a bit fucked up, your opinion?

[kallieb]

what the hell is a jonno????? and if it is an insult, shame.

Aside from this, I'm just trying to stay on topic, as per the boundaries of this particular forum. I read the article, considered the for/against opinions that followed and offered my own. If you wish to start another thread to debate matters verging off of the original subject thread than please do and I'd be happy to chime in.

If we are talking apples and oranges so be it. I'm just trying to stay on point.

One suggestion: Please try to reply in a manner that is not comprised mostly at picking away at my personality, and if you can do so for more than a paragraph I'll be impressed.

[Snee]

How I see this:

If prostitution is illegal, how can it be theft of services?

If someone stole drugs off a drug dealer, would the stealing be a crime, like?

It's (what was done to the hooker is) rape and assault, though.

As for the rest, engaging in prostitution is stupid (it IS risky, and illegal there after all), assuming you have any sort of viable choice in the matter, some people don't. And the prostitute should probably have been prosecuted for it, although if I understand the internets correctly, it's not a very serious crime at all, in Philadelphia, just north of jaywalking or something, like (I may have have that wrong, though.)

I reckon the judge is an arse for not recognising that she's letting a sexual predator off far too lightly, I mean, from what I understand it was done to two women. And fuck her for hardly giving a fuck about an abused human being, prostitute or not.

[Rat Faced]

Stupid Laws will never be repealed as long as they're respected.

Stupid Laws include prostitution, which is based upon Morals that are in no way universal and cannot be "controlled".

Laws that protect individuals forced into this situation, Im fine with... but frankly, what 2 consenting adults wish to do is no business of The Police, The Courts or Society.

There was no "Consent" as no money had changed hands.. it doesnt matter WHEN someone says no, the fact is that when that word is uttered, anything following is Assault.

To say that it is not Rape because she'd consented and then no money had changed hands is akin to saying that Rape cannot exist within marriage as the Bride had publically given permission at the ceremony.

[j2k4]

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)?

[Rat Faced]

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)?

Unless its an American Election

[Busyman™]

How I see this:

If prostitution is illegal, how can it be theft of services?

If someone stole drugs off a drug dealer, would the stealing be a crime, like?

It's (what was done to the hooker is) rape and assault, though.

As for the rest, engaging in prostitution is stupid (it IS risky, and illegal there after all), assuming you have any sort of viable choice in the matter, some people don't. And the prostitute should probably have been prosecuted for it, although if I understand the internets correctly, it's not a very serious crime at all, in Philadelphia, just north of jaywalking or something, like (I may have have that wrong, though.)

I reckon the judge is an arse for not recognising that she's letting a sexual predator off far too lightly, I mean, from what I understand it was done to two women. And fuck her for hardly giving a fuck about an abused human being, prostitute or not.

Nice post.

Prostitution is much worse than jaywalking but not as bad as murder, of course.

If you (the man) even offered money for sex, you'd go to jail. We have hooker traps all the time where a woman (cop) dresses scantily, walks about, and waits for men to offer up.

They are caught on tape and the man goes to jail for solicitation.

[j2k4]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)?

Unless its an American Election

Mayhap you flaming lefties ought to suss a way to graft the Electoral particulars to the vote(s) of your choice, then:

Voila!!(as they say in France)

Rampant idiocy, dressed as, well...something else entirely.

[Busyman™]

Stupid Laws will never be repealed as long as they're respected.

Stupid Laws include prostitution, which is based upon Morals that are in no way universal and cannot be "controlled".

Laws that protect individuals forced into this situation, Im fine with... but frankly, what 2 consenting adults wish to do is no business of The Police, The Courts or Society.

Well of course it is. In the case of prostitution, even if it was legal, it must be taxed since it is income.

It is done this way in Nevada where it is legal in some parts.

[kallieb]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)?

Hi,

In certain matters related to fundamental rights I do believe it necessary at times to not rely upon the populace to guide what the law -- or common practice of a Society -- should be.

Rather than rely upon examples from my own country,that you might not be familiar with, I'll use an example specific to your own.

Consider the difficult history of the plight facing black people in your Southern States prior to the enactment of your Civil Rights Act in 1964. This particular piece of legislation applied itself to the entire country; but the greatest ripple effect of changes were to be had in the South.

If a referendum, or some other means to gauge public opinion was to have been put to the populace of the Southern States from the mid-1950's forward, I respectfully suggest that the majority view would be to continue to maintain the separateness of Black and White people regarding school registration, ability to vote, employment, housing etc etc etc.

It took action by your President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, as well as rulings by your Supreme Court, to force the changes and even then the changes came at a very great price.

Thus, relying upon the majority to consider the rights of the minority would not have been preferable in this case as social movement would never have been possible otherwise.

Studying the history of Social Welfare evolution displays a similar dynamic consistently over time, namely: Those in power are reluctant to give it up easily, especially in a climate of bias, stereotype or prejudice.

This tiny example above is just one of many; but is the most striking one because the level of systemic discrimination and resistance to change is so well recorded in history that it is easily recalled.

So, my starting premise that the majority should not be entrusted to rule on the rights of a minority, clearly apply in this case.

[j2k4]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)?

Hi,

In certain matters related to fundamental rights I do believe it necessary at times to not rely upon the populace to guide what the law -- or common practice of a Society -- should be.

Rather than rely upon examples from my own country,that you might not be familiar with, I'll use an example specific to your own.

Consider the difficult history of the plight facing black people in your Southern States prior to the enactment of your Civil Rights Act in 1964. This particular piece of legislation applied itself to the entire country; but the greatest ripple effect of changes were to be had in the South.

If a referendum, or some other means to gauge public opinion was to have been put to the populace of the Southern States from the mid-1950's forward, I respectfully suggest that the majority view would be to continue to maintain the separateness of Black and White people regarding school registration, ability to vote, employment, housing etc etc etc.

It took action by your President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, as well as rulings by your Supreme Court, to force the changes and even then the changes came at a very great price.

Thus, relying upon the majority to consider the rights of the minority would not have been preferable in this case as social movement would never have been possible otherwise.

Studying the history of Social Welfare evolution displays a similar dynamic consistently over time, namely: Those in power are reluctant to give it up easily, especially in a climate of bias, stereotype or prejudice.

This tiny example above is just one of many; but is the most striking one because the level of systemic discrimination and resistance to change is so well recorded in history that it is easily recalled.

So, my starting premise that the majority should not be entrusted to rule on the rights of a minority, clearly apply in this case.

I beg to differ.

You attempt to make your case by citing salient points - all well and good - then fail to cite the most salient of them all, which is that the civil rights act, if placed before the public even in the "dark ages" of the 60s, would have been by it's very definition a national referendum, and would also certainly have carried on that basis, never mind what the southern states individually or regionally would have decided.

You seem to have the impression we Americans are nostalgic for the days of the pickaninny express.

You have have been misled at some point, obviously, but no matter - I am here to relieve you of your misapprehensions as re: America.