• 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!

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution [W:232]

Don't need to explain because you are playing a game.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.

Your pretending that you later didn't know/understand, is, and was, a game you are playing.

Sorry, no; I'm not playing a game. You just can't back up what you say. :shrug:
 
What do you mean, decent standards? Who's standards?

You notice he ignored you completely?

tumbleweed-lebowski.jpg
 
Sorry, no; I'm not playing a game. You just can't back up what you say. :shrug:
Yes you were. It is more than obvious.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.

Your pretending that you later didn't know/understand, is, and was, a game you are playing.
 
You notice he ignored you completely?

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/ae/a5/4f41400e4baca9a411e266811715/tumbleweed-lebowski.jpg/img][/QUOTE]No I haven' ignored him. He is a new player and I am busy here at home.
I will prepare my answer and post when time permits.

But way to be wrong with your assumptions again.
:doh
 
Yes you were. It is more than obvious.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.

Your pretending that you later didn't know/understand, is, and was, a game you are playing.

I do, in fact, understand -- you call people dishonest who don't agree that the answer is obvious and in no need of spelling out.
 
No I haven' ignored him. He is a new player and I am busy here at home.
I will prepare my answer and post when time permits.

But way to be wrong with your assumptions again.
:doh

Considering he asked the same question as everyone else, and you say you've already answered it, and call people dishonest for saying you haven't . . . what's to "prepare"?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's focus on the topic only please and leave the personal comments aside. Thanks.
 
I have no idea why it is illegal to accept money for an activity it is perfectly legal to engage in for free.
 
Re: Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

and you say you've already answered it, and call people dishonest for saying you haven't . . . what's to "prepare"?
More dishonesty. Figures.
I have pointed out what was dishonest in what was said. Yes. I did that.

Would you like partial listing of your absurdly asinine, convoluted, and dishonest assumptions?



You have shown you know exactly what was being said, but falsely claim they are my standards, (just like the others), when they are not my standards.

And since you folks have shown you understand exactly what was being discussed, I am more than sure that this individual does too.



What do you mean, decent standards? Who's standards?
I do not believe for one moment that you are asking an honest question, as the information you request is already present.

Especially as others have shown they know exactly what is being said, but instead chose to wrongly say they were my standards, which they were not.


What is it you do not understand about decency?
"Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty."
It is common knowledge what it is. Which is apparent from peoples responses.
Maybe you didn't know, but I doubt it.


So what is it that you do not understand from that which came before?

And you, as well as others, keep ignoring that we are talking about what a Court in Canada did.
You keep ignoring that the standards being discussed are those that the Court changed.
You keep ignoring that those standards were codified into law and were not personal standards.
You keep ignoring that the removal of those standards is a further erosion.

Stop playing games.


Are we talking about what the Court in Canada did?
Of course we are.

Are we not discussing the standards that fall under the "prevailing standards of propriety or modesty" and were removed over safety concerns by the Canadian Court?
Of course we are.

Are we not discussing standards of "prevailing standards of propriety or modesty" which had been codified into law by the peoples representatives?
Of course we are.


Those standards against prostitution, which were enacted by the peoples representatives, being removed by a Court which previously upheld them as legal, is a further erosion of those standards, is it not?
Of course it is.

Matters not that you agree or disagree with there removal, nor does it matter if you agree or disagree with the actual standards to say they are being eroded.

Though the standards still exist outside of the law, removal from enforceable law is still an erosion of those standards.
 
No one -- I promise you, NO ONE -- is going to read this thread and see it even remotely in the way you describe.

Your OP provided none, zip, zero, nada "standards of decency" that the "court removed." None. At all. Neither have you. At all.

And you accuse people of being dishonest for saying so.

Your entire line of argument is "what I said is true, and I don't have to back it up, because you all KNOW it's true, and if you say it isn't, you're being dishonest." <--------- That is this thread in a nutshell. I defy anyone to read through it honestly and not agree. And anyone with half a brain knows how pathetic that is.

This was an EXTREMELY accurate thread summary.

Has a single person in the past 24 pages even remotely sided with him? All I've seen is his whining for pages and pages telling dozens of people they're all liars playing "games" and being dishonest, while simultaneously refusing to ever explain his point. I'm thinking of a new rule for myself that I won't get involved in the 1 man vs the world threads, because it's usually just some troll pushing his extremist views.
 
This was an EXTREMELY accurate thread summary.

Has a single person in the past 24 pages even remotely sided with him? All I've seen is his whining for pages and pages telling dozens of people they're all liars playing "games" and being dishonest, while simultaneously refusing to ever explain his point. I'm thinking of a new rule for myself that I won't get involved in the 1 man vs the world threads, because it's usually just some troll pushing his extremist views.
Wrong. And stop whining.
 
Wrong. And stop whining.

Did you just copy-paste the same rebuttal you've used this entire thread? Mad skills.

Here's a hint: If not a single person on this thread has agreed with you, you're probably wrong as ****.
 
Did you just copy-paste the same rebuttal you've used this entire thread? Mad skills.

Here's a hint: If not a single person on this thread has agreed with you, you're probably wrong as ****.
Here is a clue. We can see that they were dishonest in there assertions.
Just as you are.
Not once did I say I was for or against the ruling. Not once. And my opinion of whether I was or wasn't has no bearing on the observation made.
But people like you want to assume because you think you know something you don't.

My acknowledgement that it is a further erosion of the standards which were in place, is no different than a person noticing the sun is setting.
It was nothing more than a factual observation.

Saying the information wasn't there, when it is, is dishonesty.

And because bigoted idiots want to try an pigeonhole someone, they assert that which wasn't true. Again, just more dishonesty.
They make themselves to be nothing but liars.
 
Here is a clue. We can see that they were dishonest in there assertions.
Just as you are.
Not once did I say I was for or against the ruling. Not once. And my opinion of whether I was or wasn't has no bearing on the observation made.
But people like you want to assume because you think you know something you don't.

My acknowledgement that it is a further erosion of the standards which were in place, is no different than a person noticing the sun is setting.
It was nothing more than a factual observation.

Saying the information wasn't there, when it is, is dishonesty.

And because bigoted idiots want to try an pigeonhole someone, they assert that which wasn't true. Again, just more dishonesty.
They make themselves to be nothing but liars.

You do realize that to use the plural pronoun "we", you have to have more than one person on your side, right?
 
You do realize that to use the plural pronoun "we", you have to have more than one person on your side, right?

Still not answering to your false assertions. Figures.
 
Re: Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

You have shown you know exactly what was being said,

OK. Point to where I did this. Link. Quote.


but falsely claim they are my standards, (just like the others), when they are not my standards.

:shrug: Given that you haven't pointed to any objective source for these "standards," period, they are your standards, even if you refuse to say what they are.
 
Re: Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

"prevailing standards of propriety or modesty"

Define that for me. And explain why your definition should govern other people's behavior.
 
Re: Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

I figured you were playing the same game.
"Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty."
It is common knowledge what it is. Which is apparent from peoples responses.
Maybe you didn't know, but I doubt it.
Define that for me. And explain why your definition should govern other people's behavior.
Don't need to. That is the definition of decency.

Nor is it my definition, or my standards. It was the standards that were law.

Those "prevailing standards of propriety or modesty" were codified into law by the peoples representatives.
The Court removed those standards not because they were no longer the prevailing standards, but over safety issues.
Their removal from law is an erosion of those standards.
 
Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution

By Randall Palmer, Reuters

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada struck down all current restrictions on prostitution on Friday, including bans on brothels and on street solicitation, declaring the laws were unconstitutional because they violated prostitutes' safety.

The sweeping 9-0 decision will take effect in one year, inviting Parliament to try to come up with some other way to regulate the sex trade if it chooses to do so.

[...]

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said many prostitutes "have no meaningful choice" but to "engage in the risky economic activity of prostitution," and that the law should not make such lawful activity more dangerous.

"It makes no difference that the conduct of pimps and johns is the immediate source of the harms suffered by prostitutes," she wrote.

"The impugned laws deprive people engaged in a risky, but legal, activity of the means to protect themselves against those risks."

[...]

Canada high court strikes down all restrictions on prostitution - World News

And the further erosion of decent standards.

The Justice's reasoning is absurd. Or is that liberal?

And, today, Mayor Rob Ford is a happy camper. LOL.
 
Back
Top Bottom