Which Perpetrator deserves our mercy: Preacher, Prostitute or Policeman?

[zephcom]

I think rather the opposite would happen.

Most guys would go broke.......

 

[RDKirk]

Most guys would go broke.......

If wives did that, marriage would certain cease.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If it were legal, no one could 'force' a woman into prostitution. They could make it attractive enough that some women would accept the position, but they couldn't be forced into it.

That is the way capitalism works.

I don't think the problem of prostitution is simply a 'capitalistic' problem.............................................but a world-wide moral problem.

Demand for prostitution is not inevitable - Ethos

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why not? It's providing a service for money. I guess if you don't do it regularly it wouldn't be your "job", but you can make a job out of prostitution.

I know you're not fond of my critiques of the morality of these subjects, so I'm avoiding that aspect out of respect, but these are strange distinctions to make. Why make them?

Because one of my areas of study in college was Analytic Philosophy ...

 

[zephcom]

I don't think the problem of prostitution is simply a 'capitalistic' problem.............................................but a world-wide moral problem.

Demand for prostitution is not inevitable - Ethos

Moral problems can be dealt with in a number of ways. The worst way is to outlaw the problem. Taboos are like magnets which draw people in.

On the other hand, sometimes people create worse moral mistakes as they try to herd people into becoming 'moral'. Treating an entire class of people (women) as incompetent to make appropriate decisions for their lives creates a moral situation itself...that of the arrogance of superiority.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Moral problems can be dealt with in a number of ways. The worst way is to outlaw the problem. Taboos are like magnets which draw people in.

On the other hand, sometimes people create worse moral mistakes as they try to herd people into becoming 'moral'. Treating an entire class of people (women) as incompetent to make appropriate decisions for their lives creates a moral situation itself...that of the arrogance of superiority.

Actually, the content of the article I posted above militates against your position....................And I have more where that comes from.

 

[zephcom]

Actually, the content of the article I posted above militates against your position....................And I have more where that comes from.

If I read that article correctly, their preferred method of dealing with prostitution is to legalize the selling of sex and criminalize the purchase of sex. That is about the same as being 'kind of pregnant', huh?

To be sure, when I say we should legalize prostitution I'm not thinking it should be left unregulated. When the prohibition of alcohol was dropped, states created a wide range of ways to regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol. It wasn't just 'made legal'.

Our current position on prostitution results in things like this:

Cyntoia Brown, Sex-Trafficking Victim, Must Serve 51 Years Before Release, Court Says

We can and should do better than that. But in order to do better, it is my opinion we have to remove the legal barrier over commercialized sex. You have no legal authority to regulate a commerce when that commerce itself is illegal.

 

[quatona]

Often, many people don't actually know what they're getting themselves into or how to best handle their emotions about something that isn't by all accounts a 'rational' activity (by which I mean 'human sexuality' in general).

It seems like the premise of this thread is that prostitution per se is wrong, harmful, evil...
Correct me if I´m wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Because one of my areas of study in college was Analytic Philosophy ...

Ahh, the vague-non-answer. One of your favorite games to play.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It seems like the premise of this thread is that prostitution per se is wrong, harmful, evil...
Correct me if I´m wrong.

No, that's not the primary focus of this thread, but that is the direction that some of my interlocutors have decided to take it. And since their tangent is relevant, I'm ok with that. There are other issues embedded within the overall topical construction, particularly as we find it expressed in the situation of the OP video. So, if you have some other tangent or aspect you'd like to focus on instead, by all means, feel free to bring it up. I can't promise you I'll agree with you .................but then again, I can't promise you that I'll be completely at odds with you either.

Beside, it's always good to hear from an old friend. (Merry Christmas, by the way!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ahh, the vague-non-answer. One of your favorite games to play.

No, it's not a game. It's simply that I don't always have the time to field each and every gripe that is tossed my way ...

But no, I don't think prostitution can be boiled down to being a concept that is equatable to "a professional occupation or form of employment."

 

[Moral Orel]

No, it's not a game. It's simply that I don't always have the time to field each and every gripe that is tossed my way ...

Uh-huh. Why would you make a post to specifically make this distinction and then refuse to field follow-up questions to your statements?

But no, I don't think prostitution can be boiled down to being a concept that is equatable to "a professional occupation or form of employment."

You already said that. If you've got all this time on your hands to repeat yourself, it just makes it seem like you're hiding something by not answering "why?".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I read that article correctly, their preferred method of dealing with prostitution is to legalize the selling of sex and criminalize the purchase of sex. That is about the same as being 'kind of pregnant', huh?

To be sure, when I say we should legalize prostitution I'm not thinking it should be left unregulated. When the prohibition of alcohol was dropped, states created a wide range of ways to regulate the sale and consumption of alcohol. It wasn't just 'made legal'.

Our current position on prostitution results in things like this:

Cyntoia Brown, Sex-Trafficking Victim, Must Serve 51 Years Before Release, Court Says

We can and should do better than that. But in order to do better, it is my opinion we have to remove the legal barrier over commercialized sex. You have no legal authority to regulate a commerce when that commerce itself is illegal.

First off, do realize that I'm not the one who voted 'none' in my poll ..................................... so take that into account.

Secondly, I agree with you that this article you chose represents some other legal complication that can come about. And I'd want to know who the judge was, what state and jurisdiction he presides in, and what his view on Philosophy of Law happens to be which 'informed' his ruling.

If it were me, I'd just say that 'Kut Throat' deserved what he got, without due process, although I think it would have been preferable if he had died by Lightning-Bolt, while the young lady in the article SHOULD have been turned over to some sort of substantive rehabilitative services rather than being sentenced to ANY time in prison whatsoever. Period. But that's me saying this and not the typical Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uh-huh. Why would you make a post to specifically make this distinction and then refuse to field follow-up questions to your statements?

You already said that. If you've got all this time on your hands to repeat yourself, it just makes it seem like you're hiding something by not answering "why?".

Ok. I'll let another person explain some aspects of "why." And why? Because I think he does it better than I can, and although I don't think the following article by Kenneth Taylor exhausts the points that could be made against the legalization of prostitution--not by a long shot--it does serve as a good beginning point. The difference of course between Taylor and myself is that I WILL resort additionally to the principles of the Bible ... to the chagrin of all skeptics, humanists, and those everywhere who are otherwise antagonistic to the Christian paradigm of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Sex, Prostitution, and Well-lived Lives

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok. I'll let another person explain some aspects of "why." And why? Because I think he does it better than I can, and although I don't think the following article by Kenneth Taylor exhausts the points that could be made against the legalization of prostitution--not by a long shot--it does serve as a good beginning point.

Okay, that says why he (you) thinks it shouldn't be anyone's job. That doesn't say why it shouldn't be considered a job. Are you simply saying it shouldn't be considered a job because it's immoral and you don't want it legitimized as an occupation? Selling crack is an immoral job that people shouldn't do, but it's still a job. Morality has nothing to do with the definition of a "job".

The difference of course between Taylor and myself is that I WILL resort additionally to the principles of the Bible ... to the chagrin of all skeptics, humanists, and those everywhere who are otherwise antagonistic to the Christian paradigm of the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

It's not to anyone's "chagrin". No one minds. Feel free to use the Bible to define a "job", just don't get it mixed up with a "Job".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, that says why he (you) thinks it shouldn't be anyone's job. That doesn't say why it shouldn't be considered a job. Are you simply saying it shouldn't be considered a job because it's immoral and you don't want it legitimized as an occupation? Selling crack is an immoral job that people shouldn't do, but it's still a job. Morality has nothing to do with the definition of a "job".

Morality has nothing to do with the definition of "job"? I most certainly think it does, although admittedly, the act of defining a more or less 'moral' nature of a job will vary from culture to culture or nation to nation.

But since I'm not a Moral Relativist, I don't really give a rat's behind about the fact that this "group" over here thinks one thing and some other group over there thinks some other thing. All that really matters is that everyone is doing their utmost to consider the ENTIRE human spectrum of morality and the full and actual situations we have to deal with. For instance, if we find some long lost tribe living aloof from the rest of society, our job isn't necessarily to just "let them be," but rather to inform them of their heretofore unrealized place in this world, just like Humanists and Skeptics love to do with Christians, and vice versa.

It's not to anyone's "chagrin". No one minds. Feel free to use the Bible to define a "job", just don't get it mixed up with a "Job".

And you don't forget the context in which you're proffering your cheap challenge to my allegations against the also cheap use of the word "job" in relation to the activity and placement of a prostitute.

 

[Nithavela]

Jesus said let the one without sin cast the first stone.

He propably didn't.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morality has nothing to do with the definition of "job"? I most certainly think it does, although admittedly, the act of defining a more or less 'moral' nature of a job will vary from culture to culture or nation to nation.

Okay, show me a dictionary that considers morality when it defines the word "job". It's like the word "behavior". There are moral behaviors, and there are immoral behaviors, and there are things that are not behaviors. Morality doesn't weigh in on the definition of "job" any more than it weighs in on the definition of "behavior".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay, show me a dictionary that considers morality when it defines the word "job". It's like the word "behavior". There are moral behaviors, and there are immoral behaviors, and there are things that are not behaviors. Morality doesn't weigh in on the definition of "job" any more than it weighs in on the definition of "behavior".

First off, dictionaries don't 'define' words. They report the various 'usages' of words.

Secondly, any social act involving human beings, particularly one which employs people for pay to do work, such as when a dictionary company employs a lexicographer, involves some minimal level of 'morality' which pertains to performance excellence within the structure of its business. Otherwise, the lexicographer who thinks he can flout the business rules will be out of a job.

Thirdly, the act of defining anything at all is a social act involving various levels of social power which automatically makes it an act with moral implications; moreover, the creation of dictionaries contribute to mass education as well as to group identities, which also play into the social fabric of moral realities in which people live.

Fourthly, the act of defining a concept such as "job" will require a lexicographer to separate a mainstream denotation used by people operating within an otherwise legitimate, moral social group from another denotation with different connotations which originates from within an illegitimate social group such as, say, the Mafia. So, the lexicographer differentiates between the usage of the concept of "job" as it might be referred to in association with work done by an individual employed by the New York Times from the usage of the same word which a hit-man might make of it when he's going to kill someone. With this in mind, it would be rather irresponsible for a lexicographer to just casually throw out a single denotation and insist that is should 'cover all' usages made by whatever party or moral agent.

Now that we're done with that cheap sidetrack, back to the real banter involving the OP and the illegitimacy of prostitution and its pimps and patrons.

 

[Moral Orel]

First off, dictionaries don't 'define' words. They report the various 'usages' of words.

That's great. If you could show morality being used in any way in the definition of "job" in a dictionary you could show me that someone other than you uses it that way.

Secondly, any social act involving human beings, particularly one which employs people for pay to do work, such as when a dictionary company employs a lexicographer, involves some minimal level of 'morality' which pertains to performance excellence within the structure of its business. Otherwise, the lexicographer who thinks he can flout the business rules will be out of a job.

Okay, so if she's a lazy prostitute she isn't doing her job...

Thirdly, the act of defining anything at all is a social act involving various levels of social power which automatically makes it an act with moral implications; moreover, the creation of dictionaries contribute to mass education as well as to group identities, which also play into the social fabric of moral realities in which people live.

Okay, not sure that explains why prostitution isn't a job.

Fourthly, the act of defining a concept such as "job" will require a lexicographer to separate a mainstream denotation used by people operating within an otherwise legitimate, moral social group from another denotation with different connotations which originates from within an illegitimate social group such as, say, the Mafia. So, the lexicographer differentiates between the usage of the concept of "job" as it might be referred to in association with work done by an individual employed by the New York Times from the usage of the same word which a hit-man might make of it when he's going to kill someone. With this in mind, it would be rather irresponsible for a lexicographer to just casually throw out a single denotation and insist that is should 'cover all' usages made by whatever party or moral agent.

Ahh, so you'd call murder "a job" but you won't call prostitution "a job". Weird. A hitman is still performing a service for money, that's why it's called "a job".

Now that we're done with that cheap sidetrack, back to the real banter involving the OP and the illegitimacy of prostitution and its pimps and patrons.

You're the one who dedicated a whole post to this semantic claim. I just thought it was strange. I thought it was a cheap point to make too.