Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 05:24 PM

What do you think of legalizing prostitution??

I am for it, I know the tax issue would be a big deal cause most pay cash but if ran through the Brothel Houses like in Nevada that couls really keep an eye on things, and they are very clean and strict about things.

I have never understood how woman can go to jail for getting money for sex but she could sleep with someone for a gift card and that would be legal.

Posted by: natalie Apr 11 2006, 05:50 PM

What do you think of legalizing prostitution??

I am for it, I know the tax issue would be a big deal cause most pay cash but if ran through the Brothel Houses like in Nevada that couls really keep an eye on things, and they are very clean and strict about things.

I have never understood how woman can go to jail for getting money for sex but she could sleep with someone for a gift card and that would be legal.

Posted by: foxy lady Apr 11 2006, 06:07 PM

I have no problem with it being legalized either, I'm with Nat on this one, as long as it's a decision THE WOMAN is making........and why should they get it for free?!

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 06:14 PM

I have no problem with it being legalized either, I'm with Nat on this one, as long as it's a decision THE WOMAN is making........and why should they get it for free?!

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 11 2006, 06:19 PM

Okay,  I think, given the liberal nature of this site, that we'll have lots of the same answers and this thread may die pretty quick.  What if you played devil's advocate and came up with arguments against it.  Disease is pretty obvious.  But do you think there'd be moral decay within society?  Do you picture a woman ever having the respect of a husband or any man if they know she worked as a prostitute.  It'd be a pretty difficult transition, I think, for society to make. also, would you want your daughter to aspire to be a prostitute or your son's or daughter's first time to be with a prostitute?  Can you imagine if your first time how it would be differerent if it were in fact with someone you didn't know and paid?  What if a girl really wanted to be a prostitute her whole life because her mom is and that's all she knows?  Would you vote for a president who got through college by working as a prostitute?  (male prostitute or female president, take your pick)

I'm not really sure if I'd be for or against it, really.  I can think of great arguments on both sides of the issue.  Just wanted to throw some of that out there.

Posted by: Isaac_Putin Apr 11 2006, 06:21 PM

What do you think of legalizing prostitution??

I am for it, I know the tax issue would be a big deal cause most pay cash but if ran through the Brothel Houses like in Nevada that couls really keep an eye on things, and they are very clean and strict about things.

I have never understood how woman can go to jail for getting money for sex but she could sleep with someone for a gift card and that would be legal.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 11 2006, 06:25 PM

I just reread diane's post....so if I pay a hooker with a gift card it's legal? I wish I would have known that sooner!

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 06:26 PM

I also wouldn't want them to be a lawyer or politician either, but that's legal lol.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 11 2006, 06:33 PM

that would be so funny if it weren't true.  I know there's a homer quote for this, I'm just too lazy to look for it.

I guess, though, if a person has the desire to whore themselves out for money, I suppose politician or lawyer would be a good career to look into.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 06:39 PM

I would be for it in the Form of the Prositition Houses, I watched a show last night about it and you would be suprised how well the Prostitiution houses are ran, There is one Cowboy something in nevada, and the ladies are given STD Checks weekly and Aids tests monthly, Condoms HAVE to be used there are cameras in the rooms and the rooms must be kepts clean, Morally a woman would be looked down on but no differant than a stripper, you know when you are going into that field the shit you will get. I probably would not be for it for street walking but ran in a place like the Cowboy place and the Bunny Ranch and stuff in nevada I would fully support it.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 06:49 PM

I just reread diane's post....so if I pay a hooker with a gift card it's legal? I wish I would have known that sooner!

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 06:49 PM

well there is an appropriate lionel hutz quote:
"If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers.        
Can you imagine a world without lawyers? *shudders*"

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 06:49 PM

Hmmm.  I wonder if we could just swipe it then and there??

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 06:51 PM

I would be for it in the Form of the Prositition Houses, I watched a show last night about it and you would be suprised how well the Prostitiution houses are ran, There is one Cowboy something in nevada, and the ladies are given STD Checks weekly and Aids tests monthly, Condoms HAVE to be used there are cameras in the rooms and the rooms must be kepts clean, Morally a woman would be looked down on but no differant than a stripper, you know when you are going into that field the shit you will get. I probably would not be for it for street walking but ran in a place like the Cowboy place and the Bunny Ranch and stuff in nevada I would fully support it.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 06:55 PM

Well, what about the fact that HIV incubates for about 6 months before it's detectable?  If a girl is applying for a job at the bunny ranch, do they just have her keep the place clean for six months?  What if she has a boyfriend or wants to do some sidejobs outside the scope of the camera?  I know there's lots of jobs with other hazards and stuff.  I'm just throwing this stuff out there.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 07:01 PM

Well same could be applied period, they have to use condoms and there is no sure fire protection except to abstain and every person will have to know that so allthough they take steps to try and prevent things, there will never be a guarntee, I am going into nursing and there is no guarntee someone I have to work on won't have aids and I wont get stuck and so forth and so on.

Nothing can be guarnteed and the best we can do is try and protect ourselves. I think having these houses would be so much better than the street walkers that are getting raped and killed and this and that, in one of these places they will have protection they won't have alone on the streets or working for a pimp.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 11 2006, 07:03 PM

All good points!!! 

Do you think this could all be attained and still be affordable??  I don't picture it being major competition for streetwalkers.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 07:04 PM

Not sure but I bet it would still be cheaper than a date!

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 07:07 PM

All good points!!! 

Do you think this could all be attained and still be affordable??  I don't picture it being major competition for streetwalkers.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 11 2006, 07:09 PM

Hello!!  I just mentioned my date in my previous post.  Hence streetwalkers!!!  oh, I mean, um, well, you know.  vote quimby

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 07:10 PM

It's cool. Just make sure your "date" isn't a cop. That was a night I won't soon forget.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 11 2006, 07:15 PM

I think I have missed a few posts in here better look back

Posted by: diane26 Apr 11 2006, 07:17 PM

Ah, I was just board whorin' around.  you didn't miss much.

Speaking of board whorin', think they'll legalize that and give us a place to hang out with clean rooms and video cameras and stuff??

Posted by: foxy lady Apr 12 2006, 09:11 AM

Okay,  I think, given the liberal nature of this site, that we'll have lots of the same answers and this thread may die pretty quick.  What if you played devil's advocate and came up with arguments against it.  Disease is pretty obvious.  But do you think there'd be moral decay within society?  Do you picture a woman ever having the respect of a husband or any man if they know she worked as a prostitute.  It'd be a pretty difficult transition, I think, for society to make. also, would you want your daughter to aspire to be a prostitute or your son's or daughter's first time to be with a prostitute?  Can you imagine if your first time how it would be differerent if it were in fact with someone you didn't know and paid?  What if a girl really wanted to be a prostitute her whole life because her mom is and that's all she knows?  Would you vote for a president who got through college by working as a prostitute?  (male prostitute or female president, take your pick)

I'm not really sure if I'd be for or against it, really.  I can think of great arguments on both sides of the issue.  Just wanted to throw some of that out there.

Posted by: rackman Apr 12 2006, 03:48 PM

I wouldn't oppose legalization of prostitution. Like many of you have already said, where's the logic in saying you can give it away for free, but you can't charge for it?

I'm actually a bit surprised that most of you seem to be focused on merely making sure that the process were regulated, however (clean, safe, etc.). I heard a great quote a couple of years ago in which a guy said, "It's not the responsibiliity of government to regulate the amount of risk I'm willing to take." This quote was in a different context, but is still applicable here.

I think it should simply be up to the prostitute and the john to decide between themselves what is safe, clean, etc. As long as they're two consenting adults, they should be able to decide about HIV tests, condoms, etc. After all, isn't the fact that they're consenting adults the essence of the argument to legalize prostitution in the first place?

Posted by: diane26 Apr 12 2006, 04:22 PM

I wouldn't oppose legalization of prostitution.  Like many of you have already said, where's the logic in saying you can give it away for free, but you can't charge for it?

I'm actually a bit surprised that most of you seem to be focused on merely making sure that the process were regulated, however (clean, safe, etc.).  I heard a great quote a couple of years ago in which a guy said, "It's not the responsibiliity of government to regulate the amount of risk I'm willing to take."   This quote was in a different context, but is still applicable here.

I think it should simply be up to the prostitute and the john to decide between themselves what is safe, clean, etc.  As long as they're two consenting adults, they should be able to decide about HIV tests, condoms, etc.  After all, isn't the fact that they're consenting adults the essence of the argument to legalize prostitution in the first place?

Posted by: rackman Apr 12 2006, 07:18 PM

My biggest concern would be safety....   ...New sheets and stuff like that should be regulated.

When you go to eat at a resteraunt you want to know you are eating in a clean safe enviroment,. At a hospital as well you want precatiouns taken washing of hands and so forth and so on.

So in a place were many bodily fluids are gonna be exchanged there should be regulations to ensure the safety of the next person, Condoms I can imagine to help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies, but as far as further testing I would leave that up to whoever.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 12 2006, 07:32 PM

Someone mentioned the "liberal nature of this site" a while back.  The funny thing is that this topic is showing where liberal and conservative thinking converge.

The conservatives oppose prostitution because (in their opinion) it's morally wrong.  They think they have the obligation (and authority) to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

Liberals may not oppose prostitution in principle, but they'd want to regulate it.  Why?  Because otherwise, people might get a disease or otherwise suffer negative consequences due to the choices they've made.  In other words, they (like the conservatives) want to use the power of government to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

In either case, mature adults are being treated like children who cannot be left to their own devices lest they make bad choices in their lives. 

Don't you think it's intellectually inconsistent to say that two people should be allowed to engage in prostitution because they're consenting adults and *simultaneously* treat them like children who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and thus require that they follow government-mandated health and safety protocols?

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 12 2006, 09:18 PM

If it were to be legalized and treated as a job than regulations would be set in as jobs have.

Do you think it is wrong that people are required to wash there hands and wear gloves in a facility where cross cantamination can happen??

I am neither a liberal or a conversist or speller if you cant tell.

If I hook up with some and he leaves me some money I dont think I should be arrested. There were always be people out to cheat the system or not obide by the laws, but if they were to legalize it in a JOB FORM since the most important part of it all is Uncle Sam will want his half and like any other job there needs to be rules and regulations for the safty of the employers and customers.

Without Rules and Laws this world would be complete chaos more than it already is.

You already hear about Prostitutes getting murdered all the time, you don't here about it being girls working at the bunny house or for Hiedi Fliess it is the girls left on the streets or in the hands of pimps. As legal working citizens they would have rights just the same as someone else.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 13 2006, 12:45 AM

I'm with diane on this one.  you can't leave society's fate up to individuals in that soceity.  Chaos would ensue.  The restaurant is a great example.  i know there's a risk that if I eat at a restaurant I may get food poisening, but regulations and laws lessen that risk.  without those rules and regulations, no company would take steps for customer safety or well-being if it had a negative effect on the bottom line.  Legalization would open the door to regulation and at least start closing the door on the negative aspects of the current system.  That is not to say that all immoral acts or things or jobs or whatever should be legalized just to impose regulations for the sake of controlling the immorality.  I'm not even really sure if I think prostitution should be legalized.  I'm just saying that legalizing could be a means to address a problem and spread understanding and knowledge about that problem. 

actually, I don't know what the hell I'm saying.  I'm going to go back to one of the threads that has some boobs in it.

Posted by: natalie Apr 13 2006, 02:52 PM

My biggest concern would be safety, meaning cameras in the rooms and to do the Houses not just on the street. I think these other places that require the stuff is good and they run the places its up to them, I would say cleaning and stuff IE: New sheets and stuff like that should be regulated.

When you go to eat at a resteraunt you want to know you are eating in a clean safe enviroment,. At a hospital as well you want precatiouns taken washing of hands and so forth and so on.

So in a place were many bodily fluids are gonna be exchanged there should be regulations to ensure the safety of the next person, Condoms I can imagine to help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancies, but as far as further testing I would leave that up to whoever.

Posted by: natalie Apr 13 2006, 02:58 PM

Someone mentioned the "liberal nature of this site" a while back.  The funny thing is that this topic is showing where liberal and conservative thinking converge.

The conservatives oppose prostitution because (in their opinion) it's morally wrong.  They think they have the obligation (and authority) to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

Liberals may not oppose prostitution in principle, but they'd want to regulate it.  Why?  Because otherwise, people might get a disease or otherwise suffer negative consequences due to the choices they've made.  In other words, they (like the conservatives) want to use the power of government to prevent people from engaging in stupid behavior.

In either case, mature adults are being treated like children who cannot be left to their own devices lest they make bad choices in their lives. 

Don't you think it's intellectually inconsistent to say that two people should be allowed to engage in prostitution because they're consenting adults and *simultaneously* treat them like children who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and thus require that they follow government-mandated health and safety protocols?

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 13 2006, 02:58 PM

Unfortunately as hard as a restaurant may try if you go out to eat it is a lot less sanitary than you might think.

Posted by: natalie Apr 13 2006, 03:04 PM

LOL I just saw all you boys lurking in here and I bet it was because you thought I was posting a pic wasn't it. Well if it was sorry no luck but if it wasn't I'll spank myself for being so vain.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 13 2006, 03:25 PM

Unfortunately as hard as a restaurant may try if you go out to eat it is a lot less sanitary than you might think.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 13 2006, 03:50 PM

LOL I just saw all you boys lurking in here and I bet it was because you thought I was posting a pic wasn't it. Well if it was sorry no luck but if it wasn't I'll spank myself for being so vain.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 13 2006, 04:24 PM

I'll "spank" myself as well imagining that one 

I've worked in restaurants and one always got top reviews fromt he health board as well as one of the best restaurant/lounges of the franchise in Canada(I won't say where I worked) and a lot of crazy shit went down in the kitchen. Nothing like someone intentionally spitting or putting other bodily fluids in someones food but crazy none the less.

One time, somehow a bandaid wound up in someone's pizza. I couldn't even imagine finding that in my food. Anyway the manager comes storming into the back and he says while holding up the bandaid in question, "WHO THE HELL IS WEARING A BANDAID?!" and this one funny fucker pipes up "Well not anymore". I just about lost it laughing right there.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 13 2006, 04:25 PM

LOL I just saw all you boys lurking in here and I bet it was because you thought I was posting a pic wasn't it. Well if it was sorry no luck but if it wasn't I'll spank myself for being so vain.

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 13 2006, 04:30 PM

"Sorry.  The band-aid was holding the finger nail on."

Posted by: closeup Apr 13 2006, 06:39 PM

I just reread diane's post....so if I pay a hooker with a gift card it's legal? I wish I would have known that sooner!

Posted by: belicked6924 Apr 13 2006, 10:36 PM

Unfortunately as hard as a restaurant may try if you go out to eat it is a lot less sanitary than you might think.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 13 2006, 11:40 PM

You finally have something you can redeem your S&H Green Stamps for! I also have never heard of anyone paying for a hooker with a gift card. Next thing you know, they'll start using punch cards like all the coffee places: Buy 9 blowjobs, get the tenth one FREE. I've read different articles for and against legal prostitution, and I'm leaning towards keeping it illegal. It doesn't need to be an arresting offense, maybe just a fine or community service.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 15 2006, 02:17 PM

I don;t know there are a lot of really stupid people in this world.   We say that someone is mature enough to drive which is in effect driving a weapon because it can kill and yet we regulate their speed, where they park, how long they park, if their car is damaged and make sure they don't drink and drive. As much as we use the term "adult" many of us are still children. So yes I think the gov, employer, whoever should regulate things. Being an audult has nothing to do with age.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 02:36 PM

I agree that we ARE all still basically children at various levels of maturity, However I draw the line at a church official, politician, or even a spouse dictating what they believe is best for me. I've known a few state politicians, and believe me when I say that I consider myself to be at a much more developed state of maturity that 90% of them. True, the games they play can be rather sophisticated, and they must have, or be able to aquire a great sense of organization in order to succes at what they do. However, they're all still just "playing office" and about as insecure and transparently phoney as human beings can be. THIS, is NOT the type of person I want telling me what's best for me. Heck, they don't even know what's best for themseleves. As far as religious leaders go... Forget it! They're generally as narrow-minded as a person can be, they allow a single belief dominate every aspect of their lives. Sorry, but I just can't get behind that type of thought process, there's way too much related to the concept of why we're here and living life to be that inflexable.
     Nope! I'm afraid until something better than what we have now comes along, I'll be content to make my own decisions regarding my life and which way I choose to live it. Government should NEVER attempt to ledgislate morality. History shows that only bad things happen when it does.
By the way, When IS the civil war in the states supposed to begin? From the sound of the world news media (news aired overseas), it maybe anythime. LOL!

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 02:42 PM

Would you say it is Morally wrong to kill someone?? To rape someone?? Morally wrong to molest a child?? These are laws based on moral decisions and thankfully they are there.
I have no idea what you are talking about the civil war beggining

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 02:47 PM

And we weren't talking about morality, more like safety and health issues being overseen.

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 02:49 PM

And no offence to Lynette but let's not make this like the topless beach thread 'cause one heavy topic thread is enough for a place like rmm. Puhleaze. lol.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 02:53 PM

And no offence to Lynette but let's not make this like the topless beach thread 'cause one heavy topic thread is enough for a place like rmm. Puhleaze. lol.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 15 2006, 02:55 PM

Morally? Hmmm. I believe it to be more a question of common sense. Everything we do in this life is directly related to every other thing we do. Consequently, if we do something bad... it will come back on us, and visa=versa. It's more a question of basic right and wrong. I don't think we really need some four thousand year old stone tablets to tell us right from wrong. Again, common sense has to always be the deciding factor in governing people's actions. There will always be people who violate the basic laws of nature (morality or whatever). The bible, man's laws, etc, hasn't stopped the rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the rest yet (throughtout the entire history of man on this earth). Do you really need politicians or religious leaders to tell you that these things are wrong? The original laws regarding these criminal actions were instituted to act as punishment, not preventatives.

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 03:02 PM

Morally? Hmmm. I believe it to be more a question of common sense. Everything we do in this life is directly related to every other thing we do. Consequently, if we do something bad... it will come back on us, and visa=versa. It's more a question of basic right and wrong. I don't think we really need some four thousand year old stone tablets to tell us right from wrong. Again, common sense has to always be the deciding factor in governing people's actions. There will always be people who violate the basic laws of nature (morality or whatever). The bible, man's laws, etc, hasn't stopped the rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the rest yet (throughtout the entire history of man on this earth). Do you really need politicians or religious leaders to tell you that these things are wrong? The original laws regarding these criminal actions were instituted to act as punishment, not preventatives.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 03:08 PM

Morally? Hmmm. I believe it to be more a question of common sense. Everything we do in this life is directly related to every other thing we do. Consequently, if we do something bad... it will come back on us, and visa=versa. It's more a question of basic right and wrong. I don't think we really need some four thousand year old stone tablets to tell us right from wrong. Again, common sense has to always be the deciding factor in governing people's actions. There will always be people who violate the basic laws of nature (morality or whatever). The bible, man's laws, etc, hasn't stopped the rapists, child molesters, murderers, and the rest yet (throughtout the entire history of man on this earth). Do you really need politicians or religious leaders to tell you that these things are wrong? The original laws regarding these criminal actions were instituted to act as punishment, not preventatives.

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 03:24 PM

But in a way that doesn't work either because people can seriously justify in their minds anything. And to them it's commen sense. How do you think they get guys and girls to be suicide bombers? It's not always the religious angle. They come up with "facts" and other such things to make the person believe this is what must be done. What would you suggest the world do Lynette seeing as church and politicians trying to set rules and guidelines is unacceptable? Do you really think 90% of the people out there would be responsible or use their "commen sense"?
Come on now I'm no cheerleader for church or state but unless you have a plan that's feesable then I'd say let the whole "they can't tell me what to do they don't know anything and are corrupt" thing die.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 15 2006, 03:51 PM

I keep hearing references to "people". Laws are inacted to keep "people" from committing crimes. Who ARE these people? Could it be we're talking about the very "people" who ARE committing, and WILL commit these crimes? Guess what? "People" who these laws are aimed at are STILL committing these crimes. These laws have NOT detoured these types of crimes at all. Maybe you're worried about your average, everyday, law-abiding citizen waking up one morning an deciding to go next door and rape his neighbor's daughter? I really don't think it works that way. My point was that laws alone aren't the answer. They haven't eliminated or slowe the problem yet. The "people" have predispositions to commit violent crimes...will! There has always has been an evil, criminal element in this word with regard to humanity, and unfortunately, I'm afraid there always will be. If we can't teach people from birth to police themselves out of a sense of right and wrong (or morality, if you will), then there doesn't seem to be much hope. After all, your conscience should alway be your guide.

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 04:00 PM

I keep hearing references to "people". Laws are inacted to keep "people" from committing crimes. Who ARE these people? Could it be we're talking about the very "people" who ARE committing, and WILL commit these crimes? Guess what? "People" who these laws are aimed at are STILL committing these crimes. These laws have NOT detoured these types of crimes at all. Maybe you're worried about your average, everyday, law-abiding citizen waking up one morning an deciding to go next door and rape his neighbor's daughter? I really don't think it works that way. My point was that laws alone aren't the answer. They haven't eliminated or slowe the problem yet. The "people" have predispositions to commit violent crimes...will! There has always has been an evil, criminal element in this word with regard to humanity, and unfortunately, I'm afraid there always will be. If we can't teach people from birth to police themselves out of a sense of right and wrong (or morality, if you will), then there doesn't seem to be much hope. After all, your conscience should alway be your guide.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 15 2006, 04:13 PM

Almost evrything you say is redundant. How they hell would you know that laws haven't detoured "people" from crimes? Do you know how many weren't committed because of the consequences the law has in place? No of course not because they weren't committed. You say that laws haven't stopped "people" from committing wrongful acts. NO FRWEAKIN D"UH! Laws weren't put in place so that no crime would happen but as a consequence for the "people" who do. And ok ok laws alone aren't the answer and if everyone actually listened to their conscience it would be great. Not everyone's conscience is going to be the same. A conscience is molded by your beliefs, experiences, culture ,ect. So the world will forever be flawed, there will forever be corrupt politicains, church goers, leaders, up tight people, eveil and all the rest so unfortunately "people" deal with it and make the best of it you can and be the best person you can.

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 04:21 PM

Ooooooh! Look at the emotion, name calling, and such. If you read any of my statements (through that veil of red) you'll notice that I was referring to the fact that that laws alone will never do it. There are still criminals committing crimes. When we live in a crime-free world I'll concede. We're talking about criminals here! CRIMINALS COMMIT THE CRIMES! THAT'S it!!! Plain and simple. Do you believe the death penatly prevents murderers from committing murder? If so... Then there's no point in continuing this and we should go back to looking at and discussing the merits of one-anothers tits. I never ment to convey the message that laws aren't necessary...They are. But, they (in the state they are in now) thet don't stop crime very well. If this weren't true we'd b converting all the prisons into amusement parks.
BTW, thanks for the ompliments.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 05:50 PM

I must have missed the name calling cause I don't see any. As far as laws not preventing crime I disagree with that. It is your OPINION that it doesn't prevent any crimes and that is not a fact it is my OPINION that is not true. I don't think it is strong at prevention but I do think that those laws is what stops us more moral people from commiting certain crimes. Most times we act on emotions and knowing that if we react on that emotion can put us in prision can be that tick that stops us from doing it. There will always be evil yes, I think it is a VERY SMALL number of people predisposed to it though, I think most of it is enviroment, people aren't made evil for the most part but taught to take those measures from what they are taught or how they are treated. I do think though there are a FEW people that are just not born ticking right.

But the biggest thing of all that I think causes crime is people being taught how to be selfish. When we care ONLY about ourself and our own needs we don't care about others and who gets in our way. WHen people as a whole can take more of a stand to care about others and everyone and work as a group not as an idividual I think things would be better.

But back to the point laws are all based on some sort of morality and I would be willing to bet people would much more appreciate the laws being here.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 15 2006, 06:00 PM

You may well be right Diane. I guess it's just the word "moral" or "marality" that I have an issue with. It suggests some degree of religiousity to me I guess. And, I have never believed that religion should ever have anything to do with the creation of laws. Just my humble opinion.
NOW!!! What the heck do I have to do to get a picture in the "top" list anyway? LOL!

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 06:05 PM

You may well be right Diane. I guess it's just the word "moral" or "marality" that I have an issue with. It suggests some degree of religiousity to me I guess. And, I have never believed that religion should ever have anything to do with the creation of laws. Just my humble opinion.
NOW!!! What the heck do I have to do to get a picture in the "top" list anyway? LOL!

Posted by: natalie Apr 15 2006, 06:15 PM

Could be it I don't see morals having to do with religion. All in the way we interpret a word I suppose.
How about posting a new photo?? I don't think I seen you post a new one throw in a sign saying to my Fans of RMM that usually gets good responses.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 15 2006, 06:45 PM

I agree they love those ones!   Hmmm.....why haven't I thought of that before?   lol

Posted by: sweetnsexy Apr 17 2006, 09:31 PM

At the risk of venturing into dangerous waters, my opinion is that our law makers try to cover too many aspects of our lives.

In the UK there are ever increasing realms of legislation covering things such as health and safety, but to an extent which is way beyond the application of common sense. I have no problem with rules which were intended to make safe industrial workplaces, but the trend is spreading into virtually every aspect of life, as our legislators try to take every concievable risk out of life. Partly this is due to the litigous trend which started in the US, where every lawyer is now looking for an opportunity to sue someone, and partly because the rulemakers have found something which allows them endless scope to expand their empires.

At the same time, burgulars are being let off with cautions to save space in prisons, crimes are not being investigated if there is not a 'reasonable' chance of arrest and sentences are too readily reduced for 'good' behaviour.

If you are a motorist, you can get snapped by a speed camera for exceeding the limit by a few mph, get fined and 3 points on your licence - 12 points and you get banned. But if you are an illegal immigrant or living on benefits, you can drive without a licence, insurance, tax, and in the unlikely event you get caught, you will get fined a fraction of the cost of being legal, and most probably given a few hours commnity service.

Our Government is constantly telling us what we can't do, and increasing the list of what that includes, is very efficient at catching, and especially fining, the mainly law-abiding, tax paying, classes, but does damn all about catching the people who destabilise the security that society wants.

So there!

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 17 2006, 09:46 PM

At the risk of venturing into dangerous waters, my opinion is that our law makers try to cover too many aspects of our lives.

In the UK there are ever increasing realms of legislation covering things such as health and safety, but to an extent which is way beyond the application of common sense.  I have no problem with rules which were intended to make safe industrial workplaces, but the trend is spreading into virtually every aspect of life, as our legislators try to take every concievable risk out of life.  Partly this is due to the litigous trend which started in the US, where every lawyer is now looking for an opportunity to sue someone, and partly because the rulemakers have found something which allows them endless scope to expand their empires.

At the same time, burgulars are being let off with cautions to save space in prisons, crimes are not being investigated if there is not a 'reasonable' chance of arrest and sentences are too readily reduced for 'good' behaviour.

If you are a motorist, you can get snapped by a speed camera for exceeding the limit by a few mph, get fined and 3 points on your licence - 12 points and you get banned.  But if you are an illegal immigrant or living on benefits, you can drive without a licence, insurance, tax, and in the unlikely event you get caught, you will get fined a fraction of the cost of being legal, and most probably given a few hours commnity service.

Our Government is constantly telling us what we can't do, and increasing the list of what that includes, is very efficient at catching, and especially fining, the mainly law-abiding, tax paying, classes, but does damn all about catching the people who destabilise the security that society wants.

So there! 

Posted by: diane26 Apr 17 2006, 09:47 PM

At the risk of venturing into dangerous waters, my opinion is that our law makers try to cover too many aspects of our lives.

In the UK there are ever increasing realms of legislation covering things such as health and safety, but to an extent which is way beyond the application of common sense.  I have no problem with rules which were intended to make safe industrial workplaces, but the trend is spreading into virtually every aspect of life, as our legislators try to take every concievable risk out of life.  Partly this is due to the litigous trend which started in the US, where every lawyer is now looking for an opportunity to sue someone, and partly because the rulemakers have found something which allows them endless scope to expand their empires.

At the same time, burgulars are being let off with cautions to save space in prisons, crimes are not being investigated if there is not a 'reasonable' chance of arrest and sentences are too readily reduced for 'good' behaviour.

If you are a motorist, you can get snapped by a speed camera for exceeding the limit by a few mph, get fined and 3 points on your licence - 12 points and you get banned.  But if you are an illegal immigrant or living on benefits, you can drive without a licence, insurance, tax, and in the unlikely event you get caught, you will get fined a fraction of the cost of being legal, and most probably given a few hours commnity service.

Our Government is constantly telling us what we can't do, and increasing the list of what that includes, is very efficient at catching, and especially fining, the mainly law-abiding, tax paying, classes, but does damn all about catching the people who destabilise the security that society wants.

So there! 

Posted by: closeup Apr 17 2006, 09:56 PM

The headlines in Maine's largest newspaper were interesting this morning. A twenty year old guy took his fathers' gun, drove to a registered sex offenders house and shot him in the head. Then he drove twenty miles to a guy who had just gotten out of prison for raping a 14 year old girl. Shot him in the head. Got on the bus and headed to Boston. When the cops boarded the bus to arrest him in Boston, he pulled out a .45 and shot himself in the head. I guess if you're intent on killing yourself, might as well take out two dirtbags beforehand.

Posted by: Bobaloo Apr 17 2006, 10:00 PM

The headlines in Maine's largest newspaper were interesting this morning. A twenty year old guy took his fathers' gun, drove to a registered sex offenders house and shot him in the head. Then he drove twenty miles to a guy who had just gotten out of prison for raping a 14 year old girl. Shot him in the head. Got on the bus and headed to Boston. When the cops boarded the bus to arrest him in Boston, he pulled out a .45 and shot himself in the head. I guess if you're intent on killing yourself, might as well take out two dirtbags beforehand.

Posted by: sweetnsexy Apr 17 2006, 10:00 PM

It all seems wacky to me. I say bring back public hanging.

Ever sunday lets meet in town square and watch "dick" get hung for raping a child. Bet it makes a few in the audience think twice about raping someone.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 17 2006, 10:06 PM

I'll be there with my knitting!!  But even if capital punishment is not an option, at least keep the bastards in for their full sentence.

Posted by: Lynette Apr 18 2006, 10:02 AM

???

Posted by: diane26 Apr 18 2006, 02:56 PM

???

Posted by: Gnappster Apr 18 2006, 03:35 PM

interesting thread turn...gotta agree with a lot of laws being redundant and overbearing but some of the basic ones do deter would be criminals. I would for sure rob banks if there weren't any laws preventing me from doing so. I figure, they've financially molested me for years, time to stick it to da man!

And that is all.

Posted by: diane26 Apr 18 2006, 03:43 PM

interesting thread turn...gotta agree with a lot of laws being redundant and overbearing but some of the basic ones do deter would be criminals. I would for sure rob banks if there weren't any laws preventing me from doing so. I figure, they've financially molested me for years, time to stick it to da man!

And that is all.