View Poll Results: Should the sadistic billionaire's offer be legal?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    17 50.00%
  • No.

    17 50.00%
Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 229

Thread: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

  1. #201
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 04:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,225

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    I think everything you said should be legal
    Even for the mentally handicapped or crack addicts?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  2. #202
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,964

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Here's the difference I see in the scenario. If someone were to just cut out their eyes for free, they would be considered mentally ill. Even if they asked a doctor to do it (and no doctor who was licensed and wanted to keep their license would do it, not to mention the ethical problems with this). Even if they were asked to do it by someone else just for that person's amusement.

    However, in the case of prostitution, the act itself that is being sold is not considered something that would be seen as a mentally ill or really is considered a natural part of life. Almost every person on the planet participates in this act, some even with some monetary/asset/financial gain of some kind when it wasn't part of a contract/agreement. The only part of the act that makes it illegal or even seen as wrong is when money is offered for it.

    The two things are not comparable. The act itself, when it comes to cutting out your healthy eyes, even without being paid is seen as a sign of mental illness and for good reason. It destroys a perfectly functioning part of your body for no medical reason but in a way that limits (severely) the operation of your body. Just having sex does not destroy a part of a person's body, particularly not in a way that would severely limit the operation of your body.

    That is where the biggest difference lies, the comparison of the acts in relation to whether money is offered or not. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum. One is considered more acceptable (by some) when money is offered while the other is considered more acceptable (in general) when it is done for free.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #203
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,584

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    Even for the mentally handicapped or crack addicts?
    This is why the oversight exists. If it seems as though the person is medically not of his right mind, he can't legally make such an aggressive contract. Kind of like you're not supposed to go down to the courthouse to get married if you're currently high.

    I think such extreme situations as presented in the OP would be extremely rare. In those rare cases, some kind of official should investigate to make sure that person is of sound mind to make the decision and isn't being coerced. If that's good, there's no reason not to let them.
    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I've got to say that it is shadenfreudalicious to see the rich and famous fucquewads on the coast suffering from the fires.

  4. #204
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    I don't understand why you and a few other men are getting so emotional. God forbid someone should take away your hookers, right?

    A real man can have a rational debate without getting emotional.
    You tried to make the whole thread based on emotions by basing it on someone losing their sight or someone killing puppies.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  5. #205
    Guru
    ashurbanipal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,872

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    What Roguenuke said...

  6. #206
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    I find most people can't separate those terms at all.

    Come to Las Vegas, where in the 70s we had thousands of mini-skirted girls crowding the sidewalks. They are all gone now, they get detained the moment the first patrol car comes by. Brothels, yes, apparently we still have some. Metro's Vice Unit Bust Brothel - 8 News NOW but they are rare enough (I never heard of one) that this made the headlines. The internet has completely changed the way sex is sold and 90% of the available girls could fall under the "escort" category. If you tried to recruit a group to be against stree-walkers, everybody would join. Street girls are sick, drugged, dangerous and often pimp-controlled. Nobody wants that to be legal.

    But the entire industry is deemed "immoral" because of a tiny minority. This is the same mentality that says that because of a few criminal gun owners, we must illegalize guns. How little sense that makes. So, I wantd to ckarify what you meant by "prostitution" is immoral. Slavery is immoral, not prostitution, and I use that word because 87% of the population doesn't realize that other terms mean other things.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    There is a difference between prostitution and escorts. hence the reason that the two are seperated by two completely different words. Prostitution usually happens in the streets or a brothel. Escorts happen in neither.

  7. #207
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Why would people want to sleep with someone who's drunk anyway, whether the person is a prostitute or not? Are people really that hard up? I try to avoid drunk people personally. I find them obnoxious and annoying, of if they're really drunk, just plain disgusting.
    Well, for some it's because it's easier to get someone to sleep with you when they're drunk, what with the lowering of inhibitions and all. And for others it's because they want to sleep with the person anyway, and don't care that they're drunk.

    I sleep with my wife pretty much every time she's drunk, since drinking makes her horny and I'm not going to say no.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #208
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,580
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    This is in direct response to the "should prostitution be legal" thread, and is intended to make you think. It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession.

    Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting. Fine, but how far are you willing to take this logic?

    Here is a hypothetical question, answer it "yes" or "no."



    Suppose a sadistic billionaire went around offering poor people a million dollars each to have their eyes removed. The procedure would be carried out by a licensed plastic surgeon, under sedation, in a certified medical facility. Should that be legal? Both parties are consenting.

    What if the sadistic billionaire offered one of your parents, or your adult children, and they accepted? Should that be legal?

    What if the sadistic billionaire offered someone high on drugs, or a heavily addicted drug addict? What if they offered the elderly, or mentally impaired?

    Is it simply a case of two consenting adults involved in a financial transaction, or is there more to it? Is the sadistic billionaire taking advantage of the poor person's problems?
    I did not vote on this issue because it is an illogical argument.

    You start off by making a personal statement of belief: "It surprises me how many of you answered "yes" to the question, this in spite of all the data which shows prostitutes suffer from a variety of diseases and psychological disorders - including heightened suicide rates - as a direct result of their profession."

    Then you offer a false premise: "Therefore, you are saying it's OK to pay someone to harm themselves as long as both parties are consenting," which creates a false dilemma.

    Finally, you provide a straw man argument (billionaire sadist) to try to support your "false continuum" i.e. if one supports legalization of prostitution it means postitutes suffer abuse legally, and so we would also allows sadistic abuse simply because the victim s being paid for it.

    The problem is that your basic assumption is false...legalizing prostitution will not encourage abuses; instead it will alleviate the conditions that lead to such abuses. That because it allows for regulation, inspection, medical controls, zoning, business licensing, and free criminal justice resources to pursue the real criminals, i.e. human traffickers, pimps, abusive johns (like your billionaire sadist), etc.

    Finally, making it legal and inspectable will also serve to insure that participants are all voluntary, and have recourse to social support resources if problems arise.

    That's why I voted YES. You should read my reply in that poll.

  9. #209
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Well, for some it's because it's easier to get someone to sleep with you when they're drunk, what with the lowering of inhibitions and all. And for others it's because they want to sleep with the person anyway, and don't care that they're drunk.

    I sleep with my wife pretty much every time she's drunk, since drinking makes her horny and I'm not going to say no.
    Well, I was thinking more along the lines of a drunk prostitute or a drunk stranger in a bar or something on that level. I can understand that you wouldn't find your own wife to be disgusting even if she was drinking because you love her.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Moral question (don't click if you're squeamish)...

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Here's the difference I see in the scenario. If someone were to just cut out their eyes for free, they would be considered mentally ill. Even if they asked a doctor to do it (and no doctor who was licensed and wanted to keep their license would do it, not to mention the ethical problems with this). Even if they were asked to do it by someone else just for that person's amusement.

    However, in the case of prostitution, the act itself that is being sold is not considered something that would be seen as a mentally ill or really is considered a natural part of life. Almost every person on the planet participates in this act, some even with some monetary/asset/financial gain of some kind when it wasn't part of a contract/agreement. The only part of the act that makes it illegal or even seen as wrong is when money is offered for it.

    The two things are not comparable. The act itself, when it comes to cutting out your healthy eyes, even without being paid is seen as a sign of mental illness and for good reason. It destroys a perfectly functioning part of your body for no medical reason but in a way that limits (severely) the operation of your body. Just having sex does not destroy a part of a person's body, particularly not in a way that would severely limit the operation of your body.

    That is where the biggest difference lies, the comparison of the acts in relation to whether money is offered or not. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum. One is considered more acceptable (by some) when money is offered while the other is considered more acceptable (in general) when it is done for free.
    After sifting through the last 5 pages of absolute garbage replies that don't merit so much as a response, I have to say your answer is refreshingly lucid and thought-inspiring.

    You are right, sex in itself is not harmful, whereas removing one's eyes is quite harmful. Indeed, sex can be quite beautiful. On the other hand, it can be quite horrible (rape, incest, for example). Therefore, since sex can be either a good thing or a bad thing, consider whether these women are having sex that is enjoyable to them or horrible to them.

    Consider in your own mind, not abstractly but as a woman... I'm sure you would never think of having sex with a series of random, nasty old men for $500. You would most likely feel ashamed of yourself afterwards, feel dirty, and you would question what kind of person you are and your own self-worth.

    The damage done by prostitution is to the self-esteem of these women, which, while not being as graphic as gouging one's eyes out, is still quite real damage.

Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •