LHoD’s post has my agreement. Regardless of whether prostitution is immoral or not, if the majority supports one method of dealing with it then that method should be followed. The minorities with other viewpoints then have the job of convincing members of the majority to take up their position until they are the majority. Not a perfect system, but it’s probably the best one, short of taking over the world yourself.
Also, i’d like to apologise to Bricker - in this thread and it’s pit thread, i’ve been somewhat snarky to him in my posts. My excuse is that i’m used to Bricker offering a decent, logical argument, and it seemed to me his initial OP and some posts after it were irrational - it was very surprising. It now seems he’s willing to concede points and agree with others - so sorry, mate. nonexistant apologetic smiley
Not only do I accept and agree with the above – I’m already using it. (See my question to Der Trihs above.
But it occurs to me that, as regards prostitution … I don’t have to do anything. That is, I don’t NEED to change minds. Prostitution is already illegal, and that’s not going to change. So the posts of everyone else in this thread are either #1, in which case I think all reasonable people can reject them; they are #2, which makes them nothing more than an exercise in flinging… well… #2; or they are #3, in which case they are doomed to failure for the immediate foreseeable future.
Surely these people are aware that prostitution already is abolished…i.e. prohibited by law…in every state but Nevada. Or does ‘abolished’ now mean ‘fully enforced’? Or is it yet another example of careless language?
Well, they are advancing a change to the law, one that permits a greater emphasis on punishing the johns instead of the prostitutes. I presume they means “Abolition!” as a rallying cry, meant to signify that implementation of this law will go a long way towards abolishing prostitution.
Tell that to the hookers, who are doing a tidy business most everywhere. To abolish something is more than just to tell everyone it’s not okay; abolition = eradication, which with respect to prostitution has not been accomplished in any corner of the globe.
No, what they want abolished is the prohibition itself. Similarly, some refer to the 21st amendment as having abolished the prohibition of alcohol, and there is a Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition.
I don’t know, fully informed conscience isn’t exactly a well defined phrase. Why don’t you go ahead and explain.
No, it doesn’t matter if your morals derive 1% from your religion or 99% from your religion. You still are basing public policy to some extent on your religion and as you have said religion should not guide public policy. If, as you said, religion should not guide public policy then your religion must have no influence on your public policy. Since your morals, as you defined them, are based on religion they are not an acceptable basis for public policy.
To use a metaphor, if you tell me that I shouldn’t build my house on sand that doesn’t mean I can throw down some planks of wood and say I am building on wood not sand. The foundation for my house ultimately rests on the sand. It also doesn’t matter if my house is 90% on solid ground and only 10% on the sand. Part of the foundation for my house is still on sand and that is no more acceptable than building it 100% on sand.
I will be happy to – but that doesn’t explain why you didn’t simply ask, rather than pick a meaning of your own and assign it to the phrase. When you did that, you made an unsupported assertion.
Wait just a moment.
Originally, you said:
Now you’re saying there may be some difference – indeed, even up to 99% difference!
Your original assertion was that my morals come straight from my religion, and that there was no difference for me between religion and morality.
I called you on that, saying it was an unsupported assertion.
Alright, Bricker, neither morality nor majority are of any worth to deciding the value of policy.
It may be immoral to enslave men, yet the majority might want it. Just as it may be immoral to engage in prostitution and the majority doesn’t want it. The fickleness of morality and popular opinion should hold no sway in a government based on a removal from religious ideas and where law and the court should reign supreme over the values of the nation.
If a law cannot be based on logic, based on reasoning of possible outcomes and their effect, then perhaps “morality” and “numbers” can come into effect, but not previous to that.
Prostitution is a case where there is evidence from countries which have legalised/decriminalised it or illegalised it within modern times and as such there is data on which to base any legislation. If people would rather base their opinions on their belief of what future would happen, or turn a blind eye to all the unintended side-effects of what does happen with legalised then that’s an issue to pounce on them for in GD, but bashing their minority status or immoral stance should be saved for a topic where there is nothing else.
Fine, if you would rather nitpick about semantics then sure it was an unsupported assertion. Now, would you please respond to the meat of my post especially the part regarding the lack of difference between morality based 1% on religion or 99%.
If my morality is informed in 1% from my religion and 99% from my understanding of secular philosophical ideals, I don’t see the problem. I’ve already acknowledged that my morality, alone, is insufficient basis for the formation of criminal law.
I don’t follow: are you saying that people who are trying to change minds as regards to whether prostitution should be illegal are doomed to failure? If so, why?
If you’re saying that people have no reason to post in a #3 direction when they’re already in the majority, you may be right, but that points to a modification necessary for the third point, the changing-minds point:
3) People may post either in order to change the minds of the majority, to change the minds of the minority in order to increase the majority, or to prevent the minds of the majority or the minority from changing.
If, for example, someone comes on the board to promote Holocaust denial, I might post in a #3 fashion, in order to prevent anyone in the majority opinion (those who recognize the Holocaust’s reality) from changing their mind, or to attempt to change the minds of those in the minority position.
That does make the third category rather broad; maybe it oughtta be divided up.
Well thats good, however, that still leaves the question of whether morality based even partially on religion can provide any support for criminal law. If you believe it can, my point still stands, if any necessary part of the foundation for an argument in regards to crimanl law is based on religion then that argument can not stand.
The article I cited in the OP involved the approval by the House, and anticipated approval by the Senate, of new legislation designed to more effectively combat prostitution. I don’t see a trend line going the other way.
…okay, you seem to have changed your opinion on some matters, but you have not clearly restated the debate. Is it worth discussing the morality of prostitution with you, if you only seem willing to discuss it in context of the United States? In your “reframed debate”, are you concerned with morality, or the will of the majority? If its the latter, then I will point out the New Zealand situation, where a new law was drafted with the co-operation of the Prostitutes Collective, and put into law with a majority vote. If you are arguing morality, then you need to define what morality means to you, and how it applies to prostitution, and how therefore prostitution is immoral. If you only want to debate within the confines of the United States, then you need to make that clear-as you don’t appear to be arguing your thread title: **“prostitution is immoral and should be outlawed” **anymore.
I was wondering if anyone, besides myself, on this thread has read “The Mayflower Madam”? (Read the book, not seen the movie.)
It was an eye opener to me in showing what prostitution (all moral questions aside for the moment) can be as a business.
It wasn’t a perfect business as condoms were not standard usage this being pre-HIV, but it was about as close to it as you can get in the trade.
I’d suggest if you’re really interested in the subject that you read the book.
As for my views on exchanging sex for money: I can be had. It just wouldn’t be cheap. That million dollars offered in “Indecent Proposal” sounds about right. – self-proclaimed “liberal feminist”
drmark2000 – There’s nothing, not a word, in the Bible about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute. The Catholics appear to have started that calumny.
The Master has spoken on this matter…
Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene lovers? http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980918.html
– self-proclaimed “liberal feminist”