|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2011 01:14:45 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
Wow this actually sounds like an argument from an atheist in a religion debate. Just about everything you're saying in this thread are strong arguments against religion. Lack of choices, hopelessness, having choices made for them before they care capable of making their own are all areas where religion has its strongest foothold.
Message edited by author 2011-05-25 13:16:29.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 02:21:12 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
Wow this actually sounds like an argument from an atheist in a religion debate. Just about everything you're saying in this thread are strong arguments against religion. Lack of choices, hopelessness, having choices made for them before they care capable of making their own are all areas where religion has its strongest foothold. |
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 03:18:15 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
Wow this actually sounds like an argument from an atheist in a religion debate. Just about everything you're saying in this thread are strong arguments against religion. Lack of choices, hopelessness, having choices made for them before they care capable of making their own are all areas where religion has its strongest foothold. |
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Your comprehension is bizarro to me. If you thought I said religion provides no hope you would be wrong. I didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite actually. The more hopeless you feel the more religion becomes attractive because it does provide hope as long as you believe in it.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 04:22:31 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
First, why do you think they have this "right"? Are you now talking in a legal/constitutional manner because clearly this is not the case. We (our legal system) are both comfortable with limiting personal freedom in cases like seatbelts, and the Supreme Court of the US has weighed in on prostitution in specific saying that the legislature had the right to prohibit it (US vs. Bitty). So what "right" is being infringed upon?
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
The US SC has wrongfully restricted the rights of individuals in the past, no? |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 04:31:57 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it helps to explain that I can also imagine a possible scenario where a woman and a man congenially and consensually exchange sex for money and leave happy. I don't think, however, that this is compelling enough to either philosophically defend prostitution or legally endorse it. I think the hypothetical is so divorced from the reality of prostitution (legal or otherwise) as to be unhelpful.
My 7th grade teacher used to tell the parable of a kid who drops his ice cream cone in a cow pie. Is he then going to pick it up and continue to eat it based on the fact that "there's ice cream in there"? Of course not. The bad of a situation can easily outweigh any actual good.
I see prostitution like this, though I'm not even sure there actually is some ice cream under the cow pie. In any case I wouldn't encourage people to try to find out. |
Their mutual or individual happiness is irrelevant. As I've said before, a prostitute may not like or enjoy their profession, but they should be allowed it. A stripper, a porn star or the guy behind the counter at McD's may not enjoy their work either, but they have the right to do the work and to profit from it. The choices people have may not be choosing between good, better and best, but instead choosing between bad, worse and worst.
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
you keep likening Mcdonald's worker's to whores, and its important to remember that one jobs sucks literally, and the other figuratively.
Some ten year olds can handle and UZI just fine; some blow their own heads off- we give up the rights of the few, to the health and safety of all, the government, just as in prostitution, has to be a bit paternal at times and say that an area of legislation is of such a nature that restrictive laws are appropriate.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 04:34:28 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
Would the fact that most john's are married men be considered a harm to you? The fact that they are breaking their vows and exposing their spouses to possible disease while taking money out of the family budget is a possible harm.
There are modes of prostitution that are more or less harmful, if you can strip out the pimps, the diseases, the drugs, the underage children in the trade, the streetwalkers, the piles of used condoms discarded on doorsteps, all the elements of the trade that make it so visible to the average church going folks, basically run it like it is run in the Netherlands or in certain counties in Nevada then the harm is lessened. But that takes a lot of government involvement, and some people hate that as much as prostitution. |
No, marriage doesn't make a difference.
What if the other spouse had been spending the grocery money on shoes at Nordstrom? Should the mall be outlawed?
What if the straying spouse got a disease by "applying himself and getting it for free" at some sleazy bar?
It might be grounds for dissolution of the marriage, but, in any event, soliciting prostitutes or other forms of adultery are symptoms, not the cause, of a troubled marriage. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 04:42:06 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it helps to explain that I can also imagine a possible scenario where a woman and a man congenially and consensually exchange sex for money and leave happy. I don't think, however, that this is compelling enough to either philosophically defend prostitution or legally endorse it. I think the hypothetical is so divorced from the reality of prostitution (legal or otherwise) as to be unhelpful.
My 7th grade teacher used to tell the parable of a kid who drops his ice cream cone in a cow pie. Is he then going to pick it up and continue to eat it based on the fact that "there's ice cream in there"? Of course not. The bad of a situation can easily outweigh any actual good.
I see prostitution like this, though I'm not even sure there actually is some ice cream under the cow pie. In any case I wouldn't encourage people to try to find out. |
Their mutual or individual happiness is irrelevant. As I've said before, a prostitute may not like or enjoy their profession, but they should be allowed it. A stripper, a porn star or the guy behind the counter at McD's may not enjoy their work either, but they have the right to do the work and to profit from it. The choices people have may not be choosing between good, better and best, but instead choosing between bad, worse and worst.
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
you keep likening Mcdonald's worker's to whores, and its important to remember that one jobs sucks literally, and the other figuratively.
Some ten year olds can handle and UZI just fine; some blow their own heads off- we give up the rights of the few, to the health and safety of all, the government, just as in prostitution, has to be a bit paternal at times and say that an area of legislation is of such a nature that restrictive laws are appropriate. |
We're talking about adults, not 10 year olds.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 05:13:47 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
First, why do you think they have this "right"? Are you now talking in a legal/constitutional manner because clearly this is not the case. We (our legal system) are both comfortable with limiting personal freedom in cases like seatbelts, and the Supreme Court of the US has weighed in on prostitution in specific saying that the legislature had the right to prohibit it (US vs. Bitty). So what "right" is being infringed upon?
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
The US SC has wrongfully restricted the rights of individuals in the past, no? |
Yes, they have. This is why we need to be very clear about what we mean by a "right". If you mean a legal right then the SCOTUS cannot "get it wrong" until the SCOTUS decides to change their mind. That's how rights work in our society in a legal sense. The SCOTUS is the ultimate authority and can only be overturned by itself. If, on the other hand, you mean a philosophical right, then the SCOTUS could, indeed, be "wrong". BUT, now you need to provide all the philosophical framework to defend your position that such a thing is, in fact, a right. To make matters worse, you need to provide whether it is a universal right, a limited right, or a subjective right. You've done nothing of the sort other than just to assert that being a prostitute falls under the libertarian "pursuit of happiness". I've said many times that in my worldview this is no trump card. There are limits on the philosophical right to pursue happiness.
Message edited by author 2011-05-25 17:15:58. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 05:21:24 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Your comprehension is bizarro to me. If you thought I said religion provides no hope you would be wrong. I didn't say that at all. Quite the opposite actually. The more hopeless you feel the more religion becomes attractive because it does provide hope as long as you believe in it. |
I'm with you now. I obviously disagree though. I don't think there is a large population of religious adherents who are coerced into their faith; and if there are, I don't think that's a good thing. I'm sure the cynical position might arrive at a different conclusion. Still, we've kept religion out of this conversation so far, why dive back into that? Hey! News flash! Richard doesn't like religion! Achoo does! Stop the presses!!! |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 08:41:50 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
First, why do you think they have this "right"? Are you now talking in a legal/constitutional manner because clearly this is not the case. We (our legal system) are both comfortable with limiting personal freedom in cases like seatbelts, and the Supreme Court of the US has weighed in on prostitution in specific saying that the legislature had the right to prohibit it (US vs. Bitty). So what "right" is being infringed upon?
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
The US SC has wrongfully restricted the rights of individuals in the past, no? |
Yes, they have. This is why we need to be very clear about what we mean by a "right". If you mean a legal right then the SCOTUS cannot "get it wrong" until the SCOTUS decides to change their mind. That's how rights work in our society in a legal sense. The SCOTUS is the ultimate authority and can only be overturned by itself. If, on the other hand, you mean a philosophical right, then the SCOTUS could, indeed, be "wrong". BUT, now you need to provide all the philosophical framework to defend your position that such a thing is, in fact, a right. To make matters worse, you need to provide whether it is a universal right, a limited right, or a subjective right. You've done nothing of the sort other than just to assert that being a prostitute falls under the libertarian "pursuit of happiness". I've said many times that in my worldview this is no trump card. There are limits on the philosophical right to pursue happiness. |
Those "philosophical" limits happen when one's right to pursue happiness infringes on another's rights.
For example, if killing people makes me happy, my right to pursue that is trumped by the other person's right to not be injured or killed.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 09:47:09 PM · #211 |
| A reasonable summary (not argument) of the Libertarian position. However, I'm not a Libertarian... |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 11:17:00 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
You are absolutely right about there being enough threads about that... the rest of it... not so much. Remember the "Free Will" thing.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 11:41:11 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't think there is a large population of religious adherents who are coerced into their faith; and if there are, I don't think that's a good thing. |
Too bad you weren't around in the late 1700s then ... :-(  |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 01:07:01 AM · #214 |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 01:43:21 AM · #215 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
Wow this actually sounds like an argument from an atheist in a religion debate. Just about everything you're saying in this thread are strong arguments against religion. Lack of choices, hopelessness, having choices made for them before they care capable of making their own are all areas where religion has its strongest foothold. |
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Oh get off it doc. Atheists have just as much hope in their lives as anyone else. Just because it's not YOUR dream doesn't mean your hopes are any more relevant. Obviously we haven't had enough threads about it if you continue to be so ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2011 01:46:53 AM · #216 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Oh get off it doc. Atheists have just as much hope in their lives as anyone else. Just because it's not YOUR dream doesn't mean your hopes are any more relevant. Obviously we haven't had enough threads about it if you continue to be so ridiculous. |
I don't think that's what he means, though; I think he's just referring to how religions tend to provide an attractive "afterlife" to their followers, and this, in theory, gives even the bleakest, sorriest adherents of the faith something to look forward to, to hope for. I mean, from a cynical point of view that's what religions DO: promise people eternity in exchange for obeisance now...
R.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2011 02:03:02 AM · #217 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Oh get off it doc. Atheists have just as much hope in their lives as anyone else. Just because it's not YOUR dream doesn't mean your hopes are any more relevant. Obviously we haven't had enough threads about it if you continue to be so ridiculous. |
I don't think that's what he means, though; I think he's just referring to how religions tend to provide an attractive "afterlife" to their followers, and this, in theory, gives even the bleakest, sorriest adherents of the faith something to look forward to, to hope for. I mean, from a cynical point of view that's what religions DO: promise people eternity in exchange for obeisance now...
R. |
Atheists don't necessarily lack afterlife beliefs though. Also, those that believe in nothingness actually hope for it. For some, that 'promise' is just as attractive (if not more so) than any religious afterlife. So it's still a meaningless and ridiculous statement. What he REALLY means is, "My belief in my religion has more hope for me than an atheist position". Not quite the same thing.
Message edited by author 2011-05-26 02:03:20.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2011 02:08:24 AM · #218 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Atheists don't necessarily lack afterlife beliefs though. Also, those that believe in nothingness actually hope for it. For some, that 'promise' is just as attractive (if not more so) than any religious afterlife. So it's still a meaningless and ridiculous statement. What he REALLY means is, "My belief in my religion has more hope for me than an atheist position". Not quite the same thing. |
You may be right, but I think he was just reacting to a conflation of "religion" and "hopelessness" with pretty much a throwaway line, that, in the end, religion is all about OFFERING hope, not denying it. And that's true enough. I don't think it needs to be pursued much further than that :-)
R. |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 09:28:25 AM · #219 |
Now we're on to the fairy tales...
Message edited by author 2011-05-26 09:29:10. |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 11:39:23 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Oh get off it doc. Atheists have just as much hope in their lives as anyone else. Just because it's not YOUR dream doesn't mean your hopes are any more relevant. Obviously we haven't had enough threads about it if you continue to be so ridiculous. |
I don't think that's what he means, though; I think he's just referring to how religions tend to provide an attractive "afterlife" to their followers, and this, in theory, gives even the bleakest, sorriest adherents of the faith something to look forward to, to hope for. I mean, from a cynical point of view that's what religions DO: promise people eternity in exchange for obeisance now...
R. |
Atheists don't necessarily lack afterlife beliefs though. Also, those that believe in nothingness actually hope for it. For some, that 'promise' is just as attractive (if not more so) than any religious afterlife. So it's still a meaningless and ridiculous statement. What he REALLY means is, "My belief in my religion has more hope for me than an atheist position". Not quite the same thing. |
Actually the hope I was referring to was the hope of restoration and justice (though eternal life will be part of this). We all know the world is broken and screwed up. Most religions, and Christianity in particular, have the hope that one day it will be made right. That hope can take people a long way.
It is more eloquently stated by a philosopher in an essay I recently read: "If there is no God, then there will be no time when the blind will see, and the deaf will hear and the lame will walk. If there is no God, there is no hope of a time when all will be made right."
But, as Bear said, we don't need to pursue this much further...
Message edited by author 2011-05-26 11:39:53. |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 12:51:54 PM · #221 |
| Poor Jason...after this thread, we'll probably find you in the barn smoking your horse's hay! |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 12:54:31 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by hihosilver:
Poor Jason...after this thread, we'll probably find you in the barn smoking your horse's hay! |
I'm sure I could get a medical marijuana card for the emotional stress... ;) |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 01:30:16 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You, of course, have a bizarro-world view of religion. Hopelessness?!? Holy cow. If there is one thing religion has in spades over an atheist position, it's hope. But we have enough threads about that. |
Oh get off it doc. Atheists have just as much hope in their lives as anyone else. Just because it's not YOUR dream doesn't mean your hopes are any more relevant. Obviously we haven't had enough threads about it if you continue to be so ridiculous. |
I don't think that's what he means, though; I think he's just referring to how religions tend to provide an attractive "afterlife" to their followers, and this, in theory, gives even the bleakest, sorriest adherents of the faith something to look forward to, to hope for. I mean, from a cynical point of view that's what religions DO: promise people eternity in exchange for obeisance now...
R. |
Atheists don't necessarily lack afterlife beliefs though. Also, those that believe in nothingness actually hope for it. For some, that 'promise' is just as attractive (if not more so) than any religious afterlife. So it's still a meaningless and ridiculous statement. What he REALLY means is, "My belief in my religion has more hope for me than an atheist position". Not quite the same thing. |
Actually the hope I was referring to was the hope of restoration and justice (though eternal life will be part of this). We all know the world is broken and screwed up. Most religions, and Christianity in particular, have the hope that one day it will be made right. That hope can take people a long way.
It is more eloquently stated by a philosopher in an essay I recently read: "If there is no God, then there will be no time when the blind will see, and the deaf will hear and the lame will walk. If there is no God, there is no hope of a time when all will be made right."
But, as Bear said, we don't need to pursue this much further... |
Au contraire. I think it needs to be pursued MUCH further. Just not here. I'll leave by pushing the idea that without a god nobody has a reason for hope or healing or people making things right just because it's the right thing to do is a STUPIDLY RIDICULOUS IDEA.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2011 02:37:31 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Au contraire. I think it needs to be pursued MUCH further. Just not here. I'll leave by pushing the idea that without a god nobody has a reason for hope or healing or people making things right just because it's the right thing to do is a STUPIDLY RIDICULOUS IDEA. |
You tend to be a bit lazy in your posts Ed. You make a statement like this and say it really needs to be pursued, but then fail to expand or explain your position. You do realize that the author, while being literal, is also being figurative and the lame, blind and deaf symbolize the sufferings and wrongs of this world. (I assume you knew that.)
But I'll let you expand. What do you have Hope in (I capitalized it to denote a robust Hope that in entwined with your worldview)?
Message edited by author 2011-05-26 14:46:36. |
|
|
|
05/26/2011 03:14:26 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Au contraire. I think it needs to be pursued MUCH further. Just not here. I'll leave by pushing the idea that without a god nobody has a reason for hope or healing or people making things right just because it's the right thing to do is a STUPIDLY RIDICULOUS IDEA. |
You tend to be a bit lazy in your posts Ed. You make a statement like this and say it really needs to be pursued, but then fail to expand or explain your position. You do realize that the author, while being literal, is also being figurative and the lame, blind and deaf symbolize the sufferings and wrongs of this world. (I assume you knew that.)
But I'll let you expand. What do you have Hope in (I capitalized it to denote a robust Hope that in entwined with your worldview)? |
What part of "I think it needs to be pursued MUCH further. Just not here.", exactly, escapes your grasp? lol.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/28/2024 11:04:35 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/28/2024 11:04:35 PM EDT.
|
