Whats wrong with prostitution

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Actually, you both failed to see my point. I'm sorry if you can't understand logic.

You are both providing "facts" from other sources - I'm providing facts from what we see today.

If you still don't understand, the first step is to turn off your computer.

No actually you are trying like hell to back peddle from your statement

Doesn't the government claim to be based under god? One nation...under ........ god? Yeah, that was it.

Remember you are the one who introduced the argument about one nation under god.

I understand logic fine. As to your lame argument about the religion of our Presidents, you do realize that they have all been white and all been men as well. Sorry but your "logic" fails miserably.

You need to reference a general public. Not what a wiki site says. You are being narrow minded. I'm not back peddling because YOU are the one who can't see the point, and at the same time, cannot get past what you THOUGHT I meant by my statement. If you would like a re-wording, let me know.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
George Carlin: "Selling is legal. F***ing is legal. Why isnt selling f***ing legal?!?!"

Actually, selling some products, like drugs isn't legal. Why are people still quoting him?

Uh... you fail the logic part of this exam. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You tried to insert drugs: Selling is legal. Drugs are illegal. Why isn't selling drugs legalillegal?

Because selling what...the only way the quote doesn't fail is because of its vague qualities...so what makes that so brilliant?

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: Saint Michael

Originally posted by: TehMac

Originally posted by: pcnerd37
George Carlin: "Selling is legal. F***ing is legal. Why isnt selling f***ing legal?!?!"

Actually, selling some products, like drugs isn't legal. Why are people still quoting him?

Uh... you fail the logic part of this exam. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You tried to insert drugs: Selling is legal. Drugs are illegal. Why isn't selling drugs legalillegal?

Because selling what...the only way the quote doesn't fail is because of its vague qualities...so what makes that so brilliant?

The real question is why you think that a George Carlin quote is the only reason to these people's rhyme. They quote George Carlin because it seems like a fast, potentially amusing way to state their position on the issue, not their reasoning. I only bothered saying anything because I think it's amusing you couldn't decipher the logic behind such a simple statement.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Actually, you both failed to see my point. I'm sorry if you can't understand logic.

You are both providing "facts" from other sources - I'm providing facts from what we see today.

If you still don't understand, the first step is to turn off your computer.

No actually you are trying like hell to back peddle from your statement

Doesn't the government claim to be based under god? One nation...under ........ god? Yeah, that was it.

Remember you are the one who introduced the argument about one nation under god.

I understand logic fine. As to your lame argument about the religion of our Presidents, you do realize that they have all been white and all been men as well. Sorry but your "logic" fails miserably.

You need to reference a general public. Not what a wiki site says. You are being narrow minded. I'm not back peddling because YOU are the one who can't see the point, and at the same time, cannot get past what you THOUGHT I meant by my statement. If you would like a re-wording, let me know.

Excuse me, but I didn't reference a wiki post. I referenced 3 other sites which also confirmed what was posted earlier from the wiki post. You can claim you meant something else, but one nation under god is pretty specific. You have been presented with numerous links that show one nation under god was caused by a movement in the 50s to try to disassociate from socialism and communism yet you rant on about the religion of our Presidents.

You still haven't addressed that the general public has elected only white males to the office of President. Does that mean you believe that we are a nation under white males or are you going to claim that your logic only applies when convenient to your view on religion?

 

[yhelothar]

it is legal... it's called an escort service.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Tweak155
You need to reference a general public. Not what a wiki site says. You are being narrow minded. I'm not back peddling because YOU are the one who can't see the point, and at the same time, cannot get past what you THOUGHT I meant by my statement. If you would like a re-wording, let me know.

You are arguing against facts that people looked up. Just stop while you are behind.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Tweak155
Actually, you both failed to see my point. I'm sorry if you can't understand logic.

You are both providing "facts" from other sources - I'm providing facts from what we see today.

If you still don't understand, the first step is to turn off your computer.

No actually you are trying like hell to back peddle from your statement

Doesn't the government claim to be based under god? One nation...under ........ god? Yeah, that was it.

Remember you are the one who introduced the argument about one nation under god.

I understand logic fine. As to your lame argument about the religion of our Presidents, you do realize that they have all been white and all been men as well. Sorry but your "logic" fails miserably.

You need to reference a general public. Not what a wiki site says. You are being narrow minded. I'm not back peddling because YOU are the one who can't see the point, and at the same time, cannot get past what you THOUGHT I meant by my statement. If you would like a re-wording, let me know.

Excuse me, but I didn't reference a wiki post. I referenced 3 other sites which also confirmed what was posted earlier from the wiki post. You can claim you meant something else, but one nation under god is pretty specific. You have been presented with numerous links that show one nation under god was caused by a movement in the 50s to try to disassociate from socialism and communism yet you rant on about the religion of our Presidents.

You still haven't addressed that the general public has elected only white males to the office of President. Does that mean you believe that we are a nation under white males or are you going to claim that your logic only applies when convenient to your view on religion?

Yeah, I posted the links to Wiki, but it was Tweak's job to refute with reason them rather than ignore them.

Thanks for posting the other links...which he still chose to ignore.

 

[Tweak155]

You guys are so narrow minded it is UNBELIEVABLE. I'm not arguing whether or not the history is right (which is what seems to be all you care about). I'm arguing whether the few people that put it up there holds the general idea that the public has on the matter. A few people's interpretation of it definitely does not hold true because the general public, in itself, is ignorant. Wiki says this, another site says this...but what does the public say? The point is - religion matters. Even your little references of the song not being complete without a reference to god helps show this. Its something the public can appeal to, and while not ALL the public does - politicians can now use whatever angle is available to them.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: Tweak155
You guys are so narrow minded it is UNBELIEVABLE. I'm not arguing whether or not the history is right (which is what seems to be all you care about). I'm arguing whether the few people that put it up there holds the general idea that the public has on the matter. A few people's interpretation of it definitely does not hold true because the general public, in itself, is ignorant. Wiki says this, another site says this...but what does the public say? The point is - religion matters. Even your little references of the song not being complete without a reference to god helps show this. Its something the public can appeal to, and while not ALL the public does - politicians can now use whatever angle is available to them.

And you are wiggling around changing your argument so much it is unbelieveable. You have been called out on each and every single point you have made. You tried to claim that you weren't arguing as a believer when TallBill pointed out that you conveniently capitalized god. Then you tried to argue one nation under god when Excelsior posted that was a movement from the 50s. That was backed up with additional links when you tried the "wiki" isn't accurate ploy that people often try (even though reviews of wikipedia show it to be a toss up for accuracy with Brittanica link)

Now you are trying to say that because we haven't elected a non Christian president that this matters in this debate. You still haven't addressed that they have all been white males so by your logic we are one nation under white males.

Please you are now arguing something totally different from what you started with. Also, you might want to check out a little thing called Amendment I to the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. While you accuse us of narrowmindness, I would suggest that it is you that are close minded. Afterall, you are the only one arguing your side.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: Tweak155
You guys are so narrow minded it is UNBELIEVABLE. I'm not arguing whether or not the history is right (which is what seems to be all you care about). I'm arguing whether the few people that put it up there holds the general idea that the public has on the matter. A few people's interpretation of it definitely does not hold true because the general public, in itself, is ignorant. Wiki says this, another site says this...but what does the public say? The point is - religion matters. Even your little references of the song not being complete without a reference to god helps show this. Its something the public can appeal to, and while not ALL the public does - politicians can now use whatever angle is available to them.

And you are wiggling around changing your argument so much it is unbelieveable. You have been called out on each and every single point you have made. You tried to claim that you weren't arguing as a believer when TallBill pointed out that you conveniently capitalized god. Then you tried to argue one nation under god when Excelsior posted that was a movement from the 50s. That was backed up with additional links when you tried the "wiki" isn't accurate ploy that people often try (even though reviews of wikipedia show it to be a toss up for accuracy with Brittanica link)

Now you are trying to say that because we haven't elected a non Christian president that this matters in this debate. You still haven't addressed that they have all been white males so by your logic we are one nation under white males.

Please you are now arguing something totally different from what you started with. Also, you might want to check out a little thing called Amendment I to the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the last post I am going to make in this thread. While you accuse us of narrowmindness, I would suggest that it is you that are close minded. Afterall, you are the only one arguing your side.

First off - Don't tell me what I'm TRYING to say. That is YOUR interpretation of what I am saying. I haven't changed my argument. You have failed to see it. Furthermore, Why would I comment on something I'm not getting at? It detracts from the point I was originally trying to make. Your comment (which you expect me to comment on) was not in relation to my point that wiki doesn't speak for everybody and their interpretation of what that saying means. I instead, stated an observation that I don't need to look up and have someone else define it for me.

That being said - I don't know if Wiki is right or is wrong. I never even clicked any links, I only read what was quoted. If someone told me that - I would agree because I don't know any better. In fact I don't care. Do I think what was posted was right? Sure. Was it in any way related to my point? Other than the fact it was the quoted material that was avoiding my point - No.

I never said I wasn't arguing as a believer or a non believer - there again you missed the point of my post. My point was whether or not someone believes in something doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist. Having one person say they believe in something is not instantly proven false when the next person says they don't. They are - BELIEFS. My point there was that if 2 people consented that a god existed, then they are more than likely going to both believe god disapproves. Therefore, 1 person cannot say god does not disapprove because he or she does not believe in a god, because it cannot be proven. The "fairy tales" with which we are provided to define a god that may or may not exist would consent with the idea that prostitution is not acceptable. By a common belief of god (if he or she existed), prostitution would fall under the category of disapproval. Either side of the argument cannot say the other is wrong without being able to prove without a doubt that the other is wrong (in their belief), except in their own mind.


That being said - Don't assume you know what I'm thinking or trying to do, especially when you can prove you have no idea by your own words.

And "each and every single point I have made" amounts to 2.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Has anyone here actually paid for a prostitute?

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Has anyone here actually paid for a prostitute?

They stab you if you don't.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Has anyone here actually paid for a prostitute?

pay 1st, then get the goods

duh

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Prostitution ends up being a form of slavery. I think Nevada regulates it enough to keep the legal forms of it there from being something like that, but historically prostitutes have been diseased addicts, abused and controlled (and essentially enslaved) by their pimps.

Thats the way it is across most of the US. Except for the place that its actually legal. Quite ironic if you ask me.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: LtPage1
Prostitution ends up being a form of slavery. I think Nevada regulates it enough to keep the legal forms of it there from being something like that, but historically prostitutes have been diseased addicts, abused and controlled (and essentially enslaved) by their pimps.

Thats the way it is across most of the US. Except for the place that its actually legal. Quite ironic if you ask me.

Yup, just a regular job.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
God and most men's wives probably don't approve.

Neither of which should matter to the government. There is no reason to outlaw prostitution.

If you have moral reasons against it, then don't participate. By the way, gods dont exist in everyone's head.

Doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If another person logically agreed that God existed then they would agree that God didn't approve. Believing or not believing in something doesn't mean it no longer exists or now exists - wonder what the world would be like then....

Ok? But in the context of this thread, it truly doesn't matter whether he exists or not or whether anyone believes he exists or not. It shouldn't have any influence on the law.

Doesn't the government claim to be based under god? One nation...under ........ god? Yeah, that was it.

my god says prostitution is awesome. infact, we have to receive blow jobs from hookers to show our devotion.

sign me up!

but anyway, they should make it legal al la firefly. "companions"

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

STD

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Tweak155
You guys are so narrow minded it is UNBELIEVABLE. I'm not arguing whether or not the history is right (which is what seems to be all you care about). I'm arguing whether the few people that put it up there holds the general idea that the public has on the matter. A few people's interpretation of it definitely does not hold true because the general public, in itself, is ignorant. Wiki says this, another site says this...but what does the public say? The point is - religion matters. Even your little references of the song not being complete without a reference to god helps show this. Its something the public can appeal to, and while not ALL the public does - politicians can now use whatever angle is available to them.

And you are so off topic it is unbelievable. I don't even know who you are arguing with and what about anymore. Jesus.

Lets look back at what started this:

TallBill - Neither of which should matter to the government. There is no reason to outlaw prostitution. If you have moral reasons against it, then don't participate. By the way, gods don't exist in everyone's head.

You - "Doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If another person logically agreed that God existed then they would agree that God didn't approve. Believing or not believing in something doesn't mean it no longer exists or now exists - wonder what the world would be like then...."

Now, I suppose the part that got you in somewhat of a tizzy is the sentence I bolded. You obviously took exception to that, correct?

Lets look at your reply. First off, how can anyone "logically agree that God existed". That makes no sense.

Then you wrote off my Wiki links, implying that they were so innacurate because they are wiki articles. See, in a real argument, one finds fault with the others supporting evidence. You did not. We'll move past that though, because then you said:

"Furthermore, why is the religion of our leader so important? Hmmmmmmmm. Yeah, religion has NOTHING to do with our government. "

It is important to some of (a large part of) the voting population. I still don't see what you're getting at. The religion of our leaders doesn't connect them with the government, it connects them with the voters who were responsible for putting the leader into power. Does that address your question well enough?

I, of course, agree with you we can neither prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. And I also agree that someone believing such a thing doesn't exist doesn't disprove said higher power's existence.

But as TallBill, me, and others said...this is all irrelevant. The faith that someone has shouldn't influence the law. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a god exists...but you made it so when you took offense to TallBill's statement about gods existing in peoples heads.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Nothing wrong with it...as long as is not forced or done by children.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: legoman666

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
God and most men's wives probably don't approve.

Neither of which should matter to the government. There is no reason to outlaw prostitution.

If you have moral reasons against it, then don't participate. By the way, gods dont exist in everyone's head.

Doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If another person logically agreed that God existed then they would agree that God didn't approve. Believing or not believing in something doesn't mean it no longer exists or now exists - wonder what the world would be like then....

Ok? But in the context of this thread, it truly doesn't matter whether he exists or not or whether anyone believes he exists or not. It shouldn't have any influence on the law.

Doesn't the government claim to be based under god? One nation...under ........ god? Yeah, that was it.

my god says prostitution is awesome. infact, we have to receive blow jobs from hookers to show our devotion.

sign me up!

but anyway, they should make it legal al la firefly. "companions"

yeah! and god damn that chick was hot. i'd have to get a monthly pass

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If there are regulations the women can demand the use of condoms more easily. Which in turn is far more likely to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies than all those one-night stands by drunk girls and boys.

 

[nageov3t]

I'm surprised no one's done studies comparing the health(physical and mental)/income of prostitutes in states or countries where it's legal versus illegal.