• 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]

Excon said:
Wrong.
There is no clarification needed.

So again.

​
Click to expand...

There were no standards discussed in the article. If so, please enumerate them.

Otherwise, you are the only one who has brought them up....and YOU have been asked to define them and YOU have declined.

Do not lie and say you were not asked. That is an outright lie.
 
Excon said:
:doh
:lamo
There was no question that needed to be answered.
Click to expand...

No, the question was asked and you CANNOT answer it. Because it's a completely invalid claim and is meaningless to the discussion.

Since you dont understand why you 'need' to support you claims in a discussion (because you cannot but now try to avoid it to try to distract from that fact)...you have zero credibility.
 
Lursa said:
There were no standards discussed in the article. If so, please enumerate them.

Otherwise, you are the only one who has brought them up....and YOU have been asked to define them and YOU have declined.

Do not lie and say you were not asked. That is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
No, the question was asked and you CANNOT answer it. Because it's a completely invalid claim and is meaningless to the discussion.

Since you dont understand why you 'need' to support you claims in a discussion (because you cannot but now try to avoid it to try to distract from that fact)...you have zero credibility.
Click to expand...

Still with your games I see.
What a shame.

So again.

Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Your feigned inability to understand what has been said is a game. Stop playing games.
 
Excon said:


​

Still with your games I see.
What a shame.

So again.

​


Your feigned inability to understand what has been said is a game. Stop playing games.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
There were no standards discussed in the article. If so, please enumerate them.

Otherwise, you are the only one who has brought them up....and YOU have been asked to define them and YOU have declined.

Do not lie and say you were not asked. That is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

...................................
 
Lursa said:
...................................
Click to expand...
And you are wrong.

So again.

Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Excon said:
And you are wrong.

So again.

​
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
There were no standards discussed in the article. If so, please enumerate them.

Otherwise, you are the only one who has brought them up....and YOU have been asked to define them and YOU have declined.

Do not lie and say you were not asked. That is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

Like I said...you have zero credibility. You could clear it all up by answering....you hide behind 'we're all playing games.'

No problem. I just stand by my signature below, in green. Heh heh, and you have to too.....your posts are there for all to see.
 
Lursa said:
Like I said...you have zero credibility. You could clear it all up by answering....you hide behind 'we're all playing games.'

No problem. I just stand by my signature below, in green. Heh heh, and you have to too.....your posts are there for all to see.
Click to expand...
Like I said. You have no credibility and are only playing a game.
Nor is there any question that needs to be answered.
Stop playing games.

So pay attention and read what it actually says.
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

And btw, your signature is meaningless to this game you are playing.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I just went and read some articles on this, and it simply blows my mind.


Canadian court strikes down anti-prostitution laws

Now am I the only one scratching my head over this? They say brothels keep it off the streets and make it safer, yet at the same time makes it legal to solicit on the streets.

Sorry, if I lived in Canada I would have a gigantic sign made up saying "This whore is a prostitute", and walk behind any lady I saw soliciting in my neighborhood. So they have a legal Constitutional right to do it on the street. Fine, I just do not want it on my street, and will just use my legal right of free speech to hopefully make them move elsewhere.

Who knows, I might even make a business of making such signs, so others can do the same thing until they go somewhere more appropriate. Like say a rural farm road where they only annoy the cows and goats.
Click to expand...


Chances are you won't see it on residential streets - not enough traffic to make it worth their while.

And if did hold up such a sign, the consequences you might face would serve you right.


Oozlefinch said:
But it will take months at the minimum to enact such restrictions. So until such restrictions are enacted and vetted legally, we have none at all.
Click to expand...

The SC gave the govt. a year to enact laws.
 
Harshaw said:
I marvel at the question of whom you think you're fooling.
Click to expand...
I marvel at your inability to see reality.

Harshaw said:
He's not the only one who thinks that by refusing to state a position, he wins.
Click to expand...
What an unintelligent thing to say.
My position has been stated.
 
Excon said:
Like I said. You have no credibility and are only playing a game.
Nor is there any question that needs to be answered.
Stop playing games.

So pay attention and read what it actually says.
​

And btw, your signature is meaningless to this game you are playing.
Click to expand...

Nevermind, you can declare it over and over again, it doesnt make it true. It means you cannot support your claim, plain and simple.

I'll leave you and your repeated game-playing accusation with this:

Are you familiar with the paraphrasing of Einstein's famous quote, the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? If not, I suggest you Google it.
 
Lursa said:
Nevermind, you can declare it over and over again, it doesnt make it true. It means you cannot support your claim, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Stop being dishonest.
My claim is and has been supported.

So again since you apparently choose not to pay attention.
Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...



Lursa said:
Are you familiar with the paraphrasing of Einstein's famous quote, the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? If not, I suggest you Google it.
Click to expand...
:doh I would suggest you follow your own advice, because you obviously keep expecting a different result, which is ridiculous, as there can be no other result.
 
Excon said:
I marvel at your inability to see reality.

What an unintelligent thing to say.
My position has been stated.
Click to expand...

You stated whether or not you agree with prostitution being legalized? I don't think so.

You stated what specific "standards of decency" have been "eroded"? I don't think so.

You've simply taken the cowardly way out throughout the thread. :shrug:
 
Your absurdity is noted.

Harshaw said:
You stated whether or not you agree with prostitution being legalized? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
Wtf?
That is irrelevant to my position.


Harshaw said:
You stated what specific "standards of decency" have been "eroded"? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
:doh
Then you haven't payed attention.


Harshaw said:
You've simply taken the cowardly way out throughout the thread. :shrug:
Click to expand...
:lamo
Wrong.
As wrong as you with the above.
 
Excon said:
Your absurdity is noted.

Wtf?
That is irrelevant to my position.


:doh
Then you haven't payed attention.


:lamo
Wrong.
As wrong as you with the above.
Click to expand...

As with others who refuse to take a stand and then claim victory because of it, I can only shake my head in amusement and pity.
 
Harshaw said:
As with others who refuse to take a stand and then claim victory because of it, I can only shake my head in amusement and pity.
Click to expand...
You are being dishonest.

I stated my position and have not backed down from it.
It was an erosion.
 
Excon said:
You are being dishonest.

I stated my position and have not backed down from it.
It was an erosion.
Click to expand...

Yes, an "erosion of standards of decency" which are "known by all." You can't actually state them, but they're "known by all." Or are in the OP. Or something.

Of course, here is the full extent of the OP, which states no such "standards":

Excon said:
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?
Click to expand...

So I guess you're left with "known by all." Which is your cowardly refusal to back up what you say.

Why? Why do you persist?
 
Harshaw said:
Yes, an "erosion of standards of decency" which are "known by all." You can't actually state them, but they're "known by all." Or are in the OP. Or something.

Of course, here is the full extent of the OP, which states no such "standards":


So I guess you're left with "known by all." Which is your cowardly refusal to back up what you say.

Why? Why do you persist?
Click to expand...
What a shame that you can't pay attention and let your own convoluted thoughts get in the way of reality.

Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this whole exchange with you is a game you are playing.
It is either that. or you really are incapable of understanding.
 
Excon said:
What a shame that you can't pay attention and let your own convoluted thoughts get in the way of reality.

​

And this whole exchange with you is a game you are playing.
It is either that. or you really are incapable of understanding.
Click to expand...

I see no "standards of decency" that the court removed. They're certainly not in your OP. You have not spelled them out anywhere else.

All you've done is accuse people of being "dishonest" for not taking "you know what I'm talking about" for an answer. That's unusually pathetic, even by the lowest of Debate Politics standards.
 
Harshaw said:
I see no "standards of decency" that the court removed. They're certainly not in your OP. You have not spelled them out anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Yep! You are playing a game. And you are wrong and dishonest.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.
So yes you were, and are, dishonest.

You knew exactly what was being said.

Excon said:
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.
Click to expand...


Harshaw said:
All you've done is accuse people of being "dishonest" for not taking "you know what I'm talking about" for an answer. That's unusually pathetic, even by the lowest of Debate Politics standards.
Click to expand...
You were dishonest, and I have accused you exactly of what you did. You were saying I said things I did not say.
That was you being dishonest and what really is pathetic.
 
Excon said:
Yep! You are playing a game. And you are wrong and dishonest.
You have already shown you understand what was said.
You even tried to say they were my standards of decency. Which they were not.
So yes you were, and are, dishonest.

You knew exactly what was being said.

​


You were dishonest, and I have accused you exactly of what you did. You were saying I said things I did not say.
That was you being dishonest and what really is pathetic.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
Start trying to be honest.
 
Excon said:
Wrong again.
Start trying to be honest.
Click to expand...

You're not even brave enough to attempt to explain how I got it wrong.

Self-immolations are awesome.
 
Excon said:
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?
Click to expand...

What do you mean, decent standards? Who's standards?
 
Harshaw said:
You're not even brave enough to attempt to explain how I got it wrong.
Click to expand...
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.


Harshaw said:
Self-immolations are awesome.
Click to expand...
Yes, watching you burn is hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom