STR8UP said:Amsterdam RULES.
But it's full crime, violence, even murder and rape, drugs and women being used as property!
STR8UP said:Amsterdam RULES.
And you know what's funny? It's more of a show than anything. I ran into Mike Tyson in the RLD. It was one big party.ketostix said:But it's full crime, violence, even murder and rape, drugs and women being used as property!
Here's a start:ketostix said:OK let's see your evidence and statistics that back up everything you said.
I got your point. Your logic is that if we legalize a crime, that there will be less crime committed. But you never answered my question...why not take it one step further and completely eradicate crime all together and legalize EVERY crime? No more traffic tickets, no more prisons, no need for police, DEA, FBI, Homeland Security...hell, no need for a government.And you're missing my point that but criminalizing something of course it will lead to more crime and even pimps than if it were legalized and regulated.
My position is the United States government (or as "Big Brother" as you and Last Man Standing prefer to refer to it as) lays its heavy hand wherever it's needed. Since some of us are obviously completely inept when it comes to running our own lives and/or protecting our children, sometimes the government needs to step in. But that's a discussion for a different day I think.I don't care about prostitution either, it's just a discussion. I'm more concerned about the way "Big Brother" operates in general and it's heavy hand where it doesn't belong.
That's because it's...a crime, and the stats show that it leads to MORE crime. I still don't see where I'm going wrong.No you made it clear that the moment a person directly pays for sex suddenly crime pops up everywhere. You were lumping crime in with payment for sex.
I don't HAVE to establish a link. The burden of proof is on you, since numbers don't lie. In order to say that prostitution does NOT lead to other crimes, you need to find a way to discount every study and every scientific analysis ever done on the subject and then maybe you can go to congress with your findings. Until then, the Earth stays round.Well I don't see your point. No one's saying prostitution is risk free, only that the crime and risks are being overblown and that you're not establishing a link to crime and prostitution.
Illegal acts. One's dangerous and one's not.You're not a woman I presume, so I don't even know what the point is comparing yourself buying a bag to a woman hooking.
OK I would give you props for posting a "study" supporting your position. But I can't put credence in one that is, authored by "Feminism & Psychology" and throws the USA in with statitistics with South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Zambia in the mix. I thought that would go without saying. Why didn't this study combine the USA with the Netherlands, Germany and Australia? That's what I thought. When I get time maybe I'll address the other shaky points in your post.Wired for Sound said:Here's a start:
"In a study of 475 people in prostitution from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
62% reported having been raped in prostitution.
73% reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
92% stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
(Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" (1998) Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426)"
Tell her a little about yourself, but not too much. Maintain some mystery. Give her something to think about and wonder about when she's at home.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Well as a 'local', when I'm really horny, walk back from a night out and didn't score anything in the club(s) or bars, I sometimes walk in too. It's better than causing loads of trouble since you didn't score any and it beats Miss Rosey Palm too. So yeah, it's mostly tons of tourists (drunken Brits, USA backpackers) and locals who mostly are in the RLD district to go to bars (kroeg) there or are passers by. It's a fun area to walk around in though..lots of stuff happening.STR8UP said:And you know what's funny? It's more of a show than anything. I ran into Mike Tyson in the RLD. It was one big party.
No doubt people go there (I say people cause I even saw COUPLES entering the rooms) for the specific purpose of fukking hookers, but it's more of a novelty than anything. 15 minutes of mechanical masturbation by another human being? Not very fulfilling, but I believe it has its place and should be LEGALIZED, nonetheless.
Sure you can. They tax the guy that mows my lawn and the chick that cleans my house. All manner of service industry work is legal AND taxed. If it's not too much trouble you think you can put down the joint and actually think your argument through for 3 minutes next time?Da Realist said:Want to know why it's illegal? You can't tax it easily.
Countries where the service is not legalized, moron.Wired for Sound said:Here's a start:
"In a study of 475 people in prostitution from five countries (South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia):
fireguy said:Prostitution became legal here in norway a few years ago, and now you cant walk down the streat without some ugly african hiv ridden hooker sleezing and grabing at you. Our main shopping street and are now infected by them.
Just because a woman listens to you and acts interested in what you say doesn't mean she really is. She might just be acting polite, while silently wishing that the date would hurry up and end, or that you would go away... and never come back.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
bigjohnson said:Countries where the service is not legalized, moron.
Resorting to personal attacks, huh? Now THERE'S a sign of a man confident in himself and his perspective.bigjohnson said:Countries where the service is not legalized, moron.
You're the one modifying the circumstances. I never changed the circumstances of my argument: that prostitution in the US should be legal and regulated to a reasonable and necessary degree. And I fully accept valid unbiased statistics but not inaccurate stats.Wired for Sound said:ANYWAY, technically you can keep modifying the circumstances all day long until you get the results you want. "Oh, sure prostitutes get raped...but you included TURKEY in your study!" "Oh well, sure prostitutes get murdered in Zambia...but they have sex with BLACK people!" You see? You can go on and on. If you refuse to accept statistics, then there's not much else anybody can say since you've made up to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of what's actually going on. I know a few people like you in real life and I get nowhere with them either.
fireguy said:Prostitution became legal here in norway a few years ago, and now you cant walk down the streat without some ugly african hiv ridden hooker sleezing and grabing at you. Our main shopping street and are now infected by them.
You say idiotic stuff and I'll call you an idiot. May as well get used to it as a lot of people have similar policies.Wired for Sound said:Resorting to personal attacks, huh?
If you study risks with a behavior ONLY in places where the behavior is ILLEGAL you're gonna get skewed results. If you only do studies in impoverished 3rd world regions you can't apply that outside those regions without some proof as to how it's still valid.Wired for Sound said:ANYWAY, technically you can keep modifying the circumstances all day long until you get the results you want. "Oh, sure prostitutes get raped...but you included TURKEY in your study!" "Oh well, sure prostitutes get murdered in Zambia...but they have sex with BLACK people!" You see? You can go on and on. If you refuse to accept statistics, then there's not much else anybody can say since you've made up to believe whatever you want to believe regardless of what's actually going on. I know a few people like you in real life and I get nowhere with them either.
Then get used to being known as feeble-minded for not being able to debate without resorting to personal attacks. Only those who aren't entirely secure in themselves and their beliefs would allow some random guy on the Internet with a moniker implying that they have a large penis using playground insults to affect them. By all means, if you think referring to those which whom you disagree with as "morons" advances your argument...then please continue. Makes no difference to me.bigjohnson said:You say idiotic stuff and I'll call you an idiot. May as well get used to it as a lot of people have similar policies.
The United States and Turkey was included in the study. Say goodbye to that one.If you only do studies in impoverished 3rd world regions you can't apply that outside those regions without some proof as to how it's still valid.
My college professor believed that my understanding of Statistics warranted an "A". Thanks anyway, "bigjohnson". If you really want to get into a discussion of why that study is valid when taking into account stratified sampling and advanced range and frequency deviation techniques, then we can go there. Be forewarned that this discussion is much, MUCH too simple for that so it'll just further muck up your perspective.That's all the help I have for you as I'm not here to teach you a basic course on statistics (personal attack deleted).
Quoting a stat that proves your contention wrong is now called a "lie"? Now see, I wish you said that at the beginning. This whole debate is the result of a grave misunderstanding...you aren't using standard English definitions. That would have saved us a LOT of time.You're either pushing an agenda or you're a moron. I went with moron as there's nothing you can do about that so I figured it's the least insulting option. The other one just makes you a liar.
So why are the statistics invalid again? I forgot. It can't be the legality issues, because street prostitution is legal in Turkey and were included in the study. In Zambia, guys don't care about adult prostitutes because they'd rather have sex with the kiddies (they think having sex with a virgin cures AIDS), so legality has no effect there.ketostix said:You're the one modifying the circumstances. I never changed the circumstances of my argument: that prostitution in the US should be legal and regulated to a reasonable and necessary degree. And I fully accept valid unbiased statistics but not inaccurate stats.
Haven't you ever heard figures don't lie but liars figure. You only posted the clamied results and that the study mixed in the USA with 4 other countries that are 2nd and mostly 3rd world. There was no information provided about population size, whether they were randomly sampled or what the percentages were broken down by nations. So how can anyone automatically say if it was valid? What they should've done is comapred the USA to other first world nations that have legalized prostitution. I wonder why they didn't do that, hmmm?Wired for Sound said:So why are the statistics invalid again?
Wired for Sound said:Quoting a stat that proves your contention wrong is now called a "lie"?
Who cares? Ultimately what business is it of ours to say someone can give a service away but cannot sell it?Wired for Sound said:Why don't YOU set the parameters and I'll go find you some more statistics for you.
Telling on a number of fronts really. "Why would one use such a study", and "What sort of person would present it as an argument" are both excellent points for contemplation.ketostix said:Not to mention you could take a survey about anything in those countries and come up with horror stories. That study was biased and invalid on its face. Kind of telling that he'd have to resort to a flawed, biased study made by feminist to support his argument.