• 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]

Wtf are you talking about?
Did I ever say I wanted such?
I keep telling you folks to stop assuming these absurdities.


What you quoted was a clear. Sorry you choose to be purposely obtuse.


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.

Yes, you said you want the government in people's bedrooms, because you see more personal liberty as an attack on "common decency", which you've refused to explain.

Nobody knows what your standards are, because you won't tell us.
 
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?
You have already shown that you knew exactly what was being discussed.
Which means your questions were dishonest.

And again, you can stop assuming that which was not said.
 
Yes, you said you want the government in people's bedrooms, because you see more personal liberty as an attack on "common decency", which you've refused to explain.

Nobody knows what your standards are, because you won't tell us.
Really I said that? Stop lying.
I never said that.
 
You have already shown that you knew exactly what was being discussed.
Which means your questions were dishonest.

And again, you can stop assuming that which was not said.

Nope, nobody here has shown anything to suggest that we have any ****ing idea what you're talking about. You've said the exact same thing over and over again:

"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"
"IT'S AN EROSION OF DECENT STANDARDS!!!"

But still, after everybody begging you to explain it, you refuse.

I can't believe we let ourselves get trolled this long, so I guess that's our own fault. It's like 30 vs 1, nobody here agrees with you, and the courts agree with us. So I guess you can just go be a sad sack by yourself and shake your fist in the air and mumble something about decency.

Really I said that? Stop lying.
I never said that.

Yes, you are upset that people have more freedom with their bodies. Poor statist. You can't make up "standards of decency" then use the government to enforce it.

There isn't a liberty loving bone in your body, is there?
 
Nope, nobody here has shown anything to suggest that we have any ****ing idea what you're talking about. You've said the exact same thing over and over again:

...

But still, after everybody begging you to explain it, you refuse.

I can't believe we let ourselves get trolled this long, so I guess that's our own fault. It's like 30 vs 1, nobody here agrees with you, and the courts agree with us. So I guess you can just go be a sad sack by yourself and shake your fist in the air and mumble something about decency.
:doh
And I still do not have to explain that which you already know. Which you have even showed you know.
I do not have to explain that which has already been provided.





Yes, you are upset that people have more freedom with their bodies. Poor statist. You can't make up "standards of decency" then use the government to enforce it.

There isn't a liberty loving bone in your body, is there?
Poor fella.
You are hopelessly lost in your own assumptions.
I have said no such thing.
 
:doh
And I still do not have to explain that which you already know. Which you have even showed you know.
I do not have to explain that which has already been provided.





Poor fella.
You are hopelessly lost in your own assumptions.
I have said no such thing.

Well, when you refuse to make any arguments or present any statements or facts, we have to go on what you did say. And all you've said is that you are very upset about the "erosion of decency" caused by more liberty in the hands of Canadian citizens.

And no, everyone here still has no idea what YOUR PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS is. We haven't been living in your head. If you want to debate on an internet forum you have to explain the thoughts in your head, not just assume we all know it.
 
Well, when you refuse to make any arguments or present any statements or facts,
Wrong.
Read the OP.
It is there. And you already acknowledged you know exactly what was being talked about, so can your bs!

And as already stated.
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 all you've said is that you are very upset about the "erosion of decency" caused by more liberty in the hands of Canadian citizens.
Wrong.
I have said no such thing. If I had you could quote it. So stop being dishonest.
All this is, is a reflection of your absurd and convoluted assumptions.


And no, everyone here still has no idea what YOUR PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS is.
:doh
iLOL
And as already stated we are not talking about "personal code of ethics". :doh iLOL (see above quote of mine)
So again this is just more of your ridiculously absurd and convoluted assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Wrong.
Read the OP.
It is there. And you already acknowledged you know exactly what was being talked about, so can your bs!

And as already stated.


Wrong.
I have said no such thing. If I had you could quote it. So stop being dishonest.
All this is, is a reflection of your absurd and convoluted assumptions.


:doh
iLOL
And as already stated we are not talking about "personal code of ethics". :doh iLOL (see above quote of mine)
So again this is just more of your ridiculously absurd and convoluted assumptions.

I haven't seen anything posted about a Canadian code of "decency standards". You added that in. Boo hoo, silly statist. You don't get to dictate to others what they can do with their own bodies.
 
Well, that let's Rob Ford off the hook in one area. :2rofll:

Not sure if Toronto has safe injection sites yet but if not he could always run for mayor of vancouver :)
 
BTW the court gave the govt 1 year to come up with a new law so it isnt suddenly a free for all.
Be that good or bad depends on hwo you view the ruling I guess.
 
I haven't seen anything posted about a Canadian code of "decency standards". You added that in. Boo hoo, silly statist. You don't get to dictate to others what they can do with their own bodies.
Still crying over your own ridiculous absurd convoluted assumptions huh?
It doesn't get better than that.


So again.

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.
 
Not sure if Toronto has safe injection sites yet but if not he could always run for mayor of vancouver :)

Yikes! LOL!

I remember the last time I was in Vancouver and walked by a bus stop downtown. All classes and kinds of people, passing around doobies and waiting on the bus. Just a normal day in beautiful BC.
 
Yikes! LOL!

I remember the last time I was in Vancouver and walked by a bus stop downtown. All classes and kinds of people, passing around doobies and waiting on the bus. Just a normal day in beautiful BC.

Prostitution will exist whether it is legal or not. It always has. It always will. I think the legalization will probably make the oldest profession safer, cleaner an more subject to the workings of free enterprise and competition. Prostitution is legal in several counties of Nevada and I'm not aware of any negatives that have occurred because of it. The moral issue should be immaterial. Government has no business dealing in morality. It has to stick to legality.
 
I haven't seen anything posted about a Canadian code of "decency standards". You added that in. Boo hoo, silly statist. You don't get to dictate to others what they can do with their own bodies.

What they did in the past in Vancouver to stifle open street prostitution was through zoning by-laws, just as we might restrict any businesses from operating in certain areas of a city. This seemed to cut down on the one hooker per corner problem that took over entire neighborhoods and it didn't get into the argument of the legality of prostitution.
 
Stop being silly and playing games.
There has been no avoidance.

When you dont answer a question....that is avoidance.

Now you need a dictionary?

It is your main and only point in this discussion...you cannot support it.
 
Stop being silly and playing games.
There has been no avoidance.

I marvel at the question of whom you think you're fooling.
 
You have already shown that you knew exactly what was being discussed.
Which means your questions were dishonest.

And again, you can stop assuming that which was not said.

Since you will not EXPLAIN what you said, he doesnt have any choice. If he's wrong....explain why.

You keep accusing people of being dishonest. That's pretty rude....you made a claim and then accuse when asked to support it.
 
Since you will not EXPLAIN what you said, he doesnt have any choice. If he's wrong....explain why.

He's not the only one who thinks that by refusing to state a position, he wins.
 
Stop being silly and playing games.
There has been no avoidance.

All we are trying to get is from you to clarify your statement.

You are spinning faster than my washing machine.

Come on, what is the level of erosion? I need measurements here so I know how far the depravity is.

How many quatloos have our standards decreased into depravity? How many left?

How many quatloos in a henway?
 
Last edited:
When you dont answer a question....that is avoidance.

Now you need a dictionary?

It is your main and only point in this discussion...you cannot support it.
:doh
:lamo
There was no question that needed to be answered.
 
Since you will not EXPLAIN what you said, he doesnt have any choice. If he's wrong....explain why.

You keep accusing people of being dishonest. That's pretty rude....you made a claim and then accuse when asked to support it.
What is rude and dishonest, is asserting someone said something they did not.
And as I did not say any such thing, I have no reason to explain the person's convoluted assumptions.
It is very odd that you think I do.
 
All we are trying to get is from you to clarify your statement.

You are spinning faster than my washing machine.
Wrong.
There is no clarification needed.

So again.

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.
 
It's a great ruling but the current neo-con rulers of Canada will figure out a way to legislate the restrictions back into play since they have no respect for due process. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom