• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Live Sex Shows Legal in Oregon

Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Who could possibly be against live sex shows? Madness I tell ya! Madness! Silly puritanical prudes.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right on.

And it would be depriving our sex-God Cnredd of a potential career.
 
Navy Pride said:
Naughty Nurse said:
Navy Pride said:
OK why then in this country if a person murders a woman who is pregnant he is charged with a double murder?:confused:
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on your laws, but it seems that some of your fellow Americans have done so quite adequately.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Absolutely right on.

And it would be depriving our sex-God Cnredd of a potential career.
Click to expand...

cnpink?...:2wave:
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Absolutely right on.

And it would be depriving our sex-God Cnredd of a potential career.
Click to expand...

Can you make a living making 30 second spots?
 
Anybody watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight? Well, he said that live sex shows in New York have caused property values to go down and as soon as they banned then, propety values sky rocket. If O'Reilly is correct than certainly Live Sex Shows harm a community more than help it.
 
Anybody watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight? Well, he said that live sex shows in New York have caused property values to go down and as soon as they banned then, propety values sky rocket. If O'Reilly is correct than certainly Live Sex Shows harm a community more than help it.
Click to expand...

Devaluation of property is hardly a legitimate reason to disallow something. If a black guy moved into a town of whites, the property values might go down (and they have in the past). Does that mean he ought be banned from it?

Many things can devalue property if it "offends" people who might be potential buyers.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Devaluation of property is hardly a legitimate reason to disallow something. If a black guy moved into a town of whites, the property values might go down (and they have in the past). Does that mean he ought be banned from it?
That is an utterly different concept.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
No, it's not. The analogy fits because it is perfect in what I am comparing. The analogy does not have to fit in EVERY conceivable area--only the area in which I am comparing. Why?

1. Something is being disallowed for one reason, according to you. That reason is that it causes the property value to decrease.

2. Similarily, if we extend that logic, any time something decreases the property value of neighbors, it ought to be banned. There is no extra qualifier to limit the logic.

Therefore, if property values going down warrents something to be banned, if mexican families move into your town, you ought to ban them. THere's nothing wrong with my analysis at all. O'Reily is a moron.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
No, it's not. The analogy fits because it is perfect in what I am comparing. The analogy does not have to fit in EVERY conceivable area--only the area in which I am comparing. Why?

1. Something is being disallowed for one reason, according to you. That reason is that it causes the property value to decrease.

2. Similarily, if we extend that logic, any time something decreases the property value of neighbors, it ought to be banned. There is no extra qualifier to limit the logic.

Therefore, if property values going down warrents something to be banned, if mexican families move into your town, you ought to ban them. THere's nothing wrong with my analysis at all. O'Reily is a moron.
Click to expand...

No, you can't compare people moving in to a neighborhood versus a piece of real estate close by that may or not have an impact on your home.

I didn't say that I would ban live sex shows based solely on property values. I meant that this is a piece of evidence that may show that live sex shows don't amount to the greater good of the community.
 
George_Washington said:
No, you can't compare people moving in to a neighborhood versus a piece of real estate close by that may or not have an impact on your home.

I didn't say that I would ban live sex shows based solely on property values. I meant that this is a piece of evidence that may show that live sex shows don't amount to the greater good of the community.
Click to expand...

Of course you can compare it if property value rates are the criteria. Mexicans and blacks and white trash frequently decrease property value. THey may or may not decrease it just like having a certain property next to you may or may not decrease it.

The only thing you mentioned were property values. Going by that information, one can easily make the logical extensions of your comments.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Of course you can compare it if property value rates are the criteria. Mexicans and blacks and white trash frequently decrease property value. THey may or may not decrease it just like having a certain property next to you may or may not decrease it.

The only thing you mentioned were property values. Going by that information, one can easily make the logical extensions of your comments.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it probably isn't enough to call for a ban on live sex shows. I just wanted to share it with the forum community and see what people thought.
 
On the mater of property values, the phenomenon of "white flight" (in America) is usually accompanied by the rationalization, “They bring down property values”. These fleeing whites’ perceptions about a new neighbor are not the real reason for the depression of values. It’s what they think they know about their existing neighbors, i.e., that they entertain that same circular rationalization. White fear of white panic. A rational mind must conclude that, if anything, frightened whites have long been devaluing black property. The ghetto is a European import.

In like manner, the kind of panic that Mr. O'Reilly is dedicated to spreading attempts to direct blame away from narrow minded frightened folks who, like our friend and colleague George_Washington, believe our ethics should be governed by law, even where it concerns consenting adults. They view The Law as a giver of permission and the dispenser of punishment, a cradle to grave nanny. We shouldn’t be surprised to find punishment/reward ethical reasoning in people who are accustomed to living their lives under the promise of eternal damnation/bliss.

If they had their way, all of ethics would be encoded into law. The resultant would be a society with ethical standards as loophole ridden as a legal system. Think of it folks, stay legal and go to Heaven! What they can’t seem to grasp is that the rest of us actually exercise our conscience in deciding such things. If you wish to preserve your property values, find a place to live where the norm is an ethics rooted in the Human Conscience, not eternal damnation.

btw--Bill O'Reilly is a White House Whore.
 
George_Washington said:
I watched The O'Reilly Factor tonight (for 10-10-2005) and he mentioned that live sex shows are legal in Oregon. It's the only state in the union where they are legal.

What do you guys think about this?

I think we should pass a national law banning live sex shows as to safeguard the moral foundation of this country.
Click to expand...

And when Prohibition was in effect, Moonshiners and organized crime were making money hand over fist.
If one does not like what another does as a business venture, one does not need to patronize it. National law to safeguard the moral foundation? Who decides what that is, exactly? By that reasoning, being gay would get you in jail, having an affair would at least get you arrested, and a child out of wedlock?? Death by stoning!!
As long as the 'club' is legal, it is bound by at least some of the laws of the state, which is a lot better than an illegal club, which would be dangerous on many, many levels.
As for property values, seedy clubs=bad environment, decently run clubs, like decent bars, restaurants, etc, wouldn't make much of an impact, if any and if, indeed, prospective buyers could even tell there was one nearby.
 
Is there really that much of a difference in the moral foundations between strip clubs, some of which come extremely close to the idea of live sex shows, and true live sex shows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom