Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[laughing dog]

The problem is that this is the wrong question.

No, the problem is you are ignoring the actual context. The discussion was not about changing the law, the discussion was initially about whether or not taking off Backpage was a good idea. The naysayers were poohpoohing the argument that there was a significant proportion of the sex ads that were either child sex or sex trafficked. So, I asked that question. To date, not a single advocate of "freedom" has had the intellectual honesty or courage to answer the question. Instead, all I get is crickets, evasion or stupidity.

 

[ZiprHead]

I suspect someone will see an opportunity and set up another "backpages" on a foreign server that will still serve the US market.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think there's a thing that often happens with threads where it goes off to talk about the more general, abstract ideological argument. I find this to often (but not always) be useless because ideological arguments often do not map to reality. In reality, there are often many variables and contributing factors to a thing. So, as in this case, I think it's better to talk about the concrete criminal case of Backpage. The op itself painted the criminal case as a single issue which was incorrect. We can talk about abstract case for legalization separately in another thread alternatively. It's an option... As an aside, if every concrete issue being discussed ends up an ideological discussion about one single factor doesn't really contribute to reality-based discussion. We basically have no informed discussion or understanding of many factors but instead many threads where the same thing is rehashed over and over.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

To date, not a single advocate of "freedom" has had the intellectual honesty or courage to answer the question. Instead, all I get is crickets, evasion or stupidity.

what portion of forced/trafficked prostitution would make it unacceptable.

It's a real stumper, that has been answered repeatedly. No portion of forced/trafficked prostitution is acceptable. Why you would think otherwise is your issue, not anybody else's.

Loren himself queried if removing adds from Backpage will decrease trafficking and abuse. Many others have stated the opposite is the case, as it hides better from law enforcement. You evaded them.

How much violence, rape and abuse of non-trafficked prostitutes is acceptable to you? I would hope the answer is also none. So maybe you could consider that online soliciting where vetting can happen is safer than street walking? You evaded that point too.

 

[laughing dog]

To date, not a single advocate of "freedom" has had the intellectual honesty or courage to answer the question. Instead, all I get is crickets, evasion or stupidity.

what portion of forced/trafficked prostitution would make it unacceptable.

It's a real stumper, ....

Unsurprisingly, it is a real stumper to you and to other, because your response (as usual) does not address it. It has not been answered at all. Derec argued that 99% of the ads were not from underage or trafficked prostitutes, so this sanction was uncalled for. I asked what proportion would make it (the sanction) would Backpage's policy acceptable (or conversely, what proportion would make it unacceptable). Loren evaded the question by the handwaved response that the question in meaningless. The question as to the likely effect of the removal of ads from Backpage on sex trafficking and underage prostitution is meaningless, because the shutting down of Backpage is the legal sanction for their refusal to obey the law. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the law, it should be respected until it is changed. It is more than interesting to see the same people who argue that civilians should obey the orders of the police or expect to be deservedly killed to whine about the correct application of a legal sanction in a clear breach of the law.

The handwaved claim that online solicitation reduces violence on prostitutes is also immaterial to the actual issue. I am under no obligation to address immaterial claims. If the advocates of "freedom" and/or the enablers of sex trafficking and underage prostitution wish to discuss whether prostitution should be legalized, they should start a thread about it and stop hijacking other discussion to deal with their obsessive hobby horses.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

it is a real stumper to you and to other, because your response (as usual) does not address it. It has not been answered at all.

The question as you asked it was answered. You poorly phrasing a question isn't on anybody but yourself.

The question as to the likely effect of the removal of ads from Backpage on sex trafficking and underage prostitution is meaningless, because the shutting down of Backpage is the legal sanction for their refusal to obey the law.

And yet you accuse Derec and Loren of authoritarianism while you do it yourself.

Derec argued that 99% of the ads were not from underage or trafficked prostitutes, so this sanction was uncalled for. I asked what proportion would make it (the sanction) would Backpage's policy acceptable (or conversely, what proportion would make it unacceptable).

And you answer that with the authoritarianism that you charge Derec and Loren with, by saying its illegal so it doesn't matter, and it should be shut down regardless. So why is it a meaningful question to you? Or are you just trolling as usual?

The handwaved claim that online solicitation reduces violence on prostitutes is also immaterial to the actual issue.

And yet vital to the broader topic. Shutting down Backpage may put people directly into situations of danger as was noted above and as you ignored and evidently don't care about.

I am under no obligation to address immaterial claims.

You are under no obligation to address any claims or answer any questions. Nor is anybody else here.

they should start a thread about it and stop hijacking other discussion to deal with their obsessive hobby horses.

I don't think Derec minds discussing the broader issues in this thread that he started. Perhaps you could ask him.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think there's a thing that often happens with threads where it goes off to talk about the more general, abstract ideological argument. I find this to often (but not always) be useless because ideological arguments often do not map to reality. In reality, there are often many variables and contributing factors to a thing. So, as in this case, I think it's better to talk about the concrete criminal case of Backpage. The op itself painted the criminal case as a single issue which was incorrect. We can talk about abstract case for legalization separately in another thread alternatively. It's an option... As an aside, if every concrete issue being discussed ends up an ideological discussion about one single factor doesn't really contribute to reality-based discussion. We basically have no informed discussion or understanding of many factors but instead many threads where the same thing is rehashed over and over.

I find that usually these threads start with a concrete case, it gets discussed, and there often isn't a whole lot to cover or a whole lot of interest in that particular case so it exhausts quickly, so people move on to its implications on broader issues. I see no problem with that. Perhaps if the OP specifically asks to stay with the one particular case and examine it in detail, and fade into obscurity with few responses, that's a request that should be honoured, but I rarely see that asked for in OPs.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think there's a thing that often happens with threads where it goes off to talk about the more general, abstract ideological argument. I find this to often (but not always) be useless because ideological arguments often do not map to reality. In reality, there are often many variables and contributing factors to a thing. So, as in this case, I think it's better to talk about the concrete criminal case of Backpage. The op itself painted the criminal case as a single issue which was incorrect. We can talk about abstract case for legalization separately in another thread alternatively. It's an option... As an aside, if every concrete issue being discussed ends up an ideological discussion about one single factor doesn't really contribute to reality-based discussion. We basically have no informed discussion or understanding of many factors but instead many threads where the same thing is rehashed over and over.

I find that usually these threads start with a concrete case, it gets discussed, and there often isn't a whole lot to cover ...

That has not happened here.

 

[LordKiran]

It's a real stumper, ....

Unsurprisingly, it is a real stumper to you and to other, because your response (as usual) does not address it. It has not been answered at all. Derec argued that 99% of the ads were not from underage or trafficked prostitutes, so this sanction was uncalled for. I asked what proportion would make it (the sanction) would Backpage's policy acceptable (or conversely, what proportion would make it unacceptable). Loren evaded the question by the handwaved response that the question in meaningless. The question as to the likely effect of the removal of ads from Backpage on sex trafficking and underage prostitution is meaningless, because the shutting down of Backpage is the legal sanction for their refusal to obey the law. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the law, it should be respected until it is changed. It is more than interesting to see the same people who argue that civilians should obey the orders of the police or expect to be deservedly killed to whine about the correct application of a legal sanction in a clear breach of the law.

The handwaved claim that online solicitation reduces violence on prostitutes is also immaterial to the actual issue. I am under no obligation to address immaterial claims. If the advocates of "freedom" and/or the enablers of sex trafficking and underage prostitution wish to discuss whether prostitution should be legalized, they should start a thread about it and stop hijacking other discussion to deal with their obsessive hobby horses.

I think JP has a hard time answering that question because it carries a lot of underlying dilemmas that need to be addressed first. How do you measure the help done by legalizing prostitution versus the harm inflicted? Can human life even be weighed in this manner? Depends on how/if you value it, perhaps.

Perhaps my initial alarmist statements are over-the-top, but I do have concerns/reservations and would rather continue to monitor how it plays out in Europe for about a decade before seeing it implemented here. That said I don't think it'd be the worst thing to ever be passed by our legislative branches, especially considering recent events.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet you accuse Derec and Loren of authoritarianism while you do it yourself.

And you answer that with the authoritarianism that you charge Derec and Loren with, by saying its illegal so it doesn't matter, and it should be shut down regardless. So why is it a meaningful question to you? Or are you just trolling as usual?

I never made any such claim that they think shutting down Backpage should be shut down. Derec says Backpage should be shut down, since he is arguing in the OP that it should not be shut down. I am saying that it the shutdown is the legal sanction for the Backpage's willful disobediance of the law. That is true regardless of one's view of the law. Once again, you response is based on a straw man. It would be severely hypocritical for someone who is so concerned about trolling to deliberately persist in straw man after straw man, so please do not get upset if I ask if your straw men are meaningful to you or are you just playing at stupid as usual?

And yet vital to the broader topic. Shutting down Backpage may put people directly into situations of danger as was noted above and as you ignored and evidently don't care about.

And that obtuseness just keeps going - your conclusion does not logically follow. However, applying your hysterical reasoning to your response, shutting down Backpage may direct people away from sex trafficking and underage sex as noted above, so evidently you don't care about sex trafficking or underage prostitution.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think JP has a hard time answering that question because it carries a lot of underlying dilemmas that need to be addressed first. How do you measure the help done by legalizing prostitution versus the harm inflicted? Can human life even be weighed in this manner? Depends on how/if you value it, perhaps.

Perhaps my initial alarmist statements are over-the-top, but I do have concerns/reservations and would rather continue to monitor how it plays out in Europe for about a decade before seeing it implemented here. That said I don't think it'd be the worst thing to ever be passed by our legislative branches, especially considering recent events.

How is he having a hard time answering it? He said he doesn't want any. That seems like he had an easy time answering it.

Now, obviously that's a goal to work towards and the question is how to minimize it. Asking what number is acceptable is the same as asking how many children is it acceptable to have killed by drunk drivers and if you can't give a number that's fine for you, why aren't you in favour of prohibition because allowing people to drink alcohol does lead to some drunk driving which does lead to some kids being killed by drunk drivers.

Sex trafficking is an inevitable part of the prostitution industry Making it illegal doesn't stop it and making it legal doesn't stop it. The question is how to minimize it and keep prostitutes as safe as possible along with, in the opinion of some, avoiding having the government criminalize consensual sex between adults.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think JP has a hard time answering that question

He already answered it. So did others.

 

[LordKiran]

I think JP has a hard time answering that question because it carries a lot of underlying dilemmas that need to be addressed first. How do you measure the help done by legalizing prostitution versus the harm inflicted? Can human life even be weighed in this manner? Depends on how/if you value it, perhaps.

Perhaps my initial alarmist statements are over-the-top, but I do have concerns/reservations and would rather continue to monitor how it plays out in Europe for about a decade before seeing it implemented here. That said I don't think it'd be the worst thing to ever be passed by our legislative branches, especially considering recent events.

How is he having a hard time answering it? He said he doesn't want any. That seems like he had an easy time answering it.

Now, obviously that's a goal to work towards and the question is how to minimize it. Asking what number is acceptable is the same as asking how many children is it acceptable to have killed by drunk drivers and if you can't give a number that's fine for you, why aren't you in favour of prohibition because allowing people to drink alcohol does lead to some drunk driving which does lead to some kids being killed by drunk drivers.

Sex trafficking is an inevitable part of the prostitution industry Making it illegal doesn't stop it and making it legal doesn't stop it. The question is how to minimize it and keep prostitutes as safe as possible along with, in the opinion of some, avoiding having the government criminalize consensual sex between adults.

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

In the short run, it seems to make sex trafficking worse with the offsetting benefit of less dead and beaten prostitutes. The prostitutes seem to be in favour of the latter and additional steps can then be taken to deal with the former without sacrificing the safety of the consenting adults in the industry.

You can let prostitutes work indoors instead of on the streets and allow them the tools to pre-screen their clients and not worry about legal jeopardy by reporting crimes and then deal with the nefarious aspects of the industry.

 

[LordKiran]

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

In the short run, it seems to make sex trafficking worse with the offsetting benefit of less dead and beaten prostitutes. The prostitutes seem to be in favour of the latter and additional steps can then be taken to deal with the former without sacrificing the safety of the consenting adults in the industry.

You can let prostitutes work indoors instead of on the streets and allow them the tools to pre-screen their clients and not worry about legal jeopardy by reporting crimes and then deal with the nefarious aspects of the industry.

My problem with what I colloquially call the Nevada model is that it seems to inherently serve the wealthy in the way it is set up. If prostitution of this fashion comes to be but only serves the upper echelons of society then what's left for the rest of us other than to continue the old ways? Do we know the uptick is trafficking is temporary for certain?

 

[LordKiran]

Perhaps I'm not the one to open this discussion branch but I remember some years ago a number of video articles on prostitution in Japan, it seems to have a profoundly negative impact on their young girls in particular, with how widespread teenage prostitution is in that nation. One wonders if there's any correlation between this and their shrinking population.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

In the short run, it seems to make sex trafficking worse with the offsetting benefit of less dead and beaten prostitutes. The prostitutes seem to be in favour of the latter and additional steps can then be taken to deal with the former without sacrificing the safety of the consenting adults in the industry.

You can let prostitutes work indoors instead of on the streets and allow them the tools to pre-screen their clients and not worry about legal jeopardy by reporting crimes and then deal with the nefarious aspects of the industry.

My problem with what I colloquially call the Nevada model is that it seems to inherently serve the wealthy in the way it is set up. If prostitution of this fashion comes to be but only serves the upper echelons of society then what's left for the rest of us other than to continue the old ways?

That is one of the inherent problems with legalization - it raises prices and only people with money can take advantage of it. If a woman is advertising on the internet, she needs to pay for a website, an apartment to meet people in, etc. If it's a legal and regulated industry, there's additional costs for making sure the place is sanitary, keeping proper records, getting licenced and all that. You're probably not going to have a licenced and regulated prostitute hanging out on a street corner and giving blow jobs for $20 and you're likely going to need to spend at least a couple hundred dollars to see her. If that's not in your price range, legalized prostitution doesn't really help you and the only people catering to your needs are the sex traffickers because not having to pay the women or make sure they're disease-free or alive at the end of the night cuts expenses.

While there is, of course, an inherent inequality in that, this doesn't therefore mean that you can't make this aspect of the industry as safe and secure as possible anymore than you're hampered in making safety standards for cars because there are some people who can only afford to take the bus.

 

[LordKiran]

My problem with what I colloquially call the Nevada model is that it seems to inherently serve the wealthy in the way it is set up. If prostitution of this fashion comes to be but only serves the upper echelons of society then what's left for the rest of us other than to continue the old ways?

That is one of the inherent problems with legalization - it raises prices and only people with money can take advantage of it. If a woman is advertising on the internet, she needs to pay for a website, an apartment to meet people in, etc. If it's a legal and regulated industry, there's additional costs for making sure the place is sanitary, keeping proper records, getting licenced and all that. You're probably not going to have a licenced and regulated prostitute hanging out on a street corner and giving blow jobs for $20 and you're likely going to need to spend at least a couple hundred dollars to see her. If that's not in your price range, legalized prostitution doesn't really help you and the only people catering to your needs are the sex traffickers because not having to pay the women or make sure they're disease-free or alive at the end of the night cuts expenses.

While there is, of course, an inherent inequality in that, this doesn't therefore mean that you can't make this aspect of the industry as safe and secure as possible anymore than you're hampered in making safety standards for cars because there are some people who can only afford to take the bus.

This is actually kind of hard for me, I'm not normally used to being conservative on social issues, but I don't think we properly know what the long term or far reaching effects of something like this would be. I think China's one child policy is the best example of this. Who would have thought a one child policy would lead to sex descrimination in abortions leading to a glut of men without wives which could potentially result in population collapse?

I don't think most people think of these things when it comes to sudden social changes in legislation.

 

[Derec]

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

I have seen no good evidence that legal sex work makes child prostitution and involuntary prostitution worse. Do you really think there are more child/forced prostitutes in the few Nevada counties where sex work is legal? Do you think number of involuntary/child prostitutes increased when Rhode Island accidentally legalized some sex work?
Logic would dictate that if police resources are freed from persecuting consenting adults (for example through sting operations), those resources could be diverted to going after actual bad guys. Now whether the jurisdiction in question does that or merely diverts the savings to the general fund and ignores involuntary/child prostitution as much as when sex work in general was illegal.
So, I would say legalization has the potential for making things better but there is no guarantee. Politicians and police still have to do their job and go after criminals. But it's easier to pearl clutch how Backpage and other sites make it quick and easy to hire sex workers I guess.

 

[LordKiran]

But does making it legal make it better or worse? That was the point of contention the last time I participated. Did that ever get an answer? If legalization makes it worse than you have to consider the change to be an inherent cost. Whereas you can't consider it a 'cost' of prohibition if prohibition reduces the problem.

I have seen no good evidence that legal sex work makes child prostitution and involuntary prostitution worse. Do you really think there are more child/forced prostitutes in the few Nevada counties where sex work is legal? Do you think number of involuntary/child prostitutes increased when Rhode Island accidentally legalized some sex work?
Logic would dictate that if police resources are freed from persecuting consenting adults (for example through sting operations), those resources could be diverted to. Now whether the jurisdiction in question does that or merely diverts the savings to the general fund and ignores involuntary/child prostitution as much as when sex work in general was illegal.
So, I would say legalization has the potential for making things better but there is no guarantee. Politicians and police still have to do their job and go after criminals. But it's easier to pearl clutch how Backpage and other sites make it quick and easy to hire sex workers I guess.

I don't know what to think Derec, I never have and never will have need for a prostitute. Truthfully I think prostitution will eventually be rendered obsolete by technology given enough time, such that to me the issue is somewhat moot. But I don't really know what to think, which is why I am mostly asking questions or offering new facets to the discussion such as the effects of psuedo-legal prostitution in Japan.

I do think there are potential societal impacts of legalizing and normalizing prostitution that we can't necessarily predict, so my objections are more out of pragmatic caution than moral righteousness.