• 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]

Is that what you think?
That is nice.

It does not or do you not believe in personal freedom? Should our morals be decided for us? That is what defines Canadian freedom, the state has no place in morality.
 
: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.

Ok, nevermind. You wont answer because the answer weakens your argument.

You still have not explained how the law being struck down is a further erosion of decency standards. How was that law maintaining decency standards previously?
 
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.

How would it not? Pimps exist because they peddle an illegal service and act as protective muscle for a vulnerable group of people, consequently they also act as control and distribution pipelines. Remove the illegality and women can actively seek police protection without endangering themselves or their clientele, they can occupy actual property which can take them off the streets, and encourages health and safety regulation instead of police action.

Prostitution in a globalized world is fraught with complex problems but criminalization is the worst of all possible options. It doesn't prevent women from becoming prostitutes, it doesn't reduce human trafficking, and it doesn't meaningfully reduce their clientele. Legalization doesn't remove pimps, it doesn't end human trafficking, and it doesn't make the job safe for every women. But it makes things more manageable, it increases safety, reduces health risks, and perhaps most crucially it gives people sovereignty over their bodies.
 
Ok, nevermind. You wont answer because the answer weakens your argument.

You still have not explained how the law being struck down is a further erosion of decency standards. How was that law maintaining decency standards previously?
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.
And no it doesn't weaken or change anything I said.
It is an erosion of standards of decency.
 
Wtf does that have to do with what you having said, being nice?

Why should my morals be decided by you? Take homosexuality for example, you may believe it is wrong but I do not, so why should homosexuality be illegal.
 
: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.

Just answer the question. Clear this up for us since we're clearly not reading you properly.
 
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.
And no it doesn't weaken or change anything I said.
It is an erosion of standards of decency.

Do you or do you not oppose making prostitution legal?
 
That is not something that needs to be explained as we all know what those standards are, so it is self evident.
And no it doesn't weaken or change anything I said.
It is an erosion of standards of decency.

You are only repeating yourself....yet it's obvious that is not an answer that supports anything. It's just your declaration.

You are aware of the paraphrasing of Einstein's quote regarding doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
 
Why should my morals be decided by you? Take homosexuality for example, you may believe it is wrong but I do not, so why should homosexuality be illegal.
Why are you asking me about something I never said?

What I said is that it is an erosion of the standards of decency.
You are assuming something I did not say.

Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.

So stop assuming I mean something I did not say.
 
Just answer the question. Clear this up for us since we're clearly not reading you properly.
Irrelevant question is irrelevant.
I seldomly, if ever, answer irrelevant questions.

This time is no different.
I will not be answering your irrelevant question.
How many different ways do you need to be told?

It is a further erosion of the standards of decency. That is clear, and needs no further clarification.
 
How would it not? Pimps exist because they peddle an illegal service and act as protective muscle for a vulnerable group of people, consequently they also act as control and distribution pipelines. Remove the illegality and women can actively seek police protection without endangering themselves or their clientele, they can occupy actual property which can take them off the streets, and encourages health and safety regulation instead of police action.

Prostitution in a globalized world is fraught with complex problems but criminalization is the worst of all possible options. It doesn't prevent women from becoming prostitutes, it doesn't reduce human trafficking, and it doesn't meaningfully reduce their clientele. Legalization doesn't remove pimps, it doesn't end human trafficking, and it doesn't make the job safe for every women. But it makes things more manageable, it increases safety, reduces health risks, and perhaps most crucially it gives people sovereignty over their bodies.

I bolded part of why it wouldn't. Nor is that last true in any of the places that have legalized prostitution. The effect is always that those new safeguards are only in effect in certain places, still absent on the street where the pimps thrive. Further, legalization takes the "job" as you call it behind closed doors where the police cannot go, after all, it's legal.

Even worse, this was a court decision and not legislation that may have written in inspections and licensing to safeguard the prostitutes. Now the pimps are free to conduct their business under the shield of legal activity.
 
Why are you asking me about something I never said?

What I said is that it is an erosion of the standards of decency.
You are assuming something I did not say.

Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.

So stop assuming I mean something I did not say.

Do you or do you not oppose making prostitution legal?

The only reason you wouldn't answer this simple question is because the answer is embarrassing or inconvenient for you. As such, I would strongly suggest re-examining your views.
 
Why are you asking me about something I never said?

What I said is that it is an erosion of the standards of decency.
You are assuming something I did not say.

Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.

So stop assuming I mean something I did not say.

What you view as indecent aka morals are different than what I view as indecent.
 
Do you or do you not oppose making prostitution legal?

The only reason you wouldn't answer this simple question is because the answer is embarrassing or inconvenient for you. As such, I would strongly suggest re-examining your views.
How many times do you need to be told?
It is like talking to a four year old.


Irrelevant question is irrelevant.
I seldomly, if ever, answer irrelevant questions.

This time is no different.
I will not be answering your irrelevant question.
How many different ways do you need to be told?

It is a further erosion of the standards of decency. That is clear, and needs no further clarification.
 
Irrelevant question is irrelevant.
I seldomly, if ever, answer irrelevant questions.

This time is no different.
I will not be answering your irrelevant question.
How many different ways do you need to be told?

It is a further erosion of the standards of decency. That is clear, and needs no further clarification.

Alright incoherence wins the day.
 
What you view as indecent aka morals are different than what I view as indecent.
And again.
Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.


I do not care if you agree or don't agree with those standards. They have been further eroded.
 
How many time do you need to be told?
It is like talking to a four year old.



Yes, though the four year-old is not the one you think.

It's fine, Excon; everyone already knows what you think, because everything you said only makes sense one way. I thought you might have some courage behind it, but if not, oh well. I've got other things to worry about, and we both know what your answer is, even if you can't bring yourself to say it.
 
And again.
Those standards are known by all. Have they not been eroded?
Of course they have.


I do not care if you agree or don't agree with those standards. They have been further eroded.

Everyone's standard of decency is different, it made have eroded yours but it has kept mine the same.
 
Yes, though the four year-old is not the one you think.

It's fine, Excon; everyone already knows what you think, because everything you said only makes sense one way. I thought you might have some courage behind it, but if not, oh well. I've got other things to worry about, and we both know what your answer is, even if you can't bring yourself to say it.
Your assumptions were assumptions. You clearly should not be making such assumptions as young as you appear to be.
It is your fault for reading into what was said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency. Too bad you want to assume it means more than that.
 
Everyone's standard of decency is different, it made have eroded yours but it has kept mine the same.
:doh
iLOL:
We are not talking about my standards, or even yours.
We are talking about the known standards, which have been further eroded.
It mattered not whether you agreed with them or not.
They have been further eroded.
 
Your assumptions were assumptions. You clearly should not be making such assumptions as young as you appear to be.
It is your fault for reading into what was said.
It is a further erosion of standards of decency. Too bad you want to assume it means more than that.

:lamo

You can clear the whole matter up by simply answering the question. The "assumption" -- that you oppose making prostitution legal -- is correct. If it isn't, then say so. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, oh well. We all know the score.
 
:lamo

You can clear the whole matter up by simply answering the question. The "assumption" -- that you oppose making prostitution legal -- is correct. If it isn't, then say so. That's all you have to do. If you don't want to, oh well. We all know the score.
You seem to be confused as there is nothing that needs to be clarified.

It is a further erosion of standards of decency.

It is you who are assuming it says something it doesn't.
So again, I would suggest you stop assuming.
 
Back
Top Bottom