At 5/6/12 01:25 AM, Cootie wrote: Legalizing prostitution would be the best thing that ever happened to it. Brothels would be more secure and testing would be more likely to be mandatory. The girls would be much less likely to be abused because they wouldn't have to hide in a back alley, and non-violent people wouldn't be sent to jail over some bullshit.

Legalization isn't going to prevent illegal activity.

It may create a 'safer' environment.

People shouldn't be stooping that low to begin with.

I don't think jail is appropiate, but what they do is surely bullshit.

I'm not going to lie. What is that?

Bathtub gin is basically illegally made alcohol mixed in a household bathtub, it was common during the great depression.

That is because you aren't taking every psychological, moral, ethical, etc. point of view into consideration. All you guys have is > pleasure good
>girl and guy have sex good
> girl and guy need betta enviroment
> they have der own lives. man and woman need peace 4 sex
> fuck morales guy
> life is da shyt

How's that? Explain.

QWERTYUIOP

This argument essentially contradicts itself; you're blasting me for not taking every psychological viewpoint into consideration, yet simultaneously you outright disregard opposing opinions by oversimplifying our arguments; a straw-man argument, if you will. You don't explain why we're wrong, you just continue to say we're wrong just because, the very same thing you're accusing us of.

They fit fine. If you think that legal activity would discourage or block criminals, than explain to me why there are people out there who are able to sneak into a house and steal a little girl from multiple homes.

Fuck, you are so stupid and again, picking cherries. Notice how I already said that homes are not intrinsically dangerous and are in fact designed to be the opposite where as narcotics are and therefore demands active regulation where as homes do not, notice how in this argument you haven't acknowledged that. Correlation does not imply causation.

You aren't seeing the correlation. You argued that if prostitution was legalized, the bad guys wouldn't try anything. When you can't be any more wrong, and my little girl in the house example tramples that.

I love how you fail to explain how children directly correlate with prostitution. Oh you haven't even brought up child trafficking, you didn't connect the two, you just assumed that the two directly function with one another. Child abduction =/= prostitution.

Can't put 2 and 2 together.

Apparently you can't either; notice how you never illustrate that for us how they directly correlate.

No. They simply lack substance. You are defending everything from within that narrow-minded head of yours.

Define substance as being anything other than subjective opinion that fits into this context.

Perhaps, you took it the wrong way. I spoke my mind on the matter, and it is very true in my eyes. I'm simple taking any argument people wish to make though.

No, no, that's exactly how you wrote it.

*Says phsychopath while standing in front of a mirror*

What a clever rebuttal, especially coming from a person who denies the similarities between prostitution, eating meat and narcotics while simultaneously citing similarities between prostitution and home invasions, two completely different things the latter of which is a much more rare occurrence. In other words, it's moronic.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know you were the grammar-nazi.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know that the structure of language as an importance was not apparent to you. Fucktard.

Then we better start a new argument that involves more convenience.

No, the point I meant to convey there was that you needed to specify what you were talking about.

That one guy who you were speaking on the behalf for, who made the figurative comparison between hunger and... Herp.

Get this straight sunshine, what I did was not speaking on his behalf, that would imply that I further elaborated on an opinion he never expressed, said he spoke when he didn't; I proposed a different context from the one you took to what he said as a means to clarify what he meant to convey, I never specified a later opinion he didn't already express.

me no dumbass - u dum ass

That's why I had to instruct you on how to properly use quotations in a reply. Funny, I figured that the stupid were taught by the smart, not the other way around. That would also be the reason why I have to correct your grammar & spelling too. Real intelligent deduction.

No. It is because we have a greater concern over the world, because we actually have the ability to not only observe, but apply biased action.

How does that disparage my argument? It actually supports it in a weird way, you just said that we gave more of a shit than other species, but that doesn't disprove that ethics are of our design.

That is a foolish thought. [Good thing you'll know what I'm referring to this time]

Okay, why is it foolish?

I did say I could be wrong about what the guy meant, didn't I? Stop straw-manning. You make sexists look bad.

No, you didn't. And where the fuck is this sexism shit coming from all the sudden? And how did sexists necessarily have a good image to begin with? For a person who constantly complains about irrelevant arguments, you're no better.

No. The chemicals are like the infrastructure, it is the abstract motion of essence and feeling that follows afterwards.

Thoughts cannot exist without a brain, this is factual & undeniable, therefore emotions directly correlate with the human body. If they don't then explain why rape causes psychological trauma and not just physical trauma?

At 5/6/12 01:28 AM, Zullzee wrote:

At 5/6/12 01:06 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote:
What are you talking about? I look at the human being as a whole. When people pick prostitution over all of the things their morals, intuition or virtues could provide them is the very exact reason why it should not be encouraged. Especially in a world where many girls feel like trash, feel like they aren't pretty, are competing with other hot girls, have bad experiences in life, and are fully convinced that, hey, prostitution will give me - pleasure, money, attention, etc.

You do not consider any of these possibilities that play their roles in life, and you want to unlock this venius fly trap of an act? You are out out of your damn mind.

But how is this much different than pornography? It's legal, and most girls aren't going "Hey! This is easy money! I want to be this when I grow up instead of a career that requires college!" There isn't some national crises going on because of it, why would there be for prostitution?

Look at it this way, there are women out there stuck in poverty (and, because of that, usually in crime too), and are not intelligent enough to get through higher education. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do one of the only things they can do to increase their income potential significantly? Why doom her (and any possible children) to poverty for life? If she has kids and wants to provide for them a much better life then she had, even if it is at the expense of her dignity, if she's willing to do it for them, then why not? People in these positions aren't people that are just going "ha, these is easy money, who gives a shit about decency!", it's people who are in a desperate position and want a legitimate means of getting out of the shit hole they are in. Why take that option away?

I never said they weren't different. They are two different situations. And if you wish to know, I do not agree with the practices. They are only doing this, because of the way the world was built on capitalism and false distinctions of value. Thus saying, girls are out there being indecent, because our world is filled with uncle SCREWges.

That is one perspective. You have to ask, why are they in that situation first. Then, you have to wonder why they are in that situation to begin with, and if your answer to the first question doesn't involve their situation being a result to their own faults, then you have to then question, what the fuck happened to our world?

At 5/6/12 12:58 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: How about I point out the relevant part? Shall we?

Oh finally, every opposing argument has been sooo irrelevant that I thought there existed no such thing as an actual relevant argument for a second there.

You tell me that I have no right to use my alleged guise of morality to prevent people from doing what they wish to do.

But you certainly have the right to try... and fail.

When what they do is weak-minded, irrational, hopeless, insipid.

Kinda like you.

Who cares if it is consensual.

Um, everybody. Little thing called "rape" is something most everybody hates.

It is the fact that people are desperate enough to engage in voided interactions like that.

Literally any course of action you partake in life can be viewed as vapid, that doesn't make it true, mainly on the grounds that opinion has no factual value, therefore morals and the concept of right and wrong are indeed insipid concepts that ultimately have no merit in a universe bound by rules and facts, thus our eventual extinction, and with our extinction does our moral fiber enter oblivion; we're the only species on the planet that has any kind of "moral fiber", that is a caring and concept over ethics.

If people are this desperate, you do not encourage it, you wonder why the fuck people have gone this far.

Or you can do the rational and considerate thing and just not care what people do to themselves.

At 5/6/12 01:29 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 12:05 AM, GodlessDeity wrote: Assuming there will be is pretentious-er

And how did you come to that conclusion?

I haven't use any form of irrationality. You are the one who thought you could speak on the behalf of another.

Huh? What the fuck are you saying here? If you're talking about when I explained the comparison being made between narcotics and prostitution, then no, you're wrong on that account, I was explaining what he had already said, I wasn't explaining his unspoken opinion. If we're talking about talking on the behalf of the people involved in prostitution, guess what fucktard, you're doing that too, you've been doing it since you've started the topic.

I at least give a reason behind it, and the actions of prostitution speaks for itself, you spoke on the behalf of someone's own word. Big difference.

I'm not citing sources, just like any other historical figure that used their voice to eliminate ignorance and unjustified actions.

They cited factual events that correlated with their points, by not citing sources your argument is essentially fictitious.

What sources did, say... MLKj use?

You are - again - not realising that you are picking cherries first.

Care to explain how you've come to this conclusion?

You haven't provided an argument for my cherry-picking?

You do not understand that the details do not correlate.

Oh yes they do, the smaller details make up the big picture numbskull.

What small details? I see you trying to put two different situations in the same basket.

You also do not realise that you implied face-value.

Oh I perfectly realized it, that's why I said it.

Yes, you implied literal comparison. I'm just going to be humble and leave it at that.

You see this is why you're such a fucktard, you don't get the difference between a literal comparison and a figurative comparison; the comparison isn't that alcohol and prostitution are the same thing and they'll therefore yield the same results, the comparison is that they're similar in nature and will therefore yield the same results. What was that about straw-man arguments?

You are the one who can't formulate a proper figurative comparison, but instead implied a literal comparison. You also do not understand that your figurative expression isn't going to help your argument at all.

Remember how I said your arguments are comprised almost entirely of "no u!"? Yeah, that applies here.

You are doing the same thing, and ''no u'' derives from you and my ''no u'' derives from your head too.

I've explained why. There is no evidence to cover the consequences, and purposes behind prostitution. It defines itself.

The action does not explain the motive numbskull. This is why citing resources is a good argument tactic, because it actually proves the merits of your argument.

*Looks at all of the conspiracy theorists using walls of resources*

You assume of these things, but do not [provide] an argument to justify these things.

What do you mean "assume"? And why is the word "provide" in brackets? Furthermore, I don't need to justify your argument tactics, I'm not on your side, that's something you're supposed to do.

You only 'think' I am doing what you accuse me of doing. Stop saying it. Provide an argument. Something you have told me to do this entire time, and I have. You don't see my argument, because you aren't agreeing with it.

Of course emotion is psychological. Why else do people who are sick don't want to have sex most of the time? I'm sure the body is still releasing those chemicals, but your abstract thoughts aren't able to dance, because you can't dance, because you are too sick to dance. So they solemnly sit there.

If they correlate to such a degree that my imagination is limited to the capacity of my body then that means that thoughts are anything but abstract.

It is all an abstract web of thought patterns that correlate with the inner works of your subconscious. : )

At 5/6/12 01:35 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: I never said they weren't different. They are two different situations. And if you wish to know, I do not agree with the practices. They are only doing this, because of the way the world was built on capitalism and false distinctions of value. Thus saying, girls are out there being indecent, because our world is filled with uncle SCREWges.

That's not the soul reason for it you imbecile, matter of fact it's not even a large reason for it, lots of the time it's due to, yes, immigration; the populace becomes disproportionate to the job market, therefore prostitution is a last resort. If you don't believe me, look up Jack the Ripper on Wikipedia, note how his targets were primarily hookers.

That is one perspective. You have to ask, why are they in that situation first. Then, you have to wonder why they are in that situation to begin with, and if your answer to the first question doesn't involve their situation being a result to their own faults, then you have to then question, what the fuck happened to our world?

People end up in shitty circumstances because morality interferes with practicality, look up the crusades if you don't believe me.

At 5/6/12 01:30 AM, phsychopath wrote:

I'm not going to lie. What is that?

Bathtub gin is basically illegally made alcohol mixed in a household bathtub, it was common during the great depression.

Interesting. Can you now tell me how this helps your argument about prostitution?

That is because you aren't taking every psychological, moral, ethical, etc. point of view into consideration. All you guys have is > pleasure good
>girl and guy have sex good
> girl and guy need betta enviroment
> they have der own lives. man and woman need peace 4 sex
> fuck morales guy
> life is da shyt

How's that? Explain.

QWERTYUIOP

This argument essentially contradicts itself; you're blasting me for not taking every psychological viewpoint into consideration, yet simultaneously you outright disregard opposing opinions by oversimplifying our arguments; a straw-man argument, if you will. You don't explain why we're wrong, you just continue to say we're wrong just because, the very same thing you're accusing us of.

The only thing I see bad about what I said, is when I said QWERTYUIOP. I have no disregarded, but disagreed with your conjectures that you don't seem to see you are inflating. Your conjecture isn't a potato in a science experiment. You can stop sticking straws in it. You are accusing me of what you accuse me of accusing you for.

They fit fine. If you think that legal activity would discourage or block criminals, than explain to me why there are people out there who are able to sneak into a house and steal a little girl from multiple homes.

Fuck, you are so stupid and again, picking cherries. Notice how I already said that homes are not intrinsically dangerous and are in fact designed to be the opposite where as narcotics are and therefore demands active regulation where as homes do not, notice how in this argument you haven't acknowledged that. Correlation does not imply causation.

So you do not see that sneaking into the room of a little girl won't involve possibilities of someone running into the room while catching you in the act, someone seeing you sneaking into the window, the girl saying ''There is a man outside my window!'' at the top of her lungs. Can you really try to use rationality to argue the adrenaline and irrationality that goes inside a man's head during a situation like this? You aren't seeing the correlation, because you lack broader perspective of the human individual.

You aren't seeing the correlation. You argued that if prostitution was legalized, the bad guys wouldn't try anything. When you can't be any more wrong, and my little girl in the house example tramples that.

I love how you fail to explain how children directly correlate with prostitution. Oh you haven't even brought up child trafficking, you didn't connect the two, you just assumed that the two directly function with one another. Child abduction =/= prostitution.

Because, I'm not correlating little girls and prostitution. I am correlating a man sneaking into a little girl's room of a random house, and your argument that stated that bad guys wouldn't try to continue exploiting, because the law would be a part of it.

Can't put 2 and 2 together.

Apparently you can't either; notice how you never illustrate that for us how they directly correlate.

Finally, you said apparently. That is progress.

No. They simply lack substance. You are defending everything from within that narrow-minded head of yours.

Define substance as being anything other than subjective opinion that fits into this context.

Substance - arguing with lack of udnerstanding of many situations that present themselves.

Perhaps, you took it the wrong way. I spoke my mind on the matter, and it is very true in my eyes. I'm simple taking any argument people wish to make though.

No, no, that's exactly how you wrote it.

What? No, no. You are misunderstanding. Truth is in the eye of the beholder. I'm using reason to argue your argument.

*Says phsychopath while standing in front of a mirror*

What a clever rebuttal, especially coming from a person who denies the similarities between prostitution, eating meat and narcotics while simultaneously citing similarities between prostitution and home invasions, two completely different things the latter of which is a much more rare occurrence. In other words, it's moronic.

The turkey guy didn't say anything about eating meat and narcotics. He said eating meat and the urges we have for sex.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know you were the grammar-nazi.

Oh, sorry. Didn't know that the structure of language as an importance was not apparent to you. Fucktard.

I didn't know that it really mattered that much to you. Since your arguments were as bad as that constructed sentence.

Then we better start a new argument that involves more convenience.

No, the point I meant to convey there was that you needed to specify what you were talking about.

I did. : )

That one guy who you were speaking on the behalf for, who made the figurative comparison between hunger and... Herp.

Get this straight sunshine, what I did was not speaking on his behalf, that would imply that I further elaborated on an opinion he never expressed, said he spoke when he didn't; I proposed a different context from the one you took to what he said as a means to clarify what he meant to convey, I never specified a later opinion he didn't already express.

You were speaking for him, and telling me that you know what he was saying, when you do not truly know. Let the man speak, because he was the one who said what he said, and he is the only one who knows 100% what he was implying.

me no dumbass - u dum ass

That's why I had to instruct you on how to properly use quotations in a reply. Funny, I figured that the stupid were taught by the smart, not the other way around. That would also be the reason why I have to correct your grammar & spelling too. Real intelligent deduction.

Actually, that only happened, because you are like two hormonal teenagers. You replied to my responses quickly, and it was too late for me to compensate for all of the lack of quotes I've made.

No. It is because we have a greater concern over the world, because we actually have the ability to not only observe, but apply biased action.

How does that disparage my argument? It actually supports it in a weird way, you just said that we gave more of a shit than other species, but that doesn't disprove that ethics are of our design.

No, no. We do have a greater concern by default. You simply just do not show it, by not elucidating your argument.

That is a foolish thought. [Good thing you'll know what I'm referring to this time]

Okay, why is it foolish?

Because, you aren't looking at the whole picture?

I did say I could be wrong about what the guy meant, didn't I? Stop straw-manning. You make sexists look bad.

No, you didn't. And where the fuck is this sexism shit coming from all the sudden? And how did sexists necessarily have a good image to begin with? For a person who constantly complains about irrelevant arguments, you're no better.

Get it? straw-manning? Herp derp.

No. The chemicals are like the infrastructure, it is the abstract motion of essence and feeling that follows afterwards.

Thoughts cannot exist without a brain, this is factual & undeniable, therefore emotions directly correlate with the human body. If they don't then explain why rape causes psychological trauma and not just physical trauma?

Because a physical action was followed by psychological influence.

At 5/6/12 01:40 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 12:58 AM, ILove2Grok wrote: How about I point out the relevant part? Shall we?

Oh finally, every opposing argument has been sooo irrelevant that I thought there existed no such thing as an actual relevant argument for a second there.

Hardy har har?

You tell me that I have no right to use my alleged guise of morality to prevent people from doing what they wish to do.

But you certainly have the right to try... and fail.

Hardy har?

When what they do is weak-minded, irrational, hopeless, insipid.

Kinda like you.

Har har har?

Who cares if it is consensual.

Um, everybody. Little thing called "rape" is something most everybody hates.

You misunderstood what I meant. I'm saying that the consenual movement does not validate the argument.

It is the fact that people are desperate enough to engage in voided interactions like that.

Literally any course of action you partake in life can be viewed as vapid, that doesn't make it true, mainly on the grounds that opinion has no factual value, therefore morals and the concept of right and wrong are indeed insipid concepts that ultimately have no merit in a universe bound by rules and facts, thus our eventual extinction, and with our extinction does our moral fiber enter oblivion; we're the only species on the planet that has any kind of "moral fiber", that is a caring and concept over ethics.

That is a very dull-minded perspective. There is an underlying catch to the human mind, and you aren't able to fathom that simple complex.

If people are this desperate, you do not encourage it, you wonder why the fuck people have gone this far.

Or you can do the rational and considerate thing and just not care what people do to themselves.

That is not rational or considerate. That is encouraging problems that should be confronted.

At 5/6/12 01:48 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 01:35 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: I never said they weren't different. They are two different situations. And if you wish to know, I do not agree with the practices. They are only doing this, because of the way the world was built on capitalism and false distinctions of value. Thus saying, girls are out there being indecent, because our world is filled with uncle SCREWges.

That's not the soul reason for it you imbecile, matter of fact it's not even a large reason for it, lots of the time it's due to, yes, immigration; the populace becomes disproportionate to the job market, therefore prostitution is a last resort. If you don't believe me, look up Jack the Ripper on Wikipedia, note how his targets were primarily hookers.

:their situation being a result to their own faults, then you have to then question, what the fuck happened to our world?

People end up in shitty circumstances because morality interferes with practicality, look up the crusades if you don't believe me.

Of course not. I'm citing the few reasons. There are alot of factors that play their roles, and each individual experiences an onset of these factors differently.

If you roll two boulders down the same hill, they will pick up different things.

At 5/6/12 01:42 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What sources did, say... MLKj use?

Martin Luther King Junior? He was an activist for equal rights, not a clairvoyant; his objective was to change the outcome, not predict it.

I love how you disparage every argument as being irrelevant while simultaneously using irrelevant arguments. What Mothballs was doing was making a point by means of comparison, you however were predicting the outcome without showing evidence that supported that outcome; you are not at all like Martin Luther King Junior.

What small details? I see you trying to put two different situations in the same basket.

You said "You do not understand that the details do not correlate." and I rebuked that claim by saying that the small details constitute the big picture, it's relevant to what you said, for a person who doesn't like it when other people supposedly use a straw-man argument, you do it yourself entirely way too often.

You are doing the same thing, and ''no u'' derives from you and my ''no u'' derives from your head too.

Wow you're fucking stupid. I'm not even going to explain why.

*Looks at all of the conspiracy theorists using walls of resources*

And like a conspiracy theorist, you deduct any evidence I provide you with that disparages your argument is thereby part of the conspiracy. The pot is calling the kettle black

What do you mean "assume"? And why is the word "provide" in brackets? Furthermore, I don't need to justify your argument tactics, I'm not on your side, that's something you're supposed to do.

You only 'think' I am doing what you accuse me of doing.

This same flawed logic could be applied to you, so you realize it has no merit, yes?

Stop saying it. Provide an argument.

I have and you've disparaged them all as being irrelevant because you couldn't come up with an actual argument tactic as a response. "That's irrelevant" is your one and only come back.

Something you have told me to do this entire time, and I have.

No you haven't.

You don't see my argument, because you aren't agreeing with it.

So the only way I can actually confirm the legitimacy of your argument is by blindly following it? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. What was that about critical deduction? Oh yeah, it doesn't apply when it doesn't work to your benefit.

It is all an abstract web of thought patterns that correlate with the inner works of your subconscious. : )

If it's abstract then that means it's intangible, which means that thoughts and physical nervous systems could not interact. Henceforth, thoughts are not abstract.

At 5/6/12 01:59 AM, GodlessDeity wrote: That is a very dull-minded perspective. There is an underlying catch to the human mind, and you aren't able to fathom that simple complex.

And yet you can't explain it; if you can't explain it then that means that you don't know either.

That is not rational or considerate. That is encouraging problems that should be confronted.

Exactly, so the conclusion is that we need to legalize prostitution and regulate it so as to lower the crime rate aimed at it.

At 5/6/12 02:13 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 01:42 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: What sources did, say... MLKj use?

Martin Luther King Junior? He was an activist for equal rights, not a clairvoyant; his objective was to change the outcome, not predict it.

Erm.. Not trying to predict, trying to tell you what is currently accessible.

I love how you disparage every argument as being irrelevant while simultaneously using irrelevant arguments. What Mothballs was doing was making a point by means of comparison, you however were predicting the outcome without showing evidence that supported that outcome; you are not at all like Martin Luther King Junior.

I love how you cherry pick and assume I am wrong from the get go. When MLKj was assuming of the future by implication with every word. People did not know what would happen if racism was confronted, if white and blacks were together. They did not have the hindsight we have now. It is the same situation. I see something wrong with the encouragement of said situation, I'm telling you what I wholeheartedly think.

What small details? I see you trying to put two different situations in the same basket.

You said "You do not understand that the details do not correlate." and I rebuked that claim by saying that the small details constitute the big picture, it's relevant to what you said, for a person who doesn't like it when other people supposedly use a straw-man argument, you do it yourself entirely way too often.

No. You only assume your tiny dick of an argument was helping. Stop inflating yourself.

You are doing the same thing, and ''no u'' derives from you and my ''no u'' derives from your head too.

Wow you're fucking stupid. I'm not even going to explain why.

Because you already know that I'm not stupid, and nor are you. You are just ignorant. :/

*Looks at all of the conspiracy theorists using walls of resources*

And like a conspiracy theorist, you deduct any evidence I provide you with that disparages your argument is thereby part of the conspiracy. The pot is calling the kettle black

Wrong. You are actually the one doing this. Instead of conspiring though, you say that I am dumb and I am wrong without justification.

What do you mean "assume"? And why is the word "provide" in brackets? Furthermore, I don't need to justify your argument tactics, I'm not on your side, that's something you're supposed to do.

You only 'think' I am doing what you accuse me of doing.

This same flawed logic could be applied to you, so you realize it has no merit, yes?

You are the one who said clear as day that I was picking cherries.

Stop saying it. Provide an argument.

I have and you've disparaged them all as being irrelevant because you couldn't come up with an actual argument tactic as a response. "That's irrelevant" is your one and only come back.

Nice straw-man there. What is his name? I said it was irrelevant, because it was irrelevant.

Something you have told me to do this entire time, and I have.

No you haven't.

Don't say it. Provide an argument! Should I make a theme song for this, so you can remember?

Don't say it.

Provide an argument.

Don't pray it.

Provide an argument.

You don't see my argument, because you aren't agreeing with it.

So the only way I can actually confirm the legitimacy of your argument is by blindly following it? Yeah, sure, that makes sense. What was that about critical deduction? Oh yeah, it doesn't apply when it doesn't work to your benefit.

No. You simply can not take it into consideration or provide any real argument. You have been accusing me of alot of things.

It is all an abstract web of thought patterns that correlate with the inner works of your subconscious. : )

If it's abstract then that means it's intangible, which means that thoughts and physical nervous systems could not interact. Henceforth, thoughts are not abstract.

No. It means that there are a multitude of elements co-existing.

At 5/6/12 02:17 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 01:59 AM, GodlessDeity wrote: That is a very dull-minded perspective. There is an underlying catch to the human mind, and you aren't able to fathom that simple complex.

And yet you can't explain it; if you can't explain it then that means that you don't know either.

There are alot of things we can't explain, but we do our best to understand it with the best of our comprehensive ability. I understand enough to tell you that your flat perception of a human being is wrong.

That is not rational or considerate. That is encouraging problems that should be confronted.

Exactly, so the conclusion is that we need to legalize prostitution and regulate it so as to lower the crime rate aimed at it.

Not exactly. Prostitution as a whole should be done for. People are better than this, and the act is one cess pool of degeneration. Humans are not commodities. We have the advanced abilities to choose much wiser roads.

At 5/6/12 01:56 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Interesting. Can you now tell me how this helps your argument about prostitution?

You're such an idiot. Illegalizing something doesn't stop it, look up the great depression and the banning of alcohol; the mafia thrived on the fact that alcohol was illegal because they had a monopoly over the market. Get it now?

So you do not see that sneaking into the room of a little girl won't involve possibilities of someone running into the room while catching you in the act, someone seeing you sneaking into the window, the girl saying ''There is a man outside my window!'' at the top of her lungs. Can you really try to use rationality to argue the adrenaline and irrationality that goes inside a man's head during a situation like this? You aren't seeing the correlation, because you lack broader perspective of the human individual.

How can you necessarily predict that this will lead to violence? In your hypothetical example, he's still in the window, his most likely course of action is to jump back out and flee.

Because, I'm not correlating little girls and prostitution. I am correlating a man sneaking into a little girl's room of a random house, and your argument that stated that bad guys wouldn't try to continue exploiting, because the law would be a part of it.

Look who's putting words in who's mouth now; what I said was that prostitution would be regulated in the same fashion as alcohol and tobacco, homes are not regulated in the same manner because they're not intrinsically dangerous. Comparing prostitution and home invasions together is still extraordinarily ludicrous in either context, because that's not the comparison I made to begin with you benign imbecile.

Substance - arguing with lack of udnerstanding of many situations that present themselves.

Ha, that's not a real definition of the word and by the way you formatted that definition, lacking substance would be a good thing because, according to you, to have substance is to lack an understanding of the argument meaning that you've been admitting this whole time that I have a greater understanding over than you.

Here's a set of real definitions for the word.

#1: Physical matter; material.
#2: The essential part of anything; the most vital part.
#3: Considerable wealth or resources.
#4: Drugs (illegal narcotics)

What? No, no. You are misunderstanding. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Kinda like what you did with Mothballs and his meat eating analogy? Oh no wait, that's not a possibility because "that's irrelevant".

I'm using reason to argue your argument.

If by reason you mean "that's irrelevant".

*Says phsychopath while standing in front of a mirror*

What a clever rebuttal, especially coming from a person who denies the similarities between prostitution, eating meat and narcotics while simultaneously citing similarities between prostitution and home invasions, two completely different things the latter of which is a much more rare occurrence. In other words, it's moronic.

The turkey guy didn't say anything about eating meat and narcotics. He said eating meat and the urges we have for sex.

Oh boy, you took what I said out of context again; I wasn't correcting you on what he said, I was stating that both Mothball's and my arguments were relative comparisons to prostitution because they shared similarities and you couldn't see that, yet simultaneously you blasted me for not being able to see the none-existent similarities between prostitution and home invasions. You would later explain that, because you took another thing I said out of context, the similarities were apparent to the argument because both homes and prostitution were legal, where as what I actually said was that prostitution would be regulated in the same manner as alcohol and tobacco, were as homes are not regulated in the same manner therefore your point is moot. Your home invasion / child abduction VS. prostitution comparison is irrelevant because you misunderstood the argument you based it off of.

You were speaking for him, and telling me that you know what he was saying, when you do not truly know. Let the man speak, because he was the one who said what he said, and he is the only one who knows 100% what he was implying.

Very well then, I highly doubt that mothballs will return to give confirmation but for now, I'll permit it's rest.

Actually, that only happened, because you are like two hormonal teenagers. You replied to my responses quickly, and it was too late for me to compensate for all of the lack of quotes I've made.

I'm late in responding to lots and lots of your responses; that's because I take the time to flesh them out.

Because, you aren't looking at the whole picture?

Sure, whatever.

Get it? straw-manning? Herp derp.

But you do that all the time; it's not exclusive to me.

Because a physical action was followed by psychological influence.

And the psychological influence was caused by a physical event.

At 5/6/12 02:55 AM, phsychopath wrote: You're such an idiot. Illegalizing something doesn't stop it, look up the great depression and the banning of alcohol; the mafia thrived on the fact that alcohol was illegal because they had a monopoly over the market.

That's because prior to prohibition, alcohol was ubiquitous in society. Most everyone drank alcohol. And drinking in moderation wasn't a big problem. But not everyone goes to a hooker for pleasure, and it's not a product for consumption either. Legalizing this will not stop the awful parts of this profession, only help to hide them more effectively. Regulating it is costly and will probably be a mess. It's easy to imagine politicians making a mess of things.

And while legal whore houses might have cleaner rooms and women, they will be very expensive. The illegal whore houses, which will still exist regardless of whether it's legalized or not, will still have trafficked women, who will mostly likely be much younger, that are sold for cheaper prices. Plus, these houses get the benefit of legalization by proxy, even if they don't register or get a license.

This is also not at all like prohibition either. Nobody can stop two consenting adults from having sex. Nobody can stop them from exchanging any type of currency. As if the authorities can do anything about either of those things.

At 5/5/12 07:45 PM, GodlessDeity wrote:

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

At 5/5/12 07:19 PM, GodlessDeity wrote:

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.

OP can't be serious. I'm so sick of all of OP's posts shwere all he does is play god and talk down upon Man as if we are something that we are not.

Did he just say humans aren't animals.

At 5/6/12 12:57 AM, Phantox wrote:

At 5/6/12 12:55 AM, ILove2Grok wrote:
Discouraging what shouldn't be encouraged is irrelevant to people's waste of free will.

Where do you get your morals from?

asdghkf

At 5/6/12 09:40 AM, Benji wrote: How am I supposed to teach my son to be a man without getting him a prostitute when he turns 8?

...how was I supposed to have a son without getting a prostitute and poking the condom?

By teaching your son to not be a pussy, and show him how talk to girls with high self-esteem.

At 5/6/12 07:10 AM, MOSFET wrote: That's because prior to prohibition, alcohol was ubiquitous in society. Most everyone drank alcohol. And drinking in moderation wasn't a big problem.

But not everyone goes to a hooker for pleasure, and it's not a product for consumption either.

Not everyone drinks alcohol either. What's your point?

Legalizing this will not stop the awful parts of this profession, only help to hide them more effectively.

Explain why.

Regulating it is costly and will probably be a mess.

Making it legal will stimulate the economy and give a safer structure to the profession and deprive crime lords of an industry to exploit.

It's easy to imagine politicians making a mess of things.

Depends on the politicians.

And while legal whore houses might have cleaner rooms and women, they will be very expensive.

Why will they be expensive? Specifics reinforce your points.

The illegal whore houses, which will still exist regardless of whether it's legalized or not, will still have trafficked women, who will mostly likely be much younger, that are sold for cheaper prices.

How many times do I have to bring this up before someone acknowledges it? Every industry has an illegal counterpart; the film industry has piracy, the pharmacy industry has drug dealing, the art industry has plagiarism, the banking industry has identity fraud and embezzlement, the investment industry has the Ponzi scheme, the computer industry has viruses and hackers and so on and so forth. These professions are all legal and regulated, but not uncheatable. Do they continue to remain legal? Yes.

The point of legalizing something and regulating it isn't to block crime lords from exploiting it, it's to minimize their profit to make the profession, on illegal terms, less and less desirable. Think about it, how many people do you know that actually make money from pirating movies? I bet the number's really low. The reason why is because since it's already in legal circulation, there's no point in resorting to purchasing a pirated movie, especially since they're lower quality. Furthermore, the less amount of people that are doing it, the more obvious and obtainable the people who are doing it are because it's less convoluted.

Plus, these houses get the benefit of legalization by proxy,

No they don't, just because you own a restaurant doesn't mean that it doesn't have to pass a health inspection.

even if they don't register or get a license.

Then by all means they're doing it illegally.

This is also not at all like prohibition either. Nobody can stop two consenting adults from having sex. Nobody can stop them from exchanging any type of currency. As if the authorities can do anything about either of those things.

Really? You've never heard about a "bust" operation before?

At 5/6/12 06:45 PM, phsychopath wrote: An annoying sentence by sentence rebuttal, that if phsychopath just read a few more sentences he would see an attempt at an explanation has been made, and in the end looked like an unthoughtful jerk.

Making it legal will not make it safer for women, all it does is legitimizes the industry. If you do legalize and regulate, someone playing by the rules would have to pay the workers fair wages, health insurance, and safe/clean working conditions. This cost is past onto the consumers, making it expensive for them. No doubt the women working in a legal house will be fine, and that's great. However, that doesn't help with human trafficking, or the exploitation of women. It won't deprive illegal houses of an industry.

Illegal houses will still be illegal, and they'll still operate as before. Legalizing prostitution would give them air of legitimacy while not being legitimate at all. It also allows the notion that it's ok for women to be sold for sex. They would still be illegal, but jons will still want their services; Younger girls, better control of their anonymity, or cheaper prices than the local legal house. Way more flexible business model than a legal, government backed, whore house.

Regulating it would also be an extra cost to the tax payer, and frankly it's not an industry that has public support. Nor do I want it to have public support. I still see it as the exploitation of women, often exploiting them for being poor and needing money. It would also make it government backed business. While it could be nice for awhile if regulations are done right, as we see in today's politics, it's easy for politicians to loosen regulations in the name of increasing economic growth and then system goes to shit.

And yes, I've heard and seen a "bust" operation. Usually the poor girl has been forced to find clients and pass the payment to her pimp. If caught, depending on the laws in the area, she's often given a choice, go to prison, or rat out her pimp. Often they get the help they need to be cared for. Were she better educated, and if she were her own business woman, she could probably be more discrete in public and avoid getting busted. Increasingly, more localities are decriminalizing prostitution for prostitutes, which I do support, but prostitution should still illegal so authorities can go after jons and pimps.

Here's a person with more expertise on it. I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/00010 7

At 5/6/12 08:53 PM, MOSFET wrote:

At 5/6/12 06:45 PM, phsychopath wrote: An annoying sentence by sentence rebuttal, that if phsychopath just read a few more sentences he would see an attempt at an explanation has been made, and in the end looked like an unthoughtful jerk.

If it's sentence by sentence, then by all means, how is it that I avoided reading sentences when I apparently replied to all of them individually?

Making it legal will not make it safer for women, all it does is legitimizes the industry. If you do legalize and regulate, someone playing by the rules would have to pay the workers fair wages, health insurance, and safe/clean working conditions. This cost is past onto the consumers, making it expensive for them.

Taxpayer money. Ever heard of it?

No doubt the women working in a legal house will be fine, and that's great. However, that doesn't help with human trafficking, or the exploitation of women. It won't deprive illegal houses of an industry.

They'll be more exposed and less desirable because they're unsafe, illegal and after the fact, a minority.

Illegal houses will still be illegal,

No derp.

and they'll still operate as before.

Legalizing prostitution would give them air of legitimacy while not being legitimate at all.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what regulation is.

It also allows the notion that it's ok for women to be sold for sex.

No, it allows the notion that consenting adults can pay for sex, dipshit.

They would still be illegal, but jons will still want their services;

So they resort to the legal counterpart of the industry.

Younger girls, better control of their anonymity,

You've yet to explain specifically how this will give them better anonymity, so far this reply is nothing more than a regurgitation of what you've already said; you haven't elaborated at all.

or cheaper prices than the local legal house. Way more flexible business model than a legal, government backed, whore house.

This part of your argument is the only one that makes legitimate sense, but even so, how many people do you suppose will resort to something that is not only illegal, has a legal counterpart, but also has less outlets of than before?

Regulating it would also be an extra cost to the tax payer,

But you just said that it would all be costly to the john, so no, not according to your "statistics".

and frankly it's not an industry that has public support. Nor do I want it to have public support. I still see it as the exploitation of women,

You do realize that there exists such a thing as a male prostitute right? They're called gigolos.

often exploiting them for being poor and needing money.

Go on the website called Backpage and see all the people who volunteer for prostitution. Additionally, would you prefer a person not have the option of prostitution as a means of escaping poverty under clean and legally protected circumstances, but rather under the dangerous ones involving serial killers looking for easy prey?

It would also make it government backed business. While it could be nice for awhile if regulations are done right, as we see in today's politics, it's easy for politicians to loosen regulations in the name of increasing economic growth and then system goes to shit.

Yes because the regulation of tobacco and alcohol has totally become lackluster over the years.

And yes, I've heard and seen a "bust" operation. Usually the poor girl has been forced to find clients and pass the payment to her pimp.

This is assuming that the call girl isn't her own pimp, but go on.

If caught, depending on the laws in the area, she's often given a choice, go to prison, or rat out her pimp.

If said pimp even exists. Stop being a pretentious fucktard and stop assuming that all hookers have pimps.

Often they get the help they need to be cared for.

Which is why it needs to be legalized and regulated. Condemning someone for trying to support themselves merely on the grounds of the profession itself, essentially a victimless crime, is not the way to get them away from prostitution.

Were she better educated, and if she were her own business woman, she could probably be more discrete in public and avoid getting busted.

Yeah that's not how busts work you little moron. A bust operation is where the cops schedule an appointment with the call girl on the pretense that they're actual costumers. They record the exchange of money and the sexual acts to prove in court that she's a prostitute. It's basically entrapment.

Simultaneously, there are plenty of hookers who operate on their own in just the same way you specified.

Increasingly, more localities are decriminalizing prostitution for prostitutes, which I do support, but prostitution should still illegal so authorities can go after jons and pimps.

Yeah here's the thing, if prostitution were legalized and regulated as a government backed business, pimps would cease to exist because their primary reason to exist is for the purpose of acting as manager for said prostitute. Additionally, what's wrong with the johns exactly? Oh and by the way, it's spelled "johns" not "jons".

Here's a person with more expertise on it. I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/00010 7

By all means that should mean that you've learned your expertise from him and therefore should be able to support your own argument. This isn't citing a source that proves a point, you're only detouring me to someone else's argument which you should be making yourself. The fact that you don't know everything he has to say on the subject and yet your argument simultaneously hinges on it proves you don't truly know what you're talking about.

prostitution will never be legal in the US.
MARK my fucking words.

anyway, whats wrong with using escorts?
they charge a lil more but thats the american way!
the whore will earn more and consume more, so normal jobs (where you work) will pay higher.
everybody wins.

Meh. Legalising prostitution will only drop the interest and the average hooker price because number of hoes will rise so will the competition and the demand will too but over time demand will drop because it will no longer appeal to people because it will be legal you know something has a charm when you make it illegal but i support it because such act will also reduce average intelligance of the public thus making them easier to control just like little sheep who know nothing better than serving their country/lord/self proclaimed dictator thus also reducing the price on humans and well if you don't abuse the humanity what else are you going to do with them also don't they look cute with their confused faces when you mention tell them something isn't right because many people say so? But i agree they shouldn't waste their time with legalising prostitution they should instead legalise human experiments on homeless and hookers imo

The Constitution states that acts of liberty aren't to be legislated by Congress. Prostitution is an act of liberty, and so it shouldn't be legislated against, and it therefore can't be illegal.

At 5/6/12 02:55 AM, phsychopath wrote:

At 5/6/12 01:56 AM, ILoveToGrok wrote: Interesting. Can you now tell me how this helps your argument about prostitution?

You're such an idiot. Illegalizing something doesn't stop it, look up the great depression and the banning of alcohol; the mafia thrived on the fact that alcohol was illegal because they had a monopoly over the market. Get it now?

Never said that it will stop cold turkey. I'm telling you, that people need a better reason to open this Pandora's box. You are legitimizing it in hopes for changes that will not be made. Illegal activity always works independent from legal activities.

So you do not see that sneaking into the room of a little girl won't involve possibilities of someone running into the room while catching you in the act, someone seeing you sneaking into the window, the girl saying ''There is a man outside my window!'' at the top of her lungs. Can you really try to use rationality to argue the adrenaline and irrationality that goes inside a man's head during a situation like this? You aren't seeing the correlation, because you lack broader perspective of the human individual.

How can you necessarily predict that this will lead to violence? In your hypothetical example, he's still in the window, his most likely course of action is to jump back out and flee.

People will do anything they can to get what they want. People plan. People watch for days in and days out. Then they make their move and prey like no other!

Because, I'm not correlating little girls and prostitution. I am correlating a man sneaking into a little girl's room of a random house, and your argument that stated that bad guys wouldn't try to continue exploiting, because the law would be a part of it.

Look who's putting words in who's mouth now; what I said was that prostitution would be regulated in the same fashion as alcohol and tobacco, homes are not regulated in the same manner because they're not intrinsically dangerous. Comparing prostitution and home invasions together is still extraordinarily ludicrous in either context, because that's not the comparison I made to begin with you benign imbecile.

No. This is completely different. Are you seriously trying to compare two entirely different situations? Who cares if they share a small comparison in your biased head. Alcohol and tobacco aren't EVEN HUMAN!

Substance - arguing with lack of udnerstanding of many situations that present themselves.

Ha, that's not a real definition of the word and by the way you formatted that definition, lacking substance would be a good thing because, according to you, to have substance is to lack an understanding of the argument meaning that you've been admitting this whole time that I have a greater understanding over than you.

I did not. It is expressive terminology. If I were to say that someone was 'spineless' would it be they have no ltieral spine, or am I calling them a coward; or saying that they have no support?

Here's a set of real definitions for the word.

#1: Physical matter; material.
#2: The essential part of anything; the most vital part.
#3: Considerable wealth or resources.
#4: Drugs (illegal narcotics)

What? No, no. You are misunderstanding. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

Kinda like what you did with Mothballs and his meat eating analogy? Oh no wait, that's not a possibility because "that's irrelevant".

It is irrelevant, more irrelevant than your alcohol and prostitution comparison you keep trying to shove, because this example comes from your inclination to speak ont he behalf of somebody's elses word!

I'm using reason to argue your argument.

If by reason you mean "that's irrelevant".

No. There is plenty of reason! *throws confetti*

*Says phsychopath while standing in front of a mirror*

What a clever rebuttal, especially coming from a person who denies the similarities between prostitution, eating meat and narcotics while simultaneously citing similarities between prostitution and home invasions, two completely different things the latter of which is a much more rare occurrence. In other words, it's moronic.

Once again. It is not the similarity between prostitution and home invasions... It is what you SAID and home invasions. You SAID ''People will be blocked when law is involved.'' when that is NOT true.

The turkey guy didn't say anything about eating meat and narcotics. He said eating meat and the urges we have for sex.

Oh boy, you took what I said out of context again; I wasn't correcting you on what he said, I was stating that both Mothball's and my arguments were relative comparisons to prostitution because they shared similarities and you couldn't see that, yet simultaneously you blasted me for not being able to see the none-existent similarities between prostitution and home invasions. You would later explain that, because you took another thing I said out of context, the similarities were apparent to the argument because both homes and prostitution were legal, where as what I actually said was that prostitution would be regulated in the same manner as alcohol and tobacco, were as homes are not regulated in the same manner therefore your point is moot. Your home invasion / child abduction VS. prostitution comparison is irrelevant because you misunderstood the argument you based it off of.

Says the cherry picker; the out-of-contextinator; the accuser; the monkey that goes ''Oohhh Oo Ahhh AhhhhhHH!!'' when it doesn't get its WAY! Provided the whole ''You are stupid!'' ''You are retarded!'' etc, etc.

You were speaking for him, and telling me that you know what he was saying, when you do not truly know. Let the man speak, because he was the one who said what he said, and he is the only one who knows 100% what he was implying.

Very well then, I highly doubt that mothballs will return to give confirmation but for now, I'll permit it's rest.

Finally. A noble response from yours. : )

Actually, that only happened, because you are like two hormonal teenagers. You replied to my responses quickly, and it was too late for me to compensate for all of the lack of quotes I've made.

I'm late in responding to lots and lots of your responses; that's because I take the time to flesh them out.

Fair enough.

Because, you aren't looking at the whole picture?

Sure, whatever.

You aren't... And you are inflating a pseudo-picture.

Get it? straw-manning? Herp derp.

But you do that all the time; it's not exclusive to me.

Straw-MANing! Do you see the sexist joke now? Herpy.

Because a physical action was followed by psychological influence.

And the psychological influence was caused by a physical event.

The physical event is no where near as significant as the psychological influence!