• 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 will evolve, just like the pot laws and similar things. Do you see some particular dangers to society or prostitutes that didnt exist before?

Here, let me say it once again.

I have worked in the Adult Entertainment Industry!

I myself have nothing against prostitution. I think it should be legal. However, it should be restricted and regulated as well. I would not want hookers walking up and down my block, no more then I would want a strip club or an adult book store on the corner.

*shakes head - wondering why some in here are seeing restrictions on such transactions as a violation of their Civil Rights*
 
Here, let me say it once again.

I have worked in the Adult Entertainment Industry!

I myself have nothing against prostitution. I think it should be legal. However, it should be restricted and regulated as well. I would not want hookers walking up and down my block, no more then I would want a strip club or an adult book store on the corner.

*shakes head - wondering why some in here are seeing restrictions on such transactions as a violation of their Civil Rights*

You dont have to bother, that response came before your links.

I dont particularly care, this isnt an issue for me. You may carry on with someone else.
 
mantra for so called "victimless crimes"

tax it / regulate it / keep it away from minors. Off the top of my head, can't think of which doesn't fit into this criteria.
 
I did you the courtesy of going back and reading it again.

Nowhere did it list 'standards of decency or indecency'....that you claim *we all know."


So...can you please answer the question, as the article did not.
Then you are obviously playing a game. You know exactly what was being talked about.
So stop your game.
It was a further erosion of decency standards.
 
Last edited:
Hookers....

Damn Canadians forgot the blow.

You were almost out of the doghouse, you're hereby declared as America's hair. You have been upgraded from the level of America's hat. Congratulations.

If you make the blow legal, and lose the silly gun laws....you are officially America's over the top high five. Best buddies. Brahs for life. BFFL. Ride or die.

Oh what's your countries motto?
Oh, yeah, it's no big deal but...we are basically the best high five in the western world.
 
Then you are obviously playing a game. You know exactly what was being talked about.
So stop your game.
It was a further erosion of decency standards.

I asked you a very clear and courteous question. A few times, as have others.

There's no game. I do not know what "you" are thinking. And there's no basis to your pat answer of 'erosion of decency standards' which you cannot even describe.

You are unable to answer it.
 
I asked you a very clear and courteous question. A few times, as have others.

There's no game. I do not know what "you" are thinking. And there's no basis to your pat answer of 'erosion of decency standards' which you cannot even describe.

You are unable to answer it.
Yes you are playing a game.
You know damn well what standards of decency were being discussed.
And that the Courts decision is a further erosion of those standards.
 
Yes you are playing a game.
You know damn well what standards of decency were being discussed.
And that the Courts decision is a further erosion of those standards.

They were not listed in the article. I went back and looked...at your request. I have no idea what you are talking about and since you cannot describe them, you must be full of BS.
 
They were not listed in the article. I went back and looked...at your request. I have no idea what you are talking about and since you cannot describe them, you must be full of BS.
And again.

Yes you are playing a game.
You know damn well what standards of decency were being discussed.
And that the Courts decision is a further erosion of those standards.

You know what standards of decency are. You know they were further eroded by this decision.

So go play your stupid game elsewhere.
 
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.

Funny, Germany has completely legal prostitution that is highly regulated, and they have a tiny fraction of the number of abused women and problems that we have in the US.

You are making foolish and idiotic assertions, as I have not backed down one bit from what I said.

No, you haven't backed down an inch. You keep repeating the same tired statement over and over again without providing any reasoning or arguments to back it up.

People now have more freedom to do with their bodies as they please, and all you can do is scream "IT DIDN'T INCREASE PERSONAL LIBERTY!!!"

And FYI, nobody gives a flying rats ass about the "standards of decency" you made up. Stop trying to use the power of the state to enforce your ridiculous viewpoints onto other's lives. You may want the government in your bedroom, but we don't.
 
Last edited:
And again.


You know what standards of decency are. You know they were further eroded by this decision.

So go play your stupid game elsewhere.


OK, so we're on 'wash, rinse, repeat.'

You keep telling us 'we know what those standards of decency are'. I call BS because apparently...you dont, so it's silly to expect us to.
 
OK, so we're on 'wash, rinse, repeat.'

You keep telling us 'we know what those standards of decency are'. I call BS because apparently...you dont, so it's silly to expect us to.

What is silly is you asserting you do not know what it is, or that it was further eroded.
 
What is silly is you asserting you do not know what it is, or that it was further eroded.

Nobody knows what your "standards of decency" are. You keep acting like we know, but have refused to explain it for 17 pages. It's getting a little ridiculous now. Either explain it, quote it where it was explained, or shut the **** up about it.
 
Nobody knows what your "standards of decency" are. You keep acting like we know, but have refused to explain it for 17 pages. It's getting a little ridiculous now. Either explain it, quote it where it was explained, or shut the **** up about it.
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.
 
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.

So you're refusing (again) to explain what these standards are? Do you even know them yourself?

Everyone else here seems to believe that greater personal liberty is an increase of decency. Why do you want the government in your bedroom?
 
This decision did not say that the law could not regulate or restrict prostitution in any way. It merely struck down the restrictions that existed.

It's hardly the number one priority for America but I hope someday we'll grow up and legalize brothels, solving many problems all at once. Goodbye pimp. Goodbye drug sales. Goodby HIV positive girls. Goodby unsafe sex. Hello high paying jobs. Hello a safe work environment. Hello tax revenue. Hello world tourism (everybody likes American girls).

Bring it on.
 
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.

Can you work any harder at avoiding the question?

I went back to the article. Those 'standards' are never mentioned...only you brought them up.

What are they?
 
Why do you want the government in your bedroom?
Wtf are you talking about?
Did I ever say I wanted such?
I keep telling you folks to stop assuming these absurdities.


So you're refusing (again) to explain what these standards are? Do you even know them yourself?
What you quoted was a clear. Sorry you choose to be purposely obtuse.


Everyone else here seems to believe that greater personal liberty is an increase of decency.
One: That is the first time that has been argued.
Two: That clearly shows you knew all along what standards were being discussed.

Three: That argument does not change the fact that the standards as they were have been eroded.
 
Can you work any harder at avoiding the question?

I went back to the article. Those 'standards' are never mentioned...only you brought them up.

What are they?
Stop being silly and playing games.
There has been no avoidance.
 
THREAD SUMMARY

EXCON:
What is silly is you asserting you do not know what it is, or that it was further eroded.
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 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.
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.
Your questions are irrelevant to that which was said.

It is a further erosion.
It is stating a fact.

Don't read into, or assume anything by that.
Bs! You know what they are/were. So I am not going to play that game.
That is irrelevant to this discussion, as you were previously told.
They have been eroded.
You can not say they haven't been.
Why don't you recognize it wasn't about liberty but safety.
That is absurd reasoning.

And it is an erosion of decent standards.

Of course it sounds smart to you.
It still is an erosion of decent standards.


The others:
The facts are, whatever basis the court decided what it decided, personal freedom was increased, which is what RabidAlpaca said.

The facts also are that you oppose both the safety and personal freedom of the prostitutes based on your notions of "decency."

^^^^^^^^^^

Stated in the interest of accuracy, of course.
How can they be eroded when we don't know what they are?
Are you at least able to admit that "decent standards" is an entirely subjective notion?
Everyone's standard of decency is different, it made have eroded yours but it has kept mine the same.
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?
OK, so we're on 'wash, rinse, repeat.'

You keep telling us 'we know what those standards of decency are'. I call BS because apparently...you dont, so it's silly to expect us to.
Nobody knows what your "standards of decency" are. You keep acting like we know, but have refused to explain it for 17 pages. It's getting a little ridiculous now. Either explain it, quote it where it was explained, or shut the **** up about it.

So which is it, have you already explained it or does it not need to be explained? Why do you refuse such a simple request? Can you not define it yourself? Why do you want the government in your bedroom?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom