Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why do you think that punishing the victims of human trafficking by depriving prostitutes of the right to work will solve the problem? Keeping prostitution illegal only means it will stay underground and prostitutes will have even less legal protections.I am not asking for a link. I am asking for cause and effect, which you cannot show.
I have proven a cause and effect.
Cause: Prostitution is legalized in X country.
Effect: Human trafficking becomes worse in that country and one of the worst spots in the world.
Examples: Holland, Thailand, the city of Victoria, Australia, etc.
Whether you care to admit it or not, places that have Legalization of Prostitution have BY FAR higher numbers for both child prostitution and overall human trafficking then places who have it abolished. That is a fact, whether you care to admit it or not.
Why do you think that punishing the victims of human trafficking by depriving prostitutes of the right to work will solve the problem? Keeping prostitution illegal only means it will stay underground and prostitutes will have even less legal protections.
I have proven a cause and effect.
Cause: Prostitution is legalized in X country.
Effect: Human trafficking becomes worse in that country and one of the worst spots in the world.
Examples: Holland, Thailand, the city of Victoria, Australia, etc.
Whether you care to admit it or not, places that have Legalization of Prostitution have BY FAR higher numbers for both child prostitution and overall human trafficking then places who have it abolished. That is a fact, whether you care to admit it or not.
The numbers may be higher, but it is too easy for confounding variables to skew the data. That is why controlled experiments which use random assignment must be used to show cause and effect.
Show me a controlled experiment that states otherwise to what I stated.
Meanwhile, I googled what you asked to see if there was such a thing.
The legalisation experiment : Victoria [in: Working girls : prostitutes, their life and social control]
THAT VICTORIA AUSTRALIA.
And with that, check and mate.
The numbers may be higher, but it is too easy for confounding variables to skew the data. That is why controlled experiments which use random assignment must be used to show cause and effect.
Show me a controlled experiment that states otherwise to what I stated.
Meanwhile, I googled what you asked to see if there was such a thing.
The legalisation experiment : Victoria [in: Working girls : prostitutes, their life and social control]
THAT VICTORIA AUSTRALIA.
And with that, check and mate.
check and mate with yourself. that's not a controlled experiment. did they assign the hookers and non hookers to see how many of each group fell into trafficking? No.
and again, you committed the Mortal sin once again in philosophy. That argument of "Show me otherwise" doesn't work.
You committed the same Mortal sin throughout then. But you're so blind that you fail to see you're own hypocrisy. You won't discount your crackpot theories despite the evidence until you treat human beings which they are not. (Which by the way is hypocrisy against your entire argument)
However, you're not going to take out the rings by sitting on your ass. Nobody ever asked me whether I think Prostitution should be de-criminalized when it comes to the actual prostitutes did they?
A few of the Pros of that would be they could unionize, demand insurance, retirement, etc.....How about the customers taking some responsibility for using condoms?
To show you why this does not partly work in some places.
Brothels forbid prostitutes to use condoms to prevent evidence - Haaretz - Israel News
And of course:
CBHD: Title - HIV and Prostitution: Whats the Answer?
It's amazing, I'm posting link after link of clear evidence while all I get in return for answers is "what ifs" and sidetrack arguments which continue to change. I notice Elvis is no longer focusing on human trafficking in Holland since 70%+ of the Prostitutes are trafficked into the country.The harm reduction approach is shortsighted, doomed to failure, and ethically lacking. It fails to recognize that many prostitutes are unable to negotiate condom use with their clients but often are forced to provide whatever services the client may want. In addition, it is common knowledge that prostitutes are often paid more if they agree to have sex without a condom. In fact, a study in Calcutta India found that prostitutes who regularly use condoms suffer a 79% reduction in their earnings over prostitutes who do not use condoms.1 A 79% loss of income is a huge motivator to forego the use of condoms!
Furthermore, advocating regular testing for sexually transmitted infections ignores the biological characteristic of latency. Latency refers to the fact that every type of infectionincluding sexually transmitted infectionshas a period of time before it begins to manifest itself. In addition, for every test performed to identify a sexually transmitted infection there is a period of time between when the infection occurs and when the test will be able to detect it. This is called the window period. According to the CDC, for HIV testing, the usual window period is 4-6 weeks, but may be as long as 3 months.2
Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected. If we assume that he or she takes only 4 weeks to become positive, because there is an additional lag time of 1-2 weeks to get the results back, there will be at best a window period of 6 weeks for a prostitute. The average prostitute services between 10-15 clients per day. This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution.
Prostitutes are treated abominably the world over. That does not justify denying a woman the right to use her own body to earn a living.
Pimps and traffickers should be put out of business, not sex workers.
Show me a controlled experiment that states otherwise to what I stated.
Meanwhile, I googled what you asked to see if there was such a thing.
The legalisation experiment : Victoria [in: Working girls : prostitutes, their life and social control]
THAT VICTORIA AUSTRALIA.
And with that, check and mate.
check and mate with yourself. that's not a controlled experiment. did they assign the hookers and non hookers to see how many of each group fell into trafficking? No.
and again, you committed the Mortal sin once again in philosophy. That argument of "Show me otherwise" doesn't work.
But the irony is just endless. I'm going to bed so we'll have to debate this tomorrow.
Hopefully you'll see logic on this topic by then.
If you want to be taken seriously on this board, I suggest you dispense with the sarcasm and condescending attitude.
You said legalizing prostitution causes human trafficking. You must prove that. I never claimed that legalizing prostitution doesn't cause human trafficking so I am required to prove nothing.
I will agree there may be ASSOCIATION between the two, but not cause and effect.
If you want to be taken seriously on this board, I suggest you dispense with the sarcasm and condescending attitude.
You said legalizing prostitution causes human trafficking. You must prove that. I never claimed that legalizing prostitution doesn't cause human trafficking so I am required to prove nothing.
I will agree there may be ASSOCIATION between the two, but not cause and effect.
Maybe he's thinking slippery slope. In any case, prostitutes have a right to practice their profession and use their bodies as they wish. It's the parasites that take advantage of them that are the criminals.
If you want to be taken seriously on this board, I suggest you dispense with the sarcasm and condescending attitude.
You said legalizing prostitution causes human trafficking. You must prove that. I never claimed that legalizing prostitution doesn't cause human trafficking so I am required to prove nothing.
I will agree there may be ASSOCIATION between the two, but not cause and effect.
Maybe he's thinking slippery slope. In any case, prostitutes have a right to practice their profession and use their bodies as they wish. It's the parasites that take advantage of them that are the criminals.
Wow ... this shows how messed up our thinking in this country is when a thread about legal rights for those who love each other turns into a business discussion.
It's just the nature of conversation. I think gay marriage should be legal and I think prostitution should be legal. Those two statements stir up emotion quite quickly.
Sometimes things just aren't equal. The same sex union and heterosexual union is only equal in the number of participants. Just as with incest and age constraints, allowing a gender one is just another characteristic. The unions are not "equal", so there is no compelling reason to imply they are under the term "marriage".Because the gay activists don't believe that separate is equal. With our past history why would anyone think that?
Even if marriage weren't tied to any religion, there is still no point in human history where same sex unions were considered "the same" as heterosexual ones. They aren't "the same" and never will be. You don't have to be a religious scholar to come to that conclusion. Not a single religion specifically condones same sex romantic attraction. But until very recently, nearly every society had laws against it and no society allowed same sex marriage. There was/is no reason for it.It's just the nature of conversation. I think gay marriage should be legal and I think prostitution should be legal. Those two statements stir up emotion quite quickly.
The prostitution thing is another thread.
Marriage as we have it in the US should never have been tied to any religious group. The current version is very new to begin with (maybe 300 years) compared to other forms of marriage (hand fastings for example) which have existed for thousands of years and predate any concepts in marriage today. They need to separate marriage from the legal right completely, having the religious version which the laws are not effected by not have any effect on, then the unions for both straight and gay.
Even if marriage weren't tied to any religion, there is still no point in human history where same sex unions were considered "the same" as heterosexual ones. They aren't "the same" and never will be. You don't have to be a religious scholar to come to that conclusion. Not a single religion specifically condones same sex romantic attraction. But until very recently, nearly every society had laws against it and no society allowed same sex marriage. There was/is no reason for it.It's just the nature of conversation. I think gay marriage should be legal and I think prostitution should be legal. Those two statements stir up emotion quite quickly.
The prostitution thing is another thread.
Marriage as we have it in the US should never have been tied to any religious group. The current version is very new to begin with (maybe 300 years) compared to other forms of marriage (hand fastings for example) which have existed for thousands of years and predate any concepts in marriage today. They need to separate marriage from the legal right completely, having the religious version which the laws are not effected by not have any effect on, then the unions for both straight and gay.
You do realize that marriage is more than just two humans being together, right? The word itself means joining. The rituals are all religious and have no place in our government. Civil unions ARE marriage because they are a joining, though gay people will be more likely to marry for love than straight people, my parents were sadly not the exception but the rule, they did not marry for love.
By the way, mind trying to quote correctly? I only ask because it makes it more difficult to respond.
A lot of laws are based on morality. You stand behind some of them, like kiddie porn should be illegal. That's the point: morality IS a legitimate source for our laws. The objection to gay marriage should be seen as a legitimate objection based on morality, but it's routinely dismissed.
A lot of laws are based on morality. You stand behind some of them, like kiddie porn should be illegal. That's the point: morality IS a legitimate source for our laws. The objection to gay marriage should be seen as a legitimate objection based on morality, but it's routinely dismissed.
I have a moral objection to the objection to gay marriage.
By the way, mind trying to quote correctly? I only ask because it makes it more difficult to respond.
OMG, I make a quoting mistake for the first time ever at this board and you're there to bitch about it.
A lot of laws are based on morality. You stand behind some of them, like kiddie porn should be illegal. That's the point: morality IS a legitimate source for our laws. The objection to gay marriage should be seen as a legitimate objection based on morality, but it's routinely dismissed. You've proven to me that you're not going to address my point so I'm out. This is boring and a waste of time.
And that's ok with me. Really.
All I'm saying is that a moral objection to anything is a valid point of view. I'm tired of being told that I don't have a valid objection because it's based a moral principle. You can disagree with where I draw my line but to say that I don't have a point at all is ridiculous as I believe I've already demonstrated.
And as I've already stated both in this thread and elsewhere, I'm all for civil unions.
