Printable View
wow -- with this philosophy and others you have stated on this thread - America would acutally really be like the Wilde quote in your sig. HEre is what it boils down to - and this has been stated: Morals. There are those who have no morals -- who have no respect for the family or marraige and those that do. It is a moral argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
My sig really bothers you. Did The Picture of Dorian Gray give you nightmares as a child or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by implacable44
Morals are an abstract idea.
One might argue that people fighting for the right to marry have more respect for it than those who want to treat it like a country club membership.
I have never seen so many self righteous people who can walk on water in the same topic,incredible.
I personally don't see anything wrong with prostitution...I think it should be legal. When the government makes something legal they have all the power to regulate everything that goes on in it. STD testing would be one of the first things the government would implement. Not to mention like any industry...quality would take over.
I can only think of the girls in the Bunny Ranch. Clean and always at least half way decent looking. There's no crack heads selling their bodies for a hit...that's what happens when you can't control the industry. The same goes for the porn industry..there's no gargoyles (other than the men) working in the porn industry. They are all fantastic looking women for the most part..not that I would ever sleep with a porn star out of my own insecurities.
I think the issue of morality is a stupid one. It's definitely a sliding scale for me...in the sense that how much morality do you want...I mean really want. Do conservatives just want morality when it comes to sex...or do they want morality when it comes to everything? And I do mean everything...morality like spending more money on developing countries and populations that are decimated by poverty, starvation, and malnutrition...is that also not morality? Or is it only morality when you control sex/marriage/love between two consenting adults?
I understand the need for personal liberty, and understand the harm principle's application. But where do we draw the line? If 21 is an arbitrary line for a drinking age, then why not 18. Person A: I think 18 would be better. Then, what about 16? A: Well 16 is still reasonable - many countries show that 16 works. Okay, then 14, 12, 10, 8, etc.... All are arbitrary points.
Do we test someone based on their physiological development? Do we test their reasoning capacity? Do we award driver's licenses to some at age 10 (who are perhaps taller, more co-ordinated and have better reasoning skills than their peers)?
I would say yes if there was some sort of LaPlace's-demon-level-intellect that could sort out all of the reasonable and related criteria, and make reasonable boundaries that were applicable to the individual and not simply a broad slicing of societal demographics.
I guess that, in principle, I see the merit of Prostitution being legal - mainly as a means to protect the girls from unscrupulous practices, violent pimps, and ungodly STD levels.
I just do not know how this mindset leads to any other end but anarchy. And from anarchy will likely rise a corporate oligarchy or a genuine tyranny of the majority. Sadly, there is no precedence for successful egalitarian governments on either side - total libertarian (egalitarian negative rights) or communism (egalitarian positive rights).