Fuck you. I disagree with your argument. I get "the concept" just fine.
I'm not so sure you do. You don't concede the basic concept of legalizing something to prevent the black market from opening up all sorts of methods of exploitation.
You're also just resorting to vanilla "fuck you" comments which doesn't help your argument.
Why don't we open the door for that first and then go forward with regulations if they prove necessary?
They've already proven necessary. If this industry were not already significantly associated with crime, violence, or slavery, then we could trust that it could manage itself without any additional intervention.
It's associated with these things because it's a black market industry. You still...won't admit this very simple concept.
Amazing.
You still haven't responded to me.
you seem to think this makes it "legal" in a greater sense then it does. Brothels are still illegal in san Fransisco.
I'm not so sure you do. You don't concede the basic concept of legalizing something to prevent the black market from opening up all sorts of methods of exploitation.
Just because you make something legal doesn't mean a black market won't still operate. If you do, I'd like to introduce you to every numbers game in America.
I'm not so sure you do. You don't concede the basic concept of legalizing something to prevent the black market from opening up all sorts of methods of exploitation.
Just because you make something legal doesn't mean a black market won't still operate. If you do, I'd like to introduce you to every numbers game in America.
And just because you lealize something doesn't mean it somehow becomes non-abusive. Read up on how the regulation system in Nevada actually fucks over the women in the long run.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that that the fear of "getting hassled by the IRS" would scare a bunch of people straight when the threat of getting arrested and going to prison did not?
The assumption you continue to make is that an industry that has operated outside the law for generations would suddenly turn into law-abiding, tax-paying, upstanding legitimate businesses if it were legalized.
You're still not getting the concept behind A) running a legit business, making money at it, employing workers and not abusing them or working in a legit business yourself and conceding the government might take some money off the top versus being desperate, having no prospects, and doing whatever you can for a buck.
The current law doesn't even allow for option A. Why don't we open the door for that first and then go forward with regulations if they prove necessary?
As I already stated, does this new law even allow a brothel to be run legally or does it just specifically protect sex workers? Last I checked pimping or running a brother was still illegal, so how do you see legit businesses being formed from this law alone?
Mostly this law appears to be intended to stop the abuse of San Fransisco's police department, who are apparently all scumbags. More has to be done in addition to this law.
Exactly, all this law does is afford sex workers some protection from being discriminated against by the police, and at the same time, as Feral pointed out, take away police methods for bringing down pimps/brothels/sex-slave-drivers by coercing prostitutes into testifying in exchange for immunity. Now, this law may be a net gain for prostitutes if the police in san Fransisco are corrupt. But Feral and I are saying that if you pass this law, the decision makers will just go back to ignoring the problem. Instead of passing this law, we should push for comprehensive sex worker laws, legalizing licensing and regulation of sex workers and brothels.
If somehow this law were to make it very difficult or impossible to pass further legislation that regulated prostitution then I would most likely change my position, but I think this law does good. What do we do about police corruption in the interim while we try to draft a better law and push it through?
Police corruption is already against the law, they should prosecute offenders. I suppose they might pass further legislation, but the proposed law is insufficient and should be unnecessary so why bother passing it at all? I suppose maybe they feel the corruption is so rampant they have no choice....
I'm not so sure you do. You don't concede the basic concept of legalizing something to prevent the black market from opening up all sorts of methods of exploitation.
Just because you make something legal doesn't mean a black market won't still operate. If you do, I'd like to introduce you to every numbers game in America.
And just because you lealize something doesn't mean it somehow becomes non-abusive. Read up on how the regulation system in Nevada actually fucks over the women in the long run.
Additionally, there are studies showing that legalizing prostitution in some European countries has seen a corresponding increase in human trafficking. Legalization/decriminalization is not a magic cure for all that is wrong here. Feral has a good point that the wording of the legislation matters. It's not a case where any decriminalization is bound to be an improvement.
I'm not so sure you do. You don't concede the basic concept of legalizing something to prevent the black market from opening up all sorts of methods of exploitation.
Just because you make something legal doesn't mean a black market won't still operate. If you do, I'd like to introduce you to every numbers game in America.
And just because you lealize something doesn't mean it somehow becomes non-abusive. Read up on how the regulation system in Nevada actually fucks over the women in the long run.
Additionally, there are studies showing that legalizing prostitution in some European countries has seen a corresponding increase in human trafficking. Legalization/decriminalization is not a magic cure for all that is wrong here. Feral has a good point that the wording of the legislation matters. It's not a case where any decriminalization is bound to be an improvement.
For some reason I'm reminded of the movie Eastern Promises.
Dman on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
My objection to Feral was mainly the whole 'we need something to hold over them so they'll talk' reason to not liking the legislation, not that it doesn't go far enough.
Which it doesn't. However I don't see how passing it would make the life of the average sex worker WORSE.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
You haven't addressed why this law is bad in the situation of the city of san fransisco. What the police "should do" is not relevant. What they "are doing" is.
Why is the law bad in the situation of San Fransisco? Hmm... maybe because it has more to do with trying to punish the local police/DAs than it does to address the issue of prostitution. Even in that, it has not affected the police in anything other than a budgetary measure (transferral of funds). The additional mandate on the police HAS NO TEETH AT ALL, as what it is mandating is already mandated by state law. The sanctions for not doing so are already established under state law as well, thus it's unneccesary. It does nothing to address the additional issues that will be presented with decriminalization of the act (increased prostitution/use, appropriate health issues, etc).
Lastly, you didn't read the bolded parts properly. Or you had the audacity to gloss over this little snippet.
The police department utilizes those same targeted businesses as a means of entertainmentfor its ranks, as demonstrated in the Bayview Station police videos, made public in December, 2005. This demonstrates a lack of respect for their human dignity, freedom of choice, and labor rights.
Law is good. I support this law.
Call me slow. What do you think that portion there is saying?
The funds are going to addressing those issues. It even uh, states that. If you want to check?
They made a bunch of videos making fun of the venues, making fun of a black woman, some asian masseuse places, insinuating theyre having sex in there, flicking tongues suggestively in relation to the areas, generally showing their contempt, and released them all over the department.
What did you think it meant? Police are human.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
The funds are going to addressing those issues. It even uh, states that. If you want to check?
So you think the issue with... I don't even know what to call it... police "not taking rape/assault/etc claims from sex workers seriously (man, I wish there was a better way to describe what I'm talking about)... is an issue of funding? You think throwing more money at it is going to make a huge dent in the issue? I don't. There needs to be a major shift in that overall morality that you don't want to talk about first.
That was what I thought your original "police are human" was in reference to.
They made a bunch of videos making fun of the venues, making fun of a black woman, some asian masseuse places, insinuating theyre having sex in there, flicking tongues suggestively in relation to the areas, generally showing their contempt, and released them all over the department.
What did you think it meant? Police are human.
I may have your argument TOTALLY wrong and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. That's why I'm asking for clarification. Because, y'know, it sounds like you're saying that it was a good idea to decriminalize prostitution because the police made an insensitive/offensive video.
Raggaholic on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The funds are going to addressing those issues. It even uh, states that. If you want to check?
So you think the issue with... I don't even know what to call it... police "not taking rape/assault/etc claims from sex workers seriously (man, I wish there was a better way to describe what I'm talking about)... is an issue of funding? You think throwing more money at it is going to make a huge dent in the issue? I don't. There needs to be a major shift in that overall morality that you don't want to talk about first.
That was what I thought your original "police are human" was in reference to.
They made a bunch of videos making fun of the venues, making fun of a black woman, some asian masseuse places, insinuating theyre having sex in there, flicking tongues suggestively in relation to the areas, generally showing their contempt, and released them all over the department.
What did you think it meant? Police are human.
I may have your argument TOTALLY wrong and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. That's why I'm asking for clarification. Because, y'know, it sounds like you're saying that it was a good idea to decriminalize prostitution because the police made an insensitive/offensive video.
Hey. You are talking about morality here. What is a racist, sexist video, if not a sign of the general attitude towards the sex workers.
20 of the officers involved got suspened and upper management is cracking down hard now.
As for funding, man, where do you think education comes from, the sky? Where do you think ANY suggestion that might be made, such as say, the setting up of a better legalisation system such as licensing comes from? More funding for voluntary groups that Feral spoke of for psychological help? Thin air? Don't trivialise money in an argument about society man, you just make yourself look like a fool. Money makes the world work, this will never change.
My original argument, if you want to call it that, was for you to stop fiddling around and explain your reasoning. I quite agree with most of what you say that isn't heavily based in a moral choice, just as I agree with Feral that this is not enough.
However, I don't agree with your take on the argument re prostitution should be criminilised. I just think its too generalised and you don't give good justifcations specifically supporting criminilisation as much as you attack reason to remove it.
Like you said, I think that's gonna end up being a moral thing. I'm satisfied that I got your reasoning out of you, and when I have more time I'd like to discuss the morality with you, maybe in another thread.
But argument? Please man, this is a discussion. I'm not fighting or competing with you. I'm talking with you. I gained from it, learnt a few points of view not based on morality I hadn't considered. I basically started talking to you because your initial lazy comments were interesting but lacking.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
My objection to Feral was mainly the whole 'we need something to hold over them so they'll talk' reason to not liking the legislation, not that it doesn't go far enough.
Which it doesn't. However I don't see how passing it would make the life of the average sex worker WORSE.
It is hard to say, me not knowing how their life is now in san Fransisco...
I think it could be a double edged sword. It will make it more difficult to gather evidence and get witnesses on the stand against sex-slave traders/pimps. It doesn't really legalize prostitution, it simply prevents prostitutes from being prosecuted for soliciting. There will still be some sort of illegal brothel/pimp situation in which the prostitutes work (brothels are not being made legal).
So prostitutes may get less antagonism from police, but their day to day pimp situation could remain unchanged or get worse and criminals may be encouraged by a lack of prosecution to increase participation in the sex-slave trade.
Posts
You still haven't responded to me.
you seem to think this makes it "legal" in a greater sense then it does. Brothels are still illegal in san Fransisco.
And just because you lealize something doesn't mean it somehow becomes non-abusive. Read up on how the regulation system in Nevada actually fucks over the women in the long run.
Police corruption is already against the law, they should prosecute offenders. I suppose they might pass further legislation, but the proposed law is insufficient and should be unnecessary so why bother passing it at all? I suppose maybe they feel the corruption is so rampant they have no choice....
Additionally, there are studies showing that legalizing prostitution in some European countries has seen a corresponding increase in human trafficking. Legalization/decriminalization is not a magic cure for all that is wrong here. Feral has a good point that the wording of the legislation matters. It's not a case where any decriminalization is bound to be an improvement.
For some reason I'm reminded of the movie Eastern Promises.
Which it doesn't. However I don't see how passing it would make the life of the average sex worker WORSE.
The funds are going to addressing those issues. It even uh, states that. If you want to check?
They made a bunch of videos making fun of the venues, making fun of a black woman, some asian masseuse places, insinuating theyre having sex in there, flicking tongues suggestively in relation to the areas, generally showing their contempt, and released them all over the department.
What did you think it meant? Police are human.
That was what I thought your original "police are human" was in reference to. I may have your argument TOTALLY wrong and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. That's why I'm asking for clarification. Because, y'know, it sounds like you're saying that it was a good idea to decriminalize prostitution because the police made an insensitive/offensive video.
Hey. You are talking about morality here. What is a racist, sexist video, if not a sign of the general attitude towards the sex workers.
20 of the officers involved got suspened and upper management is cracking down hard now.
As for funding, man, where do you think education comes from, the sky? Where do you think ANY suggestion that might be made, such as say, the setting up of a better legalisation system such as licensing comes from? More funding for voluntary groups that Feral spoke of for psychological help? Thin air? Don't trivialise money in an argument about society man, you just make yourself look like a fool. Money makes the world work, this will never change.
My original argument, if you want to call it that, was for you to stop fiddling around and explain your reasoning. I quite agree with most of what you say that isn't heavily based in a moral choice, just as I agree with Feral that this is not enough.
However, I don't agree with your take on the argument re prostitution should be criminilised. I just think its too generalised and you don't give good justifcations specifically supporting criminilisation as much as you attack reason to remove it.
Like you said, I think that's gonna end up being a moral thing. I'm satisfied that I got your reasoning out of you, and when I have more time I'd like to discuss the morality with you, maybe in another thread.
But argument? Please man, this is a discussion. I'm not fighting or competing with you. I'm talking with you. I gained from it, learnt a few points of view not based on morality I hadn't considered. I basically started talking to you because your initial lazy comments were interesting but lacking.
It is hard to say, me not knowing how their life is now in san Fransisco...
I think it could be a double edged sword. It will make it more difficult to gather evidence and get witnesses on the stand against sex-slave traders/pimps. It doesn't really legalize prostitution, it simply prevents prostitutes from being prosecuted for soliciting. There will still be some sort of illegal brothel/pimp situation in which the prostitutes work (brothels are not being made legal).
So prostitutes may get less antagonism from police, but their day to day pimp situation could remain unchanged or get worse and criminals may be encouraged by a lack of prosecution to increase participation in the sex-slave trade.