I want to apologize to SammyT, I wanted to address him yesterday but there was a database error on the forum.
Catholic Crusader is a Roman Catholic. His informative years were spent listening to Roman Catholic propaganda. He probably needs another ten years to unlearn the ridiculous things he believes.
You'll see after you have been here a while.
Doesn't feel good, does it? =)
:thumb:
Prostitution has victims though. There are dozens of studies done on the victimization of prostitutes. It is not one woman who decides to sell herself for money to men. It is far more complex than that.
A search pulls up lots of stats, are these not accepted to be valid for people to be saying it is victimless?
o78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.
o 62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.
o 73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
o 83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.
o 75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.
Prostitution should be illegal for everyone, regardless of wealth or class.
I don't think the logic here follows.
First of all, since prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are (according to the law) criminals. So, if they openly reported a rape or assault, they might well get arrested to.
However, that isn't my biggest issue with your reasoning. The bigger issue is the assumption that just because sometimes (even a good chunk of the time) A and B both happen together; that that means A and B always happen together.
Rape should be illegal.
Assault should be illegal (whether with a weapon or not.)
A consensual trade between individuals where one is providing sex and the other is providing money should not be illegal. That doesn't mean I think its OK, by contrary, I think its offensive to God and harmful to the individuals involved. But its not an aggressive act like assault or rape is. And thus, legal violence shouldn't be threatened against individuals who engage in it.
It makes no never mind to me, because what I said is true, and that little nugget you posted is a lie. Dumb lies make me feel neither bad nor good. They are just dumb.
CL is still a teenager. His high school years were spent listening to Obama propaganda. And he probably does needs another ten years to unlearn the ridiculous things he believes.
Actually, I was homeschooled for half of high school. Both of my parents are anti-Obama. I think Obama is so evil that he should be impeached, tried, and executed. Right next to your hero (George W. Bush.) Both have murdered hundreds of thousands of people, stolen trillions of dollars, caused hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of peaceful people to be kidnapped (federal drug war, federal gun control laws), and have repeatedly lied to the American people. And, for what its worth, I'm more anti-Obama than pretty much anyone I know, just for different reasons.
Christian Liberty, no it is not correct. Saying that someone is guilty of supporting violence for not supporting legislation that CLAIMS it will lower rates of violent crime is nonsense. Please explain how you came up with that logical fallacy?
I'm not saying you're guilty of supporting violence that happens to occur when prostitiution is illegal.
I am saying you are guilty of supporting violence against prostitutes and people who peacefully trade with them.
And you support using police, DAs, and government jail cells to institute such violence.
Dragging someone away in handcuffs and locking them in a cage is violence. Taking someone's money by force is violence. And you support using it against prostitutes and those who trade with them. I don't. And that inherently makes me a better man than you, at least with regards to this particular point.