• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

So because a high end prostitute makes enough money to hire security, and enough prestige that she can turn down clients, who are interested enough in her in particular to wait for a vetting process, and has enough of a reputation that people trust her with real identities, an unknown or perhaps less attractive prostitute can obviously do the same. Great argument. Oh, and she probably also has to have a pimple or criminal owner in order to accomplish these things.
You must have missed the entire discussion because I was rebutting the claim made by Jolly Penguin in post #387 that
"You completely ignore the harm done to sex workers forced underground and unable to screen clients properly, unable to hire drivers/security, etc. ". I responded that was clearly untrue - that such activities occurred when prostitution is legal - something to which you argee. I further noted that legalization reduced the cost of such activities - something to which your misguided response confirms.

Never mind that she could just NOT hire a bodyguard, NOT be involved with a pimp, and NOT have to have a reputation as a high-end "escort" for her to jump on craigslist, post a listing for a tiny commission, and only accept offers from men who have alright reputations.
Ah, yes, craigslist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/01/11/think-twice-before-answering-that-ad-101-killers-have-found-victims-on-craigslist/?utm_term=.d5cc17f50df2)
 
Having a legal and regulated industry causes a HUGE increase in policing, not from the police, but from the licencees.

Try selling home-brewed alcohol - you won't get found out directly by the cops, unless you are either very stupid or very unlucky. You will get caught because the local publican or liquor store owner will wonder where all his customers went, and will take steps to find out. He will question his remaining customers, and his staff, and one of them will inevitably find out, and report back to him. And when that happens, he will call the cops on you, and have you shut down.

To a small extent, this happens in places where two illegal operations are in competition with each other - but it is only to a very small extent, because both parties in such a situation prefer to tolerate competition, or to try to shut it down by illegal means, (such as the provision of concrete overcoats and opportunities to sleep with the fishes) rather than to have the police coming into the area asking difficult questions and scaring off or shutting down their business.

Where competition exists between a licenced operator (who likely paid a lot for his licence) and an illegal operator who is stealing the licence holder's customers, there is no disincentive (and indeed a VERY powerful incentive) for the licencee to rat out the illegal competition.
 
There's nothing to be amazed about. If making a change makes some things safer and some things more dangerous, then it's a good change if the increased safety is more than the increased danger. It all depends on the numbers either way.

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

Maybe I misunderstood your post but you wrote that the good outweighed the bad. Maybe you don’t see forced prostitution as bad?? Maybe you see it as an acceptable trade off??? Happy for any clarity you might wish to share.

You are correct. I do not see forced prostitution as bad. It is not in any way really lame and stupid for you to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, I assume you like dead prostitutes. I assume you like it when more prostitutes get STDs. I assume you like it when prostitutes get beaten. It is not in any way really lame and stupid of me to come to those conclusions. Because we I see those as the end result of your position, I feel I am correct in reading your position as positively wanting those as opposed to their being things that you'd be against and it's appropriate for me to defame your character by implying that you wouldn't have a problem with that. This is how decent human beings act.
 
There's nothing to be amazed about. If making a change makes some things safer and some things more dangerous, then it's a good change if the increased safety is more than the increased danger. It all depends on the numbers either way.

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

Maybe I misunderstood your post but you wrote that the good outweighed the bad. Maybe you don’t see forced prostitution as bad?? Maybe you see it as an acceptable trade off??? Happy for any clarity you might wish to share.

You are correct. I do not see forced prostitution as bad. It is not in any way really lame and stupid for you to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, I assume you like dead prostitutes. I assume you like it when more prostitutes get STDs. I assume you like it when prostitutes get beaten. It is not in any way really lame and stupid of me to come to those conclusions. Because we I see those as the end result of your position, I feel I am correct in reading your position as positively wanting those as opposed to their being things that you'd be against and it's appropriate for me to defame your character by implying that you wouldn't have a problem with that. This is how decent human beings act.

You're the one who said you think it's an acceptable trade off.

I see zero reason that police cannot do their jobs now at protecting citizens. There is ZERO reason now that prostitutes cannot be as protected against STDs now as they would be if prostitution were legalized. ZERO.

There is also precious little reason to believe that suddenly --or after months and years of legalization--that people's attitudes would change and policing would change to make prostitutes safer. Not safe. Safer. In my job, I am routinely exposed to hazardous, sometimes carcinogenic materials and infectious agents, including HIV. I am well protected from these hazardous materials using personal protective equipment that would not be conducive to having any sort of sexual contact. What I don't worry about is whether clients or co-workers or supervisors are going to assault me, beat me, rape me, steal from me, etc. There is no red panic button in my workplace that signals I am being assaulted.

Because there is no need for a panic button to summon the police because I am in fear of or actually being assaulted or threatened.
 
You are correct. I do not see forced prostitution as bad. It is not in any way really lame and stupid for you to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, I assume you like dead prostitutes. I assume you like it when more prostitutes get STDs. I assume you like it when prostitutes get beaten. It is not in any way really lame and stupid of me to come to those conclusions. Because we I see those as the end result of your position, I feel I am correct in reading your position as positively wanting those as opposed to their being things that you'd be against and it's appropriate for me to defame your character by implying that you wouldn't have a problem with that. This is how decent human beings act.

You're the one who said you think it's an acceptable trade off.

I see zero reason that police cannot do their jobs now at protecting citizens. There is ZERO reason now that prostitutes cannot be as protected against STDs now as they would be if prostitution were legalized. ZERO.

There is also precious little reason to believe that suddenly --or after months and years of legalization--that people's attitudes would change and policing would change to make prostitutes safer. Not safe. Safer. In my job, I am routinely exposed to hazardous, sometimes carcinogenic materials and infectious agents, including HIV. I am well protected from these hazardous materials using personal protective equipment that would not be conducive to having any sort of sexual contact. What I don't worry about is whether clients or co-workers or supervisors are going to assault me, beat me, rape me, steal from me, etc. There is no red panic button in my workplace that signals I am being assaulted.

Because there is no need for a panic button to summon the police because I am in fear of or actually being assaulted or threatened.

Well, if keeping it illegal makes it a more dangerous working environment, as prostitution groups have argued and the Supreme Court agreed with, then making the argument to keep it illegal essentially means that you see dead and beaten prostitutes as an acceptable trade off in return for better clamping down on forced prostitution. Clearly, that's not something you see as a positive of your argument, so it would be really lame and stupid to assume or imply that you're either in favour of it or it's something that you don't care about.

Also, what is it that makes you think that an illegal and unregulated environment would do as effective a job as protecting prostitutes against STDs as a legal and regulated one? Isn't that essentially the same as saying that the EPA is useless because factories can just decide to not dump chemicals into rivers on their own or OSHA is pointless because workers can just be careful and not get hurt? Does your company deal with these hazardous materials without any kind of oversight or regulations or are there sets of rules which they are legally mandated to follow with penalties attached if they decide it would be more profitable to ignore them?
 
You are correct. I do not see forced prostitution as bad. It is not in any way really lame and stupid for you to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, I assume you like dead prostitutes. I assume you like it when more prostitutes get STDs. I assume you like it when prostitutes get beaten. It is not in any way really lame and stupid of me to come to those conclusions. Because we I see those as the end result of your position, I feel I am correct in reading your position as positively wanting those as opposed to their being things that you'd be against and it's appropriate for me to defame your character by implying that you wouldn't have a problem with that. This is how decent human beings act.

You're the one who said you think it's an acceptable trade off.

I see zero reason that police cannot do their jobs now at protecting citizens. There is ZERO reason now that prostitutes cannot be as protected against STDs now as they would be if prostitution were legalized. ZERO.

There is also precious little reason to believe that suddenly --or after months and years of legalization--that people's attitudes would change and policing would change to make prostitutes safer. Not safe. Safer. In my job, I am routinely exposed to hazardous, sometimes carcinogenic materials and infectious agents, including HIV. I am well protected from these hazardous materials using personal protective equipment that would not be conducive to having any sort of sexual contact. What I don't worry about is whether clients or co-workers or supervisors are going to assault me, beat me, rape me, steal from me, etc. There is no red panic button in my workplace that signals I am being assaulted.

Because there is no need for a panic button to summon the police because I am in fear of or actually being assaulted or threatened.

Well, if keeping it illegal makes it a more dangerous working environment, as prostitution groups have argued and the Supreme Court agreed with, then making the argument to keep it illegal essentially means that you see dead and beaten prostitutes as an acceptable trade off in return for better clamping down on forced prostitution. Clearly, that's not something you see as a positive of your argument, so it would be really lame and stupid to assume or imply that you're either in favour of it or it's something that you don't care about.

Also, what is it that makes you think that an illegal and unregulated environment would do as effective a job as protecting prostitutes against STDs as a legal and regulated one? Isn't that essentially the same as saying that the EPA is useless because factories can just decide to not dump chemicals into rivers on their own or OSHA is pointless because workers can just be careful and not get hurt? Does your company deal with these hazardous materials without any kind of oversight or regulations or are there sets of rules which they are legally mandated to follow with penalties attached if they decide it would be more profitable to ignore them?

We only see dead prostitutes because of economic pressures driving women to be prostitutes in a fundamentally sick society that refuses to properly care for its own.
 
We only see dead prostitutes because of economic pressures driving women to be prostitutes in a fundamentally sick society that refuses to properly care for its own.

Also because an industry run by criminals probably doesn't place concerns about health and safety on the job as a top priority. The more you put those people in charge, the more the prostitutes are going to find themselves in dangerous situations without any support.
 
We only see dead prostitutes because of economic pressures driving women to be prostitutes in a fundamentally sick society that refuses to properly care for its own.

Also because an industry run by criminals probably doesn't place concerns about health and safety on the job as a top priority. The more you put those people in charge, the more the prostitutes are going to find themselves in dangerous situations without any support.

What? As opposed to all those nice business men who aren't screwing over their employees with low pay that doesn't meet the costs of living and right-to-fire employment where the employee is seen as little more than a hired contractor to whom the business has zero responsibility?

Given our nation's short-comings with regards to properly regulating every-day businesses many of which are vital to the everyday function of our society (Like say the media...), why should I place any faith in our ability to regulate Prostitution in a way where the health, rights, and basic human dignities of sex workers are ensured?

Who's going the shoulder the health liability of an expanded sex trade? Because the people have made it clear that we won't be doing that. Ehh...I'm sure the type of people who run brothels totally care enough for their staff to keep them insured and in good health, and they won't at all cut "Unnecessary costs" in the interests of maintaining higher profits like literally every other corporate entity in America. So if a prostitute contracts HIV and can't work anymore, I'd bet you my left testicle what that leads to is her working the streets once again because she can't work legally, the EXACT scenario she wanted to avoid. The worst part now is that if she ever gets cought, she won't get the help she needs, nope! We'll throw her in prison for spreading disease, because that's how my nation treats its own.
 
We only see dead prostitutes because of economic pressures driving women to be prostitutes in a fundamentally sick society that refuses to properly care for its own.

Also because an industry run by criminals probably doesn't place concerns about health and safety on the job as a top priority. The more you put those people in charge, the more the prostitutes are going to find themselves in dangerous situations without any support.

What? As opposed to all those nice business men who aren't screwing over their employees with low pay that doesn't meet the costs of living and right-to-fire employment where the employee is seen as little more than a hired contractor to whom the business has zero responsibility?

Given our nation's short-comings with regards to properly regulating every-day businesses many of which are vital to the everyday function of our society (Like say the media...), why should I place any faith in our ability to regulate Prostitution in a way where the health, rights, and basic human dignities of sex workers are ensured?

Who's going the shoulder the health liability of an expanded sex trade? Because the people have made it clear that we won't be doing that. Ehh...I'm sure the type of people who run brothels totally care enough for their staff to keep them insured and in good health, and they won't at all cut "Unnecessary costs" in the interests of maintaining higher profits like literally every other corporate entity in America. So if a prostitute contracts HIV and can't work anymore, I'd bet you my left testicle what that leads to is her working the streets once again because she can't work legally, the EXACT scenario she wanted to avoid. The worst part now is that if she ever gets cought, she won't get the help she needs, nope! We'll throw her in prison for spreading disease, because that's how my nation treats its own.

And what's your solution to all of these misdeeds which occur due to lack of proper regulation? Is it to have less regulation, make doing the jobs illegal and put more criminal elements in charge of those businesses in order to clear up all the misdeeds? Or would it be doing literally anything else? If you picked "literally anything else" for these other industries, why do you this is an effective solution for clearing up the issues in the prostitution industry? Or do you think that prostitution is just going to stop if you pass enough laws, so we don't need to worry about it?
 
We only see dead prostitutes because of economic pressures driving women to be prostitutes in a fundamentally sick society that refuses to properly care for its own.

That's not totally true. Yes, if you had better social supports like universal single payer health care and universal basic income you would be much better off. If you had massive job creation so these sex workers could work jobs outside the sex industry in order to feed and house themselves, that would help a lot too. But, it wouldn't end prostitution, forced or willing. And it wouldn't make the working conditions of those sex workers not deadly.

Even if there are plenty of jobs available to sex workers aside from sex work, many of those sex workers earn through their sex vastly more than what they would in those other jobs. The big issue often isn't that they can't find another job to support themselves, so much as they can't find another job to support themselves to the same level. Without the sex work some won't be able to afford the lavish lifestyle with all the fancy jewelry and drugs that they want. Others wouldn't be able to put themselves through school to elevate them into careers that they would never otherwise have had available to them. There are doctors, lawyers, and MBAs who put themselves through these expensive educations via prostitution. We don't all come from rich families.

Short of total Communism, I really don't think you'll ever eradicate Prostitution through social supports and job availability.
 
Given our nation's short-comings with regards to properly regulating every-day businesses many of which are vital to the everyday function of our society (Like say the media...), why should I place any faith in our ability to regulate Prostitution in a way where the health, rights, and basic human dignities of sex workers are ensured?

Are you arguing for ending all regulation because it hasn't been perfectly effective? Because by driving prostitution undergound you are tossing away any transparency and compliance with regulation that you may have otherwise have had. Or do you think just because you say its illegal, it'll all stop?
 
You are correct. I do not see forced prostitution as bad. It is not in any way really lame and stupid for you to come to that conclusion.

Similarly, I assume you like dead prostitutes. I assume you like it when more prostitutes get STDs. I assume you like it when prostitutes get beaten. It is not in any way really lame and stupid of me to come to those conclusions. Because we I see those as the end result of your position, I feel I am correct in reading your position as positively wanting those as opposed to their being things that you'd be against and it's appropriate for me to defame your character by implying that you wouldn't have a problem with that. This is how decent human beings act.

You're the one who said you think it's an acceptable trade off.

I see zero reason that police cannot do their jobs now at protecting citizens. There is ZERO reason now that prostitutes cannot be as protected against STDs now as they would be if prostitution were legalized. ZERO.
You are starting to sound like a lofty libertarian. Of course there are reasons that these people might not be able to be protected, it has to do with who is in charge of them, or "owns" them.

There is also precious little reason to believe that suddenly --or after months and years of legalization--that people's attitudes would change and policing would change to make prostitutes safer.
You mean like the lottery? The trouble isn't with prostitution, but with women that become forced to prostitute themselves for whatever reason. A prostitute can work in a place that is well regulated and things are very safe. A person that is forced to prostitute themselves is likely in a situation where she is not in control and is being controlled and not with her best interests in mind.

Honestly, I think these two industries would be completely different. You can have a legalized system where women can work in the field safely. Then you'll have the back alley situations where women are forced to do this sort of thing. I'm not certain why legalized prostitution wouldn't improve the situation. It certainly won't solve the world's ills regarding coerced sex, but it addresses an industry that dates back to, I'd don't know, whenever it does.
 
I confess I don’t see any libertarian leanings in what I wrote. Maybe you could clarify?? It seems quite the opposite to me: I don’t think that the industry can be made sufficiently safe and there is credible evidence that it increases the number of individuals who are coerced. I cannot see how any increase in coercion at all is an acceptable trade off. Period. It’s like saying that men are entitled to sex and of one of the consequences of ensuring that men can safely have second demand is that other people, mostly girls and women but even if it were 100% males who were coerced, it would not be acceptable a price for society or these coerced individuals to pay. I cannot understand how any decent person would think it was justified.

How can you justify accepting ‘back alley’ illegal—coerced prostitution??
 
I confess I don’t see any libertarian leanings in what I wrote. Maybe you could clarify?? It seems quite the opposite to me: I don’t think that the industry can be made sufficiently safe and there is credible evidence that it increases the number of individuals who are coerced.
That's the thing, I see it as a dual pronged set up. There are the women that enter the industry (who'd be safer) and women that are coerced into it (not safer). I don't think a prohibition or legalization is going to change the fact that some women will be coerced. So why are we ignoring the women that can work safely in it?

I cannot see how any increase in coercion at all is an acceptable trade off. Period.
I don't see how legalization would increase coercion.

How can you justify accepting ‘back alley’ illegal—coerced prostitution??
You can't. I didn't say you or anyone could. I'm saying it is a reality that has underlying causes that aren't about sex and treating it like a problem founded in sex isn't going to help.
 
I cannot see how any increase in coercion at all is an acceptable trade off.

1. Do you think that an increase in endangered and dead prostitutes is an acceptable trade off? Tom has been making this point to you well, and you have ignored it.

2. You haven't shown that legalization causes more coercion.
 
I confess I don’t see any libertarian leanings in what I wrote. Maybe you could clarify?? It seems quite the opposite to me: I don’t think that the industry can be made sufficiently safe and there is credible evidence that it increases the number of individuals who are coerced. I cannot see how any increase in coercion at all is an acceptable trade off. Period. It’s like saying that men are entitled to sex and of one of the consequences of ensuring that men can safely have second demand is that other people, mostly girls and women but even if it were 100% males who were coerced, it would not be acceptable a price for society or these coerced individuals to pay. I cannot understand how any decent person would think it was justified.

Of course it's not justified. Nobody is making the argument that it's justified, except in the same manner that if you say it's better to give a mugger your wallet than get shot, you're saying that robbery is justified (and that's not what justified means).

The argument is that death is worse than coercion, so if you have to choose between the two (and you kind of do in this case), you go with the option which most reduces death. The entire case which led to the legalization (decriminalization?) of prostitution in Canada was that they successfully argued to the Court that having it illegal leads to more dead prostitutes, it leads to more infected prostitutes and it leads to more beaten prostitutes. They have a right to a safe workplace. Now, if it's also the case that legalization leads to an increase in demand which doesn't get met by the legal industry, so sex trafficking also increases as a result (and that seems to be the case), then that is a tradeoff which is made. It's not in any way good that there's a tradeoff, but there's a trade off the opposite way as well, in that the lower levels of sex trafficking are offset by the higher levels of dead, beaten and infected prostitutes. Having the legal parts of the industry licensed and regulated also gives the police a far better toolset to use in order to identify which members of the industry aren't actually in it of their own free will.
 
I cannot see how any increase in coercion at all is an acceptable trade off.

1. Do you think that an increase in endangered and dead prostitutes is an acceptable trade off? Tom has been making this point to you well, and you have ignored it.
There is no specificity to the alleged trade-off, so there is nothing to answer. Somoene might think one more forced sex slave is worth reducing 40 deaths but may not be welling to accept 40 more sex slaves for one less beating. Really, your question as phrased is truly pointless.
2. You haven't shown that legalization causes more coercion.
There is study that you don't like. Of course, your claims that legalization reduces danger and death to prostitutes is based on anecdotes and reported incidents. And since you have an objection to using reported vs actual incidents, that means you have no shown that legalization reduces danger and death.
 
There is no specificity to the alleged trade-off, so there is nothing to answer.

Since I was mirroring Toni, I am curious why you don't say this to her. Oh wait, I think I know why...
(IF you think it is because she did not offer a tradeoff, then you think right. Otherwise, you think wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom