For Love or Money

[woodlawn]

>Sorry, woody,

 

Chuckie, my name isn't "woody." Using that diminutive to address me implies that we're friends. We aren't.

 

>but simply claiming--as you frequently do--that

>others misread and misrepresent you doesn't make it true.

 

But when I give a specific example of how you have misreprented me and give you the opportunity to rebut, and you're unable to do so -- as is the case in this thread -- I think that DOES prove my point.

 

So here's another opportunity: show me the post (in this or any thread) in which I state that there is a "rigid equation between law and morality" or words to that effect. If you run true to your usual form, you either won't reply to this post or you'll post a reply that doesn't address the question. Just as your most recent post didn't address the fact that I tore your "conundrum" apart.

 

> It's

>an interesting rhetorical strategy, but you have gone to that

>well too often.

 

I don't think I should be held responsible because posters like you and Doug, when you don't like something I've said but can't think of a way to challenge it, pursue the dishonest tactic of making up a far weaker argument, claiming I "said" it, and slamming me for "saying" it. And I don't think anyone should be surprised, given the subject of this website, that it attracts a lot of people who don't mind behaving dishonestly when it suits their purposes.

[woodlawn]

RE: The Woodlawn Game

 

>Permit me, if you will, to provider a little primer on how

>this game - which is called The Woodlawn Game - is played

 

I don't think anyone here needs a primer on YOUR game, Dougie. There is nothing complex or mysterious about you. You come here not to provide information, exchange ideas or discuss issues, but to heap the most vile insults you can find on anyone and everyone whenever the slightest opportunity presents itself. There are people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who are professional hatemongers; they actually make a fine living by urging Americans to hate each other because of their political differences. You are an amateur, rather than a professional, hatemonger. But if you ever decide to turn pro, I will be more than happy to write a testimonial assuring any prospective employer that you are one of the most hateful creatures I have ever encountered. No need to thank me.

[+ Charlie]

Since you have an almost pathological need to have the last word, even if it only an obfuscation (and by the way, you did not answer the conundrum), I will gladly let you have it. I'll leave it to the readers to decide which of us made more sense.

[AdamSmith]

RE: The Woodlawn Game

 

It's an old lawyer's ploy.

 

"There's a famous story attributed to Sam Ervin, a conservative Senator, who once said that as a young lawyer he had learned that if the law is against you, concentrate on the facts. If the facts are against you, concentrate on the law. And if both the facts and the law are against you, denounce your opposing counsel."

 

Noam Chomsky

 

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:3C0Cl1q9Kg4J:www.leftwatch.com/discussion/fullthread%24msgNum%3D3937%26page%3D2+sam+ervin+law+is+against+you&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[woodlawn]

>Since you have an almost pathological need to have the last

>word, even if it only an obfuscation (and by the way, you did

>not answer the conundrum), I will gladly let you have it. I'll

>leave it to the readers to decide which of us made more

>sense.

 

My prediction that you would crap out and refuse to show any evidence to support your point about my "rigid equation of law and morality" has proved correct. You make an accusation like that, and when challenged to support it you run away. That is your pattern. It has become familiar to everyone who reads your posts.

 

As for your "conundrum," the problem with it is that it is based on a false assumption that you made. It's a fairly well known principle of civil law in America that a contract to perform an act that would be illegal is unenforceable. So if you make a agreement with a prostitute to pay him for sex and he reneges, you can't sue him to enforce the agreement. Your "conundrum" is based on the assumption that there is a corresponding principle in criminal law, such that if you make such an agreement with a prostitute and he fails to perform, he can't be prosecuted for a crime (since if he did perform he would be guilty of a crime). Your assumption is wrong. There is no corresponding principle in criminal law. Got it?

[woodlawn]

>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)?

 

Chuckie-wuckie, there are some laws on the books that unquestionably reflect a broad consensus of opinion on whether particular conduct is moral. Prostitution is one of those. Saying that doesn't mean I or anyone else equates law with morality in all cases or even in most cases. You keep saying it does mean that. I keep saying it doesn't mean that. What part of this do you NOT understand?

 

With regard to your silly "conundrum," if you would do something to improve your reading comprehension skills it would save me a lot of time. I stated quite clearly in the first post in which I repled to this "conundrum" that the escort in your example IS, repeat IS, guilty of the crime of fraud. You obviously didn't get that the first time, so I'll repeat it again: He IS, repeat IS, guilty of fraud. When you get someone to give you money by promising to do something you have no intention of doing, that's fraud, even if the thing you promise to do would be illegal if you did it. Got that? How many more times do I need to repeat this before you understand it? Your "conundrum" depends on the assumption that the escort in question is NOT guilty of a crime. But as I have now said several times, he IS, repeat IS, guilty of a crime. Anything else?

[woodlawn]

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."

 

>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.

 

But he IS crossing a moral line. None of us lives alone on a desert island. All of us live in a community with other people. The drawing of moral lines is one of the functions of a community, and people who insist on ignoring the lines the community draws find that the community takes measures against them. What you seem to be saying is that each of us gets to draw his own moral lines. But that isn't the way it works. Not if you want to live in a community with other people.

 

 

>Even if that were the case, one legal

>or moral line doesn't have anything to do with others

>necessarily.

 

Law enforcement professionals have found that it is a good predictor of behavior. You may want to pretend it isn't, but there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

 

>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.

 

Where is the contradiction? Any pollster will tell you that at the moment any voter who identifies himself as a Democrat is more likely than a voter who does not identify himself in that way to have a negative opinion of Bush's performance as president. That does not mean that EVERY Democrat has such a negative opinion. Where is the contradiction?

 

 

>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,

 

You don't see it because I didn't say it. Saying that someone is MORE LIKELY to do something doesn't mean he is CERTAIN to do it. Is there some part of that sentence you don't understand?

 

>I have to take what Doug69 says into account.

 

Really? You should take a look at a thread in the Lounge on whether the behavior of escorts is influenced by the prospect of a review on this website. In that thread Doug states he thinks it's silly to treat escorts like people rather than like products. And he is the person whose opinion you are relying on?

 

>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,

 

Whoa -- why do you need to make ANY assumptions at all? Why not simply deal with what another poster ACTUALLY SAYS? Well?

 

 

>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 do correct them. It keeps me rather busy, in fact.

 

 

>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).

 

As the late, great Emmanuel Cellar used to say, I can give you explanations but I can't give you understanding. I don't see why you need to make any assumptions about what another person is thinking, when all you need to do is ask him. Maybe YOU can explain THAT.

[+ Lucky]

RE: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

 

A good lawyer does not have to be dishonest to be successful.

[woodlawn]

>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.

 

So if you think an activity should not be banned if it doesn't harm people, and should not be banned even if it DOES harm people, what does that leave?

 

 

>Many people find gay dating

>offensive too. Again, I don't think this alone can justify

>escorting being illegal.

 

Why do we ban child pornography? Is a child "directly harmed" by having his picture taken while he's naked? Is anyone "directly harmed" if an adult enjoys looking at those pictures? If the answer to both questions is "No," then isn't this an example of something that is banned simply because most people find it offensive? Are you saying child porn should be legal?

 

What about polygamy? Incest (between adults)? Is there any reason to ban those practices other than that most people find them offensive?

 

If you do a search you will find a couple of threads in which posters like Lucky and ncm complain about pictures posted on this site by Aaron Lawrence ("Aaron's Studs"), naked pictures of kids who look much younger than 18. They want such pictures banned from this site. Why? Is there any reason other than that they find the pictures offensive?

 

>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.

 

If you want to live in a community with other people, you have to abide by a collective decision of the community, albeit a subjective one, regarding what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. No one is saying that such decisions are not subjective. Rather, it's the case that the subjective criteria for behavior are the result of a community agreement.

 

What matters to other members of the community is whether a given individual abides by the community agreement. And if he is not willing to abide by it in one area, the issue is raised whether he will abide by it in other areas.

 

 

>Besides trying to avoid the law, what other

>form of lying or manipulating people is required?

 

Isn't that enough? If you decided to become a prostitute, who could you tell about it? And the other people in your life -- what about them? If they ask you what you are doing, what would you say? Maybe it would be easier to come up with a list of the people you would NOT have to deceive about this. It might be a shorter list.

 

 

>I don't

>think law-abidingness necessarily reflects integrity.

 

Does "integrity" have anything to do with "honesty"?

 

 

>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.

 

Again, some laws reflect a broadly held consensus of opinion on what is moral, others don't.

 

 

>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.

 

You are the one who keeps jumping to conclusions. People who deliberately break the law the for their own gain have shown they're capable of breaking the law for their own gain. That doesn't mean they would break ANY law. Do you really not understand the difference between those two statements?

 

If a man kills his wife to get a life insurance payment, we imprison him because his behavior has shown he's capable of murder, a dangerous man. In order to imprison him, do we have to conclude that he's going to kill EVERYONE who crosses his path?

 

>As far as Judge Moore, . . . 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 disagree. In my opinion, if a public official finds there is a conflict between his religious beliefs and his official duties, the honorable thing for him to do is resign.

[guptasa1]

RE: The Woodlawn Game

 

>But he IS crossing a moral line. None of us lives alone on a

>desert island. All of us live in a community with other

>people. The drawing of moral lines is one of the functions of

>a community, and people who insist on ignoring the lines the

>community draws find that the community takes measures against

>them. What you seem to be saying is that each of us gets to

>draw his own moral lines. But that isn't the way it works.

>Not if you want to live in a community with other people.

 

I think maybe we need to agree to disagree here. I am indeed saying that people do draw their own moral lines, and it's not always based on community, and it just comes down to a decision to reflect the morals of a community or to reflect your own.

 

As an example, I live in a generally small-minded, Bible-belt town where for the most part homosexuality is looked upon negatively (or at least that's my perception). But I'm still gay and not going to change that. If people don't stand up for their own beliefs when they feel they're right and others are wrong, things don't change. And there are times when it's necessary to stand up and the majority IS wrong (eg. discrimination, etc.).

 

To me, if somebody doesn't think escorting is morally wrong and has given it serious thought, he's not crossing a moral line. By someone else's standpoint or society's line, yes, he is, but I don't think that's any reflection on his OWN morals. If he on the other hand found escorting morally unacceptable himself but needed the money so badly he did it anyways, I think it's far more likely you're right and he'd be willing to cross other moral or legal lines to get what he wants. But if he sees no moral problem with escorting, I don't see him any more likely than anyone else.

 

>>Even if that were the case, one legal

>>or moral line doesn't have anything to do with others

>>necessarily.

>

>Law enforcement professionals have found that it is a good

>predictor of behavior. You may want to pretend it isn't, but

>there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

Have there been any studies on escorting relating to this specifically? I'd argue it may very well depend on the intial crime in question.

 

>>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.

>

>Where is the contradiction? Any pollster will tell you that

>at the moment any voter who identifies himself as a Democrat

>is more likely than a voter who does not identify himself in

>that way to have a negative opinion of Bush's performance as

>president. That does not mean that EVERY Democrat has such a

>negative opinion. Where is the contradiction?

 

Alright, so you're saying it's more likely they'll cross other lines but not guaranteed. I'll give you that as a total group, it may be more likely, but it seems to me you're putting a little too much emphasis on the fact that they committed a crime in the first place and not as much emphasis on how they morally feel about the crime as I discussed above. (I suppose that's where the "escorts" and "scammers" distinction I mentioned before came from.)

 

>>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,

>

>You don't see it because I didn't say it. Saying that someone

>is MORE LIKELY to do something doesn't mean he is CERTAIN to

>do it. Is there some part of that sentence you don't

>understand?

 

Alright, as long as you frame it that way, I can agree with that, but I'd argue for a case-by-case basis. I guess my main problem is you seem to be grouping everyone who escorts together, and that bothers me.

 

>>I have to take what Doug69 says into account.

>

>Really? You should take a look at a thread in the Lounge on

>whether the behavior of escorts is influenced by the prospect

>of a review on this website. In that thread Doug states he

>thinks it's silly to treat escorts like people rather than

>like products. And he is the person whose opinion you are

>relying on?>

 

Actually, I have read that thread, and I'm fairly certain that entire post is meant completely sarcastically and just as a joke.

 

>>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,

>

>Whoa -- why do you need to make ANY assumptions at all? Why

>not simply deal with what another poster ACTUALLY SAYS?

>Well?

 

Simply put, I can't hear your thoughts when you write these posts. It's VERY easy with text to read a sentence, read it correctly, but get the wrong interpretation (even if subtly). Which is where reasonable assumptions/implications come in.

 

>>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 do correct them. It keeps me rather busy, in fact.

 

No problem at all with that. If nothing else, makes me think. I must give you credit for your debate skills.

 

>>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).

>

>As the late, great Emmanuel Cellar used to say, I can give you

>explanations but I can't give you understanding. I don't see

>why you need to make any assumptions about what another person

>is thinking, when all you need to do is ask him. Maybe YOU

>can explain THAT.

 

I do ask when I'm confused, but I still feel ANYTHING written needs to be interpreted, and sometimes it's easy to read it wrong but think you've understood it correctly.

[guptasa1]

>>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.

>

>So if you think an activity should not be banned if it doesn't

>harm people, and should not be banned even if it DOES harm

>people, what does that leave?

 

I don't think there's an easy answer to this. What I'm saying is that this factor ALONE shouldn't be enough to put a nail in escorting's coffin. ANYTHING in excess or without the proper precautions can be harmful, but that doesn't mean there has to be a law against it.

 

>>Many people find gay dating

>>offensive too. Again, I don't think this alone can justify

>>escorting being illegal.

>

>Why do we ban child pornography? Is a child "directly harmed"

>by having his picture taken while he's naked? Is anyone

>"directly harmed" if an adult enjoys looking at those

>pictures? If the answer to both questions is "No," then isn't

>this an example of something that is banned simply because

>most people find it offensive? Are you saying child porn

>should be legal?

 

A child can be harmed psychologically permanently from child porn, so yes, I'd argue it should be banned on that basis. Children of that age aren't considered to be old enough to legally consent to something of that nature and understand all of the ramifications. Now, that's NOT to say certain issues here aren't very subjective. I don't think anybody can say with certainty a 17 year old can't make a decision as well as an 18 year old, but the fact is this will ALWAYS be subjective stuff, and a line had to be drawn somewhere.

 

>What about polygamy? Incest (between adults)? Is there any

>reason to ban those practices other than that most people find

>them offensive?

 

These are tough questions, and I don't claim to have all the answers here. I would probably best argue male/female equality regarding polygamy. As to incest (at least the male/female kind), it is considered dangerous due to genetic issues if a child is conceived. I do realize those arguments both have holes, and I don't have the answers in those cases to fill them.

 

>If you do a search you will find a couple of threads in which

>posters like Lucky and ncm complain about pictures posted on

>this site by Aaron Lawrence ("Aaron's Studs"), naked pictures

>of kids who look much younger than 18. They want such

>pictures banned from this site. Why? Is there any reason

>other than that they find the pictures offensive?

 

As long as the pictures in question are indeed of people 18+, I have no issue with them, even if the models do look young. If they ARE younger than 18, though, it goes back to the above argument about consent and the person not being old enough to make that decision. (And once again, the arbitrary age of 18 was chosen because one had to be put in place somewhere on the spectrum).

 

>>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.

>

>If you want to live in a community with other people, you have

>to abide by a collective decision of the community, albeit a

>subjective one, regarding what behavior is acceptable and what

>behavior is not. No one is saying that such decisions are not

>subjective. Rather, it's the case that the subjective

>criteria for behavior are the result of a community agreement.

 

I don't believe this is necessarily true. If I believe my morals are right and just (for example, being gay), I'm not going to back down from it just because the community in which I live happens to disagree with me.

 

>What matters to other members of the community is whether a

>given individual abides by the community agreement. And if he

>is not willing to abide by it in one area, the issue is raised

>whether he will abide by it in other areas.

 

I'm sure that issue is raised, but I don't always believe it is raised justly. Sometimes conclusions are made that are based on fallacies. For example, some people feel gay people are more likely to molest children, when in fact studies have indicated otherwise.

 

>>Besides trying to avoid the law, what other

>>form of lying or manipulating people is required?

>

>Isn't that enough? If you decided to become a prostitute, who

>could you tell about it? And the other people in your life --

>what about them? If they ask you what you are doing, what

>would you say? Maybe it would be easier to come up with a

>list of the people you would NOT have to deceive about this.

>It might be a shorter list.

 

If I were a prostitute, I would trust my closest friends with it, and that's about it. I don't know what I'd tell the other people in my life - I'd probably just tell them it's not their concern to be blunt...or I'd tell them something truthful but not specific (like I'm working off the Internet...lol) and change the subject.

 

>>I don't

>>think law-abidingness necessarily reflects integrity.

>

>Does "integrity" have anything to do with "honesty"?

 

It does, but there are times when integrity supercedes honesty. I'm not bold enough to compare escorting with this directly, and I want to state that is NOT my point by citing this next example, but in times when people were being persecuted and hunted down, people would hide them and lie about doing so to protect them. Did these people lack integrity?

 

My point is simply doing the right thing isn't always doing the legal thing. Hell, as I recently thought about this weekend, sometimes there's even a question of whether the right thing is always the moral thing. (If you could stop an entire war by killing one innocent man, would you? Killing him wouldn't be moral, but would it still be right to save others? This is a somewhat off-the-wall example, but it's still worth considering in my honest opinion. I don't even think I can answer this one.)

 

I know I've gone off in a bit of a tangent, but my point is simply this - I DO think it's possible to be an escort, avoid the law, and still maintain your integrity.

 

>>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.

>

>You are the one who keeps jumping to conclusions. People who

>deliberately break the law the for their own gain have shown

>they're capable of breaking the law for their own gain. That

>doesn't mean they would break ANY law. Do you really not

>understand the difference between those two statements?

 

They've shown they're capable of breaking the law for their own gain, yes, but so are jaywalkers or people who ran a red light just as it was turning. I'm sorry if you feel I've jumped to conclusions, but what is your point if you don't feel that means they'll break other laws?

 

>If a man kills his wife to get a life insurance payment, we

>imprison him because his behavior has shown he's capable of

>murder, a dangerous man. In order to imprison him, do we have

>to conclude that he's going to kill EVERYONE who crosses his

>path?

 

Sorry, but that's an incongruous example I think. The argument you make is that if someone breaks one law, he's more likely to break OTHER laws. If someone commits murder, he's already broken THAT law, so in my opinion, it's quite fair to believe he'll do it again. (Just like it's fair to believe someone who's escorted once might verly likely do it again.)

 

>>As far as Judge Moore, . . . 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 disagree. In my opinion, if a public official finds there

>is a conflict between his religious beliefs and his official

>duties, the honorable thing for him to do is resign.

 

I have mixed feeling on what you say here. One one hand, I agree with you and that religious beliefs shouldn't conflict with official duties. On the other, I think everyone's worldview affects how they act, even in their job, and I still respect him for standing up to his beliefs. I suppose I'm not saying I'm not glad he's out of office...I am glad in many respects...but I am sorry a person lost so much for acting for what he believes in (since it didn't really directly hurt anyone else). To me, it's like the opposite end of someone being discharged from a job because he supports gay rights.

[woodlawn]

>>Why do we ban child pornography? Is a child "directly

>harmed"

>>by having his picture taken while he's naked? Is anyone

>>"directly harmed" if an adult enjoys looking at those

>>pictures? If the answer to both questions is "No," then

>isn't

>>this an example of something that is banned simply because

>>most people find it offensive? Are you saying child porn

>>should be legal?

 

>A child can be harmed psychologically permanently from child

>porn, so yes, I'd argue it should be banned on that basis.

 

But parents take naked pictures of their kids all the time. If this is harmful, why is it permitted? If it is not harmful, why is the sale of these pictures banned?

 

 

>>What about polygamy? Incest (between adults)? Is there any

>>reason to ban those practices other than that most people

>find

>>them offensive?

 

>>I don't have the answers in those cases

>to fill them.

 

That's why I think your argument that something shouldn't be banned simply because it's offensive doesn't hold water. We ban plenty of things for that reason.

 

>As long as the pictures in question are indeed of people 18+,

>I have no issue with them, even if the models do look young.

>If they ARE younger than 18, though, it goes back to the above

>argument about consent

 

Why? Again, parents take naked pictures of their kids all the time. You may remember a series of naked "art" pictures of the Brewer Twins that were taken before they were 18 by a photographer with their parents' consent and that circulated on the Web for years and years afterward. Were the Brewers harmed by that? They are now professional models. Do a google search for "Brewer Twins" and you will find plenty of references.

 

>Rather, it's the case that the subjective

>>criteria for behavior are the result of a community

>agreement.

 

>I don't believe this is necessarily true. If I believe my

>morals are right and just (for example, being gay), I'm not

>going to back down from it just because the community in which

>I live happens to disagree with me.

 

You can believe whatever you like. But if your actions contravene the moral criteria of your community to a sufficient degree, you'll find that you will no longer be able to live there.

 

 

>I don't know what I'd tell the other

>people in my life - I'd probably just tell them it's not their

>concern to be blunt...or I'd tell them something truthful but

>not specific (like I'm working off the Internet...lol) and

>change the subject.

 

In other words, you would deceive them.

 

 

>people would hide them and lie

>about doing so to protect them. Did these people lack

>integrity?

 

I think you are right in saying that there can be situations in which a person's moral beliefs would compel him to lie. But I don't see what that has to do with prostitution.

 

 

>My point is simply doing the right thing isn't always doing

>the legal thing.

 

Nobody said it was.

 

 

>They've shown they're capable of breaking the law for their

>own gain, yes, but so are jaywalkers or people who ran a red

>light just as it was turning. I'm sorry if you feel I've

>jumped to conclusions, but what is your point if you don't

>feel that means they'll break other laws?

 

I feel that means they'll break other laws, but not EVERY other law. Get it?

 

>>If a man kills his wife to get a life insurance payment, we

>>imprison him because his behavior has shown he's capable of

>>murder, a dangerous man. In order to imprison him, do we

>have

>>to conclude that he's going to kill EVERYONE who crosses his

>>path?

 

>If someone commits murder, he's

>already broken THAT law, so in my opinion, it's quite fair to

>believe he'll do it again.

 

It is? Even if he does it under unique circumstances that could not be repeated? How many times do you think a man can kill his wife and collect on the life insurance?

 

>>I disagree. In my opinion, if a public official finds there

>>is a conflict between his religious beliefs and his official

>>duties, the honorable thing for him to do is resign.

 

>To me, it's like the opposite end of someone

>being discharged from a job because he supports gay rights.

 

I don't think your analogy makes any sense. Judge Moore vowed to obey the Code of Judicial Ethics when he became a judge. The moment he realized he could no longer in good conscience obey that Code, he should have resigned. How can you honorably stay in a position if you know you can't fulfill the commitment you made when you took it?

[guptasa1]

>But parents take naked pictures of their kids all the time.

>If this is harmful, why is it permitted? If it is not

>harmful, why is the sale of these pictures banned?

 

In general, the pictures parents take are for family/closely only and not at all taken for erotic purposes. Sale of these pictures implies erotic intent. I mean...seriously...who else would buy pictures of other people's kids? There are many things to consider here - psychological impact to the child later in life, possibly feeding the desires of certain predators, etc.

 

>>>What about polygamy? Incest (between adults)? Is there

>any

>>>reason to ban those practices other than that most people

>>find

>>>them offensive?

>

>>>I don't have the answers in those cases

>>to fill them.

>

>That's why I think your argument that something shouldn't be

>banned simply because it's offensive doesn't hold water. We

>ban plenty of things for that reason.

 

Yes, but it's all entirely subjective. And, I might add, not the same in every country or even every part of this country. Many people find drinking and smoking offensive, but they're not banned in all that many places. Even more people find strip joints offensive, but what about those? While your argument holds some weight and some things may be banned ONLY because they are offensive to the majority, I think in most cases there ARE other factors to consider when something is banned, especially in the child porn and polygamy/incest cases - I mentioned a few, but there are likely more.

 

>>As long as the pictures in question are indeed of people

>18+,

>>I have no issue with them, even if the models do look young.

>

>>If they ARE younger than 18, though, it goes back to the

>above

>>argument about consent

>

>Why? Again, parents take naked pictures of their kids all the

>time. You may remember a series of naked "art" pictures of

>the Brewer Twins that were taken before they were 18 by a

>photographer with their parents' consent and that circulated

>on the Web for years and years afterward. Were the Brewers

>harmed by that? They are now professional models. Do a

>google search for "Brewer Twins" and you will find plenty of

>references.

 

Never heard of these people (didn't look it up, at least yet). Even so, you'll find exceptions to everything.

 

>>Rather, it's the case that the subjective

>>>criteria for behavior are the result of a community

>>agreement.

>

>>I don't believe this is necessarily true. If I believe my

>>morals are right and just (for example, being gay), I'm not

>>going to back down from it just because the community in

>which

>>I live happens to disagree with me.

>

>You can believe whatever you like. But if your actions

>contravene the moral criteria of your community to a

>sufficient degree, you'll find that you will no longer be able

>to live there.

 

Yes, but I think in general it requires either a LOT of flamboyance or several moral disagreements for something like this to happen, and even then, some people stand their ground.

 

>>I don't know what I'd tell the other

>>people in my life - I'd probably just tell them it's not

>their

>>concern to be blunt...or I'd tell them something truthful

>but

>>not specific (like I'm working off the Internet...lol) and

>>change the subject.

>

>In other words, you would deceive them.

 

If you hold to the belief that only telling EVERYTHING is the truth and everything else deceit, yes. Personally, I believe you can often (not always) be truthful but not tell everyone things that aren't their business.

 

>>people would hide them and lie

>>about doing so to protect them. Did these people lack

>>integrity?

>

>I think you are right in saying that there can be situations

>in which a person's moral beliefs would compel him to lie.

>But I don't see what that has to do with prostitution.

 

Just making the point below.

 

>>My point is simply doing the right thing isn't always doing

>>the legal thing.

>

>Nobody said it was.

 

Fair enough. Just establishing that.

 

>>They've shown they're capable of breaking the law for their

>>own gain, yes, but so are jaywalkers or people who ran a red

>>light just as it was turning. I'm sorry if you feel I've

>>jumped to conclusions, but what is your point if you don't

>>feel that means they'll break other laws?

>

>I feel that means they'll break other laws, but not EVERY

>other law. Get it?

 

On what basis? Do you honestly know anyone who's NEVER broken a single law, no matter how minor?

 

>>>If a man kills his wife to get a life insurance payment, we

>>>imprison him because his behavior has shown he's capable of

>>>murder, a dangerous man. In order to imprison him, do we

>>have

>>>to conclude that he's going to kill EVERYONE who crosses

>his

>>>path?

>

>>If someone commits murder, he's

>>already broken THAT law, so in my opinion, it's quite fair

>to

>>believe he'll do it again.

>

>It is? Even if he does it under unique circumstances that

>could not be repeated? How many times do you think a man can

>kill his wife and collect on the life insurance?

 

I should have said "he might" instead of "he'll" here. If someone does a violent behavior, that means he is capable of violent behavior. You're implying the same TYPE of crime even if not the same circumstances. I don't think it's fair to argue one crime can lead to a totally different type of crime.

 

>>>I disagree. In my opinion, if a public official finds

>there

>>>is a conflict between his religious beliefs and his

>official

>>>duties, the honorable thing for him to do is resign.

>

>>To me, it's like the opposite end of someone

>>being discharged from a job because he supports gay rights.

>

>I don't think your analogy makes any sense. Judge Moore vowed

>to obey the Code of Judicial Ethics when he became a judge.

>The moment he realized he could no longer in good conscience

>obey that Code, he should have resigned. How can you

>honorably stay in a position if you know you can't fulfill the

>commitment you made when you took it?

 

You do make a point here, and probably the best thing he could have done was resign. I don't think his own ethics met up with the vow he took, and I feel via his thinking, his religious law superceded the man-made one. I think in his mind it was civil disobedience. (In other words, I think he legitimately THOUGHT he was doing the right thing, even if I don't think it WAS the right thing.)

[woodlawn]

>>But parents take naked pictures of their kids all the time.

>

>>If this is harmful, why is it permitted? If it is not

>>harmful, why is the sale of these pictures banned?

 

>In general, the pictures parents take are for family/closely

>only and not at all taken for erotic purposes. Sale of these

>pictures implies erotic intent.

 

So what? How does a child know what is in the mind of someone who takes his picture? And if the child doesn't know, how is he harmed by it?

 

 

> I mean...seriously...who else

>would buy pictures of other people's kids? There are many

>things to consider here - psychological impact to the child

>later in life, possibly feeding the desires of certain

>predators, etc.

 

What is the psychological impact to a child who has no idea his picture is being taken for erotic purposes? And what do you mean "feeding the desires of certain predators"? How does it "directly harm" -- those are YOUR words -- anyone if adults look at naked pictures of kids? I think it's time for you to be honest enough to admit that there are plenty of things that are banned by law for no other reason than that most people find them offensive.

 

 

>Yes, but it's all entirely subjective.

 

Is that supposed to be an answer? Of course the decision as to what is offensive is a subjective decision. That doesn't change the fact that many things are banned because they're considered offensive. And it's clear you agree with some of those bans. You are just trying to come up with additional reasons for them.

 

>Many people find drinking and smoking offensive, but they're

>not banned in all that many places.

 

On the contrary, it's becoming harder and harder to find a public place in any major metropolitan area in which smoking is NOT banned.

 

>While your

>argument holds some weight and some things may be banned ONLY

>because they are offensive to the majority, I think in most

>cases there ARE other factors to consider when something is

>banned, especially in the child porn and polygamy/incest cases

>- I mentioned a few, but there are likely more.

 

I have yet to see you explain what harm is done to anyone if adults look at naked pictures of kids. I know of nothing about that which fits your criterion of something that does "direct harm" to others. If we use your criterion, child porn should be allowed.

 

>>Why? Again, parents take naked pictures of their kids all

>the

>>time. You may remember a series of naked "art" pictures of

>>the Brewer Twins

 

 

>Never heard of these people (didn't look it up, at least yet).

> Even so, you'll find exceptions to everything.

 

LOL! Is that supposed to be an argument, "you'll find exceptions to everything"? So far all we have found IS exceptions, but nothing that proves your point that we don't ban things simply because the majority finds them offensive.

 

>Yes, but I think in general it requires either a LOT of

>flamboyance or several moral disagreements for something like

>this to happen, and even then, some people stand their

>ground.

 

So? It's time you were honest enough to acknowledge a very simple and unobjectionable point -- many of our laws are simply codifications of moral beliefs that are generally accepted in our society, and the law against prostitution is one of them.

 

>>In other words, you would deceive them.

 

>If you hold to the belief that only telling EVERYTHING is the

>truth and everything else deceit, yes.

 

I'd say it depends on the motive. If your motive in giving a less than complete answer to someone's question is that you want him to believe something other than the truth about what you are doing, I'd call it deceit.

 

>Personally, I believe

>you can often (not always) be truthful but not tell everyone

>things that aren't their business.

 

If all you want to convey is that what you're doing is not their business, why don't you simply say that? By saying you are "working on the Internet" what you are really doing is deliberately trying to get them to believe something other than the truth. Yes, that is deceit.

 

 

>>I feel that means they'll break other laws, but not EVERY

>>other law. Get it?

 

>On what basis? Do you honestly know anyone who's NEVER broken

>a single law, no matter how minor?

 

Let me put it this way. I know very few people who deliberately set out to violate criminal laws of whose existence they are well aware, and who set out to do so for their own financial gain. That is what we are talking about here, not jaywalking.

 

>I don't think it's fair to

>argue one crime can lead to a totally different type of

>crime.

 

I do think it's fair. Isn't an example the fact that most murders in certain urban neighborhoods are about controlling the sale of drugs in those neighborhoods? Drug dealing and murder are two quite different types of crimes, right?

[guptasa1]

>>In general, the pictures parents take are for family/closely

>>only and not at all taken for erotic purposes. Sale of

>these

>>pictures implies erotic intent.

>

>So what? How does a child know what is in the mind of someone

>who takes his picture? And if the child doesn't know, how is

>he harmed by it?

 

Because it's the exploitation of a sentient being without their full knowledge, understanding, and consent. It could also come back to hurt them later if not immediately. That, and children are smarter than people give them credit - if they're taken pictures of constantly, they're going to eventually figure out something's up.

 

Escorting's different because the escort is assumed of legal age and able to fully understand what he or she is doing.

 

>What is the psychological impact to a child who has no idea

>his picture is being taken for erotic purposes? And what do

>you mean "feeding the desires of certain predators"? How does

>it "directly harm" -- those are YOUR words -- anyone if adults

>look at naked pictures of kids? I think it's time for you to

>be honest enough to admit that there are plenty of things that

>are banned by law for no other reason than that most people

>find them offensive.

 

Again, it's exploitation. Though I still firmly feel, especially if the child knows, that he or she can be directly and irrepairably harmed by the pictures, there are other more indirect consequences of child pornography, including people who see it frequently feeling it's okay and possibly taking advantage (being predators) of children instead of getting help.

 

>>Yes, but it's all entirely subjective.

>

>Is that supposed to be an answer? Of course the decision as

>to what is offensive is a subjective decision. That doesn't

>change the fact that many things are banned because they're

>considered offensive. And it's clear you agree with some of

>those bans. You are just trying to come up with additional

>reasons for them.

 

I think the offensiveness is a PART of the reason they're banned. I do feel, at least in most cases, there are other reasons for it, both direct and indirect. I'd argue, in fact, escorting itself is banned partially because of the health risk it presents, not just because it's offensive to some people.

 

I do agree with some of the things banned, but I also believe most of them have other reasons besides being only offensive.

 

>>Many people find drinking and smoking offensive, but they're

>>not banned in all that many places.

>

>On the contrary, it's becoming harder and harder to find a

>public place in any major metropolitan area in which smoking

>is NOT banned.

 

Ehhh...I see what you're saying, but there are still a LOT of places smoking and drinking aren't banned.

 

But why not pornography? Or strip clubs? Many people find that stuff extremely offensive.

 

>>While your

>>argument holds some weight and some things may be banned

>ONLY

>>because they are offensive to the majority, I think in most

>>cases there ARE other factors to consider when something is

>>banned, especially in the child porn and polygamy/incest

>cases

>>- I mentioned a few, but there are likely more.

>

>I have yet to see you explain what harm is done to anyone if

>adults look at naked pictures of kids. I know of nothing

>about that which fits your criterion of something that does

>"direct harm" to others. If we use your criterion, child porn

>should be allowed.

 

Discussed above.

 

>>>Why? Again, parents take naked pictures of their kids all

>>the

>>>time. You may remember a series of naked "art" pictures of

>>>the Brewer Twins

>

>

>>Never heard of these people (didn't look it up, at least

>yet).

>> Even so, you'll find exceptions to everything.

>

>LOL! Is that supposed to be an argument, "you'll find

>exceptions to everything"? So far all we have found IS

>exceptions, but nothing that proves your point that we don't

>ban things simply because the majority finds them offensive.

 

There are exceptions where children were exploited and turned out okay. That doesn't mean as a general rule, it's a good idea.

 

>>Yes, but I think in general it requires either a LOT of

>>flamboyance or several moral disagreements for something

>like

>>this to happen, and even then, some people stand their

>>ground.

>

>So? It's time you were honest enough to acknowledge a very

>simple and unobjectionable point -- many of our laws are

>simply codifications of moral beliefs that are generally

>accepted in our society, and the law against prostitution is

>one of them.

 

I'm honestly not ready to say that. I'm ready to say that's a large part of it, but not all of it - I still think people's safety is also a part of it.

 

>>If you hold to the belief that only telling EVERYTHING is

>the

>>truth and everything else deceit, yes.

>

>I'd say it depends on the motive. If your motive in giving a

>less than complete answer to someone's question is that you

>want him to believe something other than the truth about what

>you are doing, I'd call it deceit.

 

I'd call it none of their business, but that's just me - lol.

 

>>Personally, I believe

>>you can often (not always) be truthful but not tell everyone

>>things that aren't their business.

>

>If all you want to convey is that what you're doing is not

>their business, why don't you simply say that? By saying you

>are "working on the Internet" what you are really doing is

>deliberately trying to get them to believe something other

>than the truth. Yes, that is deceit.

 

Sometimes I would say it's not their business outright - other times I'd put it more delicately; depends on the situation. I've often said "meeting a friend" when asked by family members where I was going when I was meeting an escort, but from my point of view, that wasn't exactly a total lie...it wasn't exactly a detailed, truthful statement either. I suppose you're right in that regard and you can classify it as deceit. It's usually to avoid trouble more than anything else, and I don't really have a moral problem with that.

 

>>>I feel that means they'll break other laws, but not EVERY

>>>other law. Get it?

>

>>On what basis? Do you honestly know anyone who's NEVER

>broken

>>a single law, no matter how minor?

>

>Let me put it this way. I know very few people who

>deliberately set out to violate criminal laws of whose

>existence they are well aware, and who set out to do so for

>their own financial gain. That is what we are talking about

>here, not jaywalking.

 

Why does the gain have to be strictly financial? Jaywalking might get you to your destination a bit quicker. It's still something gained. If they're willing to break that law, why not others? The argument you're making above just isn't all that convincing to me.

 

>>I don't think it's fair to

>>argue one crime can lead to a totally different type of

>>crime.

>

>I do think it's fair. Isn't an example the fact that most

>murders in certain urban neighborhoods are about controlling

>the sale of drugs in those neighborhoods? Drug dealing and

>murder are two quite different types of crimes, right?

 

Don't get me wrong. I think your theory makes sense with some crimes, but I don't think it holds up as well with others.

 

While not everybody would agree with this, drug-dealing is generally considered harmful to people because drugs directly damage people's health, cause dependence, etc. In other words, drug dealers, especially ones who sell the harder or more dangerous stuff, probably don't care much about their clients and even try to hurt them maliciously by addicting them to drugs. It doesn't surprise me that there's a correlation between drug dealing and murder in that case.

 

Escorting, however, does NOT in my opinion generally have that same maliciousness as drug dealing. You can't get physically addicted to sex (you can emotionally or psychologically, but that's with anything), and it can't harm you unless the escort is unsafe or intentionally trying to harm you (in which case, he has other problems).

 

In other words, to sum it up, I think that analogy has flaws as far as intent and willingness to harm other people.

 

Now I'd just like to say I could keep going back and forth like this forever, but if you'd like to, I'm also fine with declaring a friendly truce and agree to disagree. Though if you want to keep going, I'm up for it too. [And no, it's not because I feel my arguments are weak - I just feel it's getting a bit circular at this point - lol.]

[bluenix]

>

>Now I'd just like to say I could keep going back and forth

>like this forever, but if you'd like to, I'm also fine with

>declaring a friendly truce and agree to disagree. Though

>if you want to keep going, I'm up for it too.

 

Oh, that's right. You're new here, aren't you.

 

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-140.gif

[Guest]

>Why do we ban child pornography? Is a child "directly harmed"

>by having his picture taken while he's naked? Is anyone

>"directly harmed" if an adult enjoys looking at those

>pictures? If the answer to both questions is "No," then isn't

>this an example of something that is banned simply because

>most people find it offensive? Are you saying child porn

>should be legal?

>

A child does not have the maturity/experience to understand the possible ramifications of having his naked picture taken. Therefore, at the time the picture is taken, there may be no direct harm. Nevertheless, as time passes, the consequences may (albeit not necassarily always) include severe and/or permanent psychological trauma to the child (maybe even later as an adult). Since children do not appreciate the possible consequences of their actions, and also since they are easily coerced, we have laws to protect children. This is akin to not let a 4 year-old run into a street. Although running into a street, per se, is not harmful, a 4 year-old doesn't understand he may get run over by a car. We have laws to protect children not because harm inevitably comes from violations of these laws, but only because a high potential exists.

 

>What about polygamy? Incest (between adults)? Is there any

>reason to ban those practices other than that most people find

>them offensive?

>

I personally feel it's inappropriate to ban polygamy. Banning polygamy only serves to promote certain religious values over others. Not all religions or cultures decry polygamy. As for laws against incest, they serve to prevent the apprearance of genetic defects.

 

>If you do a search you will find a couple of threads in which

>posters like Lucky and ncm complain about pictures posted on

>this site by Aaron Lawrence ("Aaron's Studs"), naked pictures

>of kids who look much younger than 18. They want such

>pictures banned from this site. Why? Is there any reason

>other than that they find the pictures offensive?

>

As one who finds those pictures offensive, I'll answer that one. I'm not offended because these pictures look like kids much younger than 18. I'm offended because these pictures clearly are those of young children. It's obviously easy enough to get fake identification in Russia and those Baltic countries Aaron Lawrence visits. He's taking advantage of how easy it is to coerce young, probably homeless runaways with no money. The thought of it really turns my stomach.

[guyinsf]

An interesting argument, but consider this: Having gay sex of any kind is still criminal in some places. Should we assume that gay people who live somewhere that has a law that says their sexual orientation is "bad" lack the ethics of "normal" people? In other words, can you generalize from the fact that someone breaks one law (has gay sex) to a general position of lawlessness or lack of moral character? I don't think so. To suggest that someone accepting payment for sexual services necessarily has different business ethics than the waitress at the corner coffee shop or the CEO of a major corporation, simply because prostitution is illegal, doesn't make much sense to me. There are immoral and unethical people in every profession, just as there are people who conduct themselves ethically even though their actions might be considered "immoral" by general community standards.

 

>The fact you're leaving out of your analysis is that

>prostitution is a criminal enterprise, not a legitimate

>business like that of "anybody else whose expensive time they

>pay for." Prostitution is an underground, illegal activity,

>and it doesn't make a great deal of sense to expect those who

>engage in it to behave exactly like people in other

>businesses. The very fact that they're prostitutes shows that

>they are willing to cross certain legal and moral lines in

>order to get what they want. The only "blame" that attaches

>to Cougar is that he seems to have forgotten that fact.

>

>I realize that some of the clients who post here like to

>pretend that prostitution is a normal business and one should

>therefore have the same expectations in dealing with

>prostitutes as in dealing with people in any other trade.

>That is merely a fantasy, however, and you are not doing

>anyone a kindness by encouraging him to indulge in it.

>

>

>

[guyinsf]

Ignore my previous post. I shouldn't have replied before reading the entire thread (I have been away for almost two weeks) and I see that this argument has been hammered to death (and I'm only halfway into the thread at this point).

[guptasa1]

>I personally feel it's inappropriate to ban polygamy. Banning >polygamy only serves to promote certain religious values over >others. Not all religions or cultures decry polygamy. As for laws >against incest, they serve to prevent the apprearance of genetic >defects.

 

I've thought about these two issues a bit more too.

 

To be honest, the more I think about it, the more I realize there really isn't any reason for me to object to polygamy either. It's not my thing, but if people on both sides of the arrangement want to do it, I see no problem with it. I still think equal rights of men and women come into play here and that's some of the reasoning for the ban, but that aside, if it's banned mostly because of public opinion, I guess I don't think it should be either.

 

I agree with the incest ban mainly to prevent genetic problems. As to other types of incest relationship where this isn't a risk, frankly, I don't think there's a good reason to ban it. People are going to do what they're going to do, and as long as it's not hurting anyone else, more power to 'em.

[woodlawn]

>Nevertheless, as time passes, the consequences

>may (albeit not necassarily always) include severe and/or

>permanent psychological trauma to the child (maybe even later

>as an adult).

 

If all of that can arise from having a naked picture taken, then why are parents allowed to do it?

 

>As for

>laws against incest, they serve to prevent the apprearance of

>genetic defects.

 

But if that is the only reason for them, they are far broader than necessary. All that is necessary is to ban pregnancy in such situations, not to ban the sex act itself. Banning the sex act itself makes sense only if there is some other reason at work.

 

>The thought of it really turns my

>stomach.

 

Okay, but if the fact that you find it offensive is reason enough to ban it, why is that not a sufficient reason to ban prostitution?

[Guest]

>>Nevertheless, as time passes, the consequences

>>may (albeit not necassarily always) include severe and/or

>>permanent psychological trauma to the child (maybe even

>later

>>as an adult).

>

>If all of that can arise from having a naked picture taken,

>then why are parents allowed to do it?

 

Come now. This is pretty obvious. The parent has the means of assuring that the pictures will not be used for pornographic purposes. If even a parent uses his child's naked pictures for potentially erotic purposes (i.e. has the child in an erotic pose or puts the picture up for sale), the parent would be subject to severe consequences. I suspect the consequences would start with placing the child in foster care. Photo developers are usually required to report kiddie porn pictures to the police (even, and probably especially, if the parent takes the pictures).

>

>>As for

>>laws against incest, they serve to prevent the apprearance

>of

>>genetic defects.

>

>But if that is the only reason for them, they are far broader

>than necessary. All that is necessary is to ban pregnancy in

>such situations, not to ban the sex act itself. Banning the

>sex act itself makes sense only if there is some other reason

>at work.

>

This is obviously not practical from a legal standpoint. You cannot require someone by law to get an abortion. Surely you can't be serious in suggesting that.

 

>>The thought of it really turns my

>>stomach.

>

>Okay, but if the fact that you find it offensive is reason

>enough to ban it, why is that not a sufficient reason to ban

>prostitution?

>

I never said that the fact that I (or anyone else) finds something offensive is a reason to ban anything. I believe I said just the opposite. If you re-read what I wrote, the principle involved is that a civilized society has both the right and the duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves (in this case, children). What's most revolting is not the pictures themselves (although they are disgusting), but the fact that Aaron Lawrence coerced children into having their naked pictures spread all over the globe for the enjoyment of pedophiles everywhere.

[Flower]

> But I do respect him at least some for standing up

>for his beliefs.

 

Some have suggested that he engineered this entire fiasco catering to the RR views of voters in his area--"surprisingly" he is now considered one of the most electable candidates for governor or most other political office in the state. I say he was self-promoting rather than standing up for his beliefs.

[guptasa1]

> Some have suggested that he

>engineered this entire fiasco catering to the RR views of

>voters in his area--"surprisingly" he is now considered one of

>the most electable candidates for governor or most other

>political office in the state. I say he was self-promoting

>rather than standing up for his beliefs.

 

I didn't know about this, and if this is in fact the case, my respect for him goes out the window. Thanks for pointing it out - it's an interesting thought (and scary). My point was that in general and as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, I respect people who truly stand up for what they believe even if I disagree with their beliefs. A political motive certainly puts a spin on this particular case, though.

[woodlawn]

>>If all of that can arise from having a naked picture taken,

>>then why are parents allowed to do it?

 

>Come now. This is pretty obvious. The parent has the means

>of assuring that the pictures will not be used for

>pornographic purposes.

 

But what you are not addressing is how it harms the child either now or later if people he doesn't know are looking at naked pictures of him for their own enjoyment. Unless the child visits child pornography websites himself for some reason in the future, how would he ever know about it? And if he never knows about it, how could he be harmed by it? I think you must acknowledge that a law banning the sale or possession of such pictures is a measure far broader than is necessary simply to protect the people in those pictures from harm. And if that is not the reason for the ban, then what is?

 

>>But if that is the only reason for them, they are far

>broader

>>than necessary. All that is necessary is to ban pregnancy

>in

>>such situations, not to ban the sex act itself. Banning the

>>sex act itself makes sense only if there is some other

>reason

>>at work.

 

>This is obviously not practical from a legal standpoint. You

>cannot require someone by law to get an abortion. Surely you

>can't be serious in suggesting that.

 

I'm afraid that simply is not true. The state does indeed make decisions about whether a given pregnancy will or will not go to term. One very recent and very famous example is the case of a severely retarded woman in Florida who became pregnant as the result of rape by someone in the care facility in which she was living. Governor Bush went to court to prevent the fetus from being aborted.

 

If we can have laws that punish people for having unprotected sex if they know they are HIV positive -- and there are such laws as you know -- then why not laws that prohibit people from having unprotected sex that is incestuous? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

 

>I never said that the fact that I (or anyone else) finds

>something offensive is a reason to ban anything. I believe I

>said just the opposite. If you re-read what I wrote, the

>principle involved is that a civilized society has both the

>right and the duty to protect those who cannot protect

>themselves (in this case, children).

 

But what is it that you would protect them from? If they don't mind having the pictures circulated -- or never even know it happened -- then what is the purpose of this law?

 

> What's most revolting is

>not the pictures themselves (although they are disgusting),

>but the fact that Aaron Lawrence coerced children into having

>their naked pictures spread all over the globe for the

>enjoyment of pedophiles everywhere.

 

Suppose they were not coerced? Should the mere fact that pedophiles enjoy them be sufficient reason to ban them?