Prostitution

[Anonymouse]

I hope you understand, you are a dunce. It is legal for me to stand on my head in my living room; that does not mean it is regulated by law. Everyone knows you are upset with the government but do not get sloppy with your diction.

And I did say that right now, the only way it can "just be," as you said, is by legalizing.

Don't be a nerfbrain. I can have sex with anyone, yet somehow picking up someone to pay them to hav sex should be a matter of statute law? You are still a nerfbrain for not comprehending this.

[anileve]

No wouldn't want to take that title away from you.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

[loseyourname]

Then why do we have a goverment in the first place? Unneccacary if we all can do what we want and choose what we want in life. why do we have laws that forbid things? Why isn't it ok for me to kill someone,its my life i can do whatever i want? why should the state "control" me?

You have the right to do whatever you please with your own property, including your own body. In theory, the government exists to ensure those rights, including your right to not be murdered. Prostitution takes away the rights of no one if it is consensual. It should not be any of the government's business.

Again, this is not about making profit/ buissness, if that is on your mind then of course its better to legalize prostitution as it would bring more benefit to the buissneses.

This is about whether or not decriminalization (because Anonymouse, is right, the government cannot make anything legal - it can only make things illegal) would be of any benefit to society or to the prostitutes themselves. Any industry operating in a free market will be a better business. Prices and working conditions should be dictated by that market, not by the government.

[dusken]

No wouldn't want to take that title away from you.

The point is, in case I have to spell it out for you, something doesn't start off as illegal and then you go and "legalize it". The way things work with our societies is that things are assumed to be legal until you go and pass laws making them illegal. That's the whole point of a "free society".

Apparently you have not noticed it is illegal! If you want to sit around and define a utopia, be my guest. But do not cloak it with semantics and pseudo intellectualism.

[dusken]

Don't be a nerfbrain. I can have sex with anyone, yet somehow picking up someone to pay them to hav sex should be a matter of statute law? You are still a nerfbrain for not comprehending this.

I am comprehending this, you phucking ass hole. You are not comprehending the fact that they have already made it a matter of the law! As I said to Seapahn, who seems to be your equal on the scale of stupidity, if you want to discuss a utopic society that theoretically can no longer exist, then enjoy. However, in order for you to enjoy your natural right to pay for sex in this society it will have to be legalized. If you cannot comprehend that, then you are a nerfbrain.

[Sip]

As I said to Seapahn, who seems to be your equal on the scale of stupidity ...

Universal stupidity is one of the things that has truly no bounds as you often demonstrate, quite eloquently I might add. Given this, it's not hard to see that any two people with a finite mind will be equals relative to the ultimate limits of the stupidity scale.

Pseudointellectualism? How was that for pseudointellectualism? ... interestingly enough a term which you haphazardly throw around in order to paint yourself as an intellectual, while in the mean time continuing to reinforce the notion that you are nothing but a pseudo pseudointellectual.

Ok now that I got the fun part out of my system, I forget what I was going to say about the topic.

[Anonymouse]

I am comprehending this, you phucking ass hole. You are not comprehending the fact that they have already made it a matter of the law! As I said to Seapahn, who seems to be your equal on the scale of stupidity, if you want to discuss a utopic society that theoretically can no longer exist, then enjoy. However, in order for you to enjoy your natural right to pay for sex in this society it will have to be legalized. If you cannot comprehend that, then you are a nerfbrain.

Apparently a nerfbrain of your capacity cannot comprehend the basic thrust of the argument. Why should something that is perfectly natural for two couples to do, be a matter of State law? Who is the State that says you cannot pay to have sex? Can you not let that just be? But then again you are a nerfbrain, a moron, if there ever has been one on planet earth. You should slit your wrists, but you don't merit the blunting of a knife.

[dusken]

Universal stupidity is one of the things that has truly no bounds as you often demonstrate, quite eloquently I might add. Given this, it's not hard to see that any two people with a finite mind will be equals relative to the ultimate limits of the stupidity scale.

Pseudointellectualism? How was that for pseudointellectualism? ... interestingly enough a term which you haphazardly throw around in order to paint yourself as an intellectual, while in the mean time continuing to reinforce the notion that you are nothing but a pseudo pseudointellectual.

Ok now that I got the fun part out of my system, I forget what I was going to say about the topic.

I hope you made yourself feel better. Unfortunately you also forgot what I had written. There was nothing "intellectual" about it; it was common sense. Common sense is not arrogant.

[dusken]

Apparently a nerfbrain of your capacity cannot comprehend the basic thrust of the argument. Why should something that is perfectly natural for two couples to do, be a matter of State law? Who is the State that says you cannot pay to have sex? Can you not let that just be? But then again you are a nerfbrain, a moron, if there ever has been one on planet earth. You should slit your wrists, but you don't merit the blunting of a knife.

Unbelievable. Again you ignore what I have written. Let us run through this yet again for you and all of the other slow individuals reading this ridiculous exchange. To have something be legal, in the sense we are discussing, does not mean it is stated in a book of law that it is permitted. To have something be legal does not imply government regulation. It simply means that there is no clause that prohibits it.

Now, your stance is essentially that it should never have been addressed in a legal manner because it was nobody's right to question sexual freedom to begin with. That is all well and good but you obviously fail to see the obsolescence of that view. You are now arguing for the way peoples minds should have been around the time such actions were taken. It is a fact that you feel sexual freedom is a natural right. Fine. Permitting something that was formerly prohibited is, in itself a legal matter. There is no way around it and that is not because of process; it is because of logic and language. If you start a topic about apple pies and I say I do not like apple pies, I am still on topic.

[loseyourname]

Can we just use the word "decriminalize" instead of "legalize?" Will that satisfy everyone?