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.