|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 6/14/2008
Posts: 666
Points: 1,416
Location: San Diego
|
I live in San Diego, and while I'm not sure about the rest of the nation, we have a quite large homeless population here. I drove by a few, also went past a home depot, and then had a random thought. As such, i'd like some feedback to see the thoughts on this seemingly double-standard.
Begging for money - Legal (and if not totally legal, at least mostly ignored by a police force that has better things to do)
Earning money by doing manual labor - Legal
Earning money by having sex - Illegal
First gets money with no return, this person is asking for a free ride from others. To whatever level can be argued, but all the same, they're recieving money without providing a service.
Second one (one I'm personally familiar with quite well) earns money at an expense. This expense is often the simply sweat of labor, but also comes at damage to the body in many cases. My back is jacked, hand is jacked from a bone that still grinds a lot, ankles are messed up, etc. Construction labor, manual labor in a lumberyard, it takes a heavy toll on the body. But we're compensated with money, it's all called good (and i'm not whining about my situation, I consider it the way it is, and consider it a fair trade)
Third one: clearly better than the first, person is doing something to earn the money. In most cases, not as hazardous to the health as the second one (exceptions due to diseases and want not, but we have OSHA to keep the 2nd clear of extreme hazards, surely the same could be created for the third, or in the case of illegal's working at home depot, we consider it "OK" for that "class" level to take such risks.)
So given all that-What's the deal? From an ethical standpoint, the third should seemingly be more legal than the 2nd, and from a capitalist standpoint, the 1st is extremely worse than the third.
As a person who claims to be both ethical and a capitalist, I can't understand it.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
I fully support the legalization of prostitution. It's their body, their choice. I'd go so far as to call it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy to illegalize it outright. Maybe license it, sure, for safety-sake, but it shouldn't be illegal.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
>implying this country wasnt founded by and has always been run by
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 6/14/2008
Posts: 666
Points: 1,416
Location: San Diego
|
Yea, but for every Washington there was a Jefferson, for every Hamilton, there was a Franklin. To claim the founding fathers were all uptight catholics simply isn't supported by the writing and wording of the consitution. Yes, there are strong undercurrents of a christian mindset, but almost all the documents were originally written to be void of religious context, or at the least a religious leaning upon the functionality of law (such as the wording "crual and unusual punishment" not immoral or inhumane.) It's not till the recent 100 years or so that the founding father's republic has been dissolved into a democracy at the behest of the "tyrannical majority", including the wording of "god" on currency, and in the pledge of allegiance.
I don't disagree, the christian empowerment IS the main reason (which is contrary to Christ's practice of embracing prostitutes when others would shun them) but based upon ethical and capitalists means, it just doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
uh.. the only catholics around during THAT time period were dutch or french, or german mercenaries. The people who founded this country, and I'm not just talking about those dicks who signed their name on a paper, were primarily puritans and protestants, with scant amounts of catholics, quakers, and deists. You can say they were different if you're an idiot but the truth is they were all uptight moralists especially when it came to fucking (except rape).
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 1/8/2009
Posts: 119
Points: 258
Location: Seattle, WA
|
While I'm for prostitution as it's the oldest profession in human history, there are situations where women are forced into that situation. Difference between high-end escorts/brothels, and slavery (i.e. pimps and hoes as well as human trafficking).
If laws were put into place in this country that are to protect women (e.g. regular health screenings, etc.) like in Vegas, then I think that's the right track.
As far as Catholics being moralists, I beg to differ. The outright decree of not using condoms in Africa where AIDS and other STD's are rampant, is a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. Not to mention the systematic fucking of children...
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Server Admin, Administration, {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 11/19/2008
Posts: 1,014
Points: 2,767
|
DredNaught wrote: like in Vegas Prostitution isn't legal in Vegas, only in 1 or 2 obscure counties in norther Nevada.
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 1/8/2009
Posts: 119
Points: 258
Location: Seattle, WA
|
bragr wrote:Prostitution isn't legal in Vegas, only in 1 or 2 obscure counties in norther Nevada.
I stand corrected (I assume you are speaking from experience). But my point is still the same.
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|