostitution then the question becomes comprehensible.

"Does legal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

"Does illegal prostitution hurt anything or do you just not like it?"

In fact if you replace the "it" with almost anything it then makes sense.

You generally replace it with the preceding term in context.

Do I just not like illegal prostitution or legal prostitution?

Prostitution, just prostitution. The Legal Status Is IRRELEVANT To How People Are AFFECTED By it

I don't think prostitution is immoral except for the people who impose harm on others or take advantage of children, they are deeply immoral. I do think that people who claim that it is immoral and create law to make prostitution illegal are immoral in the most vicious and selfish way possible. They are the ones who create the setting whereby crimes against men, women and children are the result.
I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2017 6:10:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think a major component is that 'immoral' means at least two different things, or at least it gets used in two different ways.

One way something gets labelled 'immoral' is that it demonstrably causes harm or suffering. A particularly egregious example of that would be, say to burn a baby with lighted cigarette for fun.

A different way something gets labelled 'immoral' is that it causes irrational negative feelings, such as disgust or revulsion. Examples of that are harder to give because they vary from individual to individual. Some people are disgusted by even the idea of gay sex, others by the idea mixed race sex, or eating meat.
If you find gay sex or eating meat disgusting, chances are you will find rationalisations for your feelings. Very few people will admit (in public) that they are against (for example) gay sex beause they 'it's disgusting' - society demands at least some faux reasoning!

So when we look at the question 'when does morality become immoral?' I would say for the first 'burning babies with cigarettes' sort of 'immorality' it never does chanve from one to the other.

For the other sort what is moral and what is immoral can and does change freely, because it has no rational basis to anchor it. It so happens that currently in the west, women are not supposed to expose their breasts in public, but the same could have been said about their knees or even ankles 50 or 100 years ago. Who knows what fashion will dictate 100 years ahead? There is after all nothing rational about exposing knees but not bosoms rather than vice versa!

And no, I am not indulging in an adolescent fantasy! (well, not much). But I can't very well discuss swaps between morality and immorality without some semi-credible example! :)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.