Slut Or Not??

PC has a profile pic of herself with a gun. Is that supposed to intimidate us?
How does this relate to the actual topic?
She's looking for escape routes without leaving the thread. I'm just having fun with PC now.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RbL4PwTDsQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp"]TERMINATOR 2 MiniGun - YouTube[/ame]

And this is the M-214 at half speed.
 
PC has a profile pic of herself with a gun. Is that supposed to intimidate us?
How does this relate to the actual topic?

Nothing she's posted relates to the topic. Her pal suggested that she post a pic of herself with an UZI, I point out she has already done something like that.

I think it's weird. Don't you?
Nope. But whether I do you you do think a personal picture is weird has little to do with the actual topic at hand and the constitutional issues, societal issues, etc.
 
I could easily respond to all that drivel by pointing out that none of those individual even knew about, much less took part in, Stalin's atrocities, and that as soon as such things became known liberals suddenly distanced themselves from Communism, which is why you found Marxists involved in progressive movements and labor unions in the 1930s but no later on.

But really, the suggestion that liberals should be lumped in with Communists deserves no such complicated rebuttal. It's a preposterous suggestion from the get-go, and deserves nothing but contempt, as does anyone who makes it. It is utterly lacking in credibility, the stuff of John Birch Society craziness and conspiracy theories, and needs no more response than, say, birtherism or 9/11 truthism. It paints the person presenting it as either a liar or an idiot.

Personally, as I said, I think PC is a liar. But I could be wrong, and she might be really, really stupid instead.


"...men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals,..."
Walter Lippmann said it, jerk.
Learn to read.

And FDR had the same economic plan as Mussolini and Adolph Hitler.
"... men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, "


Took you apart, didn't I?
And it was sooooooo easy!


Right now you’re probably trying to brush something off your face…you didn’t realize it was the floor.
 
PC has a profile pic of herself with a handgun. Is that supposed to intimidate us?

Who's "us"...you have a tapeworm?

Us plural term in this context, your political opponents. Answer the question. What is your motivation for posting a pic of yourself holding a handgun?

If I had a tapeworm, I'd eat the words you'd like to shove down our throats and turn them into inspired poetry for peace.
 
Last edited:
Very true.

I'm sure there are several here.

And?
That's a polysyllabic request for you to STFU I believe. :rolleyes:
How do you get that?
It's implying that if there is a logical fallacy, you cannot argue in support of the point. It is assumed that the one saying such is not the one with a logical fallacy because nobody believes they are in the wrong and argue with any vehemence or conviction.
 
Of course! Sandra Fluke needs a real job.

While I personally can't see anything wrong with legalizing prostitution, I can't see any major benefit either. If prostitution were not only legal, but considered like any other normal legal business, I would not want to see men and women looking for work be penalized for turning down work in a whorehouse either. Can't you see some whore trade school popping up and advertising on television!

Will whores be allowed to discriminate? Suppose a whore doesn't want to engage in acts with the same sex. Are they punished? Will their license be revoked? What's to be done with street wakers who don't want to keep books and pay taxes? Now they are picked up for solicitation, kept until morning and let go. After licensing they could be prosecuted for tax evasion. What about the casual hooker? The woman who just wants to pay the rent, she ran short, turning a few tricks once in a while bridges the gap. Does SHE need a license for part time whoring? Will a licensed whore who teaches kindergarten during the day keep her job? How about minors? Will a 15 year old boy with Daddy's credit card get to go to a legal brothel or is he still limited to the next door neighbor.

This is one of those things that looks good on paper but doesn't work as well in real life. The best that can be said is that there will be legal brothels AND all the problems with illegal prostitiution that we have now.

Well I could think of a few benefits of legalizing the business, for starters we will take the business away from the pimps and gangsters on the street, and be able to get these girls cleaned up, alot of the street walkers are beaten regularly and get hooked on drugs by their pimp, as a way to keep power over her. Keep in mind Germany had legalized prostitution and they make billions off of it, look at how big our country is, thats alot of revenue, besides if you think prostitution is disgusting and perverted, just don't frequent the establishments, plaine and simple, besides making something illegal doesn't take it away anyways.

I don't think that prostitution is disgusting or perverted at all! Do you think that there is no illegal prositution in Germany? Do you think that if we had legal prostitution there would be no pimps or gangsters? You would be wrong. We would have nice, clean, well run, organized and taxpaying legal brothels AND pimps and street whores. Nevada has legal brothels. They require that the men get washed first and wear a condom. Where do you think men who don't want to fiddle with washing and have personal objections against condoms go? The pimps of Las Vegas! If a man wants to pay extra to beat the crap out of a woman, he just pays the pimp more. Drug up the whore and she won't be able to move. They won't get that in a legal brothel. The main difference is that instead of a little time lost by being picked up for solicitation, the street whores will be fighting tax evasion charges.

You are aware that in Germany a woman that turns down working in a brothel can lose her unemployment benefits aren't you?

Then there is the Netherlands. They have had legal prostitution longer than Germany. They recently cleaned up their famous red light district and closed over half the legal whorehouses. Why? Because the authorities found out that some of the legal sex workers weren't exactly willing. They had been kidnapped and sold to legal brothels as sex slaves. The women didn't get the money they earned. The brothels were owned and run by international criminal organizations.

There really isn't much of a moral objection to prostitution. Objecting to considering it a normal occuption might be objectionable, but not the act of prostitution. The logistics are another story. Likely there is a place for legal prostitution it can't hurt. Just recognize that it isn't going to help either.

And that brings me back to the same song I have been singing for what feels like forever now. The Founders intended the Federal government to provide the national defense and promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not targeted groups) and respect and protect each citizen's unalienable rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wished to have. We would be the first nation of people in the entire history of the world who would have freedom free of a monarch, Pope, dictator, or other totalitarian government that assigned the rights and privileges we would be allowed to have. The first people in the world to have the freedom to govern ourselves.

Toward that end, if the people of the state wanted legalized gambling, open saloons, adult bookstores, pornography at 7/11, prostitution, or no speed limits, they had complete freedom to have that. Or they had the right to ban any or all of those things if that is what the people wanted. Within the state, if a community didn't want adult bookstores or brothels or pornography on the magazine stand at 7/11, it could zone such thngs out of that community. Each community could say that bars or adult bookstores could not build near an elementary school or that obscene language could not be broadcast from a rooftop.

In other words, the people could form whatever society was aesthetically or practically pleasing according to their personal values, standards of decency, and shared values. Just because something is legal or illegal somewhere else, does not mean that people in other places are required to ban it or required to accept or condone it in their own community.

Legalizing something most of us identify as 'vices', whether socially acceptable or not, will invariably make some things better. And as Katz so competently stated here, it won't fix everything and is likely to create other problems. Just as legalizing recreational drugs for adults would solve some problems and issues, but would almost certainly force the dealers to turn all their attention to the kids and step up their efforts to addict them.

There is something to say for shared values and if those are strong enough and widespread enough, most of the market for illegal activities will dry up. When the norm is that promiscuity is not socially acceptable and/or when the norm is that each of us should accept personal responsibility for what we choose to do, an issue of whether Congress should force insurance companies to include contraceptives in their coverage would never come up.
 
Last edited:
Those who debate using logical fallacies fail to make a case for their position.

So....I don't get your vote???

Jeeeeezzzzz.......

I point out the weakness in your argument. I don't think you're the slightest bit interested in discussing any topic.

You just want to rant.

That's ok. I won't address your posts anymore. If you're ever in a friendly mood for a discussion let me know.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top