|
Grex > Agora56 > #125: Kludge Report Part C -- Die, You Little Black Babies | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 331 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 220 of 331:
| 
Mar 1 16:30 UTC 2006 |
I think morphine is legal (by prescription) because it blocks pain without
also causing mental changes (except for making you very sleepy for a day
afterwards), and people are unlikely to use it as a soporific when there are
drugs with fewer side effects. The side effects of heroin are why it is
popular.
|
richard
|
|
response 221 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:37 UTC 2006 |
I think if prostitution was legalized and regulated, as it is in some places
where "sex workers" must be licensed and pass regular health/aids tests, and
the industry limited to certain areas, some of these problems wouldnt be
there. In any industry that has no controls you are going to have employees
being abused. Children get abused in sweatshops making clothing, does that
mean clothing factories should be illegal? No, they just need to be regulated
properly as they are in this country.
|
jep
|
|
response 222 of 331:
|
Mar 1 16:46 UTC 2006 |
re resp:217: Why do you say that Europeans favor older women, Richard?
That must be really nice for some, if it is true; aging sex symbols who
are too old for Americans can extend their careers and their stardom by
going to Europe.
But I am sorry to say, your credibility is such that I would need some
kind of evidence for anything you say right now. You sometimes make up
things for convenience in arguments. If I don't already know something
for myself, your saying it does not lead me to believe it. Integrity
is a terrible thing to give away. Yours went pretty cheaply.
re resp:218: Tobacco and alcohol are legal; marijuana and meth are
not. All of those substances are illegal for students to have in
school. I wonder which of them are the most common?
From the way my teenage stepdaughter talks (she's a freshman), they'd
do better to make all drugs mandatory and supervise the kids to make
sure they're taking them regularly. Presumably, some kids would then
evade them, and drug usage would drop. I suspect she may exaggerate
some of her observations, though.
|
richard
|
|
response 223 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:06 UTC 2006 |
re #222 why are you making personal attacks? what did I say that pissed you
off so much? I don't think it speaks well of you at all jep that you use
items like to cut other people down rather than simply directly attacking
positions in their arguments.
|
richard
|
|
response 224 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:08 UTC 2006 |
oh and its pretty gutless of you jep to accuse people of "making things up"
without being able to back it up
|
nharmon
|
|
response 225 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:10 UTC 2006 |
Re 224 (the gutless remark): See #223 (about cutting people down
instead of simply attacking positions)
|
richard
|
|
response 226 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:14 UTC 2006 |
re #225 I was expressing a personal opinion, not stating something as a fact
nharmon. jep was claiming something as a fact, that I deliberately make
things up, which he has no basis for and was therefore lying.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 227 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:30 UTC 2006 |
Still, is it really necessary to call people gutless? Does it make you
feel better?
|
richard
|
|
response 228 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:32 UTC 2006 |
jep stated "you sometimes make up things for convenience in arguments" I do
not and jep is in no position to state that as a fact. I, like anyone else,
am perfectly capable of misunderstanding some story I read or something from
some time back, and misstating something. We're all human. But to state that
I deliberately *make things up*, without any facts to back it up, and to act
high and mighty using that to claim one lacks integrity, is pretty low of jep
to do. He should apologize.
|
richard
|
|
response 229 of 331:
|
Mar 1 17:33 UTC 2006 |
nharmon, if someone calls me a liar with no facts to back it up, I'll call
him gutless because its my honest opinion and he deserves to be called as
such.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 230 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:11 UTC 2006 |
Well, as long as you save face, then ok.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 231 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:33 UTC 2006 |
"Prostitution is a very seamy, dark business in which the youngest and
the most innocent are in the most demand. Children are brought into
prostitution by being misled, by being given addicting drugs, or by
straightforward abduction. They're used up and discarded when they're
too old and broken to be fun any more. They don't keep any of the
money they bring in. If they manage to escape, they are tracked down
and forced to go back, or they are killed. I think you'd have to be
pretty naive (or pretty callous) to want to legalize prostitution."
Prostitution is, where it is legalized, not a "very seamy, dark business",
unless your are a prude.
The argument that because there are illegalities associated with
prostitution it should be outlawed (not just regulated) is parallel to
suggesting that we could cut down on bank robberies by outlawing banks.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 232 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:37 UTC 2006 |
> We could cut down on bank robberies by outlawing banks.
Are you suggesting we couldn't?
|
edina
|
|
response 233 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:39 UTC 2006 |
My opinions about prostitution are, I'll admit, incredibly personal. Would
I myself want to be a prostitute? No. Would I want my mother/sister/daughter
to be a prostitute? No. Do I think badly of women/men who are prostitutes?
I feel sorry for them.
I don't think I'm a prude - I just think that even though some women will say
that it is empowering and their choice (and I'd lay odds it's a small
percentage) - I don't think that deep down they believe that.
|
richard
|
|
response 234 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:39 UTC 2006 |
Is prostitution a "seamy dark business" when you are at a five star hotel in
europe and you order a "massage", knowing full well that the service offered
is a lot more than just a backrub?
|
edina
|
|
response 235 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:40 UTC 2006 |
Richard, would you want your wife or daughter to be a prostitute? How about
your son? (If you have them.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 236 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:46 UTC 2006 |
resp:222
From National Survey on Drug Use and Health
http://oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm
2004 - persons 12-17
8,249,000 report having used tobacco products at least once in their
lifetimes
10,596,000 report having used alcohol at least once in their lifetimes
7,566,000 report having used any illicit drug at least once in their
lifetimes
4,788,000 report having used marijuana at least once in their lifetimes
It think we can make guesses about how available each substance is based
on it's use. It looks like alcohol and tobacco are much more available
than any illicit drugs. I dont know how much of an effect the legal
status of the substance has though.
|
tod
|
|
response 237 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:46 UTC 2006 |
re #211
It certainly would keep guys like Limbaugh and O'Reilly out of trouble.
|
richard
|
|
response 238 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:48 UTC 2006 |
re #235 edina no I would't, but then again whether I personally think someone
*should* be a prostitute is a different question than whether I think they
ought to have the right to make that decision themselves.
Put it this way edina, if some guy offered you $500 to have sex with him,
should it be your choice whether or not to do so, or the government's. I
think it should be your choice.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 239 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:52 UTC 2006 |
Re #233: what is the difference in your mind between the considerable
consensual sexual activity that occurs between consenting adults with no
intention to marry, which is legal, with legalized prostitution? In
prostitution a person is paid and in dalliances persons are also usually
treated well during the affair. One is more of a hobby and the other more
of a profession. But what is the significant difference that draws a line
between the two in your mind?
|
richard
|
|
response 240 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:52 UTC 2006 |
The same arguments apply to prostitution as apply to abortion being legal or
illegal. Should the government be able to decide what a woman, or a man, does
with their bodies?
In fact the whole prostitution argument is sexist, if prostitution was limited
to male gigolos, it wouldn't be illegal. Because nobody thinks its wrong for
a man to have sex with a thousand women.
|
tod
|
|
response 241 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:53 UTC 2006 |
I pay and get screwed by my government all the time.
|
slynne
|
|
response 242 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:54 UTC 2006 |
I think that there are a lot of advantages to a legal but well regulated
prostitution industry. Age limits could be enforced. Sex workers could
be routinely checked for venereal disease. Stuff like that. But I dont
think having a legal prostitution industry will stop illegal
prostitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 243 of 331:
|
Mar 1 18:58 UTC 2006 |
If a guy gets five girls to pay him to have sex with them, he gets called a
stud.
If a girl does the same thing, she's called a whore.
The stigmatazation of prostitution is because most of the "sex workers" are
female.
|
jep
|
|
response 244 of 331:
|
Mar 1 19:03 UTC 2006 |
Oh, I'll apologize. Richard, I am sorry you have no integrity, make up
obviously false things and cite them as facts, and can't back up what
you say. I said before that I am sorry to feel that you have no
credibility.
When I make a guess, I say it's a guess and cite whatever it was that
led me to make that guess.
As I demonstrated in another item today, you just make stuff up and
pretend it's established fact, even if it's completely obvious that
it's not true. As a result, I am more inclined to question something
simply because you've said it. It might be convincing to cite anti-
facts, as in, "Richard said X, therefore we know that isn't true".
Why don't you wake up to what you're doing, instead of blaming me? I'm
not the one making you look bad.
|