L'Affaire Spitzer

[Stray Pooch]

It's how they're going to fix it for the telecoms and Bush and his cronies.

I don't think that is exactly right, brass.  I think (and I haven't looked deeply into this particular issue so I maybe wrong) that what the legislation proposed on this issue is doing is defining a circumstance that has not yet been defined.  Since the telecoms were instructed by the government to give up the info (and some resisted, IIRC) the laws about privacy have been violated, if at all, by the government - not the telecoms.  The telecoms have to chose between refusing a government order and dealing with customer lawsuits.  That's not fair to the telecoms.  They are stuck in the middle. 

It may even be that no definitive law exists to govern this sort of situation.  In that case, creating legislation to deal with that circumstance is not "repealing laws" to make an otherwise illegal activity legal.  It is creating new legislation that clarifies a mirky legal question.  Whether or not you agree with the wiretapping itself, I think Bush is absolutely correct to say that telecoms forced to decide between losing a battle to the government and losing a battle to a customer are being treated unfairly.  If the law allows Bush to wiretap, then no company should be liable to lawsuit for complying with the law.  If not, law enforcement officials should not be allowed to request the records.  Legal wiretaps are a fact of life, and have been since the dawn of telecommunications.  Phone companys, ISPs and the like are required by law to allow such things, and if you look at the EULA or similar documentation on any products offered you will see a disclaimer to that effect.

I suspect, in fact, that the telecoms are being sued not to recoup any real loss from them, but to push the legal issue of the wiretapping itself.   As such, I would hope any competent judge would throw out such suits on merit.  But it only takes one California liberal court to punish a corporation for submitting to a law enforcement request.  Even if the ruling is eventually overturned on appeal, the telecoms are spending a ton of money they shouldn't have to in defense.  Furthermore, even a perfectly unbiased court may determine that the current laws do not allow the government to request the records and wiretaps.  As such, the telecoms may well be left open to liability, and that is just not fair.  The government is at fault, not the company complying with law enforcement requests.  The issue is legally unclear, I think, and as such it is the duty of the legislative branch to legislate. 

Whether Bush is ultimately breaking the law is another issue.  That, too, is legally unclear.  If he is, the proper course of action would be impeachment.  As such, I am pretty sure most in the Congress do not think he is really breaking the law, or at least think the law is not clear enough (or the Republicans weak enough) to convince a sufficient number of Senators to oust him.  That's another reality of our legal system, not to mention our two-party poliltical system.  But since the issue is raised, clearing up any mirky points is, again, the job of the legislature. 

And anyway, to the main issue of the thread, I don't think anyone is suggesting laws be repealed retrospectively to avoid prosecution of Spitzer.  Rather, I think people are saying the laws should be changed now, to avoid this sort of situation happening in the future and the counterargument made is that this is tantamount to saying we should just do away with laws completely, and that would eliminate crime.

[Universe Prince]

I'm no fan of Anne Coulter, but I think the "ad hominem" counterpoint in this particular column falls flat.  This issue is directly related to the man's character.

Oh I agree that there is good reason to criticize the man's character. But there is a difference between criticizing a man's character and comparing him to "a dog who wee-wees on your leg."

The very nature of the issue is ad hominem.

I don't agree. Part of ad hominem is appealing to emotional response or prejudice rather than reason. We don't need to do that to criticize Spitzer or what he did, but that is primarily what Coulter does, in this particular article and, at least in public, all the time. Which is why, contrary to what ChristiansUnited4LessGvt claims, she reveals more about her supporters than she ever does about the "Left".

[Universe Prince]

Rather, I think people are saying the laws should be changed now, to avoid this sort of situation happening in the future and the counterargument made is that this is tantamount to saying we should just do away with laws completely, and that would eliminate crime.

I don't understand that reaction. Setting aside for the moment whether or not prostitution should be legal, why is arguing that changing a law or a set of laws regarding a single issue supposedly tantamount to advocating the abolition of all laws? Why does that come up all the time? Is it not possible to consider a law or the illegality of something to be wrong without being someone who wants to do away with social order?

I'm not accusing you, Pooch, but this sort of thing happens all the time. I don't really understand why.

[Stray Pooch]

That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.

The law agrees with me.  Most people do.  I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others?  Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse.  I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?  

This line of argument reminds me of an accusation of racism an African-American NCO made against our commander.  He was late getting back from leave (which constitutes AWOL) and failed to call us to let us know (which would normally have resulted in his getting an extension and being OK).  The reason he gave was that he had been arrested for DUI and was unable to call.  Leaving aside the serious nature (and lame excuse) of that issue, our Commander found the "I couldn't call because I was in jail" story a little hard to believe.  So he called the jurisdiction the NCO claimed he had been arrested in and found no record of it.  Our commander decided to prosecute, because the lie was the last straw.  The NCO insisted that other people who were white were treated differently.  He mentioned me by name, because the commander had worked out flex time arrangements with me to come in late and leave late.  Since I was therefore, by the NCOs reckoning "late" everyday without punishment, it was clear a double standard was in place.  He gets back a day late from leave and he is prosecuted.  I come in late every day and that's OK.  Obviously, the only difference is that I was white and he was black.  Double standard.  Of course, it wasn't a double standard.  They were different situations that required a different standard.  That is the issue here.  Sex crimes are a legally recognized different category of crime.

Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex.

I didn't say or imply that you were.  I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad.  I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.

I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong.

Well and good, but there is more to forcing a person to have sex than there is to forcing someone to do housework.  I am not saying that sex is, in itself, not a legitimate act.  It's a little difficult to word this in such a way that I can make this more clear, or perhaps you are just rejecting my point outright.  But to try to clarify, sex is legitimate when between two married adults, or at least two people who are attracted mutually to each other.  I leave aside for this debate my own moral feelings about extramarital sex.  Having sex with strangers indiscrimately, however, is different from preparing food for strangers.  Working as a short order cook does not significantly differ from making dinner for your kids (though I have never cooked for a goat, myself.  Curse you.).  Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love.  There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity.  As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.

Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.[/color]

There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you.  There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.

There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.

Yes, but there is the main point of my argument.  I have already conceded that consentual prostitution is not inherently wrong on any non-moral level.  You are correct to say that nobody is having their rights violated in such a hypothetical transaction.  The problem is that you ignore the other side of the coin.  You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom.  This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism.  It views the world in terms of black and white.  The ideal is not the norm.  Far too many hookers are in the business by force, either by human trafficking or by abuses of other kinds which amount to the same thing.  My father forced my mother to sell herself when he wouldn't hold a job.  That's not hypothetical.  She wasn't kidnapped and shipped here from a foreign country.  But she was the victim of human trafficking nonetheless.  Further, even those women (and men, since the situations are often the same) who are not in the business by physical force or coercion, are in the business by choice to support a drug habit, or for other dubious reasons.  They DO get STDs - the high-class and street hookers alike.  They DO have unwanted pregnancies, many of which are aborted, and many of which come to term to create babies who are born with AIDS or addicted to drugs.  You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life.  Porn works that way, real life does not.  I do not look at the ideal situation.  I look at the whole picture.  Yes, I am sure there are lots of transactions that work just fine.  But I am more than willing to bet that the majority, and I don't even think it is close, of hookers are in the game because of circumstances beyond their control, whether by force or by bad circumstance.  I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either.  I think we should weight the issue and decide what is best.  The inherent ills of prostitution outweigh by far the inherent good, if any beyond straight capitalism.  (Well, maybe gay capitalism if it's a guy-guy thing or . . . NO WAIT, that wasn't a pun!  It was a legimate acknowlegement of alternative lifestyles!  What are you, some kinda homophobe??)   I don't think prostitution should be illegal because sex is bad.  I think it should be illegal because the aggregate outcome of prostitution is bad.  It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.

Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.

Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies?  That's awfully convenient."  Yet they were.  I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were.  I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased.  NORML isn't likely to play up studies that indicate medical problems with marijuana, and would very likely hide such findings if their own studies found this to be true.  NARAL (IIRC) deliberately misrepresented the amount of third trimester abortions and got caught at it years ago when the issue was being discussed.  Democrats trumped up issues about Bush being AWOL and then doctored documentation to "prove" the point.  People lie, usually to get gain or avoid trouble.  In the case of sex-workers, both motivations are there.  So forgive me if I am skeptical about their claims.

Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.

Yeah, that's fair enough.  I took the metaphor a bit out to left field.  Let me try to state it more clearly. [This will end badly, I just know it . . .]  I do not dispute that women should have control of their own bodies.  But I think that in certain cases, protecting the rights of one person may involve restricting the rights of others.  I brought up gun control as an issue where this argument might be used to support the gun control side.  It is better to keep the law-abiding citizen from having a gun, they say, than to let all of these terrible murderers have them.  That statement, without further examination, makes sense.  I mean, no guns - no gun-deaths.  However, once you bring up the simple point that this leaves honest people without defense against bad guys (since it doesn't really limit access to bad guys, just makes it harder to get them) the argument falls apart.  Reality overrules the ideal. We have an actual need - often a literal matter of life and death - for access to arms.  So when we look at the potential good of controlling guns and weigh it against the potential bad, I think the right to bear arms supercedes the potential reduction in gun-related violence.  On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force.  But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales.  There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal.  And, unlike gun control where there is a very real NEED for access to weapons, there is no ACTUAL NEED for prostitution.  Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand.  Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available.  No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population.  So while I think that the evils of gun access are outweighed by the benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued legality of guns even in the face of horrible gun-related deaths - I think the ills of prostitution outweigh the potential benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued illegality of the business even in the face of curtailed rights to boink for bucks.  Nobody disputes that bad guys shouldn't have guns.  Nobody disputes that a person should have ultimate control over their own body.  It's just that these arguments are outweighed, in the minds of gun-rights advocates and anti-prostitution advocates respectively, by the ultimate cost/benefit ratio.  It looks like a double standard (not to bring up another point already covered, but there ya go). The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns.  Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control?  But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently.  There is no contradiction or double standard.  They are different issues.  Clear as mud, huh?

Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.

No one is contradicting that.
[/quote]

I know, but you are discounting it by separating it from the act of sex itself.  You are perfectly justified in doing that, at first glance, but the issue is NOT sex.  It is prostitution.  Prostitution is a larger issue than JUST sex - in a similar way that rape is not really about sex.  There is no basic difference between a rapist and a person who physically abuses someone.  The idea is the same - control.  It's just that the weapon chosen is different - in one case fists or weapons and in the other sex.  Yet so many physical abusers vow that they would kill a rapist or child-molester if given the chance - even though they are basically the same sort of person.  The crime of rape is different not because it is ABOUT sex but because it USES sex - which is a far more intimate sort of abuse - with inherent physical and emotional trauma - than just smacking someone.  Similarly, forcing a woman into prostitution is NOT the same crime as forcing a woman into domestic work.  It has a lot of the same elements, but it does not equate in terms of the damage.  

BTW, it occurs to me that there is one other point I have not considered because I have tried to leave out the moral and religious aspects, but it is nonetheless perfectly legitimate even in a secular society.  Women who are forced into sexual slavery can, in many cases, become outcasts - even be stoned to death - in their societies even after rescue.  At the very best, they are forced to participate in something inherently evil in their own minds, religions or cultures.  Nobody forced into domestic work, construction or other such ventures will carry that kind of stigma.  You may argue that THAT issue is also separate, since such religious views are silly and prejudiced.  I agree, but that does not negate the horrible effect it would have on those women.  The loss of religious liberty is yet another aspect of this crime.  Whether or not we find their religious or cultural views ridiculous, the impact on their lives of sex crimes is worse than it is in our culture.  Being outcast from your family, religion and culture - maybe even from your belief in an eternal reward - is the worst possible outcome.  It may well make many who are caught in such circumstances see no reason to resist.  Someone forced into construction or domestic slavery can return home with honor, and at worst may have picked up some housekeeping or building skills.  Not the same crime, not even close.

While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.

You are doing so selectively.  But for the sake of accuracy, let me say you are not considering the full issue, since you do not associate one aspect of that issue with another.  You separate the issue of human trafficking, which I consider to be an inherent part of the issue.  As such, I think you are viewing only part of the issue and calling it the whole.

People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.[/color]

That is pretty convenient, because you get to - once again - separate the consequences of an action from the action itself.  To characterize arguments as "dumb" just because you do not agree with them is to reject rational debate - even if they are, in fact, dumb.  Obviously, supporting gun ownership is not the same as supporting gun crime.  But few who advocate gun control say that.  Most simply say that the CONSEQUENCE of a lack of gun control are horrible gun crimes.  I am certainly not saying (and you qualified your statement, so I know you are not suggesting I am) that because you support legal prostitution you must, therefore, support human trafficking.  You are very clear on that issue and it went without saying anyway.  But I will say that I am willing, however horrible it is, to support gun rights even though part of the consequence may be gun crimes because removing those rights would exacerbate gun crimes and make us vulberable to much worse.  I am further saying that I am NOT willing to support legal prostitution because it will encourage the many ills of prostitution WITHOUT significant benefit.

And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?

I think you ignored the qualification of that point that followed what you quoted. "Granted, most cops are going to be less than sympathetic in such circumstances - and in a lot of cases the hooker just won't take the chance.  But THAT is a personal choice on the part of the hoooker, and if she gets the help, the cops would have no more sympathy for the john than the hooker."  I'm ignoring nothing.  I know its a real world.  

Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.

Exactly.  There is a difference between two situations that might appear similar.  The first person may have to fear retribution from the police, the second from her husband.  In one case, she goes to jail, in the other, she may be killed.  Seems to me that the second is worse than the first.  So maybe we should legalize prostitution and make marriage illegal. Obviously, I'm carrying it to absurdity to illustrate my point.  Forced sexual crimes are NOT the same as forced labor - so your equating slavery to SEX slavery is not valid.

I maintain that authority over one's body is [an essential element of freedom].

I didn't say it wasn't.  I said that boinking for pay isn't.  This is nothing more than two ways of looking at an issue.  I say it is OK to restrict the right of a person to control their body IN THIS PARTICULAR case.  I also think it is OK to restrict a women's right to control over her body in the case of abortion.  I would reject completely any attempt to restrict a woman's right to have a boob job or a gastric bypass - even though I find both to be a bad idea.  I would reject any attempt to make tatoos illegal, though I find them repugnant.  I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws, though I find homosexual behavior (at which any such remaining laws are aimed) to be morally reprehensible.  I am, I confess, ambivalent on the issue of physician-assisted suicide, though morally quite clear that it is wrong.  I do NOT reject the premise that a person ought to have control over their own bodies.  I just believe that there are issues that outweigh and supercede that right and that among those issues is human trafficking.  You look at it as a case of individual rights superceding any other issue, or that other issues are unrelated.  I get that.  I view it as a matter where the consequences make legalizing the act wrong.  In my view, prostitution directly causes many instances of such problems (such as STD spread, abortion, broken families, and human trafficking).  That is sufficient reason, IMO, for keeping the activity illegal.

But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money.  If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.

If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.

Why?  Do you think that only attractive, friendly, well-groomed people will frequent legal hookers?  I gotta tell ya, I would bet that most of those kinds of people can get it without paying if so inclined.  I can't imagine any reason why legalizing prostitution would do away with that.

The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.

No, that's not my implication, though it is fair to think it may be.  It is unfortunate that the issue I chose is so very closely related to the issue we are discussing, and BION I didn't make that connection. (The older I get the smarter I ain't.)  I was suggesting that slaves in the pre-civil war era were, in some instances, happy.  That is because they had adapted to a bad situation - it is one of the wonderful characterisrics of human nature.  I think that many hookers have adapted as well, and would describe themselves as happy.  But that does not mean that prostitutes who make that claim are any more happy than slaves who made that claim - and many southern apologists use the "happy slave" argument to justify slavery.


I have to come back to this - I am about to miss a very important deadline.  More later.

[kimba1]

They DO get STDs - the high-class and street hookers alike

is this true?

I don`t ever recall this ever been made fact
I`m not saying a high class don`t get STD
but the whole point of the large price is to make it improbable.
the agency would lose massive income if the girls get it
which thery do anyway,that place is gone

[Xavier_Onassis]

AIDS takes a long time to manifest itself. Other diseases can be symptom-free.

[fatman]

Pray tell, who forced you to endure SNL?  

 Nobody does anymore.

Actually, no one did to start with, unless the tv repairman scenario was reality, which I in totality doubt.

No one forced you to endure anything.  Quit being a victim already.  

Victim?
LOL, far from it.
Now thats laughable!
No, excuse me, I am doing quite well thank you very very much.

I concur, it is very laughable.  So why the theatrical and dramatic statement "We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades"?  The very act of enduring something that you dislike seems to be a definition of victimhood.  In this case, you're only a victim of yourself, and you've only had to endure what you forced upon yourself, instead of a) flipping the channel  b) taking a walk  c) going to bed d) or any of the plethora of other things that people do to keep themselves busy.  No one forces you to watch Dan Rather, read the New York Times, etc., much like no one forces me to listen to Rush Limbaugh, read Ann Coulter, or watch Faux News.  If I do it, it's because I choose to, because I want to, not because I'm forced to endure it.

I almost said F***ing victim,

Ha ha ha ha Beavis thats so funny.
I am not laughing my ass off.  

Quit dropping the A-bomb.  You said the a word, so I guess that we all know what kind of person you are   .  Do you see how stupid that argument is?  How it is a distraction from the main argument?  Get over it.

but I don't want to hear you crying that I dropped an "F bomb" and victimizing you.

Victimizing?
Why would the "F-Bomb" that you use do anything but expose you for what you are?

Here's the thing.  I'm reasonably sure that you're an adult.  I'm also reasonably sure that you've heard the word "fuck" before, and that you've probably used it at some point in your life.  As far as I know, this forum is comprised of such adults, who've seen the word and used it.  Some might be offended by the word "fuck".  Frankly I don't care if they are.  If I were forming the mind of a ten year old, then yeah, I might be a little more aware of the word.  Your whining about my using the word "fuck" is nothing more than you, once again, trying to portray yourself as the victim of the word "fuck".

The word says nothing about me, other than to portray my frustration with trying to have an intelligent debate with you, that you tend to keep manipulating and twisting to make it about something it wasn't.  This was after I posted in large red letters what I was talking about, and evidently you're colorblind because you totally missed it and kept rambling on about the same shit (oh no!  I said shit!  Better call the word cops!  Where's the FCC when you need them?).

I ask you to direct your attention to the fact that I never once called you a fucktard, fuckstick, fuckhead, fuckwad, fuckface, fuckhat, fucker, mother fucker, or a fucking anything (imbecile, idiot, moron, dipshit, etc.).   If the word fuck bothers you so much, I'd suggest you stop reading my posts, because it's a word that I tend to use fairly frequently.  If someone who's a member of this forum has kids who reads these posts, then feel free to let me know and I will adjust my language accordingly, otherwise I see no reason to in order to accomodate your tender sensibilities.  If you brought your fear of the word fuck to my workplace, you'd be laughed off of the job site.  So as I said above, get over it already.

You'll notice that I made no reference to you being a racist,
so please don't drag that into it either.

LOL, that bothered you enough to bring it up?

Yes it did.  I don't care to be accused of calling people racists when I make an effort to avoid any such implication.  You never have provided me with any proof that I've done so to anyone else in the past, but in this very thread you did the same exact thing to JS.  Now, if I implied that you were a racist, usually people who do these things make a habit of them.  You're not special, no matter how much you try to be.  You're not the one and only time I've ever called anyone on here a racist, the fact is that I've never done so.  All that your implication (that I was calling you a racist) amounts to is a rather unsubtle, unclever attempt at moving the discussion away from what you said, to what I supposedly said by some archaic formula of implication.  I'm not buying, and I'm still waiting for you to prove that I've ever called someone a racist in here.

Yeah it's about as deperate as needing the F-bomb in a political forum

I don't need the word fuck.  Perhaps you should look up the word "need".  I use it because I like it.  What is desperate is the constant posting of doctored pictures and cartoons, that generally aren't funny and are rather mean-spirited, sometimes around 10X per day, instead of engaging in a meaningful and intelligent debate.  If a picture is worth a thousand words, then you've written more than Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky just on this board.  Please don't lecture me about desperation, when you seem to be such an authority on the matter.

I can see why you like Ann, she caters to supposed victims.

I like Ann because she kicks ass!
Michelle Malkin too.

Not really.  She writes vitriolic spew that's slurped up by the moron fringe.  Sher writes that kind of garbage rather than write any kind of meaningful analysis, which Buckley was so brilliant at, and which George Will and Broder and a lot of other columnists still engage in.  That's why I tend to read them and to disregard most of Coulter's (and Malkin's) writings as reactionary drivel.  And before you start in on how she's a best seller and so popular and blah blah blah, it's been pointed out in here before that there are a lot of stupid people in this country.  Popularity and best seller do not translate into intelligence, reason, or clear thinking.

And yes, Queen Ann is a good name for her.  She does look like a man in drag, or possibly a horse.

What she looks like?  
Is this a beauty contest?

Well, on the one hand you've got Rich always talking about how hot she is, and how he'd "do" her (at least he didn't say fuck, lest he pollute those virgin ears of yours).  On the other, I'm pretty sure that it was you not so long ago that posted an unflattering picture of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and got a good laugh out of it.  Here's that link:  http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=5436.0.  The presidency isn't a beauty contest either, or at least it shouldn't be, but that doesn't stop you now does it?  If you don't like it, then don't post it.

[Rich]

>>Obviously, I don't agree.<<

You say tomato ...

[fatman]

I confess I wondered what you might have meant with that comment. There are several definitions of course. And the context of your use of the word is relevant. You used "endure" as a transitive verb, which is to say, you used it with an object. Which means the relevant definition of "endure" would be, basically,  "to allow, bear or undergo with tolerance and/or without yielding". I confess also, I am certain this does nothing to help your case at all.

You said what I was trying to say much better than I could have.  Thanks.

I think that was Fatman's point. You did say, "We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades." Yes, that is laughable.

It was my point.  I'm glad that someone caught it

[Rich]

>> Thats it EXACTLY Rich. It's fun to give a little back to them. We've had to endure all their crap on places like SNL for decades. Ann is quite skilled at punching them back very hard.<<

Very skilled indeed. She's drives them absolutely bat shit!

God bless her!

[Cynthia]

That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.

The law agrees with me.  Most people do.  I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others?  Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse.  I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?  

This line of argument reminds me of an accusation of racism an African-American NCO made against our commander.  He was late getting back from leave (which constitutes AWOL) and failed to call us to let us know (which would normally have resulted in his getting an extension and being OK).  The reason he gave was that he had been arrested for DUI and was unable to call.  Leaving aside the serious nature (and lame excuse) of that issue, our Commander found the "I couldn't call because I was in jail" story a little hard to believe.  So he called the jurisdiction the NCO claimed he had been arrested in and found no record of it.  Our commander decided to prosecute, because the lie was the last straw.  The NCO insisted that other people who were white were treated differently.  He mentioned me by name, because the commander had worked out flex time arrangements with me to come in late and leave late.  Since I was therefore, by the NCOs reckoning "late" everyday without punishment, it was clear a double standard was in place.  He gets back a day late from leave and he is prosecuted.  I come in late every day and that's OK.  Obviously, the only difference is that I was white and he was black.  Double standard.  Of course, it wasn't a double standard.  They were different situations that required a different standard.  That is the issue here.  Sex crimes are a legally recognized different category of crime.

Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex.

I didn't say or imply that you were.  I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad.  I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.

I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong.

Well and good, but there is more to forcing a person to have sex than there is to forcing someone to do housework.  I am not saying that sex is, in itself, not a legitimate act.  It's a little difficult to word this in such a way that I can make this more clear, or perhaps you are just rejecting my point outright.  But to try to clarify, sex is legitimate when between two married adults, or at least two people who are attracted mutually to each other.  I leave aside for this debate my own moral feelings about extramarital sex.  Having sex with strangers indiscrimately, however, is different from preparing food for strangers.  Working as a short order cook does not significantly differ from making dinner for your kids (though I have never cooked for a goat, myself.  Curse you.).  Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love.  There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity.  As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.

Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.[/color]

There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you.  There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.

There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.

Yes, but there is the main point of my argument.  I have already conceded that consentual prostitution is not inherently wrong on any non-moral level.  You are correct to say that nobody is having their rights violated in such a hypothetical transaction.  The problem is that you ignore the other side of the coin.  You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom.  This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism.  It views the world in terms of black and white.  The ideal is not the norm.  Far too many hookers are in the business by force, either by human trafficking or by abuses of other kinds which amount to the same thing.  My father forced my mother to sell herself when he wouldn't hold a job.  That's not hypothetical.  She wasn't kidnapped and shipped here from a foreign country.  But she was the victim of human trafficking nonetheless.  Further, even those women (and men, since the situations are often the same) who are not in the business by physical force or coercion, are in the business by choice to support a drug habit, or for other dubious reasons.  They DO get STDs - the high-class and street hookers alike.  They DO have unwanted pregnancies, many of which are aborted, and many of which come to term to create babies who are born with AIDS or addicted to drugs.  You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life.  Porn works that way, real life does not.  I do not look at the ideal situation.  I look at the whole picture.  Yes, I am sure there are lots of transactions that work just fine.  But I am more than willing to bet that the majority, and I don't even think it is close, of hookers are in the game because of circumstances beyond their control, whether by force or by bad circumstance.  I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either.  I think we should weight the issue and decide what is best.  The inherent ills of prostitution outweigh by far the inherent good, if any beyond straight capitalism.  (Well, maybe gay capitalism if it's a guy-guy thing or . . . NO WAIT, that wasn't a pun!  It was a legimate acknowlegement of alternative lifestyles!  What are you, some kinda homophobe??)   I don't think prostitution should be illegal because sex is bad.  I think it should be illegal because the aggregate outcome of prostitution is bad.  It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.

Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.

Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies?  That's awfully convenient."  Yet they were.  I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were.  I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased.  NORML isn't likely to play up studies that indicate medical problems with marijuana, and would very likely hide such findings if their own studies found this to be true.  NARAL (IIRC) deliberately misrepresented the amount of third trimester abortions and got caught at it years ago when the issue was being discussed.  Democrats trumped up issues about Bush being AWOL and then doctored documentation to "prove" the point.  People lie, usually to get gain or avoid trouble.  In the case of sex-workers, both motivations are there.  So forgive me if I am skeptical about their claims.

Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.

Yeah, that's fair enough.  I took the metaphor a bit out to left field.  Let me try to state it more clearly. [This will end badly, I just know it . . .]  I do not dispute that women should have control of their own bodies.  But I think that in certain cases, protecting the rights of one person may involve restricting the rights of others.  I brought up gun control as an issue where this argument might be used to support the gun control side.  It is better to keep the law-abiding citizen from having a gun, they say, than to let all of these terrible murderers have them.  That statement, without further examination, makes sense.  I mean, no guns - no gun-deaths.  However, once you bring up the simple point that this leaves honest people without defense against bad guys (since it doesn't really limit access to bad guys, just makes it harder to get them) the argument falls apart.  Reality overrules the ideal. We have an actual need - often a literal matter of life and death - for access to arms.  So when we look at the potential good of controlling guns and weigh it against the potential bad, I think the right to bear arms supercedes the potential reduction in gun-related violence.  On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force.  But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales.  There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal.  And, unlike gun control where there is a very real NEED for access to weapons, there is no ACTUAL NEED for prostitution.  Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand.  Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available.  No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population.  So while I think that the evils of gun access are outweighed by the benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued legality of guns even in the face of horrible gun-related deaths - I think the ills of prostitution outweigh the potential benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued illegality of the business even in the face of curtailed rights to boink for bucks.  Nobody disputes that bad guys shouldn't have guns.  Nobody disputes that a person should have ultimate control over their own body.  It's just that these arguments are outweighed, in the minds of gun-rights advocates and anti-prostitution advocates respectively, by the ultimate cost/benefit ratio.  It looks like a double standard (not to bring up another point already covered, but there ya go). The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns.  Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control?  But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently.  There is no contradiction or double standard.  They are different issues.  Clear as mud, huh?

Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.

No one is contradicting that.

I know, but you are discounting it by separating it from the act of sex itself.  You are perfectly justified in doing that, at first glance, but the issue is NOT sex.  It is prostitution.  Prostitution is a larger issue than JUST sex - in a similar way that rape is not really about sex.  There is no basic difference between a rapist and a person who physically abuses someone.  The idea is the same - control.  It's just that the weapon chosen is different - in one case fists or weapons and in the other sex.  Yet so many physical abusers vow that they would kill a rapist or child-molester if given the chance - even though they are basically the same sort of person.  The crime of rape is different not because it is ABOUT sex but because it USES sex - which is a far more intimate sort of abuse - with inherent physical and emotional trauma - than just smacking someone.  Similarly, forcing a woman into prostitution is NOT the same crime as forcing a woman into domestic work.  It has a lot of the same elements, but it does not equate in terms of the damage.  

BTW, it occurs to me that there is one other point I have not considered because I have tried to leave out the moral and religious aspects, but it is nonetheless perfectly legitimate even in a secular society.  Women who are forced into sexual slavery can, in many cases, become outcasts - even be stoned to death - in their societies even after rescue.  At the very best, they are forced to participate in something inherently evil in their own minds, religions or cultures.  Nobody forced into domestic work, construction or other such ventures will carry that kind of stigma.  You may argue that THAT issue is also separate, since such religious views are silly and prejudiced.  I agree, but that does not negate the horrible effect it would have on those women.  The loss of religious liberty is yet another aspect of this crime.  Whether or not we find their religious or cultural views ridiculous, the impact on their lives of sex crimes is worse than it is in our culture.  Being outcast from your family, religion and culture - maybe even from your belief in an eternal reward - is the worst possible outcome.  It may well make many who are caught in such circumstances see no reason to resist.  Someone forced into construction or domestic slavery can return home with honor, and at worst may have picked up some housekeeping or building skills.  Not the same crime, not even close.

While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.

You are doing so selectively.  But for the sake of accuracy, let me say you are not considering the full issue, since you do not associate one aspect of that issue with another.  You separate the issue of human trafficking, which I consider to be an inherent part of the issue.  As such, I think you are viewing only part of the issue and calling it the whole.

People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.[/color]

That is pretty convenient, because you get to - once again - separate the consequences of an action from the action itself.  To characterize arguments as "dumb" just because you do not agree with them is to reject rational debate - even if they are, in fact, dumb.  Obviously, supporting gun ownership is not the same as supporting gun crime.  But few who advocate gun control say that.  Most simply say that the CONSEQUENCE of a lack of gun control are horrible gun crimes.  I am certainly not saying (and you qualified your statement, so I know you are not suggesting I am) that because you support legal prostitution you must, therefore, support human trafficking.  You are very clear on that issue and it went without saying anyway.  But I will say that I am willing, however horrible it is, to support gun rights even though part of the consequence may be gun crimes because removing those rights would exacerbate gun crimes and make us vulberable to much worse.  I am further saying that I am NOT willing to support legal prostitution because it will encourage the many ills of prostitution WITHOUT significant benefit.

And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?

I think you ignored the qualification of that point that followed what you quoted. "Granted, most cops are going to be less than sympathetic in such circumstances - and in a lot of cases the hooker just won't take the chance.  But THAT is a personal choice on the part of the hoooker, and if she gets the help, the cops would have no more sympathy for the john than the hooker."  I'm ignoring nothing.  I know its a real world.  

Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.

Exactly.  There is a difference between two situations that might appear similar.  The first person may have to fear retribution from the police, the second from her husband.  In one case, she goes to jail, in the other, she may be killed.  Seems to me that the second is worse than the first.  So maybe we should legalize prostitution and make marriage illegal. Obviously, I'm carrying it to absurdity to illustrate my point.  Forced sexual crimes are NOT the same as forced labor - so your equating slavery to SEX slavery is not valid.

I maintain that authority over one's body is [an essential element of freedom].

I didn't say it wasn't.  I said that boinking for pay isn't.  This is nothing more than two ways of looking at an issue.  I say it is OK to restrict the right of a person to control their body IN THIS PARTICULAR case.  I also think it is OK to restrict a women's right to control over her body in the case of abortion.  I would reject completely any attempt to restrict a woman's right to have a boob job or a gastric bypass - even though I find both to be a bad idea.  I would reject any attempt to make tatoos illegal, though I find them repugnant.  I am opposed to anti-sodomy laws, though I find homosexual behavior (at which any such remaining laws are aimed) to be morally reprehensible.  I am, I confess, ambivalent on the issue of physician-assisted suicide, though morally quite clear that it is wrong.  I do NOT reject the premise that a person ought to have control over their own bodies.  I just believe that there are issues that outweigh and supercede that right and that among those issues is human trafficking.  You look at it as a case of individual rights superceding any other issue, or that other issues are unrelated.  I get that.  I view it as a matter where the consequences make legalizing the act wrong.  In my view, prostitution directly causes many instances of such problems (such as STD spread, abortion, broken families, and human trafficking).  That is sufficient reason, IMO, for keeping the activity illegal.

But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money.  If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.

If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.

Why?  Do you think that only attractive, friendly, well-groomed people will frequent legal hookers?  I gotta tell ya, I would bet that most of those kinds of people can get it without paying if so inclined.  I can't imagine any reason why legalizing prostitution would do away with that.

The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.

No, that's not my implication, though it is fair to think it may be.  It is unfortunate that the issue I chose is so very closely related to the issue we are discussing, and BION I didn't make that connection. (The older I get the smarter I ain't.)  I was suggesting that slaves in the pre-civil war era were, in some instances, happy.  That is because they had adapted to a bad situation - it is one of the wonderful characterisrics of human nature.  I think that many hookers have adapted as well, and would describe themselves as happy.  But that does not mean that prostitutes who make that claim are any more happy than slaves who made that claim - and many southern apologists use the "happy slave" argument to justify slavery.


I have to come back to this - I am about to miss a very important deadline.  More later.
[/quote]

You should publish a book, Poochie. You have such a skill with the pen/pad/type..... Remember the old typewriters? I used the old Royal once upon a time, myself.
Does your deadline involve such a thing?

[fatman]

You should publish a book, Poochie. You have such a skill with the pen/pad/type..... Remember the old typewriters? I used the old Royal once upon a time, myself.
Does your deadline involve such a thing?

Both Pooch and UP are excellent debaters Cynthia, they show how it is possible to debate and talk an issue out without becoming overly personal.  Sometimes I log in just to check out their posts.  I don't necessarily always agree with one or the other, but it's always a pleasure to read their posts.

And they're not the only ones.  I don't want to name names because I'm afraid that I will almost certainly leave someone out, but when I think of 3DHS, I don't usually think of the extremes, but of the good debate that does happen here.

[Cynthia]

You should publish a book, Poochie. You have such a skill with the pen/pad/type..... Remember the old typewriters? I used the old Royal once upon a time, myself.
Does your deadline involve such a thing?

Both Pooch and UP are excellent debaters Cynthia, they show how it is possible to debate and talk an issue out without becoming overly personal.  Sometimes I log in just to check out their posts.  I don't necessarily always agree with one or the other, but it's always a pleasure to read their posts.

And they're not the only ones.  I don't want to name names because I'm afraid that I will almost certainly leave someone out, but when I think of 3DHS, I don't usually think of the extremes, but of the good debate that does happen here.

I never implied otherwise, FM.

I was complimenting Poochie on his skill for the expression.

He's probably the best debater in here. He's a writer, this I know.

I find his posts to be rich with more than points.

[Universe Prince]

The law agrees with me.  Most people do.  I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others?  Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse.

That seems a weak argument to me. Particularly given the rather broad legal definitions of sexual abuse used these days. I am reminded of the case that was in the news last year about the 15 or 16 year old boy and the 14 or 15 year old girl who had consensual sex, but both ended up on a sex offender list because both had sex with a minor. And the boy got a particularly bad deal if I recall correctly. You can argue that they should not have had sex, that there should be some negative consequences, perhaps even legal ones, to their actions. And I would probably agree with you. Both of those people, however, are forever legally branded as sex offenders and have their lives limited by sex offender laws for the rest of their lives because apparently legally what they did was to sexually abuse each other. The reality was, I believe and feel quite safe in saying, something different.

I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?

I'm not saying sex is not different. While a sex crime might be more disgusting to me, I believe my personal emotional reaction to an act is not grounds for creating law. Mental and emotional abuse is also different than physical abuse, and can be quite devastating, humiliating and debilitating, but I don't see anyone arguing that we need a list for that, or that some otherwise reasonable action should be outlawed because of it.

I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad.  I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.

You were comparing making a child do chores with slavery. I don't see those as even close to the same thing.

(though I have never cooked for a goat, myself.  Curse you.).

I don't see how that is my fault. I'm certainly not stopping you.

Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love.  There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity.  As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.

I disagree with that last sentence. Cooking in a restaurant is very much a different sort of activity than cooking for one's family. Building something for one's spouse is going to have a significantly different emotional meaning than building something for a stranger. There are many ways we can differentiate physical and emotional connections made in varying activities done for different people. I'm not saying sex isn't more physically intimate then these others, but setting sex apart as some sort of special category because there are physical and emotional issues involved is, I think, artificial at best.

You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom.

No. I'm not trying to frame this issue as anything other than what it is. I'm pointing out that not all prostitution is coerced sex. You may think the un-coerced prostitute is purely hypothetical, but I do not.

This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism.  It views the world in terms of black and white.

Excrement. No, it does not. But at the moment, I don't particularly feel like having that argument with you again.

You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life.

No, I never said anything like that. All I did was point out that some people choose for themselves to be prostitutes. I never said there were no consequences.

I do not look at the ideal situation.  I look at the whole picture.

I could make the same claim for myself. But frankly, I think you're looking at worst cases and saying that the whole profession must be this way because you know it just cannot be otherwise. The supposed "ideal" is only allowed to be hypothetical in your presentation. I don't agree, and you're trying to tell me I'm stuck on some unrealistic ideal. Actually, I'm the one sitting here saying that I think there is more to the matter than what you say. Is that black-and-white; I think it is not. Prostitution must be illegal, you say, because bad things happen. Seems to me, that is the narrow view, not the wide, encompassing view you would have me believe.

I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either.

Gee, neither do I. Hence my support for prostitution being legal, but keeping the forcing of people into prostitution illegal.

It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.

I'd like to talk to you about the temperance movement and a little thing called Prohibition...

Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies?  That's awfully convenient."  Yet they were.  I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were.  I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased.

If we were talking about opinions regarding a physical product, I'd say you have a point. But we're not and you don't. Prostitutes claiming to be happy people is not the same as a cigarette company lying about the addictive nature of nicotine. It's kinda like the fundamentalist Christians I've known who insist that no non-Christian is really happy. Those non-Christians might say they're happy, might even believe they're happy, but they're not really happy. It starts with the premise that only Christians are really happy. It's a bias that seems to me more than a tad unfair.

On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force.

Again, then keep the losing of the right through coercion or force illegal rather than take the liberty to exercise the right away by legal force.

But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales.  There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but again, premarital sex and adultery are still legal.

Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand.

You must have a really big nightstand. Or know some really small p... nevermind.

Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available.

You've obviously never seen Gone with the Wind.

No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population.

Interesting thought.

The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns.  Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control?  But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently.  There is no contradiction or double standard.  They are different issues.  Clear as mud, huh?

I think what your argument misses is who gets to decide what qualifies as costs or benefits and how such things are weighted. Which is another reason I say the default position should be liberty, not restriction.

I know, but you are discounting it by separating it from the act of sex itself.  You are perfectly justified in doing that, at first glance, but the issue is NOT sex.  It is prostitution.

For you the issue is prostitution. I think the issue is individual liberty. And no, I'm not separating anything.

Women who are forced into sexual slavery can, in many cases, become outcasts - even be stoned to death - in their societies even after rescue.  At the very best, they are forced to participate in something inherently evil in their own minds, religions or cultures.  Nobody forced into domestic work, construction or other such ventures will carry that kind of stigma.

Again, that would be a reason to keep the forcing of people into prostitution illegal, not prostitution itself.

You separate the issue of human trafficking, which I consider to be an inherent part of the issue.  As such, I think you are viewing only part of the issue and calling it the whole.

I'm not ignoring the issue of human trafficking. I'm saying "human trafficking" does not equal "prostitution". I don't see why saying two things that are not the same are not same is somehow ignoring something. Seems to me conflating the two as necessarily always the same issue would be ignoring something.

People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.

That is pretty convenient, because you get to - once again - separate the consequences of an action from the action itself.  To characterize arguments as "dumb" just because you do not agree with them is to reject rational debate - even if they are, in fact, dumb.

What the frell are you talking about? To call dumb arguments dumb is rejecting rational debate? Wha? I've done this sort of thing enough times to know that the moment I mention "individual liberty" or speak of some variation thereof the chances are good that someone will chime in with some version of "oh sure, why don't we just repeal all the laws and then there won't be any crime." That is a stupid argument, and I prefer to cut that sort of thing off before it gets posted. Hence my comment, "The individual has a fundamental right to decide what to do with his/her time and effort. (No, not to kill people or do nothing at work or any other wild worst possible extreme scenarios.)" That isn't rejecting rational debate. That is trying to engage in rational debate.

I think you ignored the qualification of that point that followed what you quoted. "Granted, most cops are going to be less than sympathetic in such circumstances - and in a lot of cases the hooker just won't take the chance.  But THAT is a personal choice on the part of the hoooker, and if she gets the help, the cops would have no more sympathy for the john than the hooker."  I'm ignoring nothing.  I know its a real world.

I don't believe your "qualification" reflects the reality of the situation. The prostitute that goes to the cops is not likely to get away from the encounter by claiming the Fifth Amendment, and is more likely to face more harsh consequences than unsympathetic cops.

Why?  Do you think that only attractive, friendly, well-groomed people will frequent legal hookers?

No. I think legal prostitutes will be able to say no to dirty S.O.B.s in much the same way that restaurants can decide "No shirt, no shoes, no service" and cinemas can throw people out for bad behavior.

I think that many hookers have adapted as well, and would describe themselves as happy.  But that does not mean that prostitutes who make that claim are any more happy than slaves who made that claim - and many southern apologists use the "happy slave" argument to justify slavery.

In other words, they must not be happy because you've decided they cannot be happy. If they say they're happy, like the fundamentalist Christian regarding the non-Christians, then they're just fooling themselves. There is no room for them to actually be happy. And you're accusing me of a black-and-white view?

[Universe Prince]

she reveals more about her supporters than she ever does about the "Left".

Very skilled indeed. She's drives them absolutely bat shit!

God bless her!

I rest my case.