• 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]

It's Canada and up to them, but the pimps are probably celebrating by beating down a ho tonight. My opinion is that it's terrible public policy.

Pimps are celebrating? Why? Because women could potentially seek police protection, employment benefits, and secure working environments that would put pimps out of business?
 
Are you incapable of answering a point directly?
Are you incapable as they are for not knowing the answer was already given?
Are you as incapable as they are for assuming emotions not present?


You lamented this ruling as a blow to 'standards of decency'
I said; And the further erosion of decent standards.
It is. You can not escape that.
Nor is it something that needs to be explained.


and when confronted with the accusation that this would be merely an assault on anothers personal liberty by enforcing your morality you've automatically repeated the line about standards of decency. Answer the question. Why should you have the right to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body?
And there are those assumptions.
So you are just as incapable as they are. Figures.

This decision was not about liberty, it was about safety.
And as stated numerous times now, it is a further erosion of standards of decency.
 
You are making foolish and idiotic assertions, as I have not backed down one bit from what I said.

You are continually running away from the facts that you oppose the legality of prostitution on the basis of "decency," and that said decency is more important to you than either "safety" or "liberty." If it weren't more important to you, then you wouldn't be so opposed.

I do not believe I'm the one coming off as "foolish" and "idiotic" here.
 
I do not believe I'm the one coming off as "foolish" and "idiotic" here.
Said the one making idiotic and foolish assumptions.

You are continually running away from the facts that you oppose the legality of prostitution on the basis of "decency," and that said decency is more important to you than either "safety" or "liberty." If it weren't more important to you, then you wouldn't be so opposed.
And again with more assumptions. iLOL
:doh
I have not run from what I said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency.

It is you who wishes to assume and/or impart more to my words than I said.
I would suggest you stop making false claims, but know words of wisdom are not listened to by those who wish to make foolish assumptions.
 
Putting it a different way doesn't change the outcome.
And it was a crime for a reason. Some just don' t find that reason justifiable, which just shows a further erosion of decency.

As far as we know the Canadian Parliament could pass a 200% tax on it, or something equally as ridiculous to try to exterminate the practice.

What was the reason that prostitution was a crime?

And WA and CO are trying that taxation strategy here in the US, on legalized pot. It's all 'new' and we dont yet know what will work out economically and socially....but you dont repress individual liberty just because you dont know how to handle its decriminalization. Pot laws and laws against prostitution were never Constitutional to begin with IMO.
 
What was the reason that prostitution was a crime?
Why it was, is irrelevant to this discussion.


And WA and CO are trying that taxation strategy here in the US, on legalized pot. It's all 'new' and we dont yet know what will work out economically and socially....but you dont repress individual liberty just because you dont know how to handle its decriminalization. Pot laws and laws against prostitution were never Constitutional to begin with IMO.
Just more erosion.
 
Said the one making idiotic and foolish assumptions.

And again with more assumptions. iLOL
:doh
I have not run from what I said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency.

It is you who wishes to assume and/or impart more to my words than I said.

Yes, we already know -- you oppose legalizing prostitution due to "standards of decency." As you oppose legalizing it, you find that "decency" more important than the principles of safety or liberty which would impel its legalization.

It's a simple fact . . . UNLESS you'd like to go on record as saying you favor legalizing prostitution. That's really your only out. Would you like to?
 
Are you incapable as they are for not knowing the answer was already given?
Are you as incapable as they are for assuming emotions not present?


I said; And the further erosion of decent standards.
It is. You can not escape that.
Nor is it something that needs to be explained.


And there are those assumptions.
So you are just as incapable as they are. Figures.

This decision was not about liberty, it was about safety.
And as stated numerous times now, it is a further erosion of standards of decency.

You still haven't answered. I'm not asking about the ruling, I'm asking about you. You do need to explain why it is a collapse in decency standards and furthermore why that matters at all. By what right should you be able to control someone's decisions that they make about their body because of some nebulous and relative concept like 'standards of decency'. Please don't repeat, give an actual answer.
 
Yes, we already know -- you oppose legalizing prostitution due to "standards of decency." As you oppose legalizing it, you find that "decency" more important than the principles of safety or liberty which would impel its legalization.

It's a simple fact . . . UNLESS you'd like to go on record as saying you favor legalizing prostitution. That's really your only out. Would you like to?
More wrong assumptions on your part.
Again, you should really stop making such idiotic and foolish assumptions.
 
You still haven't answered. I'm not asking about the ruling, I'm asking about you. You do need to explain why it is a collapse in decency standards and furthermore why that matters at all. By what right should you be able to control someone's decisions that they make about their body because of some nebulous and relative concept like 'standards of decency'. Please don't repeat, give an actual answer.
Apparently you are incapable of getting it as well. I never said I was. And it is wrong to assume such.
So the question is irrelevant.
But the erosion of the standards of decency are apparent.
 
Why it was, is irrelevant to this discussion.

.

Oh no, it is not irrelevant. If it had a legitimate reason for being illegal...how could they change it unless that no longer existed?
 
Oh no, it is not irrelevant. If it had a legitimate reason for being illegal...how could they change it unless that no longer existed?
I said it was irrelevant to this discussion, as it is.
 
More wrong assumptions on your part.
Again, you should really stop making such idiotic and foolish assumptions.

Do you, or do you not, oppose legalizing prostitution?
 
Apparently you are incapable of getting it as well. I never said I was. And it is wrong to assume such.

Yes you did, the implication was and is overwhelming. You registered clear disgust with the notion of legalized prostitution and linked it to 'standards of decency' it follows that you think these laws should remain in place to defend these standards. The question then quite easily becomes why you think you have the right to enforce these standards on other people when it concerns their body? Stop running away and answer.
 
I said it was irrelevant to this discussion, as it is.

No, it's not irrelevant to this discussion. THere was an existing law and CA chose to remove it. They wouldnt remove a law that continues to serve a legitimate purpose, would they? How can we compare and discuss if it was the right thing to do if we dont know the previous reason(s)?

What was the original reason(s) for prostitution to be illegal?
 
Yes you did, the implication was and is overwhelming. You registered clear disgust with the notion of legalized prostitution and linked it to 'standards of decency' it follows that you think these laws should remain in place to defend these standards. The question then quite easily becomes why you think you have the right to enforce these standards on other people when it concerns their body? Stop running away and answer.
You are again assuming that which was not presented.
I would suggest you stop doing so.

What was said is that this is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Anything else other than that and you are assuming that which has not been said and is not on the record.

I do not have to answer to your assumptions, or do you really not understand that?
 
You are again assuming that which was not presented.
I would suggest you stop doing so.

What was said is that this is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Anything else other than that and you are assuming that which has not been said and is not on the record.

I do not have to answer to your assumptions, or do you really not understand that?

Do you think prostitution should be illegal? If so then why?
 
Pimps are celebrating? Why? Because women could potentially seek police protection, employment benefits, and secure working environments that would put pimps out of business?

Because this will have the opposite effect of what you outline. How does this decision in any way put pimps out of business? Pimps don't exist to protect the women from the police. And regardless of how legal prostitution is in any nation, there are still pimps and girls working the street.
 
It's going to happen anyways might aswell tax and regulate it. This might also be economic stimulus aswell.
 
You are again assuming that which was not presented.
I would suggest you stop doing so.

What was said is that this is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
Anything else other than that and you are assuming that which has not been said and is not on the record.

I do not have to answer to your assumptions, or do you really not understand that?

Funny how you're running away from this simple question:

Do you, or do you not, oppose legalizing prostitution?
 
No, it's not irrelevant to this discussion. THere was an existing law and CA chose to remove it. They wouldnt remove a law that continues to serve a legitimate purpose, would they? How can we compare and discuss if it was the right thing to do if we dont know the previous reason(s)?

What was the original reason(s) for prostitution to be illegal?
:doh
The laws were struck down on the basis of safety. Why they were laws in the first place is not the discussion and is irrelevant.
Which does not change the fact that their being struck down is a further erosion of the standards of decency.
 
Funny how you're running away from this simple question:
:doh
Which is not what you originally claimed I was running from. So you are just trying to spin the known facts.
I have stood by what I said and have not backed down. It is a further erosion of the standards of decency.

It is also funny you don't understand that that question is irrelevant to what I said.
 
:doh
The laws were struck down on the basis of safety. Why they were laws in the first place is not the discussion and is irrelevant.
Which does not change the fact that their being struck down is a further erosion of the standards of decency.

The state has no place in legislating morality.
 
:doh
Funny you don't understand that that question is irrelevant to what I said.

That's idiotic. Of course it's relevant to what you said.

So, you aren't going to answer. :shrug: Take the coward's way out if you must; I don't think anyone else is having any problem seeing it for what it is.
 
Back
Top Bottom