ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED

[Science Fan]

Looks like Vegie and Bob both can't be honest with what Bob stated. The writing for this post specifically states "ALL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED." Since laws that prevent minor children from being prostitutes are laws that restrict prostitution, then Bob's argument most definitely was for the abolition of those laws. Had Bob meant that prostitution should be legal, provided the government restricts prostitution to protect minor children, and the mentally handicapped, then he should have stated such. He didn't. In fact, he specifically stated the opposite.

[bobevenson]

Looks like Vegie and Bob both can't be honest with what Bob stated. The writing for this post specifically states "ALL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED." Since laws that prevent minor children from being prostitutes are laws that restrict prostitution, then Bob's argument most definitely was for the abolition of those laws. Had Bob meant that prostitution should be legal, provided the government restricts prostitution to protect minor children, and the mentally handicapped, then he should have stated such. He didn't. In fact, he specifically stated the opposite.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was dum-dum school and I had to connect all the dots for you.

[Science Fan]

Bob and Veg: This is a philosophy forum, is it not? Are you seriously going to continue to assert that the statement "ALL LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROSTITUTION SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ABOLISHED" does not include the elimination of any law that would prohibit young children from engaging in prostitution? The mentally handicapped? The word "all" means all does it not? "All legal restrictions" refers to all laws, including laws that would prevent minors from engaging in prostitution, does it not?

To falsely claim that words do not mean what they clearly do is to engage in un-philosophical conduct.

Bob's claim has been refuted, even by his own admission, he admits that there is a role for government to restrict some aspects of prostitution. At the very least he has admitted this is true for minors and the mentally handicapped. He may also agree that there should be limits on people who know they have HIV or Hepatitis C from engaging in prostitution, which would require additional government restrictions on prostitution. But, in any event, he has abandoned his original claim that all such restrictions should be done away with. He admits that existing laws against minors having sex should remain, even if those same laws restrict prostitution.

Too bad in the world of Bob-speak and Veg-speak, the rules of philosophical debate are shoved aside.

Why are you two on a philosophy forum instead of a place like youtube, where the rules of philosophical debate do not matter?

[bobevenson]

Bob's claim has been refuted.

Bullshit, and you know it!

[Science Fan]

Bob, you rejected your post. You admitted that prostitution needs to be restricted, by the government, passing laws that prohibit such things as minor children being prostitutes. If you and Veg can't see how that refutes your original claim, then you two should look up words like contradiction or contrary. Maybe then you'll understand where your reasoning went wrong.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Bob's claim has been refuted.

Bullshit, and you know it!

Yep, Bob is full of shit as per usual.

PhilX

[Science Fan]

Bob, and Veg, how are you going to address information asymmetries? Let's say a customer knows he has Hepatitis C? Should he be allowed to hire a prostitute without being legally obligated to disclose his medical condition to the prostitute first? What is he has HIV? Can he knowingly keep it secret? Or, would you agree that the government would have a role to play in passing laws requiring disclosure of such health-conditions before hiring a prostitute?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Wow. 'Someone' needs to feel they have 'won'. If I was remotely interested in the profession of prostitution I might say that HIV is an obvious work hazard.

[bobevenson]

Bob, and Veg, how are you going to address information asymmetries? Let's say a customer knows he has Hepatitis C? Should he be allowed to hire a prostitute without being legally obligated to disclose his medical condition to the prostitute first? What is he has HIV? Can he knowingly keep it secret? Or, would you agree that the government would have a role to play in passing laws requiring disclosure of such health-conditions before hiring a prostitute?

Jesus Christ, instead of taking a position of the legality of prostitution, you want to bring in every fucking idle thought that manages to cross your barren mind!

[Science Fan]

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?

[Science Fan]

Veg did not answer the question. Claiming that exposure to things like HIV is a part of the risk of being a prostitute did not answer my question. The question was whether a customer, who knows he has a disease like HIV, should be legally required to disclose that fact before hiring a prostitute. It's that specific risk at issue, not contraction of HIV generally, like from a person who is unaware that he has HIV. It is only a risk of the job if it is legal, so Veg's response is a form of question begging.

I fail to see why someone would not want a law requiring disclosure. It would make things safer for all concerned, and some of these diseases can be a death sentence. Anyone knowingly trying to infect another person is engaged in an immoral act.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You could always ask, the next time you visit a prostitute.

[Science Fan]

Veg: More personal insults?

The thing is making prostitution legal may be a good thing, provided one can improve the safety of prostitutes, and one way of doing that would be to pass laws that require customers to disclose health conditions that may be transmitted sexually. It's not going to protect every prostitute, but will provide protection for some who would otherwise have been harmed. This would actually be a better way to sell people on the idea of legalizing prostitution, as opposed to merely stating that no legal restrictions should be involved. That type of stance is likely to turn people against the idea of legalizing prostitution.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Veg: More personal insults?

The thing is making prostitution legal may be a good thing, provided one can improve the safety of prostitutes, and one way of doing that would be to pass laws that require customers to disclose health conditions that may be transmitted sexually. It's not going to protect every prostitute, but will provide protection for some who would otherwise have been harmed. This would actually be a better way to sell people on the idea of legalizing prostitution, as opposed to merely stating that no legal restrictions should be involved. That type of stance is likely to turn people against the idea of legalizing prostitution.

Instead of disclosing health conditions which may not be too reliable, how about requiring vaccinations against disease that would be 100% effective?

PhilX

[bobevenson]

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.