ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:23 pm
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.

Are 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?
You've got some kind of mental problem that prevents you from discussing an issue without bringing in a myriad of other issues, plus beating a dead horse syndrome.
A perfect description of Bob. :lol:

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by bobevenson »

I stick to the point, not like your half-assed posts!
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:15 pm I stick to the point, not like your half-assed posts!
You mean you stick the point up your smelly ass.

PhilX
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:30 pm Image
That's quite a book you have there Lacey.

PhilX
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Lacewing »

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:05 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:30 pm Image
That's quite a book you have there Lacey.

PhilX
It's Volume VIII of Bob's AEP manifesto which I use to jot down insights in the margins regarding how I feel about men who want to be God, and their primitive psychotic theories.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:17 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:05 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:30 pm Image
That's quite a book you have there Lacey.

PhilX
It's Volume VIII of Bob's AEP manifesto which I use to jot down insights in the margins regarding how I feel about men who want to be God, and their primitive psychotic theories.
Funny.

Bob says he took the first 65 books of the KJV to the bathroom with him to wipe his ass with (he didn't do a very good job it appears).

PhilX
bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by bobevenson »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:30 pm Image
You're not a member of the mile-high club, huh?
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

bobevenson wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:43 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:30 pm Image
You're not a member of the mile-high club, huh?
And you're not divinely guided. :lol:

PhilX
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by ken »

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.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Science Fan »

Ken, your argument makes zero sense. My argument against Bob is that purely as a matter of logic, he is contradicting himself. This is true. It will always be true. You can't get around this contradiction by stating that certain laws are in place, because that has nothing to do with whether Bob's position is logically consistent --- the only facts relevant to that determination are the statements Bob makes and whether they contradict each other, and they do. Bob cannot claim that "all legal restrictions on prostitution should be immediately abolished" while, at the same time, claiming "we need legal restrictions against prostitution to protect against children engaging in the practice, or the mentally disabled, etc., etc." The actual state of the laws is absolutely irrelevant to this issue.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by ken »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:54 pm Ken, your argument makes zero sense. My argument against Bob is that purely as a matter of logic, he is contradicting himself. This is true. It will always be true. You can't get around this contradiction by stating that certain laws are in place, because that has nothing to do with whether Bob's position is logically consistent --- the only facts relevant to that determination are the statements Bob makes and whether they contradict each other, and they do. Bob cannot claim that "all legal restrictions on prostitution should be immediately abolished" while, at the same time, claiming "we need legal restrictions against prostitution to protect against children engaging in the practice, or the mentally disabled, etc., etc." The actual state of the laws is absolutely irrelevant to this issue.
Obviously you did not understand what I wrote, and the reason for this is obvious within what you have written here.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by Science Fan »

Ken, unlike you, I understand logic.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by ken »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:53 pm Ken, unlike you, I understand logic.
I do not recall stating anywhere that I did understand logic. I only express what I observe, see and understand.

If, as you say, my argument makes zero sense AND you understand logic, then you should be able to logically show where exactly and how exactly My argument makes zero sense. Then I could change My argument so that it does make sense, to you.

Do you have any idea what My argument was actually? Or, was it ALL to baffling for you?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

Post by surreptitious57 »


I think that Science Fan has left the forum ken so he will not be participating in discussion here any more
Post Reply