Sure we do. Oh, we may have debate about some issues, but not this one.
Given that one of the definitions of “wet” is “consisting of water,” I’m pretty confident that “everyone knows it” is NOT the best proof of the truth of your statement. “Prostitution is immoral” is not a tautology.
Two things: (1) actual evidence that what you say is true (what do you think constitutes a “strong” enough majority to justify shoving your position down the throats of us heathens?); and (2) a good reason that those of us who disagree should reconsider.
Two or three centuries ago, I bet the position “negroes are inferior” was about as widely agreed upon (among whites) as “prositution is immoral” is agreed upon today. They were wrong, right?
Furthermore, even if you were right, so what? Why do you think “it’s immoral” constitutes good grounds for criminalizing conduct? Even if EVERYONE agreed it was immoral, why not let the sinner sin if he wants to, so long as he’s hurting no one but himself (and his immortal soul)?
But most Americans don’t think that it’s moral to force women into prostitution.
How about you just answer honestly and let the chips fall where they may? We’ve all had threads closed; it’s a survivable event.
It would go a long way toward recovering your perceived integrity, IMHO.
Oh, you get to make unsupported assertions. And no one calls you on it.
Only I am expected to maintain the standards of GD, eh?
That is one of the most disingenuous responses i’ve ever seen in a GD thread.
So, is morality then a nationally-based commodity. Is it possible, in your mind, for something to be moral in New Zealand and immoral in the United States?
Surely, if you are condemning prostitution because you believe it to be immoral, the question of how the legalization of prostitution has affected New Zealand society should be irrelevant? Immorality is immorality, is it not?
My point being, you seem to be asking for moderator assistance in keeping this tightrope act afloat for as long as possible. Is it worth it? If you’re called out you’re called out. Deal with it.
Water is wet by definition. It has nothing to do with opinion - it was wet before people existed to have opinions, and it was wet before life existed.
And at various times and places, everyone “knew” free speech, opposition to slavery, atheism, not beating your children, equal rights for women, and innumerable othen good things were immoral. They were wrong; just because the majority are prudes, sadists and control freaks doesn’t make them right.
A good reason to violate peoples freedom, and to declare the bodies of women state property - which is what these kind of laws amount to.
I may have missed the moment when someone points out that it doesn’t matter what the majority feels on this issue, or any issue. Constitutional protections are for the individual’s benefit, not society, and laws are (or should be) passed to restrict individual behaviour when the damage to society is proven or the restriction is minor.
If no-one’s yet pointed this out, I claim firsties.
And I don’t find prostitution to be immoral, because I don’t find sex in any form (given the usual issues of consent) to be immoral. If the majority feels otherwise, fuck the majority.
That’s absurd. Christianity is not immoral. Practically no one believes that.
That’s just crazy talk.
treis’ assertions are supported by your own posts in this very thread, Bricker.
Certainly not. This thread is about the criminalization of prostitution.
In rebuttal to a specific point about how we don’t countenance blanket statements of immorality, I pointed out one example that gives lie to that claim. But that’s a collateral issue. Right?
I can make a better case for the immorality of Christianity than you can for the immorality of prostitution, Bricker. I have already done so, in several threads.
Yes, but while the laws covered address men who work as agents for prostitutes, and while it is likely that many of the women were forced economically, or otherwise into prostitution, that does not equal a women’s selling her body as immoral, just the actions taken to force her into it.
Now, look at a solo prostitute. Let’s say she has gone into the field freely and of her own will. Is that immoral? If not, then you need to modify your statement to “Pimps” are immoral, pimp being defined as something more along the line of an abuser then an agent.
I rely on the report in the article I cited in the OP. If you believe the author had some sort of agenda that caused him or her to miscast the liberal feminist perspective, let’s hear it. But I find it very unlikely that my conservative, Catholic views somehow influence the Washington Post reporter.
Do you think my conservative Catholic views influenced the author of that piece; changed what he or she wrote somehow?
How many times do these damn [del]newbies[/del] 99s have to be told that basing the whole of an Op on “I agree with the article. Show me how I am wrong to do so” is a stupid debate technique, before they understand? 
So what ? There is no moral difference between forcing them into prostitution, or forcing them out of it. It it’s OK for the law to do one, it’s OK for it to do the other.
Really ? Non-Christians might disagree, especially the ones slaughtered, tortured, enslaved and/or subjugated in it’s name. Far more evil can be laid at it’s feet than at those of prostitution.
I consider Christianity an abomination; one of the greatest evils in human history. If I convince enough people, is it OK if Christianity is outlawed, all the Bibles burned and the priests executed ? Majority = moral, and immoral things should be outlawed, right ? Or does that rule only apply to things you think are immoral ?
You’re wrong. We may constitute a relatively small minority, but there are intelligent, reasonable people who don’t believe prostitution is immoral.
Really? Which posts? The post where Little Nemo said:
And I responded:
Is that the post? Or was there another one?
Bah. No one believes you.
Or not the vast majority of the country.
Or me, either.
So, ergo, it’s not immoral.