Aptly is “The Voice of Reason” named, for “The Voice of Reason” knows of the One Great Premise: Tina knows what is wrong, and Tina is right. All ye misogynists who deny this great truth are oppressors of prostitutes and self deceivers, for all peoples, in their hearts, know that Tina is right. Repent, oh haters of women! You cannot hide from your dark shame at frequenting prostitutes forever.

Wow, so much wrong, but I'll sum up my responses to you point by point:

1: Argument by assertion. Concepts have meaning. A democracy (especially in examples you give) means might makes right. I reject that as a valid governing method. As soon as a new group takes over, all rights are subject to change by your criteria.

2: Another argument by unproven assertion. And the idiocy of claiming I'm not being objective while you say that pure logic has no substantive concept, let's see, where have I heard that before, I think it was linguistic analysis, something that relies upon ignoring the basis for logic. So no, I'm not going to argue with someone who can't even uphold the value of logic.

3: Yes, I agree, I put values on my arguments (that you wish to mischaracterize as assumptions). I suppose you think it is superior to adopt assumptions without values?

4: A million people doing something doesn't make it right. Your argument comes down to: We have a bunch of laws, so we should accept that I saw we should examine laws based on their objective value. Just because we have a law does not mean we SHOULD have a law.

5: I doubt your ability to determine what I undoubtedly support. You probably are operating under the fallacy that restricting a man from attacking another is an infringement upon his freedom. There is no such thing as the freedom to attack others.

6: Yet more argument from assertion. Proper property laws are acknowledgement that people are entitled to what they've earned, and that people are not entitled to what they've not earned.

7: You seem to make society the primary basis for rights. There are no valid rights of society. There are only valid individual rights. These make it possible to live peaceably IN a society. I've already answered your absurd view about property rights and their (valid) purpose.

So no, you've not disabused me of any knowledge I already have, which you try to mischaracterize as nothing more than beliefs. I hope you're not a teacher somewhere, because if you are, I pity your students, by the time you're done with them they will have no capacity for logical thinking and will have no tools for understanding the world they live in.

--Ron Robertson

<<So, to sum up:

1. You are using antiquated concepts.

2. You are not being objective.

3. You are adopting value laden assumptions.

4. Your argument is self-defeating in that some widely accepted laws are necessary for reasons other than protecting personal freedom.

5. Some laws you undoubtedly support actually restrict personal freedom.

6. The institution of private property is specifically about enforcing the judgment of some people against others.

7. Private property exists to organize society in a specific way, and therefore is not about preventing the initiation of force.

That's good enough, I think. I don't think I will have disabused you of your ideology, but hopefully I've planted a few seeds.

-- Reece0

[Read Reece0's other letters]

Permalink Thursday, March 13, 2008 09:03 AM>>

Actually, most sex workers are pretty honorable and upstanding people. More so than, say, lobbyists for tobacco or torture.

I do not believe anyone is saying that one SHOULD become a prostitute. What we're saying is that it's not for us to decide what OTHER people can do with their lives. Personally, I think prostitution is a bad choice for an adult to make, but I wouldn't dream of using anything but persuasion to dissuade them. You seem to be advocating force (i.e. Laws, which means dissuading them at the point of a gun). If that's the case, are you being ironic in calling yourself the voice of reason? Reason at the point of a gun?

Let's use your same "barometer." Ask yourself, in your heart, if it's wrong for other people to decide your life. The answer is already there.

<<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.

-- The Voice of Reason>>

Several years ago I was in a third world country and made a four hour journey by bus from one city to another en route to meeting my girlfriend.

Before the bus departed a young female passenger got on and came and sat next to me. She was neither attractive nor unattractive, though perhaps more of the latter than the former.

She was obviously poor and traveling to City B. in search of employment. We talked during the journey and exchanged stories, with some difficulty since we had to speak in a language that was not the first language for either of us.

Of course at some point she asked me for money and I gave her a small sum, less than $10, and some food, to help her on her way.

When we reached the destination she was very insistent that she should come with me to my hotel, even though I explained to her that I was meeting my girlfriend, which she appeared not to believe. She said we would poom-poom and I would give her the money she needed to rent a room for a week while she looked for work.

I declined her offer, and we parted ways, with her standing in the street cursing me, which was silly because it was pouring with rain, and she got badly splashed by a passing cement truck.

I passed her a couple of days later in the street and she uttered a curse word as I passed.

Now according to the moralists I did pretty much the right thing. OK, maybe I could have given her more money, but the very worst thing I could have done would have been to take up her offer of poom-poom-which would have inflicted terrible hurt on her.

Of course, since she was angry with me because I declined, she would have needed one of those moralists there to explain to her how lucky she was that I had not taken her up on her offer.

This is the problem I have with people who claim to be able to discern the greater evil.

Prostitution is not a great thing. Would I want my wife or daughter to be prostitutes? No, because it would be a failure on my part to provide economically for them so that they could prepare themselves for alternative ways of making money.

Would I disinherit a daughter who worked as a prostitute? No, but I would encourage her to seek alternatives. Would I marry a woman who had worked before as a prostitute? Probably, as long as she didn't tell the neighbours.