CDZ Why is prostitution illegal?

[High_Gravity]

It shouldn't be illegal.

 

[Katzndogz]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.

Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.
Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

Clearly, underage or captive prostitution is a different issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I said:
In your response, you will further illustrate your continued failure to understand
Naturally, I was right.

But, being a kind and benevolent person, willing to help people with their ignorance, I shall try to better explain this to you.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

What does your question have to do with your less than stellar analogy and my pointing that out?

Please answer the question.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'

What is the relevance of the question?

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.

One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's perverted.

Greg

It is waste of money.

Lots of things that are a waste of money are legal

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's perverted.
Greg

It is waste of money.

Lots of things that are a waste of money are legal

If it weren't, Chrysler would be out of business

 

[Asclepias]

What does your question have to do with your less than stellar analogy and my pointing that out?

Please answer the question.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'

What is the relevance of the question?

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.

One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon. I have a couple myself. I said your analogy was terrible. Gun ownership and prostitution have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Katzndogz]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.
Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

Clearly, underage or captive prostitution is a different issue.

It is the same issue. This is what they found out in Amsterdam and why they closed so many of the brothels. It wasn't a controllable issue. Prostitution is not a controllable issue. It does not lend itself to the kind of regulation that makes legalization possible.

 

[Roadrunner]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.
Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

Clearly, underage or captive prostitution is a different issue.

It is the same issue. This is what they found out in Amsterdam and why they closed so many of the brothels. It wasn't a controllable issue. Prostitution is not a controllable issue. It does not lend itself to the kind of regulation that makes legalization possible.

If it were legal, no regulation would be needed.

Just like weed.

Weed regulation will fade away, where legal, as grow it yourself takes hold.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please answer the question.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'

What is the relevance of the question?

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.
Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

Clearly, underage or captive prostitution is a different issue.

It is the same issue

No. Its not. Selling a child into sex slavery is not the same issue as a woman deciding to make an extra $100 by selling her favors.

 

[Asclepias]

What is the relevance of the question?

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate. Terrible analogy to use with prostitution. Street gambling would have been a better fit for you but then thats not the agenda you were trying to push was it?

 

[Roadrunner]

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate. Terrible analogy to use with prostitution. Street gambling would have been a better fit for you but then thats not the agenda you were trying to push was it?

Diseased prostitutes kill at a slower pace than misused weapons.

That's the only difference really.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please don't avoid the question - please answer it.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate.

Irrelevant.

You agree that that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim when the law against their ownership/possession is broken.

As such, if you agree prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, you must then also agree that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) should not be illegal as well.

 

[Asclepias]

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate.

Irrelevant.

You agree that that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim when the law against their ownership/possession is broken.

As such, if you agree prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, you must then also agree that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) should not be illegal as well.

Irrelevant.

That was a terrible analogy.

 

[Asclepias]

Please answer my question first. I dont answer deflections until I know where you are going with it.
What is the relevance of the question?

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate. Terrible analogy to use with prostitution. Street gambling would have been a better fit for you but then thats not the agenda you were trying to push was it?

Diseased prostitutes kill at a slower pace than misused weapons.

That's the only difference really.

Funny you guys relate sex to killing. Thats pretty odd.

 

[Katzndogz]

SOME prostitution is a victimless crime. SOME prostitution is sex slavery with girls forced into it. SOME prostitution is women made into drug addicts by pimps and prostitute to his benefit.
Some prostitution can be made legal. It can never be fully legalized. Even the most consensual of victims will still be prosecuted. Just under different laws. Possibly income tax evasion, or failure to have medical checkups. The casual nature of casual sex precludes full legalization.

Clearly, underage or captive prostitution is a different issue.

It is the same issue

No. Its not. Selling a child into sex slavery is not the same issue as a woman deciding to make an extra $100 by selling her favors.

It is legalization that makes is harder to prosecute sex slavery. The woman knows that her abuser has her passport and says that her sex work is entirely consensual. Now what?

Legalization means one thing, legal brothels. Which will never stop that woman who decides to make an extra $100.00 by selling her favors. A woman who sometimes sells herself to make the rent is not going to be a licensed prostitute. A woman who is even more desperate or drug addled will not bother with wearing condoms or getting a medical exam or even STD testing. She's not going to share her cash with the government by paying taxes either. The best that could be hoped for is legalized prostitution existing right along with illegal prostitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is legalization that makes is harder to prosecute sex slavery. The woman knows that her abuser has her passport and says that her sex work is entirely consensual. Now what?

Coercion removes any argument of consent; this creates a victim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The relevance of my question should be obvious from what I've written so far - had you actually read and understood what I posted, you would know this; the fact that you believe this to be a deflection only illustrates that you are not paying attention.
One argument for the legalization of prostitution is that it is a victimless crime -- no one is harmed by the acts of consenting adults.
Who is harmed by my simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon'?

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate.

Irrelevant.

You agree that that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim when the law against their ownership/possession is broken.

As such, if you agree prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, you must then also agree that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) should not be illegal as well.

Irrelevant.
That was a terrible analogy.

I accept your concession, that you know you cannot soundly argue against the point made.

 

[Asclepias]

See what I mean? I never argued that anyone was harmed by simple ownership of a weapon

Your answer then is that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim

-Prostitution is a victimless crime
-Possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) is a victimless crime
Thus
-If prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, it then follows that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' in CA should not be illegal as well.

Ahh. Thats where you got confused. Again I point to the fact that assualt weapons kill people at a very high rate.

Irrelevant.

You agree that that no one is harmed by the simple possession of an 'assault weapon' -- that is, there is no victim when the law against their ownership/possession is broken.

As such, if you agree prostitution should not be illegal because it is a victimless crime, you must then also agree that simple ownership/possession of an 'assault weapon' (in CA) should not be illegal as well.

Irrelevant.
That was a terrible analogy.

I accept your concession, that you know you cannot soundly argue against the point made.

Thats because I wasnt arguing against the point made. I was pointing out your analogy was terrible.