a bit fucked up, your opinion?

[kallieb]

I make no presumptions of *pickaninny*. I'm sorry but I really don't even know what that means. I'm not of your country and don't share your history. I used an example of your own country so that it would be more respectful to the discussion, rather than talk to you about goings-on in another place.

Regardless of this, the example I provided was only used to exemplify the steps required to move minority rights forward at a time, that history tells us, when the majority of the population in the region at that time wanted absolutely nothing to do with making these changes to minority rights happen.

I do not believe that anyone can seriously suggeste that the application of the Civil Rights Laws and the move to de-segregate many aspects of Southern society was embraced and supported by the majority of the population in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia etc.

The Civil Rights Act clearly was made binding and legal through due process; but that is not to suggest that this kind of *radical* thinking was embraced by a majority of the populace at the time -- especially in the deep south. The majority of the population hated, fought against, and did everything within their state and statutory power to try and fight desegregation.

This example was used by myself to demonstrate the point that "if" the majority of the population in those states were left to decide the course of rights for Black people (the minority) then today Black people would likely still be having to use separate washrooms and drinking fountains.

This is why you cannot always leave it to the majority to determine the rights of the minority. Sometimes, especially in these regional kinds of examples, you need to override the wishes of most people to ensure that fundamental social justice prevails.

If you wish more examples where a majority opinion was superseded in order to assure minority rights I'd be happy to look further, but I need more time as I'm going into a busy night. Or else you can look it up for yourself. Hit up google and look up Women's Suffrage, Abortion Rights, Rights of Women in Traditional countries, etc. You will find over and over repeated examples where legislators, judges and other agents of change have had to push rights-based legislation forward over the objections of the majority of the population so that minority rights are enshrined and protected.

[kallieb]

Finding articles. It's easy actually.

Here's one. I'll stay away from USA history for a second. This one is on Establishing Voting Rights for women in Afghanistan. It was made the law, but did so by going against a strong majority opinion. And if the majority had their way women's voting rights in Afghanistan would be reversed. I find it disturbing that many women are suffering if they try to exercise a vote. As 42% of the population, woman qualify as they are a demographic minority; and when you consider their status: economically, socially, etc, they are even more oppressed.

Anyway, Link to the article: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1008-03.htm

I'm sure I can find but have to leave in 5 minutes.

In case the question: What's the point, is raised. This article typifies how minority rights for women was legislated even though the vast majority of the population is deeply against furthering the rights of women; and how difficult it is for the women when they try to assert their rights.

[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.

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.

You miss the point.

Stupid Laws should always be repealed instead of wasting valuable Police Resources enforcing them. I have no problem breaking Stupid Laws and never will.

If it's a Crime, where is the victim?

Sometimes there is one, the Prostitute herself. The resources used in this area should be aimed at the reasons why she/he has been forced into Prostitution in the 1st place.

Certain women will always take advantage of the fact that some men, for various reasons, will pay for sex (and vise versa). It's something that has happened since pre-history, it will happen until the forceable future..

If you cant stop it, then at least control or influence it... and allow the Prostitute/Escort etc to pay tax and contribute to society like everyone else.

It's a business, treat it as such. Everyone will be safer and happier as it's taken out of the hands of the underworld.

In some places, that particular trade is honoured.

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

Do the actresses not get paid? If they do, then they are having sex for money ie: Prostitution. The REASON is immaterial.

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

Most people in the UK know they're stupid Laws (including the Police) and ignore them accordingly most of the time. Occasionally, if pushed, they may raid a Brothel and they arent keen on Street Walkers...not because they're Prostitutes, but to protect women in the area that aren't. This depends upon which Police Force is in operation... eg: Northumbria clamp down when it becomes "too open", Scotland/Merseyside appear to be anything goes as prostitutes advertise openly in these areas.


Again, i say the fact she was a Prostitute is immaterial. Anyone that takes that into account is a prig.

[j2k4]

I make no presumptions of *pickaninny*. I'm sorry but I really don't even know what that means. I'm not of your country and don't share your history. I used an example of your own country so that it would be more respectful to the discussion, rather than talk to you about goings-on in another place.

You "used" an example of my country, a country you do not belong too, whose history you do not share, in order to attempt to lecture me?

Regardless of this, the example I provided was only used to exemplify the steps required to move minority rights forward at a time, that history tells us, when the majority of the population in the region at that time wanted absolutely nothing to do with making these changes to minority rights happen.

You once again miss my point, but nevermind that for the nonce.

The lens through which you've chosen to view America and Her history is blemished, and probably dirty, into the bargain.

Are you sure you are not looking through the wrong end.

You have overlooked another important fact in your rush to commit "reasoned discourse":

Leaving aside for the moment the fact the vast majority of the country would have supported the Civil Rights Act, overriding and crushing any southern opposition, the enactment of the CRA had no effect whatsoever on southern attitudes for more than a generation, and there are still many places south of the Mason-Dixon Line a person of color dares not go.

I do not believe that anyone can seriously suggeste that the application of the Civil Rights Laws and the move to de-segregate many aspects of Southern society was embraced and supported by the majority of the population in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia etc.

Indeed.

What has that to do with anything?

Perhaps you should clarify:

Do you mean to seriously suggest that the mere enactment of the CRA would change southern attitudes, or instantly erase practicable racism?

The Civil Rights Act clearly was made binding and legal through due process; but that is not to suggest that this kind of *radical* thinking was embraced by a majority of the populace at the time -- especially in the deep south. The majority of the population hated, fought against, and did everything within their state and statutory power to try and fight desegregation.

It was embraced by the majority of the populace.

I expect you are suffering the popular misconception that "Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, etc." are the U.S. in microcosm, and that all of our country lies in "the deep south".

This example was used by myself to demonstrate the point that "if" the majority of the population in those states were left to decide the course of rights for Black people (the minority) then today Black people would likely still be having to use separate washrooms and drinking fountains.

Well, then.

My turn to be clear-

Your "example" is...oh, let's see, how shall I put this...slipshod, or, if you prefer, defective, and worthless.

This is why you cannot always leave it to the majority to determine the rights of the minority. Sometimes, especially in these regional kinds of examples, you need to override the wishes of most people to ensure that fundamental social justice prevails.

You keep leaving that nail exposed:

Your regional example is not applicable.

If you wish more examples where a majority opinion was superseded in order to assure minority rights I'd be happy to look further, but I need more time as I'm going into a busy night. Or else you can look it up for yourself. Hit up google and look up Women's Suffrage, Abortion Rights, Rights of Women in Traditional countries, etc. You will find over and over repeated examples where legislators, judges and other agents of change have had to push rights-based legislation forward over the objections of the majority of the population so that minority rights are enshrined and protected.

Why don't you hit google?

You can begin your education by typing the word "pickaninny".

[j2k4]

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

I think both would more aptly be termed nonsensical.

However, I do find it curious that (given the obvious care taken in constructing that quoted) the pejorative term chosen to apply in the first instance reflects a quality of prejudice against the U.S. when considered relative to the mildly self-effacing term used to describe the Brits:

While the British may occasionally act stupidly, Americans, while being stupid, add a distinctive and unique brand of conceit.

Well done, sir.

[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.

Nice post.

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

I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

[Busyman™]

Nice post.

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

I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

[Busyman™]

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.

You miss the point.

Stupid Laws should always be repealed instead of wasting valuable Police Resources enforcing them. I have no problem breaking Stupid Laws and never will.

If it's a Crime, where is the victim?

Sometimes there is one, the Prostitute herself. The resources used in this area should be aimed at the reasons why she/he has been forced into Prostitution in the 1st place.

Certain women will always take advantage of the fact that some men, for various reasons, will pay for sex (and vise versa). It's something that has happened since pre-history, it will happen until the forceable future..

If you cant stop it, then at least control or influence it... and allow the Prostitute/Escort etc to pay tax and contribute to society like everyone else.

It's a business, treat it as such. Everyone will be safer and happier as it's taken out of the hands of the underworld.

In some places, that particular trade is honoured.

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

Do the actresses not get paid? If they do, then they are having sex for money ie: Prostitution. The REASON is immaterial.

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

Most people in the UK know they're stupid Laws (including the Police) and ignore them accordingly most of the time. Occasionally, if pushed, they may raid a Brothel and they arent keen on Street Walkers...not because they're Prostitutes, but to protect women in the area that aren't. This depends upon which Police Force is in operation... eg: Northumbria clamp down when it becomes "too open", Scotland/Merseyside appear to be anything goes as prostitutes advertise openly in these areas.


Again, i say the fact she was a Prostitute is immaterial. Anyone that takes that into account is a prig.

With the fact that the fella raped her, I agree. With the fact that she was committing a crime known to be dangerous, she's was idiot.

You also seem to have an anything goes attitude.

I imagine you think gambling, prostitution, polygamy, and all kinds of abortions and drugs should be legal everywhere.

Just because something can't be stopped doesn't mean you cave in every time and allow it.

I also can't believe you brought up pornography. Fucking isn't illegal and A ain't payin' B. Also some porno is illegal.

[Snee]

I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

Yes.

They used to run that show Oz late at night here, so I ended up seeing some of it when I couldn't sleep.

I'm never breaking your laws if I go to the US, is all I'm saying

[Busyman™]

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

Yes.

They used to run that show Oz late at night here, so I ended up seeing some of it when I couldn't sleep.

I'm never breaking your laws if I go to the US, is all I'm saying

Yeah Emerald City was supposed to be better than gen pop.

Jail over here sucks from what I'm told. A friend of mine is in jail for attempted murder. He's a pretty big guy and he says it's fucked up.

Jail wouldn't bode well for a pretty faced, height challenged guy like myself. I tell you this, I'd be one nasty mofo in jail. I'd let my beard grow to epic proportions, I wouldn't wash, and I'd let shit cake up around my ass.