Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:14 pm
You did more than just argue that prostitution should be legal, a position that I am not necessarily against. You went much further and claimed that there should be no laws restricting prostitution in any way, and that is what I am against, because I see a number of laws that would be required to restrict prostitution in order to keep things fair and on moral grounds.
Whose 'fair and on
moral ground' are you referring to exactly here?
There is only one 'fair and moral ground' on which it is best to keep all things on. I am just seeing if we are actually on the same level and have the same viewpoint here.
Science Fan wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:14 pmAre you seriously suggesting that on a philosophy forum people should not come up with criticisms of a post if they can think of specific fact situations that may be problematic?
If there is an overriding law that states adults can not have sex with minor children, then would there necessarily be a need for another law that states and restricts minor children can not be prostituted? The same with the mentally disabled, if there are already pre-existing laws covering their safety and well-being, then do we actually need another law that states and restricts that these people can not be used for prostitution? I would have thought the restriction of prostituting would have been included in these pre-existing laws and circumstances already.
These are just some of the specific fact situations that I criticize/question in your posts. Also,
As for informing others of having hiv or hepatitis c, if there is an already pre-existing law stating that it is necessary for any individual to inform another if they have hiv prior to having sex, for example, then would that not just obviously and naturally include informing those people who are selling the body for sex and the people paying for sex also, anyway? Do we really need another law to be made for these people? And, if you think "prostitutes" and/or "customers" need to be protected, and thus there should be a law to protect them, then why should only these people be protected? Do not ALL people have the exact same rights to be protected as every one else does? Why would it only be a requirement or law to protect some people, would, or should, protection not be applied to all human beings concerned?
The specific examples that you are trying to provide, which may not exist anyway, are obviously not what bob was referring to. Vegetariantaxidermy even tried to point this out to you, but you appeared to just reject this wholeheartedly and continue on with your own beliefs and assumptions. Your examples are things that have some sort of government restriction on already, which on most occasions obviously includes the prostituting part of that also. What bob was obviously referring to is the government enforced restriction on paying another fully able consenting adult for sex, which bob unfortunately did not include in the title of this thread. As you rightly pointed out this is a philosophy forum and things will be seen, noticed, pointed out, and criticized. If a person is not prepared for that, then they certainly have a lot more to learn. A philosophy forum, to Me anyway, is a place where we discuss, and learn how to write, sound and valid arguments. A philosophy forum, to Me, is not a place to express the conclusion of an argument and expect others to just accept it.
Obviously bob did not take much into consideration in what was proposed here, (but that is not really that unusual for bob anyway is it?). 'Govern-ment' by definition govern, or restrict, what human beings do. So, governments will not just abolish some restriction because bobevenson has come to a conclusion, and says they should. The people in governments make the decisions. Even if the conclusion is true, right, and/or correct. The people in government are not necessarily wise enough to see it, nor to then follow through with it. In fact the people in government will sometimes make more stupid laws and further restrict or govern further the people who are disagreeing with them, instead of doing what is actually right. Even if what is being expressed in the beginning is obviously for the best. The people in government make restrictions on what they see fit. Not on what is necessarily logical, makes sense, and/or what is actually right. But after all that, no matter how much governments want to, and try to, legally restrict prostitution, in this "world", prostitution will remain and continue anyway. Even if prostitution is legal or not, prostitution exists anyway.
If bob, or people, want to get government to do 'what is right', then bob and people need to make a sound, valid argument, which obviously is unambiguous and can not be disputed, and then put that in logical form so that others will see and understand it. Only then governments may do what is wanted by bob, or the people.
Now, to take this a step deeper, and if any one is really interested and wants to delve into this further, besides a couple having sexual intercourse in order to create another human being, just about every other form of sex between human beings could be seen as some form of prostitution anyway. This obviously is dependent upon one's definition of 'prostitution' and if money has to be necessarily involved or not, and/or how payment is actually received and made.
Anyhow, looking at things in a honest, open, peaceful, and enthusiastic manner, then logical reasoning can take place. Once logical reasoning takes place sound and valid arguments can form, naturally, and with sound and valid arguments then things can really change, for the better.