At 5/5/12 06:24 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:21 PM, Skaren wrote: I think prostitution should be illegal. I mean, guys know the risk before they buy the hooker, don't they? Fuck at your own risk.

Would you take your time to give an in-depth reason why the act of prostitution should be illegal?

I just gave an in-depth reason as to why it should be legal, so yes, make with the explanations.

Not that I didn't take your personal point of view into consideration, it is just that, you can not say no to something with a small personal reason to say 'No'.

Which is why I explained my standpoint.

a) the legalization of prostitution does not increase the safety of prostitutes by much.

How's that?

b) it will not make a dent in exploitations.

Why not?

c) it will not discourage sexually transmitted diseases.

How so?

d) people will continue killing, since little girls disappearing from their homes lately doesn't state that enough.

People will no longer target people that they can kill in mass quantities before being caught and arrested, that's why they target prostitutes, because prostitutes typically follow a code of discretion so as to avoid being caught in their illegal activities where as normal victims do not.

These are not elaborations, you're not explaining how or why, you're just reiterating the same argument you already made.

At 5/5/12 06:39 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:24 PM, ILove2Grok wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:21 PM, Skaren wrote: I think prostitution should be illegal. I mean, guys know the risk before they buy the hooker, don't they? Fuck at your own risk.

Would you take your time to give an in-depth reason why the act of prostitution should be illegal?

I just gave an in-depth reason as to why it should be legal, so yes, make with the explanations.

Not that I didn't take your personal point of view into consideration, it is just that, you can not say no to something with a small personal reason to say 'No'.

Which is why I explained my standpoint.

a) the legalization of prostitution does not increase the safety of prostitutes by much.

How's that?

b) it will not make a dent in exploitations.

Why not?

c) it will not discourage sexually transmitted diseases.

How so?

d) people will continue killing, since little girls disappearing from their homes lately doesn't state that enough.

People will no longer target people that they can kill in mass quantities before being caught and arrested, that's why they target prostitutes, because prostitutes typically follow a code of discretion so as to avoid being caught in their illegal activities where as normal victims do not.

These are not elaborations, you're not explaining how or why, you're just reiterating the same argument you already made.

They still are going to be 'alone' while doing their business.

Being 'alone' is targeted with exploitations.

Sexually transmitted diseases may be cut down if they implement a system to tell if someone is clean, but people with diseases are still going to want to have their own fun, and will stop at nothing to get it.

Little girls, in their homes. Your point of view for what a person would do and wouldn't do is annihilated by the history of ridiculous actions pulled off by people. You do not have the mind of these corrupted individuals, do not straw-man your argument so you can be right. You have no idea what people out there are capable of doing, and how much they can do in a single minute.

let's legalize slavery too

humans aren't treated like commodities enough

At 5/5/12 06:51 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote: let's legalize slavery too

humans aren't treated like commodities enough

Someone didn't read the OP.

At 5/5/12 06:52 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:51 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote: let's legalize slavery too

humans aren't treated like commodities enough

Someone didn't read the OP.

someone is reaching for an argument

guess who it is

it's you

At 5/5/12 06:55 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:52 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:51 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote: let's legalize slavery too

humans aren't treated like commodities enough

Someone didn't read the OP.

someone is reaching for an argument

guess who it is

it's you

Not reading the OP makes everything you do and say pointless in this thread.

Legalizing Prostitution may also result in cheaper rates. Cheaper rates equal happier guys.

At 5/5/12 05:22 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: You are encouraging an immoral act for your own false morals. You can not, underneath any circumstance, encourage an act like this in a world deprived of self-respect, and self-worth.

Who decides what's right and wrong? I hope you realize that in your entire post you failed to describe WHY prostitution is an immoral act. There are some people out there who just can't get laid, like mentally or physically disabled people, or people that are born so ugly that they will never be able to have sex with a girl that meets their standards. What are they supposed to do then, huh? Stay alone for the rest of their life? They'll eventually go crazy and turn into a perverted madman.

But none of this ever crosses your ignorant mind.

At 5/5/12 07:08 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Legalizing Prostitution may also result in cheaper rates. Cheaper rates equal happier guys.

It is encouraging an act of desperation. If our people have to crawl down the slums of their morality in order to achieve a faint sense of happiness, then there is something our world is doing very wrong, and only continues to be hush up by people who protect these acts without sufficiant reasons as to why.

Some places in Nevada have two for one deals. Legalization could result in three for one deals. All men can really use three girls at once. :)

Travis. Gellard has been dead the whole time. You killed him, remember?

At 5/5/12 07:09 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: It is encouraging an act of desperation. If our people have to crawl down the slums of their morality in order to achieve a faint sense of happiness, then there is something our world is doing very wrong, and only continues to be hush up by people who protect these acts without sufficiant reasons as to why.

So you believe that the government has the right to prevent people from making choices in order to prevent immorality among its citizens? For some people, that's the only way they can achieve happiness, whether it's in desperation or not. You sound like a fucking communist to me.

At 5/5/12 07:09 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 5/5/12 05:22 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: You are encouraging an immoral act for your own false morals. You can not, underneath any circumstance, encourage an act like this in a world deprived of self-respect, and self-worth.

Who decides what's right and wrong? I hope you realize that in your entire post you failed to describe WHY prostitution is an immoral act. There are some people out there who just can't get laid, like mentally or physically disabled people, or people that are born so ugly that they will never be able to have sex with a girl that meets their standards. What are they supposed to do then, huh? Stay alone for the rest of their life? They'll eventually go crazy and turn into a perverted madman.

But none of this ever crosses your ignorant mind.

It isn't about what is right or wrong, it is the process of elimination involved. What are the positives? What are the negatives? Then, you question the questioning of our people. You see how they answer the question, why they answer the question the way they did, and how they came up with the answer to the question.

When you see that people are not looking at this act as a whole, and do not see the hollow act that it is; unable to realise that, hey, we are better than this, are we really arguing if an act that involves two people who do not know each other, desperate for what each other has to give, but not for each other as a whole; killing off every single fruitful element in their mind by engaging in this type of act; silencing their intuition and that inner voice that tells them, hey, something is not right, because none of the actions presented come from the person's rightful judgment. It comes from the slums of their inner temptations that they do not control, and only feed. If you want to encourage a void that is never satisfied in a world that is corrupted of self-reason, then, be my undelighted guest -- let these animals not regain their self-worth and learn how to stand on their moralily and intuition. Let them continue devouring themselves, and become less than a person. Because you are to narrow-minded to see how insipid and lifeless these acts are, no different than someone wanting a ''Sorry.'' out of someone, and when they finally get it, it means nothing. It is naught. It is a void of nothingness. It is empty. You are encouraging backwards logic; counter-intuition. You are encouraging another Pandora's Box. Like telling a child they can have everything they want.

Your argument for any of this is ludicrous.

At 5/5/12 07:17 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 5/5/12 07:09 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: It is encouraging an act of desperation. If our people have to crawl down the slums of their morality in order to achieve a faint sense of happiness, then there is something our world is doing very wrong, and only continues to be hush up by people who protect these acts without sufficiant reasons as to why.

So you believe that the government has the right to prevent people from making choices in order to prevent immorality among its citizens? For some people, that's the only way they can achieve happiness, whether it's in desperation or not. You sound like a fucking communist to me.

It is an act of desperation. It has no true benefits. You are trying to ressurect a dead-horse. Prostitution discriminates against life.

At 5/5/12 07:19 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: It isn't about what is right or wrong, it is the process of elimination involved. What are the positives? What are the negatives? Then, you question the questioning of our people. You see how they answer the question, why they answer the question the way they did, and how they came up with the answer to the question.

Why does that matter? It's a person's choice, and that should not be controlled by the government. There are very few alternatives to some people and prostitution has been proven to make people feel better and relieve from desperation. But you seem to just want people who have no opportunities to suffer.

When you see that people are not looking at this act as a whole, and do not see the hollow act that it is; unable to realise that, hey, we are better than this, are we really arguing if an act that involves two people who do not know each other, desperate for what each other has to give, but not for each other as a whole; killing off every single fruitful element in their mind by engaging in this type of act; silencing their intuition and that inner voice that tells them, hey, something is not right, because none of the actions presented come from the person's rightful judgment.

So you think that before anyone decides to do anything, they should look at the big picture of it first? Well gee, maybe next time I eat some meat I'll look at the big picture and realize that I am consuming something that was killed for my own personal pleasure.

And who decides that sex is only acceptable if the two people know each other very well and aren't desperate for anything at all? Sex is a pleasurable thing and people have all the right to have sex for fun. That isn't immoral, it's natural. Don't argue against the natural temptation of man.

It comes from the slums of their inner temptations that they do not control, and only feed. If you want to encourage a void that is never satisfied in a world that is corrupted of self-reason, then, be my undelighted guest -- let these animals not regain their self-worth and learn how to stand on their moralily and intuition. Let them continue devouring themselves, and become less than a person. Because you are to narrow-minded to see how insipid and lifeless these acts are, no different than someone wanting a ''Sorry.'' out of someone, and when they finally get it, it means nothing. It is naught. It is a void of nothingness. It is empty. You are encouraging backwards logic; counter-intuition. You are encouraging another Pandora's Box. Like telling a child they can have everything they want.

Sex is not empty. I have no idea where you're getting that from but clearly you don't know what you're talking about when you mention that people do not gain any pleasure out of this in the aftermath, and are only so focused on one thing that they want due to desperation and push all self-confidence aside in order to relieve themselves from tension. Once again you are arguing against the nature of mankind, which makes you come off as a complete fool. Sex is natural one way or the other, and in means should one's decision upon it be forced.

Your argument for any of this is ludicrous.

You should consider reading my response before saying something like this.

At 5/5/12 06:59 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Not reading the OP makes everything you do and say pointless in this thread.

i read it and my point still stands

At 5/5/12 07:34 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 5/5/12 07:19 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: It isn't about what is right or wrong, it is the process of elimination involved. What are the positives? What are the negatives? Then, you question the questioning of our people. You see how they answer the question, why they answer the question the way they did, and how they came up with the answer to the question.

Why does that matter? It's a person's choice, and that should not be controlled by the government. There are very few alternatives to some people and prostitution has been proven to make people feel better and relieve from desperation. But you seem to just want people who have no opportunities to suffer.

When you see that people are not looking at this act as a whole, and do not see the hollow act that it is; unable to realise that, hey, we are better than this, are we really arguing if an act that involves two people who do not know each other, desperate for what each other has to give, but not for each other as a whole; killing off every single fruitful element in their mind by engaging in this type of act; silencing their intuition and that inner voice that tells them, hey, something is not right, because none of the actions presented come from the person's rightful judgment.

So you think that before anyone decides to do anything, they should look at the big picture of it first? Well gee, maybe next time I eat some meat I'll look at the big picture and realize that I am consuming something that was killed for my own personal pleasure.

And who decides that sex is only acceptable if the two people know each other very well and aren't desperate for anything at all? Sex is a pleasurable thing and people have all the right to have sex for fun. That isn't immoral, it's natural. Don't argue against the natural temptation of man.

It comes from the slums of their inner temptations that they do not control, and only feed. If you want to encourage a void that is never satisfied in a world that is corrupted of self-reason, then, be my undelighted guest -- let these animals not regain their self-worth and learn how to stand on their moralily and intuition. Let them continue devouring themselves, and become less than a person. Because you are to narrow-minded to see how insipid and lifeless these acts are, no different than someone wanting a ''Sorry.'' out of someone, and when they finally get it, it means nothing. It is naught. It is a void of nothingness. It is empty. You are encouraging backwards logic; counter-intuition. You are encouraging another Pandora's Box. Like telling a child they can have everything they want.

Sex is not empty. I have no idea where you're getting that from but clearly you don't know what you're talking about when you mention that people do not gain any pleasure out of this in the aftermath, and are only so focused on one thing that they want due to desperation and push all self-confidence aside in order to relieve themselves from tension. Once again you are arguing against the nature of mankind, which makes you come off as a complete fool. Sex is natural one way or the other, and in means should one's decision upon it be forced.

Your argument for any of this is ludicrous.

You should consider reading my response before saying something like this.

There are plenty of other ways to obtain that pleasure [followed by more beneficial results] without having to go sacrifice the morality of yours and whom ever you fuck. You act like this is their last resort, when that type of argument is not going to win.

You are being immature about this, because you differ what I have to say. Eating food that derives from an act that continues to be questioned to this day is an irrelevant artifact of thought in regard to the upsides and downsides to prostitution. Stay on-topic. I will argue against the 'natural' temptation of man that can also be 'naturally' turned down by the nature of man's cognition. If you do not want to choose what is eternally more beneficial than another, because of your dull-minded sense of pleasure and prefer to act as if this sense of pleasure is the only thing that keeps us going, that is fine with me. You can be hollow, that is not my problem. People do not need to sacrifice their inner qualities for a small moment of pleasure that is falsely manufactured. Mind you, the feeling that comes from it is psychological, and there are plenty of other, healthier ways, to achieve this psychological feeling.

You do not see there is more than blood and flesh mixed in with a system of instincts and biology. We are not animals, and we are far more advanced to know how to pick and choose the real benefits out of the fallouts of our temptations. That is your mistake.

I've read and I do not share the same dully fashioned ethical view of human beings as you do.

At 5/5/12 07:34 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:59 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Not reading the OP makes everything you do and say pointless in this thread.

i read it and my point still stands

What is your point?

At 5/5/12 07:45 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: There are plenty of other ways to obtain that pleasure [followed by more beneficial results] without having to go sacrifice the morality of yours and whom ever you fuck. You act like this is their last resort, when that type of argument is not going to win.

To say my argument is false without providing any proof or reasoning as to why you feel this way is not going to win in and of itself. Please elaborate; what are a man's alternative options if he is severely physically or mentally disabled, or hideously ugly and so desperate for a woman that meets his standards?

You are being immature about this, because you differ what I have to say. Eating food that derives from an act that continues to be questioned to this day is an irrelevant artifact of thought in regard to the upsides and downsides to prostitution. Stay on-topic.

You don't see the correlation between two acts that are both being questioned to this day?

I will argue against the 'natural' temptation of man that can also be 'naturally' turned down by the nature of man's cognition. If you do not want to choose what is eternally more beneficial than another, because of your dull-minded sense of pleasure and prefer to act as if this sense of pleasure is the only thing that keeps us going, that is fine with me. You can be hollow, that is not my problem. People do not need to sacrifice their inner qualities for a small moment of pleasure that is falsely manufactured. Mind you, the feeling that comes from it is psychological, and there are plenty of other, healthier ways, to achieve this psychological feeling.

The fact that you believe that having sex is not as psychologically beneficial and relieving to this type of feeling as alternative options makes you sound even more retarded than I thought. That's like saying that there's other ways to relieve hunger rather than eating. Not to mention that you have yet to provide an example of an alternative option that one has to relieve sexual desperation rather than having sex.

You do not see there is more than blood and flesh mixed in with a system of instincts and biology. We are not animals, and we are far more advanced to know how to pick and choose the real benefits out of the fallouts of our temptations. That is your mistake.

We were not made to try and figure out other ways of pleasure among the simple and obvious solution. If our first tendency to relieve sexual desire is to have sex, then why do we need to find more complex ways in order to relieve it?

I've read and I do not share the same dully fashioned ethical view of human beings as you do.

The more you post the more you come off as an ignorant Christian that thinks good morals apply to fighting against man's natural tendencies.

At 5/5/12 07:47 PM, GodlessDeity wrote:

At 5/5/12 07:34 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:59 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Not reading the OP makes everything you do and say pointless in this thread.

i read it and my point still stands

What is your point?

treating humans like a commodity cannot be a good thing

regardless of the ethics/morals involved

At 5/5/12 08:06 PM, mothballs wrote:

At 5/5/12 07:45 PM, GodlessDeity wrote: There are plenty of other ways to obtain that pleasure [followed by more beneficial results] without having to go sacrifice the morality of yours and whom ever you fuck. You act like this is their last resort, when that type of argument is not going to win.

To say my argument is false without providing any proof or reasoning as to why you feel this way is not going to win in and of itself. Please elaborate; what are a man's alternative options if he is severely physically or mentally disabled, or hideously ugly and so desperate for a woman that meets his standards?

You are being immature about this, because you differ what I have to say. Eating food that derives from an act that continues to be questioned to this day is an irrelevant artifact of thought in regard to the upsides and downsides to prostitution. Stay on-topic.

You don't see the correlation between two acts that are both being questioned to this day?

I will argue against the 'natural' temptation of man that can also be 'naturally' turned down by the nature of man's cognition. If you do not want to choose what is eternally more beneficial than another, because of your dull-minded sense of pleasure and prefer to act as if this sense of pleasure is the only thing that keeps us going, that is fine with me. You can be hollow, that is not my problem. People do not need to sacrifice their inner qualities for a small moment of pleasure that is falsely manufactured. Mind you, the feeling that comes from it is psychological, and there are plenty of other, healthier ways, to achieve this psychological feeling.

The fact that you believe that having sex is not as psychologically beneficial and relieving to this type of feeling as alternative options makes you sound even more retarded than I thought. That's like saying that there's other ways to relieve hunger rather than eating. Not to mention that you have yet to provide an example of an alternative option that one has to relieve sexual desperation rather than having sex.

You do not see there is more than blood and flesh mixed in with a system of instincts and biology. We are not animals, and we are far more advanced to know how to pick and choose the real benefits out of the fallouts of our temptations. That is your mistake.

We were not made to try and figure out other ways of pleasure among the simple and obvious solution. If our first tendency to relieve sexual desire is to have sex, then why do we need to find more complex ways in order to relieve it?

I've read and I do not share the same dully fashioned ethical view of human beings as you do.

The more you post the more you come off as an ignorant Christian that thinks good morals apply to fighting against man's natural tendencies.

Why is your only option - ''Legalize prostitution!''? Tell me that.

They share some similar, dimunitive elements. That is like comparing the shadow of an orange to the shadow of an apple, instead of comparing the apple and the orange.

You simply do not understand the irrelevance between the psychological feelings gained from sex, and finding other ways to stop hunger. First of all, sex only creates psychological feelings, and our bodies are used as catalysts. Second of all, your organs that digest food, the acid in your stomache, and the nutrients in your body is far more real than the immaterial essence of feeling and emotion.

Your form of logic promotes serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.

I am not religious.

At 5/5/12 08:09 PM, GhostOfHalloween wrote:

treating humans like a commodity cannot be a good thing

regardless of the ethics/morals involved

In other words, you agree with me.

At 5/5/12 08:15 PM, Zullzee wrote:

No, it's not. The fact that any women can just go to a club and fuck a guy for the price of $0.00 right now, makes your arguments null and void. Maybe if you were arguing for outlawing non-marital sex could these arguments mean something.

That is only the result of using irrelevancy as an argument.

That is an entirely different situation.

Legalization of prostitution doesn't help with the exploitation of poor women and human trafficking. In fact It would make it more difficult for authorities to find exploited women, since now they can hide in plain sight. Yea you could make it an industry, but then you would have to regulated it and collect taxes to be able to regulate it effectively. With the more women willing take being a hooker for a professions, they'll get less money to survive on. It's just not worth it imo.

At 5/5/12 09:35 PM, Zullzee wrote:

At 5/5/12 09:16 PM, GodlessDeity wrote:
That is only the result of using irrelevancy as an argument.

That is an entirely different situation.

Haha, no it's not. If anybody can fuck anybody for 0 dollars, no matter the circumstance, then what difference does it make if they fuck under a different price? Answer that.

Because the example you are using does not fall under the category of prostitution. What is the name of this thread?

While I don't personally think people should pay for sex in the first place, chances are that if they do, they're probably sad and lonely. Which is why I have a strong opinion on not arresting soliciters of prostitution. It kind of pisses me off when you see cops on TV dress like hookers and then arrest the men attempting to get some action.
He's clearly unhappy and not doing well in life if he's hiring a prostitute, why make him a criminal because he wants to have a good night for once?

Sorry if that's off topic.

At 5/5/12 09:50 PM, Zippy-MyMusic wrote: While I don't personally think people should pay for sex in the first place, chances are that if they do, they're probably sad and lonely. Which is why I have a strong opinion on not arresting soliciters of prostitution. It kind of pisses me off when you see cops on TV dress like hookers and then arrest the men attempting to get some action.
He's clearly unhappy and not doing well in life if he's hiring a prostitute, why make him a criminal because he wants to have a good night for once?

Sorry if that's off topic.

I do not encourage the act at all.

If the man is willing to pull an act like that, then it clearly shows why he is 'not doing well' in life.

At 5/5/12 06:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: They still are going to be 'alone' while doing their business.

Of course they would, because lord knows that there's no such thing as a bodyguard.

Being 'alone' is targeted with exploitations.

Explain.

Sexually transmitted diseases may be cut down if they implement a system to tell if someone is clean, but people with diseases are still going to want to have their own fun, and will stop at nothing to get it.

Yeah but here's the thing, if it's legal then that means the market is more open and people with diseases will be less desirable costumers because, you know, diseases.

Little girls, in their homes.

Okay, how does that relate to prostitution?

Your point of view for what a person would do and wouldn't do is annihilated by the history of ridiculous actions pulled off by people.

Tell me, what exactly are my expectations captain clairvoyance? Since you apparently know so much about me, that means that you know everything I expect, because you've read Freud right?

You do not have the mind of these corrupted individuals,

Neither do you.

do not straw-man your argument so you can be right.

I haven't been, however I'd like to point out all the ad hominems you've been using such as "You do not have the mind of these corrupted individuals" and "Your point of view for what a person would do and wouldn't do is annihilated by the history of ridiculous actions pulled off by people."

Constantly calling out your opponent on using logical fallacies regardless of context is in and of itself a straw-man argument, you realize this right you little retard?

You have no idea what people out there are capable of doing, and how much they can do in a single minute.

Like you do.

I think that prostitution should be legal, but it should be illegal for prostitutes to have children. It would do a lot of damage to a kid knowing that his/her mother is a whore.

At 5/5/12 10:13 PM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/5/12 06:50 PM, ILoveToGrok wrote: They still are going to be 'alone' while doing their business.

Of course they would, because lord knows that there's no such thing as a bodyguard.

Being 'alone' is targeted with exploitations.

Explain.

Sexually transmitted diseases may be cut down if they implement a system to tell if someone is clean, but people with diseases are still going to want to have their own fun, and will stop at nothing to get it.

Yeah but here's the thing, if it's legal then that means the market is more open and people with diseases will be less desirable costumers because, you know, diseases.

Little girls, in their homes.

Okay, how does that relate to prostitution?

Your point of view for what a person would do and wouldn't do is annihilated by the history of ridiculous actions pulled off by people.

Tell me, what exactly are my expectations captain clairvoyance? Since you apparently know so much about me, that means that you know everything I expect, because you've read Freud right?

You do not have the mind of these corrupted individuals,

Neither do you.

do not straw-man your argument so you can be right.

I haven't been, however I'd like to point out all the ad hominems you've been using such as "You do not have the mind of these corrupted individuals" and "Your point of view for what a person would do and wouldn't do is annihilated by the history of ridiculous actions pulled off by people."

Constantly calling out your opponent on using logical fallacies regardless of context is in and of itself a straw-man argument, you realize this right you little retard?

You have no idea what people out there are capable of doing, and how much they can do in a single minute.

Like you do.

How do you absolutely know there will be bodyguards?

When someone is 'alone', they are 'defenseless'.

Doesn't have anything to do with the problems of STD's if people are still going to resort to illegal prostitution, human trafficking will persist, etc. You act like diseased individuals are never going to try to have sex again, when legal productivity and illegal produectivity has always went on at the same time. You are just adding a completely irrelevant branch to reality, without substantiated reason. You say 'this' and 'that' and you are simply implying that you have no real idea what is going to happen when it legalizes, because you simply do not really care. You are a parrot that copies what other people say.

You said that women won't be exploited because it is a legal activity then, but yet, living in a house is not only legal, but it is surrounded by many things that should scare away bad people, and remember how you implied that less guys would try anything now that the cops will be affiliated with the system? Put 2 and 2 together.

You don't know what your expectations are. You are making dull notes of a seriously important situation without being critical about it.

Then stop making logical fallacies.

I most certainly do.