I must confess I am at best a sporadic reader of your blog. But in my limited exposure I've never seen you hang on a board so long responding to readers with such passion. This appears to be an issue that has really touched a nerve. You've touched one of mine too -- I hate sarcasm. From the Greek meaning to "tear flesh".

What is it about this issue that has you tearing flesh?

My error in identifying the specific misogynistic ‘comedian’ is not the issue, blasphemer!!! Nor should my error be attributed to Tina, who knows all and is right, and, of course would correctly identify Dan Akroyd and not Chevy Chase as the woman hating heretic in question! Mistake not this trivial victory over I, her humble and unworthy servant who, oh so recently, spoke words that marked me as a frequenter of prostitutes and as one who longs for the coming of the Caliphate, as in any way impacting Tina’s fundamental rightness, which is eternal and transcends all things.

The reason prostitution is illegal is because there are thousands of innocent woman kidnapped, brought across country lines across the world, and exploited.

The examples you give are just moral failings.

Men engage in prostatution when they aren't getting enough at home or to engage in fantasies that they either can't or won't do at home.

Its the same reason men (and women) engage in affairs, because they are either not satisfied or taken for granted.

It's a false dichotomy. We are genetically programmed to respond to our environments including acquiring our local culture, learning and weighing alternative courses of action.

But If I'd have to choose, I'd say that I give more weight to "nature" than most. I'm a big fan of Pinker, Dennett and Wright.

I suspect you would like "friend computer" over at John Cole's Balloon-Juice blog..

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7730

Look for "friend computer"

The reason prostitution is illegal is because there are thousands of innocent woman kidnapped, brought across country lines across the world, and exploited.

And that would still be illegal, all sorts of laws are broken in the process. Kidnapping and rape would still be crimes.

Sarcasm has its place, outside of arguments and discussions it can be quite nice to sample. But in electronic missives and internet cage matches, it can be a bit of a problem. I do like Glenn's writing and incredible research, but his weakest skill is in the sarcasm department--its generally clumsy, offensive, unfunny, and mischaracterizing.

And yes, I am also surprised at the endurance this plucky little thread continues to show, now at midnight EST!!!!

The experience has left me adamantly ambiguous about the nature/nurture question.

For some people in some environments it's nature and for other people and other environments it's nurture.

Darwin said it, I believe it and that settles it.. (my latest bumper sticker to irritate the Thumpers)

Yes, I agree it is a false dichotomy, but I wanted to see what you would say. I tend to grant more power to nature myself, always keeping in mind that we view evolution through our own particular cultural prism. When someone does something "bad" I tend to think that genetics loaded the gun but environment pulled the trigger.

However, where is this picture do you see "free will?"

I must confess I am at best a sporadic reader of your blog. But in my limited exposure I've never seen you hang on a board so long responding to readers with such passion. This appears to be an issue that has really touched a nerve.

Well, I have extensive exposure to Glenn's pre-Salon blog, having read it from its inception in 10/05, and as some here are aware and have said, I knew him in meatspace before that.

It doesn't matter what the issue is: he detests any suggestion that some majority of adults should be telling other consenting adults what their choices should be. I mean, he thoroughly loathes that, as do I. That is the "nerve" that has been touched.

“Now it could be argued, that who cares about the motivation if the result is the same -- somebody trampling on my right to rent someone else's mouth, ass, or vagina for my own purposes. But where does this right come from? WHY is it a right? Because the alternative is to say that we are not the "captains" our little ships, as if it's cut and dried? Why do we ever intervene for someone's "own good"? The jumper on the roof or the domestic violence victim, for instance. Why do we care? What should we do or not do when we "care"? Is there an instance when caring about the harm, the human might trump caring about losing the right?”

I think that the fact that you were abused is causing you to care so much that you miss the point that many of us are making. Yes you can cite the terrible hardships that the abused have had to endure, including prostitution. I volunteered at a battered women’s shelter once a week for seven years and heard many touching horror stories. That has nothing to do with questions that have been offered over and over to closed ears. Is making prostitution illegal helping more than it is hurting and who is it hurting the most? What is the difference between a woman providing sexual services because she is married or on a date and partaking of expensive pleasures or gifts as a result and a paid prostitute? Why is one type of prostitution legal and the other illegal? What right do I have to say that someone who is not coerced can not be paid for her services and can be thrown in jail. How is that a fair application of our constitution and treating everyone as equals.

The fact that pimps, gangs and club owners take advantage of women and force them to do things they find disgusting or an abuser harms men or women does not negate the answers to the above questions. I have argued that laws should be fair and designed to improve the life for people not make things worse and make it easier to oppress other people. We have too many laws that are based on morals and how certain powerful people believe others should conduct their private lives and that is what I, Glenn and so many others are objecting to.

Please tell me what you think the law should be and how it will be fair and equitable. There are other societies that have found better answers to the questions I have posed than we have. Instead using our morals to tell them how wrong they are, why not try and learn from them and have a more open mind when we create or reform our laws?