For Love or Money

[AdamSmith]

>Nothing circular about it. Our legislative system at both the

>state and federal levels is designed so as to make it quite

>difficult to enact laws on which there is not a broad

>consensus of opinion in society. The system only fails to

>operate in situations in which, as was the case with racial

>segregation, the population most affected by a given law is

>effectively excluded from participating in the political

>process. That isn't the case with the laws we're discussing.

 

Two opposing sides in this argument, legal positivists and natural law theorists, both disagree with you.

 

Legal positivism denies any necessary or logical connection between law and morality: A law can be a bad or immoral law and still be legally valid.

 

Natural law theory holds that law is necessarily connected to morality: A bad or immoral law is not valid and binding; it loses its validity because of its immorality.

 

But neither side claims immoral law is not possible.

 

And is disenfranchisement really the only way immoral law can come about? As others here have pointed out, the battering down of sodomy laws has been a long time coming despite sodomites having the vote. Or was the wartime interning of U.S. citizens of Japanese origin a moral policy at the time, but one that somehow became immoral decades later, bringing the government’s apology?

 

Equating the people’s will as expressed in law with what is moral and ethical is, again, circular. The founders certainly did not. The very imperfection of what emerged from the constitutional convention was acknowledged in the mechanisms of “perfectibility” included or permitted -- legal challenge, judicial review, legislative revision, constitutional amendment, the whole instrumentality of progressive governance.

[woodlawn]

>Two opposing sides in this argument, legal positivists and

>natural law theorists, both disagree with you.

 

So what?

 

>But neither side claims immoral law is not possible.

 

Neither did I. So?

 

 

>And is disenfranchisement really the only way immoral law can

>come about? As others here have pointed out, the battering

>down of sodomy laws has been a long time coming despite

>sodomites having the vote.

 

You need to go back and take another look at the post to which you are responding. I didn't say our legislative system makes it impossible to pass laws that don't reflect a consensus of opinion, I merely said the system makes it quite difficult to do so.

 

More importantly, I did NOT assert that our system makes it easy to dispense with laws, once enacted, that no longer represent a consensus of opinion. On the contrary, that can be even more difficult than passing such laws in the first place.

 

>Or was the wartime interning of

>U.S. citizens of Japanese origin a moral policy at the time,

>but one that somehow became immoral decades later, bringing

>the government’s apology?

 

Two things. First, as the maxim very familiar to lawyers tells us, "In time of war, the law falls silent." The aftermath of 9/11 shows that at a time of war or crisis the consensus of public opinion can change very rapidly and cause rapid changes in the law.

 

Second, the consensus of opinion on what is moral is subject to change, and it often does change over generations, as occurred with the internment. If our laws did not change to reflect changes in what society believes, that would certainly show a disconnect between law and morality. But of course they do change.

 

 

>Equating the people’s will as expressed in law with what is

>moral and ethical is, again, circular.

 

That is only true if you insist that the consensus of opinion on what is moral is unchanging. I've never asserted that and never would. My only point is, once again, that our legislative system is designed so as to make it very difficult to pass laws that do NOT reflect a broad consensus of opinion on what is moral.

[guptasa1]

>>Woodlawn, sorry for the mixup - I didn't realize the post

>you

>>were referring to. Still, and though I have no empirical

>>proof of this (I don't think one could have that), I would

>>imagine that's the exception and not the rule.

>

>You put it very well. That is something you imagine, and you

>can have no idea whether or not it is true.

 

Admittedly.

 

>>The nature of

>>the crime has a lot to do with it in my opinion, and

>escorting

>>just isn't one of those things that by its nature, apart

>from

>>risk, harms people. Because of that, I think you can

>separate

>>the law from morals in this case.

>

>It's not very surprising to hear an opinion like that from

>people who want to hire escorts or be hired as escorts. On

>this message board, such self-serving and self-justifying

>statements are the rule -- just look at the responses from

>Charlie and Yog-Sothoth, for example. It's unusual to run

>across someone like you who can discuss these issues without

>disparaging people who disagree with him, however. Charlie

>and Yog-Sothoth clearly lack the maturity to do that, as you

>can see.

 

Self-serving and self-justifying? I admit I like hiring escorts...and the fact that I have and do may have an effect on my views - nobody in my opinion can be completely unaffected by bias of SOME type, but still, tell me how escorting, by it's nature, is malevolent or malicious...or directly harms people. I simply meant if someone doesn't consider escorting as morally or ethically wrong, it's different than a crime where even the one who commits it feels it's morally or ethically wrong (and that's different to justification I think). In this case, I honestly don't feel any bias I may have is affecting my viewpoint aside from maybe understanding escorting a bit more than had I never participated in it.

 

>What is even more unusual here is to find someone who is

>actually capable of considering these issues from any point of

>view other than his own selfish interests. But I keep

>looking.

 

I am legitimately trying to consider this from another viewpoint - not just my own. I doubt I'll ever agree with you, but I am TRYING to at least see things from your perspective.

 

>>I also disagree with your example. Even though the groups

>>affected in racial discrimination couldn't vote and such, it

>>still didn't make it right for the members of society who

>>COULD vote to stand by and allow it.

>

>I think you are reading into my post a hell of a lot of things

>that I never wrote, which is also pretty common on this board.

 

Possible - if so, I apologize - maybe I made some inferences that weren't there.

 

>The point I made is a very simple one. Our system of passing

>laws is designed so that it's very difficult to pass a given

>law if even a significant minority of citizens don't agree

>with that law. The fact that virtually every jurisdiction in

>this country outlaws prostitution shows that there is not a

>lot of disagreement about whether it should be permitted.

>Occasionally some laws get on the books that don't reflect a

>moral consensus in our society, but the laws on prostitution

>are not in that category.

 

I would imagine the moral consensus on prostitution is different and less harsh than it used to be, but I agree with you - I think the majority would still be against it. Morals are very subjective thing, though. There's still a good hunk of the population, if not a majority, that truly believe...because of religion or other things...that homosexuality is wrong. In fact, these people are trying to write a law to redefine marriage as between a man and a woman and basically outlaw gay marriage in the process. I certainly hope they fail, but even if they succeed, that doesn't mean a large chunk of the people don't feel they're wrong. Moral consensus is significant, but it's not the end-all of anything as long as there's significant disagreement.

 

>That system only breaks down when there is a significant

>minority who disagree with the law but who are excluded from

>the political process, as blacks were for much of the past two

>centuries. I didn't say anything about the morality of the

>Jim Crow laws, so your comments about that have nothing to do

>with my post.

 

We'll see. That marriage law I mentioned above will be a good test of that. I do hope you're correct on this point.

 

>>Not to keep bringing it up, but I notice you haven't

>mentioned

>>what you think about people who broke the sodomy law when it

>>was still in effect. Would you say people who broke that

>law

>>were more likely to participate in other illegal behavior

>>(assuming you yourself don't see sodomy as morally wrong)?

>

>I'm not sure one can say that about the sodomy laws because

>they are so obscure that I'd wager most of the people affected

>by them don't even know they exist. Prior to the Supreme

>Court's decision in the Lawrence case, there were 13 states

>that still had sodomy laws on the books. If you were to take

>a poll of the people who live in those states I suspect the

>vast majority wouldn't be able to tell you whether their state

>has such a law and what its provisions are. Can you answer

>that question about your state?

 

Granted this was an obscure law, and I can't speak for everyone, but I think you might underestimate what people know. I'm not CERTAIN on these, but at the time, I believe sodomy was legal in my state (PA) and illegal in another state where I...ummm...broke it (VA). LOL. I knew this because it was of interest to me at the time and researched it a little. I would imagine if you took the same poll among gay people, it still wouldn't be a stellar turn-out, but you'd get more people who WOULD know.

 

>I don't think one can draw any conclusions about a person's

>attitude toward the law when he doesn't even realize that

>something he's doing is the subject of a law.

 

What about the people who did realize it? Maybe the majority didn't, but there were some who knew they were breaking the law and didn't care because they felt it was wrong. Would you say these people weren't in general as ethical as others?

 

>>Morals will always drive people even more than law. People

>>tend to do what they believe in and what they believe to be

>>right above all else.

>

>No, I think people tend to do what they perceive as in their

>own interest above all else. If that were not so our prisons

>would be empty, not filled to overflowing as they are.

 

I see your point, but how about a happy medium here? Yes, people do tend to do what they believe is in their personal best interest. But, like your example where nobody does this, if everyone ALWAYS acted in their own best interest, you'd have utter chaos as well. I think it's somewhere in between. That's why people need ethics and morals...and also law - so that they can act in their own...and society's...best interest at the same time. I do believe people really LIKE to do the right thing, and that laws are just there to help make sure they do both because morals ARE so subjective and because people don't ALWAYS do the right thing. That said, I would imagine laws against escorting are among some of the laws that are most disagreed with.

[duke37]

Still, and though I have no empirical

>>proof of this (I don't think one could have that), I would

>>imagine that's the exception and not the rule.

>

>You put it very well. That is something you imagine, and you

>can have no idea whether or not it is true.

>

Actually you can. Well at least to some degree. Prostitution is legal in at least some countries. And at least some of these countries have similar public attitudes about honesty and public morality as the United States.

 

Just based on the reviews posted on this site escorting appears to have the same expectations of ethical behaviour on the part of both clients and escorts. A social scientist studying the attitudes of clients and escorts in these countries could speak more authoritatively, perhaps there have already been such studies. Whether or not we can settle this here, now on an internet message board better information is possible.

 

>>The nature of

>>the crime has a lot to do with it in my opinion, and

>escorting

>>just isn't one of those things that by its nature, apart

>from

>>risk, harms people. Because of that, I think you can

>separate

>>the law from morals in this case.

>

>It's not very surprising to hear an opinion like that from

>people who want to hire escorts or be hired as escorts. On

>this message board, such self-serving and self-justifying

>statements are the rule

 

Well I guess we could get someone here who doesn't hire or escort who might venture an opinion but I don't think anyone would believe they are legitimate. For better or worse participation in this site is selected strongly from one side of the issue. I appreciate your expressing a contrarian view. But that in and of itself doesn't prove anything. Someone could have the most selfless of motives and still be wrong on the argument.

 

>

>No, I think people tend to do what they perceive as in their

>own interest above all else. If that were not so our prisons

>would be empty, not filled to overflowing as they are.

>

>

Ok, one I would suggest if people in prisons were acting on what they perceived to be their self interest, their calculations of what was ACTUALLY in their self interest are seriously flawed. The results speak for themselves.

 

Actually though self-interest is an interesting idea. Isn't it in the self interest for escorts to forego the short term gain of say ripping of a client to garner the benefit of more business in the future. Whats the upside of being a ripoff? Easy cash, sure but it also adds the risk of being reported to the police or even violent confrontation with the client. More likely the ripoff has his reputation damaged as the victim tells his friends or writes a negative review. I think we can come up with at least anecdotal evidence that escorts (however you want to charecterize them good or bad) value their reputation and know it's not in their self interest to lose that. Which not so coincidentally is why most businesses conduct themselves with at least some thought to maintaining their good reputation.

 

Countries where prostitution is legal conduct themselves like most other businesses. The prevailing attitude here on this message board says we should do things the same way here in the US. Ethical behaviour on the part of escorts allows them to garner a good reputation. A good reputation that both attracts business and converts potential clients to actual clients as they learn of the availablity of honest safe men who honor their commitments and act responsibly. Clients who behave ethically promote the idea to escorts that this is a realistic line of work. As more men learn that you can be successful at escorting more men are willing to try, so clients get more variety. Seems to me that acting ethically can be in the best interests of everyone.

 

I guess the question would be why would anyone let someone off the hook who wasn't acting ethically? If we expect clients and escorts to act in the US the same way they do say in the Netherlands why not condemn someone who doesn't act responsibly? Isn't social pressure a powerful tool to modify behaviour? I argue that dismissing complaints about the conduct of an escort or a client on the grounds that "well it's not legal so what more can you expect" encourages bad behaviour.

 

Thank you for reading this

 

Jeff

[Guest Yog-Sothoth]

>

>Self-serving and self-justifying? I admit I like hiring

>escorts...and the fact that I have and do may have an effect

>on my views - nobody in my opinion can be completely

>unaffected by bias of SOME type, but still, tell me how

>escorting, by it's nature, is malevolent or malicious...or

>directly harms people. I simply meant if someone doesn't

>consider escorting as morally or ethically wrong, it's

>different than a crime where even the one who commits it feels

>it's morally or ethically wrong (and that's different to

>justification I think). In this case, I honestly don't feel

>any bias I may have is affecting my viewpoint aside from maybe

>understanding escorting a bit more than had I never

>participated in it.

>

>>What is even more unusual here is to find someone who is

>>actually capable of considering these issues from any point

>of view other than his own selfish interests. But I keep

>>looking.

 

 

Let me get it right this time:

 

Woodlawn, you are FULL of BULLSHIT.

 

When I was in my mid-teens, some decades ago now and well before I *ever* considered paying for an escort, I was a very thoughtful and introspective kid.

 

I was thinking about prositution in general (it happened to be female prositution) and I decided that a woman "selling herself" was not the slightest different from a football player selling his body and his talents for millions of dollars. Nor was it different from anyone who goes to work and is selling their body by being present at their job and selling their talents and abilities for a paycheck.

The same, of course, applies to male prostitutes.

 

At that time, during my mid-teen years, I had not the SLIGHTEST interest in seeing a prositute. My ethical reason has not the least bit of selfish intetest in it. I was just hopeless hoping I could date one of the guys in my school.

 

In my opinion, the only thing I see on your part is now ethically poor you are.

 

In my study of ethics, one thing I learned and found repeatedly in my knowledge and experience to be true is that the reasoning and decision-making of someone who is more ethically developed cannot be understood by someone more ethically immature. It is, on an ethical level, of an 8-year old child trying to understand the reasoning of a 38-year old.

 

Or perhaps I should say, Woodlawn, you are an ethical brat.

 

I am tired of the Know-It-Alls-Who-Know-Shit here. I deal way too much with such people in my life that I do not need other such fucking bastard to use up anymore time in my life.

 

Good-bye.

[+ Charlie]

How typical of you to label persons as "immature" when you can't deal directly with their points. Still, it's better than hysterically screaming obscenities at them when they point out a weakness in your logic or knowledge.

[woodlawn]

>Self-serving and self-justifying? I admit I like hiring

>escorts...and the fact that I have and do may have an effect

>on my views - nobody in my opinion can be completely

>unaffected by bias of SOME type, but still, tell me how

>escorting, by it's nature, is malevolent or malicious...or

>directly harms people.

 

 

Like any vice, there are those who can handle it without doing much harm to themselves or others and those who can't. We ban or regulate vices like heroin, smoking and gambling for the sake of the people who can't handle it.

 

We also ban or regulate certain vices for the sake of those who feel they are morally offensive even if they themselves do not engage in those vices. When you hear of escorts being caught by cops in a hotel sting, it is likely this happened because either the hotel management or guests noticed that escorts were using the hotel and complained. They consider themselves victimized by this "victimless" crime and don't want to be around it.

 

>I simply meant if someone doesn't

>consider escorting as morally or ethically wrong, it's

>different than a crime where even the one who commits it feels

>it's morally or ethically wrong (and that's different to

>justification I think).

 

Almost every person I have ever spoken to who was involved in any crime, from insider trading to tax evasion to drug dealing to armed robbery to homicide, has some sort of excuse or reason why he is not as deserving of censure as others who commit crimes. It's been a long time since I heard one I haven't heard before.

 

>I am legitimately trying to consider this from another

>viewpoint - not just my own. I doubt I'll ever agree with

>you, but I am TRYING to at least see things from your

>perspective.

 

My perspective is that leading a life of crime requires a lot of deceit, and people who choose such a life have already selected themselves on the basis of being relatively comfortable with that sort of behavior. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to expect them to behave with a great deal of integrity.

 

Will started this thread to complain that this seems to be the point of view of many who responded to Cougar's first thread. Well, I agree with it.

 

>Moral

>consensus is significant, but it's not the end-all of anything

>as long as there's significant disagreement.

 

Its relevance to this discussion is that when there is a moral consensus on an issue then most people are brought up to believe in that consensus, like the consensus that murder and theft are wrong. But there are always some people who are willing to cross the moral (and legal) lines they've grown up with for their own benefit. When you know you're dealing with someone like that, caution is appropriate.

 

>I would imagine if you took the same poll among gay people, it

>still wouldn't be a stellar turn-out, but you'd get more

>people who WOULD know.

 

I doubt it.

 

>What about the people who did realize it?

 

They are people who have no problem deciding that they can exempt themselves from any law they find inconvenient. Gay men probably have some sympathy for gay men who choose to ignore a law that prohibits gay sex. How about someone like Judge Moore in Alabama. He decided to exempt himself from a law he didn't want to obey and he just got fired for it. Do you sympathize with him?

 

 

>I do believe people really LIKE to do the

>right thing, and that laws are just there to help make sure

>they do both because morals ARE so subjective and because

>people don't ALWAYS do the right thing.

 

I think that is an awfully silly thing to say. We enact laws that send people to prison for life or to the death chamber "to help make sure they do" the right thing? Nonsense. We have a criminal code that penalizes people who break it so that they will decide it's in their own interest to obey it. People usually act out of self interest. The criminal law changes the calculation of self interest so that the risk of doing certain things (hopefully) becomes greater than the reward. How many rapes do you think we'd have each year if the penalty for rape was changed to a small fine rather than prison? The same number as we have now, or a larger number?

 

That said, I would

>imagine laws against escorting are among some of the laws that

>are most disagreed with.

 

Well, there you go consulting your imagination again. I think there is very, very little support for legalizing prostitution even in the gay community.

[AdamSmith]

>>Oh, and did you ever read LES MISERABLES by Victor Hugo?

>>There is a message there.

>

>

>... and only Hugo could have buried it so deeply! :+

 

Apropos of nothing:

 

REVELATION, n. A famous book in which St. John the Divine concealed all that he knew. The revealing is done by the commentators, who know nothing.

 

Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary }(

 

http://www.fun-with-words.com/devils_dictionary.html

[woodlawn]

>>>What is even more unusual here is to find someone who is

>>>actually capable of considering these issues from any point

>>of view other than his own selfish interests. But I keep

>>>looking.

 

>Let me get it right this time:

>

>Woodlawn, you are FULL of BULLSHIT.

 

That's what I love about this message board -- the brilliant, witty repartee one constantly finds here.

 

>When I was in my mid-teens, some decades ago now and well

>before I *ever* considered paying for an escort, I was a very

>thoughtful and introspective kid.

 

What was I just saying about self-serving and self-justifying posts being the rule here? I must be psychic!

 

 

>I was thinking about prositution in general (it happened to be

>female prositution) and I decided that a woman "selling

>herself" was not the slightest different from a football

>player selling his body and his talents for millions of

>dollars.

 

Gosh, what an original thought. I bet no one's ever come up with that one before!

 

>In my study of ethics, one thing I learned and found

>repeatedly in my knowledge and experience to be true is that

>the reasoning and decision-making of someone who is more

>ethically developed cannot be understood by someone more

>ethically immature.

 

How the fuck would you know? You may be decades away from your teen years, but both your writing and your reasoning skills haven't improved one iota. Your posts could still pass for the musings of a fifteen-year-old.

 

>I am tired of the Know-It-Alls-Who-Know-Shit here. I deal way

>too much with such people in my life that I do not need other

>such fucking bastard to use up anymore time in my life.

>Good-bye.

 

Well, who the fuck asked you to come here in the first place, asshole? Who asked you to regale us with stories of the blazing insights you developed during your teen years? Nobody. Go earn some money so the "tight budget" you are always whining about won't prevent you from hiring more young men to fuck you. Five minutes after you leave, no one will remember you were ever here.

[woodlawn]

>How typical of you to label persons as "immature" when you

>can't deal directly with their points.

 

What "points"? I label you as immature because you lack the maturity to engage in an argument on any issue without getting into personal attacks. It's amazing that a man like you, well into his retirement years, still gets into petty shit like that.

 

>Still, it's better than

>hysterically screaming obscenities at them when they point out

>a weakness in your logic or knowledge.

 

Since you have never succeeded in pointing out any such weakness, but have merely posted a bunch of self-serving pap, I don't suppose we'll ever know how I would react if things were otherwise.

[guptasa1]

>Like any vice, there are those who can handle it without doing

>much harm to themselves or others and those who can't. We ban

>or regulate vices like heroin, smoking and gambling for the

>sake of the people who can't handle it.

 

You make a point here, but even legal activities (from eating to non-escort sex to watching too much TV or playing too many video games) can get out of hand and harm people. I don't feel that's a valid argument alone for why escorting should be illegal.

 

>We also ban or regulate certain vices for the sake of those

>who feel they are morally offensive even if they themselves do

>not engage in those vices. When you hear of escorts being

>caught by cops in a hotel sting, it is likely this happened

>because either the hotel management or guests noticed that

>escorts were using the hotel and complained. They consider

>themselves victimized by this "victimless" crime and don't

>want to be around it.

 

I can understand that this happens, but I still don't feel it justifies much. Some people are offended by drinking alcohol at all (I have family experience - lol) and others are offended by different religions. Many people find gay dating offensive too. Again, I don't think this alone can justify escorting being illegal.

 

>>I simply meant if someone doesn't

>>consider escorting as morally or ethically wrong, it's

>>different than a crime where even the one who commits it

>feels

>>it's morally or ethically wrong (and that's different to

>>justification I think).

>

>Almost every person I have ever spoken to who was involved in

>any crime, from insider trading to tax evasion to drug dealing

>to armed robbery to homicide, has some sort of excuse or

>reason why he is not as deserving of censure as others who

>commit crimes. It's been a long time since I heard one I

>haven't heard before.

 

This is precisely why I mentioned that I feel this is different than justification. When somebody commits a crime, granted they make excuses for why it happened. But with escorting, I don't feel it's an excuse as much as...well...the people involved (both escorts and clients) don't feel there's a moral, ethical, or logical problem with it in the first place, and to them that overrides the law. Is this highly subjective, and are there people who might find some of these other crimes morally/ethically acceptable? I'm sure there are, so my own argument there doesn't hold up alone either. I think it's this combined with the fact that it's a mutually beneficial transaction and is, as you put it, a "victimless" crime. I admit, even the notion of having the criteria of not directly harming someone else is subjective, but there's simply no answer to that in my mind - there has to be SOME subjectivity somewhere.

 

>My perspective is that leading a life of crime requires a lot

>of deceit, and people who choose such a life have already

>selected themselves on the basis of being relatively

>comfortable with that sort of behavior. So it doesn't make a

>lot of sense to expect them to behave with a great deal of

>integrity.

 

I respect that. I still disagree with it, though (and maybe we just need to agree to disagree here). Escorting DOES break the law, but aside from that issue, I don't feel it requires that much deceit. Besides trying to avoid the law, what other form of lying or manipulating people is required? If somebody is okay with that...accepts the risk of getting caught, but decides they don't have a problem with escorting themsevles, I just don't see how that has to affect their integrity otherwise at all. Like I and others have said before, I don't think law-abidingness necessarily reflects integrity.

 

>Its relevance to this discussion is that when there is a moral

>consensus on an issue then most people are brought up to

>believe in that consensus, like the consensus that murder and

>theft are wrong. But there are always some people who are

>willing to cross the moral (and legal) lines they've grown up

>with for their own benefit. When you know you're dealing with

>someone like that, caution is appropriate.

 

I agree with this statement, but personally, I prefer to be cautious with ANYONE in a business transaction. Again, the only issue I take is that you equate moral lines with legal ones. I firmly believe you can cross a legal line without compromising your moral integrity.

 

>>I would imagine if you took the same poll among gay people,

>it

>>still wouldn't be a stellar turn-out, but you'd get more

>>people who WOULD know.

>

>I doubt it.

 

None of us have proof on this point unfortunately. It would be interesting to find out. I still say I think you'd have a higher percentage, but of course that's just speculation. Maybe my case was a special one because of a situation I was in that caused me to research it.

 

>>What about the people who did realize it?

>

>They are people who have no problem deciding that they can

>exempt themselves from any law they find inconvenient. Gay

>men probably have some sympathy for gay men who choose to

>ignore a law that prohibits gay sex. How about someone like

>Judge Moore in Alabama. He decided to exempt himself from a

>law he didn't want to obey and he just got fired for it. Do

>you sympathize with him?

 

So basically, if two gay people had consensual sex in a state knowing that it was illegal in that state, you feel those people would be willing to break ANY law they find inconvenient? It seems unfathomable to me to make a jump to that conclusion.

 

As far as Judge Moore, to be honest, when I saw that story, I had very mixed feelings. While I don't care for a lot of his beliefs (I'm pretty sure he's anti-gay), I have to respect him - it took a lot of guts to stand up to a court order for what he believes. I may not agree with him...or even like him or particularly want him in office, but I truly think he's brave, and I don't think someone should be punished for standing up for their beliefs (again, if those beliefs don't directly harm someone).

 

>>I do believe people really LIKE to do the

>>right thing, and that laws are just there to help make sure

>>they do both because morals ARE so subjective and because

>>people don't ALWAYS do the right thing.

>

>I think that is an awfully silly thing to say. We enact laws

>that send people to prison for life or to the death chamber

>"to help make sure they do" the right thing? Nonsense. We

>have a criminal code that penalizes people who break it so

>that they will decide it's in their own interest to obey it.

>People usually act out of self interest. The criminal law

>changes the calculation of self interest so that the risk of

>doing certain things (hopefully) becomes greater than the

>reward. How many rapes do you think we'd have each year if

>the penalty for rape was changed to a small fine rather than

>prison? The same number as we have now, or a larger number?

 

I'm NOT saying law is not necessary. There is no doubt in my mind that law is very much necessary! And, of course, if there was no law...or smaller penalties for rape...the number would rise.

 

I still don't think it's a silly thing to say, though (and maybe I'm just naive - I suppose there are worse things, but I really don't think this is a wrong belief). I do believe people want to do the right thing for the most part. I also think people are sometimes or even often selfish because they're imperfect. There will always be people who will do anything for their own self-interest, including stepping on as many people as possible. There are also rare cases of people I feel who almost always will strive to help others before themselves (and yes, I do feel there are people out there like this). It does...everything...even the most awful crime or the most good-hearted and altruistic behavior...come down to SOMETHING gained by the person acting...whether monetary, emotional, pyshical, or psychological, so in that sense, you are correct, and people ALWAYS act selfishly. But one form of selfishness can be wanting to do the right thing. So I guess, in one way or another, perhaps we both have a valid point here.

 

Laws help even the playing field. They prevent the people who act to hurt others from continuing to behave in that manner, they reward people for acting responsibly (in a sense anyways), and they punish people for acting irresponsibly or downright maliciously. What I don't think they do is become the primary motivator of people - I truly feel religion (and by that I mean every possible belief set) and worldview will ALWAYS do that and will always override the law for some people.

 

> That said, I would

>>imagine laws against escorting are among some of the laws

>that

>>are most disagreed with.

>

>Well, there you go consulting your imagination again. I think

>there is very, very little support for legalizing prostitution

>even in the gay community.

 

Perhaps. The fact that it's legal in Nevada and also many countries speaks differently to me. I think that's another one of those things that would need more empiracal evidence.

[Guest]

>>Woodlawn, you are FULL of BULLSHIT.

>

>That's what I love about this message board -- the brilliant,

>witty repartee one constantly finds here.

>

Well... he is right here, though...

[VaHawk]

>I am tired of the Know-It-Alls-Who-Know-Shit here. I deal

>way

>>too much with such people in my life that I do not need

>other

>>such fucking bastard to use up anymore time in my life.

>>Good-bye.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE AND 1 MILLION MORE PLEASES tell us this is definitely your Opening Farewell, and not yet again another pissed off Queen bidding a fond diva adieu, only to show up again?

 

>Well, who the fuck asked you to come here in the first place,

>asshole? Who asked you to regale us with stories of the

>blazing insights you developed during your teen years?

>Nobody. Go earn some money so the "tight budget" you are

>always whining about won't prevent you from hiring more young

>men to fuck you. Five minutes after you leave, no one will

>remember you were ever here.

>

 

OH GOD, I LOVE THIS RESPONSE! Way to state the facts of reality woodlawn! This has got to be the best damn, on the target, response I have EVER seen posted on this site!

[+ Charlie]

The problem with your logic is your rigid equation of legality with morality. Many laws have little moral content, and there are no laws against many behaviors that most people would consider immoral. For instance, many venues have passed laws against "loitering", yet it is hard to see what is immoral about just hanging around, unless you take the Puritanical position that idleness is inherently evil (I know: the motivation behind the law is the suspicion that someone who is loitering is looking for an opportunity to break some other law, but the loitering in itself is not immoral if there is no such intent). On the other hand, there is no law against misrepresenting your knowledge and experience in a job interview (or on this board), yet most people--employers in particular--would consider it highly unethical. Although there is some overlap between legality and morality, the two areas are not co-terminous.

 

Here's a conundrum for you: it is illegal to take money in exchange for sexual services (prostitution). If you offer money to a young man and he takes it, then refuses to have sex with you, he has not broken any law--in fact, he has refused to engage in the illegal behavior you have suggested. According to your logic, he would be more trustworthy that the escort who puts out for you, because he doesn't engage in sordid illegal activity.

[woodlawn]

>The problem with your logic is your rigid equation of

>legality with morality.

 

You're wrong. I have made no such equation. I have simply said that our legislative system makes it difficult to pass laws that do NOT represent a broad consensus of opinion in society. How you get from that to a "rigid equation of legality with morality" I have no idea.

 

 

>Here's a conundrum for you: it is illegal to take money in

>exchange for sexual services (prostitution). If you offer

>money to a young man and he takes it, then refuses to have sex

>with you, he has not broken any law--in fact, he has refused

>to engage in the illegal behavior you have suggested.

>According to your logic, he would be more trustworthy that the

>escort who puts out for you, because he doesn't engage in

>sordid illegal activity.

 

Again, you're wrong. You don't understand the difference between criminal and civil law. If you offer someone money to have sex with you, you're guilty of solicitation, which is a crime. But if he takes the money after promising he will have sex with you and then runs away with the money, he is also guilty of a crime -- fraud.

 

You could not bring a civil suit against him to enforce his promise to have sex with you, because keeping that promise would be illegal. But the fact that keeping the promise would be illegal does NOT mean it is legal for him to make that promise on order to get your money and then cheat you. That is still fraud. Got it?

[guptasa1]

>>The problem with your logic is your rigid equation of

>>legality with morality.

>

>You're wrong. I have made no such equation. I have simply

>said that our legislative system makes it difficult to pass

>laws that do NOT represent a broad consensus of opinion in

>society. How you get from that to a "rigid equation of

>legality with morality" I have no idea.

 

I don't think he's getting that from solely your passing law based on consensus theory. I feel the same way (in other words, I'm of the opinion that you equate legality with morality more than I agree with) mainly because you seem to indicate that someone who's willing to engage in escorting, because it is illegal, is likely to have questionable morals and ethics in other areas.

[+ Charlie]

Woody, if you do not equate legality with morality, then how do you derive your premise that escorts cannot be trusted to behave ethically solely because they engage in an illegal activity? If the escort that takes money but doesn't provide the service can't be prosecuted for prostitution, and can't be sued for fraud, then how can his action be classified as illegal (as opposed to simply unethical)?

[woodlawn]

>>>The problem with your logic is your rigid equation of

>>>legality with morality.

>>

>>You're wrong. I have made no such equation.

 

 

>I don't think he's getting that from solely your passing law

>based on consensus theory. I feel the same way (in other

>words, I'm of the opinion that you equate legality with

>morality more than I agree with) mainly because you seem to

>indicate that someone who's willing to engage in escorting,

>because it is illegal, is likely to have questionable morals

>and ethics in other areas.

 

 

One of the biggest problems with this message board is the propensity of so many posters to read into a post something that isn't actually written there and respond to that, rather than to what actually IS written there. Some people do that deliberately; they can't think of an effective response to another poster's argument, so they alter it (usually by making it much broader than anything the poster has actually said) to make it easier to challenge.

 

Other people have simply developed the habit of making assumptions without much or any evidence to back them up; if a poster expresses an opinion that sounds as though it would come from a conservative, for example, they just assume that the poster shares all the other opinions that many conservatives hold even though they have no way of knowing whether that is true. What you need to realize is that when you do that you're not really talking to me, you're talking to yourself, to an imaginary person you've created who holds opinions that may or may not have anything to do with my opinions. If you want to talk to yourself, you don't really need a message board to do that.

 

I've made one rather simple and consistent point in this thread: the fact that prostitution is prohibited by law almost everywhere in this country shows a broad consensus of opinion that it is something that should be prohibited; the fact that a given individual engages in prostitution is a good indication that he is willing to cross legal and moral lines to get what he wants. It's certainly a better indication than if he breaks a law that does NOT represent a broad consensus of opinion. I haven't said that every law on the books in every state represents a broad consensus of opinion or is consistent with the moral thinking of most people, nor have I said that anyone who has ever broken a law is necessarily untrustworthy and without ethics; those are opinions that belong to the imaginary person you have created, not to me. If you want to talk to me, then talk to ME. If you want to have a conversation with an imaginary person of your own invention, you don't need this message board for that.

[Doug69]

The Woodlawn Game

 

>I don't think he's getting that from solely your passing law

>based on consensus theory. I feel the same way (in other

>words, I'm of the opinion that you equate legality with

>morality more than I agree with) mainly because you seem to

>indicate that someone who's willing to engage in escorting,

>because it is illegal, is likely to have questionable morals

>and ethics in other areas.

 

Permit me, if you will, to provider a little primer on how this game - which is called The Woodlawn Game - is played:

 

SCENE: 4 cookies are placed into a jar before everyone goes to sleep. They are not to be eaten unitl the weekend. The next morning, everyone in the house wakes up and it is discovered that there are now only 3 cookies in the jar - meaning that someone ate one, and now, the question is - who ate the forbidden cookie?

 

YOU: "I didn't eat the cookie."

 

WOODLAWN: "I saw you take it and put it in your mouth."

 

YOU: "How dare you say that I ate the cookie. I didn't eat it."

 

WOODLAWN: "You clearly took it and put it in your mouth. I saw you."

 

YOU: "You have no basis for claiming that I ate the cookie, and it's outrageous for you to blame me."

 

WOODLAWN: "Who are you responding to? I didn't say you ate the cookie, and I defy you to show me where I said you did."

 

YOU: "Well, you certainly implied it."

 

WOODLAWN: "No, I did no such thing. Don't tell me what I implied. You're just making things up, claiming I said them, and then yelling at me for the things I didn't say."

 

YOU: "The only possible reason you would have for claiming that I took the cookie and put it in my mouth is to blame me for having eaten it. So you obviously blamed me for eating to cookie."

 

WOODLAWN: "No. You are lying. I said no such thing. And if you can't show me a post where I said that you ate the cookie, then it proves what a liar you are, liar."

 

And on and on and on . . . . . That's his favorite game - to say "2 + 2", and then when you claim that he said "4", he insists he never said that, that you are making it up, that it's unfair to infer things that he didn't say, etc.

 

If that's a game you enjoy, have fun playing it.

[guptasa1]

RE: The Woodlawn Game

 

"I've made one rather simple and consistent point in this thread: the fact that prostitution is prohibited by law almost everywhere in this country shows a broad consensus of opinion that it is something that should be prohibited; the fact that a given individual engages in prostitution is a good indication that he is willing to cross legal and moral lines to get what he wants. It's certainly a better indication than if he breaks a law that does NOT represent a broad consensus of opinion."

 

I agree that he may not agree with the consensus on THAT issue (prostitution/escorting), but that doesn't mean his opinion on any other issue isn't along the same lines as a consensus (and it doesn't mean it is either). The statement that he is willing to cross legal and moral lines is exactly what I'm talking about. If escorting is moral to him, he is not crossing a moral line. Even if that were the case, one legal or moral line doesn't have anything to do with others necessarily.

 

"I haven't said that every law on the books in every state represents a broad consensus of opinion or is consistent with the moral thinking of most people, nor have I said that anyone who has ever broken a law is necessarily untrustworthy and without ethics; those are opinions that belong to the imaginary person you have created, not to me. If you want to talk to me, then talk to ME. If you want to have a conversation with an imaginary person of your own invention, you don't need this message board for that."

 

So from what YOU'RE saying, people who escort are committing an illegal act and so are more likely to commit other illegal acts or cross moral lines. But everbody who breaks this law isn't necessarily untrustworty. *scratches his head* I'm trying, I really am, but that seems contradictory to me. If you're getting at the point that it's an individual case-by-case basis, I agree with that, but I don't see you saying that anywhere, and according to you, I shouldn't make any implications as to that.

 

I have to take what Doug69 says into account. To me, you did very much imply what you're denying saying, Woodlawn. Now, maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I can't see any other way to take it, and I mean that sincerely. There's simply no way I (or I'd think anybody else) CAN argue with you without making REASONABLE assumptions or implications based on what you've said, and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to argue with ME without making those assumptions. If they're wrong, by all means correct them.

 

I'm CERTAINLY not making assumptions on purpose or anything of the sort nor am I trying to cause trouble. If you feel I'm making invalid assumptions, I apologize, but I just can't see what you've previously said in any other light (and I have tried).

[guptasa1]

RE: The Woodlawn Game

 

(Whoops - sorry - should have just quoted...wasn't thinking and put what was said within quotes instead of the normal ">" before each line).

[bluenix]

>>How about someone like

>>Judge Moore in Alabama. He decided to exempt himself from a

>>law he didn't want to obey and he just got fired for it. Do

>>you sympathize with him?

>

>As far as Judge Moore, to be honest, when I saw that story, I

>had very mixed feelings. While I don't care for a lot of his

>beliefs (I'm pretty sure he's anti-gay), I have to respect him

>- it took a lot of guts to stand up to a court order for what

>he believes. I may not agree with him...or even like him or

>particularly want him in office, but I truly think he's brave,

>and I don't think someone should be punished for standing up

>for their beliefs (again, if those beliefs don't directly harm

>someone).

 

You can't be serious. Moore, that jumped-up satrap, is brave only in the way that despots are brave. Who but a tyrant would take a charge of public trust and turn it into a personal crusade belying that trust.

 

On the upside, the story did remind me to bring my ACLU membership up to date.

[+ Charlie]

Sorry, woody, but simply claiming--as you frequently do--that others misread and misrepresent you doesn't make it true. It's an interesting rhetorical strategy, but you have gone to that well too often.

[guptasa1]

I am serious. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in what he did or his reasons, and quite honestly if I knew him better, I probably wouldn't like him very much and I'd be glad he's out of office. But I do respect him at least some for standing up for his beliefs.

[bluenix]

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-42.gif