Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2011 8:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/21/2011 7:27:00 PM (view original):
How about time and resource drain on police.

Ask any cop what takes up the most time and produces the least results in terms of felony convictions or changing anything. They will tell you prostitution stings.

Should we spend money on schools and fire departments or on worthless and costly hooker stings?

I'm pretty sure moosep addressed this earlier with juvenile crimes.   Slap on the wrist and send 'em home.   Stop wasting resources on juvie crime?   Is that your solution?

****, I don't know anyone involved in child porn.   Let's stop worrying with such things and spend money on schools and fire departments!!

The reason it is different is because the 2 people are not harmed.

If someone of any age steals you car I want him arrested. If anyone rapes or abuses a child I want them killed. That makes sense.

A guy pays a woman $50 for sex and it is a crime? He does it for free and no one cares?

Hold it there swamp, there is no free lunch! I am laughing so hard the tears are rolling down my face.

In this case it would be more like "There is no free nooner".

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/21/2011 11:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2011 8:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/21/2011 7:27:00 PM (view original):
How about time and resource drain on police.

Ask any cop what takes up the most time and produces the least results in terms of felony convictions or changing anything. They will tell you prostitution stings.

Should we spend money on schools and fire departments or on worthless and costly hooker stings?

I'm pretty sure moosep addressed this earlier with juvenile crimes.   Slap on the wrist and send 'em home.   Stop wasting resources on juvie crime?   Is that your solution?

****, I don't know anyone involved in child porn.   Let's stop worrying with such things and spend money on schools and fire departments!!

The reason it is different is because the 2 people are not harmed.

If someone of any age steals you car I want him arrested. If anyone rapes or abuses a child I want them killed. That makes sense.

A guy pays a woman $50 for sex and it is a crime? He does it for free and no one cares?

And this is why I said I didn't think you read a single word I posted when I dismissed you earlier.

I think plenty of people are harmed or, at the very least, potentially harmed. 

Since anton alluded to it and death pretty much asked me outright in another thread, I don't care about legalized prostitution.   Or legalizing pot or banning abortion.  Or pretty much any of the other "talking point" issues.  However, those who do and demand change never seem to be capable of giving a single good reason to change what's currently on the books.  The responses, thus far, have been weak and unconvincing.    I don't care for the "But it's the same as....." or "We're wasting resources trying to....." arguments because I can find another example to compare those to that refute such claims. 

In short, there are no "victimless" crimes.    And any change in laws can, and will, result in cultural changes. 

And, yes, I do exaggerate what I believe at times to make a point.

Case in point, Casey Anthoney murder case.   Waste of resources?  We're talking about one dead child who, undoubtedly, would have a miserable life if she were still around.   Should the resources be "wasted" to get to the truth?

Hell, the more I think about this, the more sense it makes.  Casey Anthony isn't goint to start murdering random people.  She had a problem, she handled it.  Why waste time prosecuting her?   She's no more of a threat to society than prostitution. 

Can I get a "Hell yeah"?

The reason that it is different is that the harm was not caused by herself. She was murdered by someone. The state should protect people in that case.

All the harm in the case of prostitution is self inflicted. The woman chose her career, the man chose to solicit.

And there is not a technical aspect to murder. It is always illegal. We do not make the distinction that if you pay for murder it is a crime.

If something is wrong for pay, yet perfectly fine for free, I think we enter a moral gray area.

She's already dead.  Protect her from what?  Grave diggers?   Makes some sense.   As I said, Casey Anthony is not a threat to the public.   You claim legalized prosititution is not a threat to the public.    If using money to enforce prostitution laws is a waste, it's a waste to attempt to convict Anthony.

Unless, of course, it's your contention that she will start randomly murdering babies. 

Murder is often reduced to manslaughter or thrown out under the self-defense laws.  It's not always illegal.  The terminology just changes.  But you still have a dead guy and a guy who killed him.

Finally, I can throw a line in the pond behind my house and fish my *** off.   If I do it in a specific lake, I better have a license.   Why?  It's fine to do it for free in one place but against the law in another.   Pay/free might be the worst argument yet. 

Furthermore, the age of consent varies from state to state.   Can we nail 16 year old prostitutes in West Virginia?   Do we have to make sure they're 18 in neighboring Virginia?   Will you make laws for legal prostitution?   Aren't you trying to remove laws?  But now you're adding more?  Are you a Democrat demanding Big Government?

Why are you denying the 16 year old Virginian the right to make a living?   Or will you permit 16 year olds to whore themselves out throughout the country? 

And, finally, why do you want to screw 16 year olds?  Don't you think that's a bit perverted for a man your age?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/22/2011 3:05:00 PM (view original):
She's already dead.  Protect her from what?  Grave diggers?   Makes some sense.   As I said, Casey Anthony is not a threat to the public.   You claim legalized prosititution is not a threat to the public.    If using money to enforce prostitution laws is a waste, it's a waste to attempt to convict Anthony.

Unless, of course, it's your contention that she will start randomly murdering babies. 

Murder is often reduced to manslaughter or thrown out under the self-defense laws.  It's not always illegal.  The terminology just changes.  But you still have a dead guy and a guy who killed him.

Finally, I can throw a line in the pond behind my house and fish my *** off.   If I do it in a specific lake, I better have a license.   Why?  It's fine to do it for free in one place but against the law in another.   Pay/free might be the worst argument yet. 

1 We protect her by defending her memory by convicting her murder. We protect all the other kids by showing people that the system works and since a woman who would kill her children is cabable of almost anything we are protecting society at large.

2 The fact that sometimes people die and they are not murders is very important. The fact that not every time someone is killed is classified a murder is very important.

3 The fact that there are simple regualtions dealing with fishing isnt the same. What if they had a law that said that only people with a hat could fish. And the police created elaborate and expensive sting operations to catch people fishing without a hat. And after they arrested you they gave you a $100 fine and let you go. That is closer.

Marriages break up for lots of reasons. People do things they never thought they would do for money all the time.

The bottom line with prostitution is...

A Victimless. You cannot go 3 or 4 steps down the line to show a harm.
B Arbitrary. If you pay for it the government cares, if not no one cares.
C Ineffective. At least in the case of drugs a sting will get the drugs off the street and usually seize weapons and money. Prostituion stings do nothing.
D Punitive. They hurt the prostitutes the most. If it isnt helping the girls why do we care?

1.  Protect me why I'm alive.  **** my ******* memory.  Thanks in advance.
2.  I have no idea what you're saying, Yoda.
3.  Your argument pay vs. free.   Again, you're just rambling around YOUR point.

OK, so?

A, Not victimless.  I can go as far down the line as I'd like.
B. Not arbitrary.  Against the law when payment is made.  
C. Effective.  Busted Joes aren't going back the next day even if the prostitute is dumb enough to hit the same corner.
D. If you eliminate the source, you eliminate the crime.   

So what exactly is the purpose of a law against prostituion? What gain do you get from it?

Why should it be changed?  What do you gain from it?