marriage and government

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from tikipoki:

Educators - yes - because of course your kids have to be educated, their minds have to be stimulated to think.

Psychologists and counselors are the ones that you should really avoid man, its ESPECIALLY the attitude & instinct lessons you need to take from the animals (instinct: get xyz, then the animal solution would be: jump in window and grab it, and the human solution could be a cunningly sharp schemed plan)

of course! I hope you did not misunderstand, of course we need to keep em sharp and bright minded!

Tiki

Look I loved my pet dogs when I was growing up. But, hey, they peed on fire hydrants and barked at moving cars - you know what I mean?

 

[tikipoki]

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Look I loved my pet dogs when I was growing up. But, hey, they peed on fire hydrants and barked at moving cars - you know what I mean?

The peeing is the animal version of going to the toilet (our intellectual version after the diaper period)

The barking at moving cars is defending their territory - we have more civilized ways of doing that, too.

come on, you get the point

Tiki

 

[ARogueTrader]

Accurate statistical evidence of all prostitutes world wide would help you case, not just saying it is the case.

More invalid responses.

Quote from tikipoki:

In that case, taken over the world population, i'd say hookers come out pretty good in terms of wealth and health

Tiki

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from tikipoki:

The peeing is the animal version of going to the toilet (our intellectual version after the diaper period)

The barking at moving cars is defending their territory - we have more civilized ways of doing that, too.

come on, you get the point
Tiki

No, I really don't. Would you train or "raise" your dog based on arachnid/insect behaviors and instincts?

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Accurate statistical evidence of all prostitutes world wide would help you case, not just saying it is the case.

More invalid responses.

Which is imppossible unless it is legal in that country ( ie. regulated )........

 

[ARogueTrader]

Not only that, but just because it is legal in some places, that doesn't mean that illegal (under age or not working for a professional pimp and paying taxes etc.) and unsafe prostitution doesn't take place.

Just because alcohol is legal in this country, that doesn't mean that illegal (under age) drinking doesn't happen.

In very poor countries, the pimps don't care about the well being of their hookers any more than other companies who pay their employees pennies a day....there is a line waiting to get work.

Exploitation and abuse of employees doesn't stop because something is "legal."

Quote from ElCubano:

Which is impossible unless it is legal in that country ( ie. regulated )........

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Cutten:

I didn't disagree with 1. However I would point out that many people think that trying to indoctrinate a child into religious thought, and forcing them to attend church services etc is highly undesireable. So your "save the kids" argument could theoretically be used as a reason to take your kids away and give them an education where they are taught about *all* points of view regarding religion and other moral matters.

2 is an acceptable reason for regulating conduct in *public*. What happens behind closed doors does not affect your family's safety at all.

In addition, you say "constitutional of course". The Constitution merely elucidates already-existing natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By definition this means that if someone is not infringing anyone's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which selling sex on private property does not do), then they have a natural right to indulge in any behaviour they choose. Note that the Constitution does not mention a right to regulate other people's behaviour because you don't like it, or because it offends your sensibilities, or because it is unpopular.

Your position, as stated above, could be used to justify preventing streetwalking, sex in public on the street in front of your home, and so on. It cannot justify infringing on sexual relations in private, unless someone is harmed against their will during the act (e.g. child pornography).

Thx for the well-thought out responses. I forgot to come back to this response after getting hit from several sides at once.

I agree with your comments about #1 to a point. Whenever you have the state "act on your behalf", you open yourself up the risk of abuse in the future. "The sword can cut both ways". I can't argue that except to say that imo this is a legitimate use of state and community level power.

I basically agree with you on "infringin on sexual relations in private" except that I believe there is a grey area where we disagree. I believe that there are certain behaviors (prostitution, gambling, polygamy, nudism) that have zero social value and (imo very good) arguable social and family negatives that communities should be able to eliminate.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Here's my next question: if you had a family, would you want a strip club next door, an adult book store on the other side, a massage parlor across the street and a Mustang Ranch right behind you?

Let's say you had a business that did not depend on foot traffic. Would you want the above situation?

I hope that you'll say no and see the hypocrisy in saying they're okay in my city even though I don't want them next door to me.

And if you say yes, I can only ask that you consider other cities where they have made this mistake and allowed all of the above (sans Mustang Ranch) into various inner city areas only to later remove them in order to eliminate crime and restore business.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

So the government has the right to tell you what to do with your body? It has the right to order you not to scratch your ass or pick your nose, and throw you in jail if you disobey?

Perhaps if there's a shortage of kidneys, it has the right to order you get operated on and donate one of yours to help save someone else's life?

That's the logical conclusion of your position - the government owns you, and can tell you to do anything it wants, as long as whoever got 25% of the population to vote for them as the 2nd-worst candidate decrees so.

Well, that's not my idea of a free and civilised society, nor was it the US founding fathers' idea of one. Hence the US constitution, which ascribes inalienable rights to individuals, and places very strict *limits* on what the government can legitimiately do -


Yes, but again for all your libertarian "loftiness", you still draw the line on things like child porn, etc. You have your own lines where you allow the government to regulate the affairs of men. So you cannot argue that me landing in mid right is wrong because of the right extreme any more than I can argue your landing in mid left is wrong because of the left extreme (no law whatsoever).

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from Cutten:

I don't recall seeing "the US government has the right to tell people what to do with their own bodies" anywhere in the original constitution or in any of the amendments

True, but the framers would have outlawed prostitution in a heartbeat and we both know it.

Here's where we disagree I think: if someone does something with their body that hurts the community and breaks down the family, then I believe it is wrong to sit idly by and let it destroy your family and community (unless it is unenforceable or unchangeable) whereas you think it is okay and even desireable for the greater good of supporting the "right to choice".