Kamala the hypocrite

[laughing dog]

Is that what its called when somebody launches into baseless personal attacks, adhoms, and addresses absolutely none of the points they quote and purport to respond to? Because that's what she did there. She didn't address a single thing he actually wrote.

Fascinating, we must have read a completely different post, because I find your characterization delusional. Which makes your response truly ironic.

I find your entire post history delusional and hostile just for the sake of being hostile.

Of course you do. Because facts and reason are hostile to your shallow thinking and passive aggressive slanders.

 

[Derec]

No, it doesn't. It's like saying capitally punishing every John fits perfectly because it is far too broad and overreaching. You are choosing an analogy that is far too overreaching because you are biased since you are a John. Just because you want something to be legal doesn't mean you ought to compare it to things that are far worse.

We are talking about banning the whole sex industry. That is more comparable to banning the whole Catholic Church than just mandating that priests must marry.

 

[Toni]

Is that what its called when somebody launches into baseless personal attacks, adhoms, and addresses absolutely none of the points they quote and purport to respond to? Because that's what she did there. She didn't address a single thing he actually wrote.

Fascinating, we must have read a completely different post, because I find your characterization delusional. Which makes your response truly ironic.

I find your entire post history delusional and hostile just for the sake of being hostile. Perhaps you are a figment of my imagination. Can anybody else see the dog?

Yes, but I don't see your point...

 

[Derec]

Look bud, you are the one who started this thread about how hypocritical it was of Kamala Harris to go after Back Page for advertising trafficked and underage prostitutes.

No, I started a thread on how hypocritical it was of Kamala Harris to go after Backpage for being an "online brothel". Her problem was its involvement in sex work in general, not specifically trafficking and underage, which I am also against.

YOU are the one who failed to talk about the plight of those who are trafficked and forced to work in textile and clothing industries--or agriculture and food industries. Why don't you talk about those?

What the hell are you talking about? I merely pointed out that existence of abuse and mistreatment in other industries does not mean the entire fields should be criminalized. And neither should the sex industry. Just like clothing or food industry, sex industry fulfills a legitimate human need. Which is why prostitution has been called the "world's oldest profession" and which is why it survives in some form even in very repressive societies like Iran or Iceland.

Nope. You are only interested in having too young girls available for sex for guys who can't get it up for anyone over 17 and don't care who is doing it willingly.

Now you are just accusing me of things that I have never advocated. I never advocated that under 18s should be allowed to enter sex work. But what you want is to prosecute guys who hire a 27 year old sex worker just because 17 year old sex workers exist.

You sure as fuck don't care about those who are forced into an industry when they are too young--or any age at all-- and who are left with years of damage that makes it difficult for them to see any other way that they are valued or can support themselves.

I do. But I do not see what persecuting consenting adults has to do with protecting anybody.

You set the parameters. This is YOUR thread.

It is my thread, but what you wrote here are YOUR fever dreams.

 

[Toni]

Because you can't.

I've learned that it is not worth my time to try to reason with someone whose reasoning involves only his own personal self interests.

 

[Derec]

Why is it that we have long rambling threads about Cortez and Harris, but nothing on sausage freshmen or candidates?

Kamala Harris is the frontrunner in the 2020 Democratic primary race. Why should I not talk about her?
And I did not start the thread on AOC, but she has been in the news a lot, often because of her own grandstanding. Why should we not talk about her?

This has nothing to do with clam vs. sausage.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone just got handed his dick to him.

Wrong. As usual Toni accuses me of things for which there is no evidence. She is positively Trumpian in her debating tactics.

 

[Derec]

Kamala Harris is famous for wanting to decriminalise sex work.

She only evolved on that issue yesterday, so there was hardly enough time to become famous based on it. For years she sang a different tune though. And I acknowledged this in post #132. I even joked that somebody from her staff must have been reading this thread.
If she sticks by this position, it is definitely a welcome development.

So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. I've found nothing that suggests she doesn't fully stand behind the statement in her tweet

I was not barking up the wrong tree.
Sex Workers Don’t Trust Kamala Harris
Again, I am cautiously optimistic of her change in position here. She still hasn't said anything about FOSTA, which is a bad law no matter how you feel about sex work which is why the Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing against it on constitutional grounds.

- - - Updated - - -

You can just google her. That's what I did. I did not even know her name before finding this thread.

The problem with googling it is that it will be heavy on most recent developments. Again, her change of mind is very recent, dating to yesterday.

As far as not knowing who she was, fair enough, you are from Sweden, but you will hear a lot about her over the next year as she is currently a Democratic front-runner for 2020 nomination.

 

[Derec]

Uh, because sausage freshmen and the other candidates don't pose the existential threat to Republican power posed by Harris,

Well she is the only freshman (sausage or clam) Senator who is legitimately running in 2020 (afaik), but remember that in 2008 we had a sausage freshman Senator run for president as well.
Talking about KH has little to do with her clam status, but more about her role in the 2020 primaries.

or the opportunity to mock and demean offered by AOC.

She puts herself out there because she is as prolific a tweeter as Orange Man. That makes her a legitimate target for discussion, and sometimes ridicule.

 

[Derec]

Oh well, then it was not a real problem. In fact, that was Backpage's apparent attitude, since it did not nothing about it even after it had been warned.

What do you think they should have done? Demanded to see ids of everybody trying to post an ad in their massage or escort sections?
Just how much human interactions do you think free ad sites have with each individual posting an ad?
If law enforcement has evidence that a particular account is engaging in forced or underage sex trade, I think Backpage and others should cooperate. But that is made more difficult by banning legitimate sex work. Or by forcing them to shut down the entire adult section.

So, according to you, breaking the law is ok when it comes to prostitution, promoting prostitution and sex with underage girls but it is not ok when entering the USA against the rules. Or even under the law (i.e. asylum seekers) whom you routinely call illegals, while omitting to refer the prostitutes and their clients as "illegals" or criminals.

I do not think underage sex workers are fine, and that (and forced adult prostitution) is where police should be doing their jobs. Not trying to bust 77 year old widowers getting hand jobs.

As to illegally entering the country, immigration laws are necessary if you want to have a country. And asylum is intended to protect people who are being prosecuted in their country. It's not supposed to be a free-for-all like it's sadly becoming. But that's off topic here. You and Toni still haven't shown why it is a good idea to ban sex work.

 

[Derec]

Apparently enough that it was willing to be shut down rather than simply not help pimps advertise underage girls.

It's not as simple as that. FOSTA made sites like BP liable for any user-generated ads. And it's impossible to filter all ads, especially in a free web site model. Note also that they would be liable for all sex-work related ads, not just for underage girls.
You are obsessed about underage girls when the war against sex-work that you support is on all sex work regardless of age.

I always wonder if the men who are so certain that prostitution and particularly underage prostitution is so harmless really feel that way when they are confronted with the fact that boys--underage boys--are also prostituted. Or about the circumstances that put underage boys in this situation.

More straw men. Nobody is saying that underage prostitution is harmless. Nobody here supports that shit. But you want to criminalize all sex work because of existence of forced and/or underage sex work. Should a gay man who hires a 23 year old rent boy be prosecuted just because there exist underage boys forced into prostitution somewhere. That is an illogical position.

I think that mostly it's just easier to keep your head in the sand and think about all the pretty girls you can buy.

I never bought a girl, nor do I wish to. I merely paid some for providing a service. I no more "bought" a human being than you did when you hired a plumber.

- - - Updated - - -

Naw... they just rather not care at all. Sure, human trafficking is wrong... but you know... I don't personally partake in it.

I do not partake in it, nor do I support it, so why should I be punished for somebody else's wrongdoing?

 

[Derec]

So arrest the seller or promoter, not the addict.

The Nordic model does the opposite. It arrests the buyers of sexual services, while the sellers go free. It's completely illogical position.

I really hope Kamala Harris does not end up going down that rabbit trail.

 

[Derec]

Because you can't.

I've learned that it is not worth my time to try to reason with someone whose reasoning involves only his own personal self interests.

Not ONLY, but what's wrong with having a self interest in a matter? You would not fault a gay man advocating for legalizing gay sex or gay marriage and you would not fault a woman of child-bearing age advocating for legal abortion. So why fault me for having a self-interest in a matter?

 

[Toni]

Because you can't.

I've learned that it is not worth my time to try to reason with someone whose reasoning involves only his own personal self interests.

Not ONLY, but what's wrong with having a self interest in a matter? You would not fault a gay man advocating for legalizing gay sex or gay marriage and you would not fault a woman of child-bearing age advocating for legal abortion. So why fault me for having a self-interest in a matter?

You seem to have overlook d the word ‘only.’

Being gay is not a choice. Advocating for reproductive and other health care is genuinely a matter of life and health, not a convenient route to orgasm. Utilizing prostitutes is a personal choice —for the purchaser.

 

[laughing dog]

What do you think they should have done? Demanded to see ids of everybody trying to post an ad in their massage or escort sections?
Just how much human interactions do you think free ad sites have with each individual posting an ad?
If law enforcement has evidence that a particular account is engaging in forced or underage sex trade, I think Backpage and others should cooperate. But that is made more difficult by banning legitimate sex work. Or by forcing them to shut down the entire adult section.

I think you need to educate yourself about  Backpage and the many cases that were successfully brought against it.

I do not think underage sex workers are fine, and that (and forced adult prostitution) is where police should be doing their jobs. Not trying to bust 77 year old widowers getting hand jobs.

As to illegally entering the country, immigration laws are necessary if you want to have a country. And asylum is intended to protect people who are being prosecuted in their country. It's not supposed to be a free-for-all like it's sadly becoming. But that's off topic here. You and Toni still haven't shown why it is a good idea to ban sex work.

Once again, you missed the entire point. Whether you like it or not, asylum seekers enter through a port of entry and legally enter the US, but you routinely refer to them as illegals. On the other hand, prostitution is illegal in most areas, you do not refer the people who are actively breaking the law as illegals. It is called a double standard - that is my point.

I don't have to show why any law should or should not exist to make that obvious point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What do you think they should have done? Demanded to see ids of everybody trying to post an ad in their massage or escort sections?
Just how much human interactions do you think free ad sites have with each individual posting an ad?

Ummm … ya. That would have actually been a really good idea. Granted, there are a million ways around it but if they'd been able to demonstrate that they had been willing to engage in a measure of due diligence and try and provide a way to at least try and distinguish between legitimate advertising and the raping of underaged sex slaves, it would likely have substantially helped their case. They did know in advance that a certain percentage of their ads were for the raping of underaged sex slaves and that this exposed them to legal and financial jeopardy and yet did nothing about it. If they'd been able to point to such efforts to be able to tell legislators that they're on their side on this matter and are doing their part to have their site not associated with this aspect of the industry, there's a much better chance that they'd still be around.

It's like the porn sites which say that you have to be about 18 to enter and you totally shouldn't hit the Enter button if you're under 18. It doesn't stop any underaged people from accessing porn, but it at least allows them to say that they acknowledge the issue and don't support it.

 

[Toni]

What do you think they should have done? Demanded to see ids of everybody trying to post an ad in their massage or escort sections?
Just how much human interactions do you think free ad sites have with each individual posting an ad?

Ummm … ya. That would have actually been a really good idea. Granted, there are a million ways around it but if they'd been able to demonstrate that they had been willing to engage in a measure of due diligence and try and provide a way to at least try and distinguish between legitimate advertising and the raping of underaged sex slaves, it would likely have substantially helped their case. They did know in advance that a certain percentage of their ads were for the raping of underaged sex slaves and that this exposed them to legal and financial jeopardy and yet did nothing about it. If they'd been able to point to such efforts to be able to tell legislators that they're on their side on this matter and are doing their part to have their site not associated with this aspect of the industry, there's a much better chance that they'd still be around.

It's like the porn sites which say that you have to be about 18 to enter and you totally shouldn't hit the Enter button if you're under 18. It doesn't stop any underaged people from accessing porn, but it at least allows them to say that they acknowledge the issue and don't support it.

It’s not quite accurate that they ‘did nothing.’ They actively guided the pimps of underage prostitues in how to properly advertise them for the customers seeking fresh , young, new in town girlies looking for daddies who could show them the town.

The advertisement of underage prostitutes., or let’s be grown ups and honest: young sex slaves was encouraged and part of the business model. It was done for profit. Don’t insult us by pretending we don’t know that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What underage girls do you think Backpage was advertising?

Very few compared to total ad volume.

Apparently enough that it was willing to be shut down rather than simply not help pimps advertise underage girls.

I always wonder if the men who are so certain that prostitution and particularly underage prostitution is so harmless really feel that way when they are confronted with the fact that boys--underage boys--are also prostituted. Or about the circumstances that put underage boys in this situation.

I think that mostly it's just easier to keep your head in the sand and think about all the pretty girls you can buy.

Because few politicians would vote against something so obviously good as a counterproductive attempt to stamp out underage prostitution. That would be handing their opponents too much come next election.

 

[Toni]

Apparently enough that it was willing to be shut down rather than simply not help pimps advertise underage girls.

I always wonder if the men who are so certain that prostitution and particularly underage prostitution is so harmless really feel that way when they are confronted with the fact that boys--underage boys--are also prostituted. Or about the circumstances that put underage boys in this situation.

I think that mostly it's just easier to keep your head in the sand and think about all the pretty girls you can buy.

Because few politicians would vote against something so obviously good as a counterproductive attempt to stamp out underage prostitution. That would be handing their opponents too much come next election.

To be very honest, Loren, I am struggling with a massive stomach bug right now and may not be thinking straight but I really don't understand your response. Can you please explain?

 

[Copernicus]

As for the "Nordic model", there is nothing weird about it. Addiction is a medical condition that should not be prosecuted as a crime. Criminal prosecution is not the best way to deter or cure an addiction. What ought to be prosecuted is behavior that leads to harm or exploitation of others. People who are not medical professionals and who sell drugs to addicts are probably doing them harm. To the extent that they entice other people into becoming addicts, they are doing harm to others. So arrest the seller or promoter, not the addict.

Addiction? I was talking about the nordic model of prostitution laws. The legal to sell but illegal to buy framework.

Oops! Sorry, but you are right about that. I was unfamiliar with the "Nordic model" terminology, which applies exclusively to prostitution. My bad. It sounded like a kind of ideal solution for drug addiction laws, but I see that my inference was off base.

I do agree with you that the Nordic model is bizarre, but it is not as bizarre as the reality in most countries, where it is illegal to sell, but the buyers are usually absolved from any responsibility in the transaction. I am more in tune with Kamala Harris's actual position, which is that there is a good argument for government regulation of the market for sexual services. The main point is that it actually be a consensual relationship in which minors and adults are not exploited by third parties. Because of the way the laws are currently structured in the US, it is easy for criminal elements to overturn the popular perception that prostitution is somehow a "victimless crime". Under the current approach to prostitution and drug addiction in the US. it becomes inevitable that criminal organizations can manipulate and exploit people in order to enrich themselves and also become catalysts for the spread of health epidemics (e.g. drug addictions, venereal diseases, AIDS).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, but I don't see your point...

That's clearly willful. I politely asked you a straightforward question regarding one of Derec's points that you had dodged numerous times, and you dodged it again by launching a personal attack. You are clearly not trying to understand anybody else's view, or even examine your own. You are just lashing out. Good for you.

I do not think underage sex workers are fine, and that (and forced adult prostitution) is where police should be doing their jobs. Not trying to bust 77 year old widowers getting hand jobs.

I think you can repeat that 100 more times, and certain folks here won't accept it. You're the bad guy Derec. You are a monster. If some folks here think any better of you they may actually have to look at the points you are making. I don't see that happening any time soon.