The government knows better than you and will protect you.

Welcome to Liberalism, Glenn

The government knows better than you and will protect you.

-- Jeffrey P. Harrison

Have you ever read John Stuart Mill?

Welcome to ignorance is more like it.

Um, all your citations are of the same single source. Farley. Whose clearly coming at this in a biased fashion.

So what of Mona's question? And do you really think that it is inherent in being a prostitute is mental incompetence?

When information is provided in multiple settings and you tap dance left and right to avoid the facts, it's pointless to continue discussion. Educate yourself or don't.

-- AlecsMom

We've said that to you.

You cite one source.

We have a little more than that, and a few thousand years of civilization, philosophy, legal theory and history and behavioral and social science on our side.

I gave you credit for something you aren't capable of doing.

LWM says: “Blow it out your ass. Bucky” and “Kiss me here, Bucky”

Why you ask? because yet again he is too cowardly to back up his slimy attacks. He is too incompetent to even defend himself here. It is utterly amassing he is not ashamed of himself.

Of course, Timberman loves this behavior and says so often.

Well, you said to drop by :-)

Very good summation, all the important points.

Bucky, behave yourself!

You mean by not saying things that stupid does not know how to refute?

Sorry, I just tell the truth.

That's a Pulp Fiction reference!

BuckyButt after ai go all medieval on him!

(x_0_x)

I'm a bad boy.

Wrote “ “

Well, just gibberish as always. Neat how he can not defend any position either. Gibberish! and insane wankers and Timberman.

What a crowd.

little wanker:

A "big" man who makes threats to those he can hide from. Coward as I said a year ago. Just a coward.

Well, plus insane. Words on top of words and no coherent thoughts. Timberman's little love.

The love that dare not speak its name!

Free Love! Or would you rather one of us pays for it?

Now piss off, you little wanker.

I have not read Farley's book, though I did read the Guardian article about it. That article was written by Julie Bindel, who seems to have taken some extreme positions on gender topics before.

A book that I have read is Brothel a 2001 book by health researcher Alexa Albert who stayed at the infamous Mustang Ranch as a guest actually living and eating and, well not sleeping with the ladies, but she slept in her own room in the prostitutes block.

Over a period of 4 years she spent a total of 7 months living inside the brothel and came to know many of the women extremely well and wrote a very interesting account.

Her portrayal of life inside the brothel is certainly not one that would make any sane individual decide to take up a career in a brothel, but it is a bit more nuanced, possibly, than Farley's study, which apparently covered several brothels, but obviously didn't get to know the inmates nearly as well.

http://tinyurl.com/2rgoku

When you are in a hole... stop digging.

You can rationalize all you want. Prostitution is wrong and exploitative and deserves to be outlawed, and it has nothing to do with how puritanical the United States is.

Would you be o.k. if your sister or mother were prostitutes?

Would you be o.k. if your wife was a prostitute?

If you have a daughter, and she just turned 18, send her to the escort agency? She'd make good money!

Here is a simple barometer that cuts through all your rationalizations: Ask yourself, in your heart, if prostitution is wrong. The answer is already there.

If I'm reading you right, you're saying we should make a "balance" between freedom and non-freedom? Society is not god (not that I believe in that either), it's a bunch of individuals. Laws should be about how to make it for those individuals to live freely, not restrict what they can do because people sometimes do things that are not good for them. I do not accept that other have claims on my life, or that I have claims on theirs, other than what we may choose to do of our own free accord. Any "balance" between freedom and non-freedom is only going to lead to non-freedom (and what I mean by freedom is not freedom from responsibility for my own life).

--Ron

<<Sometimes, saying "you have no right to tell me what to do" (especially when that wasn't what I was doing) sounds infantile, as if the posters are telling off their mothers or something--just an impression. But we are adults, we live IN SOCIETY--we need to be informed about things and try and come to a consensus about how we balance freedom with social responsibility. Ignoring what life is really like for others makes it impossible to come to informed consensus.

>>

First, addicts and the mentally ill CAN be kept from their harmful behavior by forcing treatment if they are a danger to themselves and others....

Which hardly helps their "free agency".

... My only problem with our current system is that we can't do more to help people who clearly can't help themselves....

While I understand that there's some intractable issues WRT the involuntary treatment of those we think we need to help, I still tend to come down on the idea of supporting agency for those capable of it, and when I say "capable", I'm in favour of a lenient standard. I know that it breaks the heart (believe me, I know, as our family has personal experience in such). But sometimes you have to recognise that others can and do live their lives in ways that may not be to your liking. Beyond that, trying to criminalise such is an even further insult (not to mention a disservice).

... As it stands, help usually becomes available after the criminal courts have become involved. That's sad IMO.

How are you going to do it then? Is your preferred solution any more "humane"?

Secondly, the argument you make about about drug-addicted lawyers makes no sense....

To you.

... As has been pointed out many, many times, a majority of PROSTITUTES are: 1) victims of childhood abuse 2) addicts 3) mentally ill 4) impoverished and 5) (my fave) enter the profession of prostitution far below the age of any consent....

Perhaps. With the exception of minors though, who are by default denied "free agency" under the law even if they may be far more capable of such than purported "emancipated adults", I can't see defining such people en masse as incapable of leading their own lives unless and until that has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of a court.

... Do most lawyers, doctors, teachers enter into and pursue their professions similarly afflicted? No way.

Why are you insistent on default assumptions rather than treating each case on its own merits?

And how am I being "unethical"?

Cheers,

P.S.: Many lawyers begin their lives "impoverished". AFAIK, the standard debt burden on starting practise is at least $100K. Fortunately for them, they're allowed to pursue high-paying jobs to dig out, something you'd apparently deny others....