…I think that using the the Southern Baptist Convention as showing “broad support from both the left and the right for keeping prostitution illegal” is at best reaching, and at worst, a bold-faced mis representation of the truth. Aside from the activity of the Southern Baptist Convention, what other sources lead you to your conclusion? And to repeat a question asked by mhendo,
Bricker’s acted immorally in this thread. The majority of the posters in here agree with that. Therefore, Bricker should be outlawed.
I await Bricker’s reply in which he challenges me to prove he acted immorally - I’m afraid I don’t have to do that, just as you have not proved prostitution is immoral. It is my opinion that he acted immorally. That is also the opinion (it would seem) of many posters in this thread. By your logic, that is enough for a call to be made for illegalisation. I call for immediate looks at the legislation to ensure law-abiding people will be safe from Bricker.
I hope my contribution in that thread makes it clear that I believe prostitution to be wrong.
But you raise a good point. I said in that thread that a religiously-based moral objection was not a proper basis for criminal law in the United States.I still believe that.
But I’ve thought of an additional, non-religiously-based objection in the two years since that thread ran its course, and I believe that if something is immoral, it CAN be the proper basis for criminal law.
It’s not a necessary condition. There are plenty of things that are criminally prohibited but not necessarily immoral; these are known by the fancy-pants latin phrase malum prohibitum (as distinct from malum in se.) Example: fishing without a license. Interestingly enough, Wikipedia lists prostitution among the “crimes commonly considered malum prohibitum.”
Well, it should have said “some liberal feminists” then, not just “liberal feminists.”
Also, your own argument relies on questions of majorities, and holds liberal feminists up as part of this. You specifically said “Liberal feminists believe…” a statement which, absent any qualifier, tends to lead people to assume that it encompasses the vast majority of the group in question. In my experience with reading liberal feminist literature and hanging out with liberal feminists, this isn’t true.
Some? Big fucking deal.
I don’t doubt it. I’m sure you can find some liberal feminists saying a whole bunch of different things. But the way you framed this issue, you made it appear as if it were the default or majority or consensus position, which is something that’s far from demonstrated.
Just out of interest, if i made the claim that “Conservatives oppose George Bush’s position in Iraq,” is it sufficient that i can find some conservatives who do in fact oppose Bush’s position in Iraq? Or should a general statement like this, which appears on its face to apply to all or most Conservatives, be qualified in cases where the exact percentage is up for debate, and the authority of the person making the claim to speak for all conservatives is dubious at best?
In general, i do too. But the very fact that the definition on Wikipedia is allowed to stand, and the article is not even listed as being in dispute, suggests that those liberal feminists who have seen it and contributed to it feel that it representes a sufficient proportion of their number.
I’ve never made the claim that no liberal feminists oppose prostitution. In fact, NOW, a prominent liberal feminist organization, sometimes makes pronouncements against it. I simply opposed the blanket nature of the Post article’s assertion, and your uncritical acceptance of it.
I agree about the paper’s general reputation for reporting. I still think that the way this particular sentence was phrased is misleading at best.
Do they?
Even if you’re right about the majority of people in this thread, that’s not how laws are made. Laws are made at the behest of the majority of people in the relevant jurisdiction.
If you believe a majority of Virginians, or a majority of the people here in the US, believe I’ve acted immorally… they don’t. It’s that simple. They don’t.
There are so many of you, and only one of me.
Prostitution is different from gambling because gambling is legal and most people like it that way. Gambling is a matter of choice; prostitution a matter of desperation, generally.
Anyone can see that the two are different. All of us in the reality-based community understand the difference between prostitution and gambling.
Fine.
I amend my position. SOME liberal feminists. Etc.
Nope.
Yeah, I was not completly comfortable with that statement, especially since IANAL. 
But, it’s still true that that the assumption of the OP is that an action being immoral is sufficient cause for it to be illegal. That is incorrect.
Fallacy – Denying the Antecedent.
OK, so what’s that objection? And does regulated prostitution (as exists in Nevada) sufficiently address that objection?
In this country, full-scale gambling is only legal in a few places, and plenty of people think it oughtn’t to be.
Why can’t you accept that some people might freely choose to engage in prostitution?
Well, I can see that they’re different in that one involves paying money for the privilege of inserting one’s penis into another’s vagina/mouth/rectum, while the other involves paying money for the privilege of having a chance of getting even more money back. But I don’t see an ethico-legal distinction.
Actually the people have very little if any input in the making of laws. Most are made at the behest of special interests.
Especially federal laws.
Please explain what you meant. Somebody said that an action’s being immoral was a necessary condition for its being illegal. I explained that this is false. What are you saying here?
So, your “should” opinion is relevant while my “shouldn’t” opinion is not, eh? Absurd. If I choose to comment any further, it shall be in the Pit.
…cite? You’ve repeated this mantra several times, yet don’t seem to support it. Why isn’t entering the field of prostitution a “choice?” I know many women (and men) who chose the field of prostitution because it allowed them to maintain their lifestyle. Why do you not think this is a valid life style choice?
We make it as unpleasant as possible and treat them badly; of course few want to be prostitutes. It’s less a matter of prostitution being immoral, than it is a matter of the nonprostitutes being immoral.
Certainly. In gambling, there is always a winner and a loser; it’s a zero sum game. In prostitution, it’s at least possible for both parties to walk away with what they want. I personally respect prostitutes and their customers more than I do gamblers and casinos.
I don’t think you’re in favor of it–however, the “it’s immoral, so there” is not a characteristic argument for you. And you were just in a debate where you seemed dubious of such basis for an argument. “But for crissakes, stop with the posture that asserts, as though it were gospel truth, that your view is the only possible correct one,” you say, and then start a thread arguing for the same, but with unaccustomed scarcity of logic and reasoning, even pointing to the thread where you argued against the same point to now support your “argument”. “It’s just immoral. Everyone - or, more accurately, most people - feel that way. What else is needed?” you say now. I believe you are against prostiution and think it should be illegal–however, I think the “lots of us think it’s immoral, so it should be illegal” is a strawman you want shot down to bolster your argument in the other thread.
You asked for a moderator ruling on what you can say, and I gave it. Say what you believe, do not be disingenous, and if you want to argue by anaology or devil’s advocate make that crystal clear. Further discussion of your motives for this thread should be in the Pit or via email, since I do not wish to continue a hijack.
If nothing else, this point out another drawback to “gotcha” threads–after your Virginia-I-mean-Hawaii thread every thread you post in the near future is going to be scrutinized to figure out what it “really” is.
THAT is a point well-taken.
Unless I missed something in this exchange Revtim asked you where you got your morals from and you responded with the Church and a fully-informed conscience. You then said that religion should not guide public policy but morals should. I then pointed out that for you morals and religion are the same becuase you derive your morals from your religion. I don’t know what unsupported assertion I made or how I strayed from the standards of GD.
I took “fully formed conscience” to mean that you merely had free will and choose to follow the Church’s teachings. If that is incorrect can you quantify how much of your morals come from your religion and how much from your fully formed conscience. Furthermore, can you please explain why prostitution is immoral by using an argument deriving from your fully formed conscience becuase, as we have established, religion should not guide public policy.