Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.


What is the difference, other than a few hours, between finding a guy on a dating site, having dinner he pays for, and having sex after and a guy finding a chick willing to have sex for money?

---

We'll, that's a completely voluntary act on the part of the female, choosing to go on the "date". Prostitution often involves the trafficking of or coercion of the female (or male) to become prostitutes in the first place. I'm sure that some people enter into that profession voluntarily, but I'm guessing that most of them don't.

---

Trafficking is not the same thing.


Many women are willing to have sex for money to pay the rent.

---

Many people are willing to murder for hire too. Many people choose euthanasia. Many people choose to do heroin. Many people choose to be homeless bums. Many people choose speed with reckless abandon. Many people choose to drink and drive. Do/should we allow those?

Sometimes things are just ****ing wrong. Libertarians and liberals are a joke when it comes to morality. Consent doesn't mean right. We don't live in a bubble and you're not an atomized individual. Your actions impact society writ large whether you like it or not. Society has a right to say "no, you can't do that. It's bad for you and it's bad for society."

This type of liberalism is why we are a relativist cesspool. It neuters conservatism to the point that there is nothing to conserve. Consent is not God, and you don't have the right to do whatever you want. Grow up.

---

Who is physically hurt in consensual adult sex between adults who want it?

---

Depends on the situation. Could proliferate STDs. Could result in a pregnancy. Could contribute to human trafficking.

Who is hurt in a situation where a guy does heroin and just sits there? Should heroin be legal? Who is hurt in a situation where someone drinks and drives without crashing? Should drinking and driving be legal until you have actually caused physical harm to others? Or should we be allowed say that some things are wrong for both the user and society writ large?

Believe it or not, people have the ability to consent to things that are bad for them. If you want a functional society that isn't just full of degenerates, you need to identify the worst actions and outlaw them.

---

What if we just want to bang and not exchange money for it?

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy and good for society.

---

I'm going to ask again since your didn't respond the first time. Why do you conflate banning something with getting rid of it? It's extremely obvious the two aren't the same and really aren't even closely related. Prostitution is illegal in Texas yet available all over Houston, Dallas, etc. Anywhere there's an Asian Massage place there's prostitution.

Bans don't do really anything to stop the activity being banned so what's the goal here? Is it to take steps to change how a segment of society is treated or to pass a ban that makes us feel good but accomplishes nothing? It's a genuine question the religious right likes to ignore because it's uncomfortable to admit you don't have a plan to actually solve the problem. Given that this is the worlds oldest profession maybe there's not a solution.

---

You do it because it's the right thing to do. Just like banning murder doesn't get rid of murder, but it's the right thing to do.

By your logic, there's no reason for any laws because there will always be someone that breaks them…

---

Actually by my logic we ban crimes with victims. So we ban trafficking but if she's there because she wants to be we leave her alone.

What I just heard you say is you ban it whether it works or not. You're not solving anything. You know that right? Just making yourself feel better. Just like liberals and their gun bans. No impact on violence but at least they feel better because we had to do SOMETHING!

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.


What is the difference, other than a few hours, between finding a guy on a dating site, having dinner he pays for, and having sex after and a guy finding a chick willing to have sex for money?

---

We'll, that's a completely voluntary act on the part of the female, choosing to go on the "date". Prostitution often involves the trafficking of or coercion of the female (or male) to become prostitutes in the first place. I'm sure that some people enter into that profession voluntarily, but I'm guessing that most of them don't.

---

Trafficking is not the same thing.


Many women are willing to have sex for money to pay the rent.

---

Many people are willing to murder for hire too. Many people choose euthanasia. Many people choose to do heroin. Many people choose to be homeless bums. Many people choose speed with reckless abandon. Many people choose to drink and drive. Do/should we allow those?

Sometimes things are just ****ing wrong. Libertarians and liberals are a joke when it comes to morality. Consent doesn't mean right. We don't live in a bubble and you're not an atomized individual. Your actions impact society writ large whether you like it or not. Society has a right to say "no, you can't do that. It's bad for you and it's bad for society."

This type of liberalism is why we are a relativist cesspool. It neuters conservatism to the point that there is nothing to conserve. Consent is not God, and you don't have the right to do whatever you want. Grow up.

---

Who is physically hurt in consensual adult sex between adults who want it?

---

Depends on the situation. Could proliferate STDs. Could result in a pregnancy. Could contribute to human trafficking.

Who is hurt in a situation where a guy does heroin and just sits there? Should heroin be legal? Who is hurt in a situation where someone drinks and drives without crashing? Should drinking and driving be legal until you have actually caused physical harm to others? Or should we be allowed say that some things are wrong for both the user and society writ large?

Believe it or not, people have the ability to consent to things that are bad for them. If you want a functional society that isn't just full of degenerates, you need to identify the worst actions and outlaw them.

---

What if we just want to bang and not exchange money for it?

---

Then that's your own poor decision. Difference is that industries that are built on exploitation don't result from it.

I think we can use prudence when applying morality-based laws. Outlawing sex work is practically easy and good for society. Outlawing extramarital relations all together is difficult and has too many disruptive consequences.

Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. There is no moral case to be made for prostitution. It is not good for the parties involved nor for society writ large.

---

Ah...so it's the capitalism aspect of the sex that you think causes the problem...

As to morality based laws, how about we just say **** it and enact sharia? Since morality is your issue.

---

You can't escape morality. Capitalism is not a moral system. It is an economic system that is fantastic at facilitating economic prosperity. Morality is infused through political bodies that enact the will of the people, which is the right of a society in a self-governing Republic. If the founding of this country were based on Sharia law, there would be no problem with installing it. This country wasn't. It was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, and without that underlying moral code it falls apart.

But I'm glad that you're in favor of a system that allows for your daughters to be recruited into sex work, of their own free will of course. Because we want to be a nation that *****s it's daughters out for the fleeting satisfaction of pathetic, weak men. Thats obviously what's right and just. Give women the option to destroy themselves in their youth for couple extra bucks.

Stop being a vapid libertarian and actually stick up for what's right. If you can't actually define what's right beyond what people are willing to pay for, you might want to re-evaluate your made up code of ethics.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.


What is the difference, other than a few hours, between finding a guy on a dating site, having dinner he pays for, and having sex after and a guy finding a chick willing to have sex for money?

---

We'll, that's a completely voluntary act on the part of the female, choosing to go on the "date". Prostitution often involves the trafficking of or coercion of the female (or male) to become prostitutes in the first place. I'm sure that some people enter into that profession voluntarily, but I'm guessing that most of them don't.

---

Trafficking is not the same thing.


Many women are willing to have sex for money to pay the rent.

---

Many people are willing to murder for hire too. Many people choose euthanasia. Many people choose to do heroin. Many people choose to be homeless bums. Many people choose speed with reckless abandon. Many people choose to drink and drive. Do/should we allow those?

Sometimes things are just ****ing wrong. Libertarians and liberals are a joke when it comes to morality. Consent doesn't mean right. We don't live in a bubble and you're not an atomized individual. Your actions impact society writ large whether you like it or not. Society has a right to say "no, you can't do that. It's bad for you and it's bad for society."

This type of liberalism is why we are a relativist cesspool. It neuters conservatism to the point that there is nothing to conserve. Consent is not God, and you don't have the right to do whatever you want. Grow up.

---

Who is physically hurt in consensual adult sex between adults who want it?

---

Depends on the situation. Could proliferate STDs. Could result in a pregnancy. Could contribute to human trafficking.

Who is hurt in a situation where a guy does heroin and just sits there? Should heroin be legal? Who is hurt in a situation where someone drinks and drives without crashing? Should drinking and driving be legal until you have actually caused physical harm to others? Or should we be allowed say that some things are wrong for both the user and society writ large?

Believe it or not, people have the ability to consent to things that are bad for them. If you want a functional society that isn't just full of degenerates, you need to identify the worst actions and outlaw them.

---

What if we just want to bang and not exchange money for it?

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy and good for society.

---

I'm going to ask again since your didn't respond the first time. Why do you conflate banning something with getting rid of it? It's extremely obvious the two aren't the same and really aren't even closely related. Prostitution is illegal in Texas yet available all over Houston, Dallas, etc. Anywhere there's an Asian Massage place there's prostitution.

Bans don't do really anything to stop the activity being banned so what's the goal here? Is it to take steps to change how a segment of society is treated or to pass a ban that makes us feel good but accomplishes nothing? It's a genuine question the religious right likes to ignore because it's uncomfortable to admit you don't have a plan to actually solve the problem. Given that this is the worlds oldest profession maybe there's not a solution.

---

You do it because it's the right thing to do. Just like banning murder doesn't get rid of murder, but it's the right thing to do.

By your logic, there's no reason for any laws because there will always be someone that breaks them…

---

Actually by my logic we ban crimes with victims. So we ban trafficking but if she's there because she wants to be we leave her alone.

What I just heard you say is you ban it whether it works or not. You're not solving anything. You know that right? Just making yourself feel better. Just like liberals and their gun bans. No impact on violence but at least they feel better because we had to do SOMETHING!

---

Explain why drunk driving is wrong if nobody is hurt. It's a victimless crime.

Explain why public decency laws exist. Those address victimless crimes.

Your definition is shallow and devoid of any moral capability.

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.


What is the difference, other than a few hours, between finding a guy on a dating site, having dinner he pays for, and having sex after and a guy finding a chick willing to have sex for money?

---

We'll, that's a completely voluntary act on the part of the female, choosing to go on the "date". Prostitution often involves the trafficking of or coercion of the female (or male) to become prostitutes in the first place. I'm sure that some people enter into that profession voluntarily, but I'm guessing that most of them don't.

---

Trafficking is not the same thing.


Many women are willing to have sex for money to pay the rent.

---

Many people are willing to murder for hire too. Many people choose euthanasia. Many people choose to do heroin. Many people choose to be homeless bums. Many people choose speed with reckless abandon. Many people choose to drink and drive. Do/should we allow those?

Sometimes things are just ****ing wrong. Libertarians and liberals are a joke when it comes to morality. Consent doesn't mean right. We don't live in a bubble and you're not an atomized individual. Your actions impact society writ large whether you like it or not. Society has a right to say "no, you can't do that. It's bad for you and it's bad for society."

This type of liberalism is why we are a relativist cesspool. It neuters conservatism to the point that there is nothing to conserve. Consent is not God, and you don't have the right to do whatever you want. Grow up.

---

Who is physically hurt in consensual adult sex between adults who want it?

---

Depends on the situation. Could proliferate STDs. Could result in a pregnancy. Could contribute to human trafficking.

Who is hurt in a situation where a guy does heroin and just sits there? Should heroin be legal? Who is hurt in a situation where someone drinks and drives without crashing? Should drinking and driving be legal until you have actually caused physical harm to others? Or should we be allowed say that some things are wrong for both the user and society writ large?

Believe it or not, people have the ability to consent to things that are bad for them. If you want a functional society that isn't just full of degenerates, you need to identify the worst actions and outlaw them.

---

What if we just want to bang and not exchange money for it?

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy and good for society.

---

I'm going to ask again since your didn't respond the first time. Why do you conflate banning something with getting rid of it? It's extremely obvious the two aren't the same and really aren't even closely related. Prostitution is illegal in Texas yet available all over Houston, Dallas, etc. Anywhere there's an Asian Massage place there's prostitution.

Bans don't do really anything to stop the activity being banned so what's the goal here? Is it to take steps to change how a segment of society is treated or to pass a ban that makes us feel good but accomplishes nothing? It's a genuine question the religious right likes to ignore because it's uncomfortable to admit you don't have a plan to actually solve the problem. Given that this is the worlds oldest profession maybe there's not a solution.

---

You do it because it's the right thing to do. Just like banning murder doesn't get rid of murder, but it's the right thing to do.

By your logic, there's no reason for any laws because there will always be someone that breaks them…

---

Actually by my logic we ban crimes with victims. So we ban trafficking but if she's there because she wants to be we leave her alone.

What I just heard you say is you ban it whether it works or not. You're not solving anything. You know that right? Just making yourself feel better. Just like liberals and their gun bans. No impact on violence but at least they feel better because we had to do SOMETHING!

---

Explain why drunk driving is wrong if nobody is hurt. It's a victimless crime.

Explain why public decency laws exist. Those address victimless crimes.

Your definition is shallow and devoid of any moral capability.

---

Morality begins at home not in the legislature. My home for my family, not your home for my family. It's amazing you think Congress is a good place to start.

Public decency laws exist because the person you're exposing yourself to didn't ask for that which makes them a victim.

Drunk driving involves driving on public streets and with that privilege comes responsibility the public gets to define. My bedroom isn't a public place.

Right now you sound more emotional than anything. You're emotionally attached to you're bans and still can't seem to acknowledge that they will absolutely not change anything at all. You aren't keeping men from paying for it and you aren't helping women that want to sell it.

Worst still we're getting our asses kicked by a federal government that's hell bent on destroying the middle class but all you care about is what happens behind closed doors. I've said for 20 years we're going to lose the country because people are willing to trade higher taxes for some privacy behind closed doors. What in the past 20 years suggest I'm wrong? This isn't a new debate. I've been right the past 20 and I'll be right the next 20.

Leave me alone. It really is that simple.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

combat wombat said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.


What is the difference, other than a few hours, between finding a guy on a dating site, having dinner he pays for, and having sex after and a guy finding a chick willing to have sex for money?

---

We'll, that's a completely voluntary act on the part of the female, choosing to go on the "date". Prostitution often involves the trafficking of or coercion of the female (or male) to become prostitutes in the first place. I'm sure that some people enter into that profession voluntarily, but I'm guessing that most of them don't.

---

Trafficking is not the same thing.


Many women are willing to have sex for money to pay the rent.

---

Many people are willing to murder for hire too. Many people choose euthanasia. Many people choose to do heroin. Many people choose to be homeless bums. Many people choose speed with reckless abandon. Many people choose to drink and drive. Do/should we allow those?

Sometimes things are just ****ing wrong. Libertarians and liberals are a joke when it comes to morality. Consent doesn't mean right. We don't live in a bubble and you're not an atomized individual. Your actions impact society writ large whether you like it or not. Society has a right to say "no, you can't do that. It's bad for you and it's bad for society."

This type of liberalism is why we are a relativist cesspool. It neuters conservatism to the point that there is nothing to conserve. Consent is not God, and you don't have the right to do whatever you want. Grow up.

---

Who is physically hurt in consensual adult sex between adults who want it?

---

Depends on the situation. Could proliferate STDs. Could result in a pregnancy. Could contribute to human trafficking.

Who is hurt in a situation where a guy does heroin and just sits there? Should heroin be legal? Who is hurt in a situation where someone drinks and drives without crashing? Should drinking and driving be legal until you have actually caused physical harm to others? Or should we be allowed say that some things are wrong for both the user and society writ large?

Believe it or not, people have the ability to consent to things that are bad for them. If you want a functional society that isn't just full of degenerates, you need to identify the worst actions and outlaw them.

---

What if we just want to bang and not exchange money for it?

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy and good for society.

---

I'm going to ask again since your didn't respond the first time. Why do you conflate banning something with getting rid of it? It's extremely obvious the two aren't the same and really aren't even closely related. Prostitution is illegal in Texas yet available all over Houston, Dallas, etc. Anywhere there's an Asian Massage place there's prostitution.

Bans don't do really anything to stop the activity being banned so what's the goal here? Is it to take steps to change how a segment of society is treated or to pass a ban that makes us feel good but accomplishes nothing? It's a genuine question the religious right likes to ignore because it's uncomfortable to admit you don't have a plan to actually solve the problem. Given that this is the worlds oldest profession maybe there's not a solution.

---

You do it because it's the right thing to do. Just like banning murder doesn't get rid of murder, but it's the right thing to do.

By your logic, there's no reason for any laws because there will always be someone that breaks them…

---

Actually by my logic we ban crimes with victims. So we ban trafficking but if she's there because she wants to be we leave her alone.

What I just heard you say is you ban it whether it works or not. You're not solving anything. You know that right? Just making yourself feel better. Just like liberals and their gun bans. No impact on violence but at least they feel better because we had to do SOMETHING!

---

Explain why drunk driving is wrong if nobody is hurt. It's a victimless crime.

Explain why public decency laws exist. Those address victimless crimes.

Your definition is shallow and devoid of any moral capability.

---

Morality begins at home not in the legislature. My home for my family, not your home for my family. It's amazing you think Congress is a good place to start.

Public decency laws exist because the person you're exposing yourself to didn't ask for that which makes them a victim.

Drunk driving involves driving on public streets and with that privilege comes responsibility the public gets to define. My bedroom isn't a public place.

Right now you sound more emotional than anything. You're emotionally attached to you're bans and still can't seem to acknowledge that they will absolutely not change anything at all. You aren't keeping men from paying for it and you aren't helping women that want to sell it.

Worst still we're getting our asses kicked by a federal government that's hell bent on destroying the middle class but all you care about is what happens behind closed doors. I've said for 20 years we're going to lose the country because people are willing to trade higher taxes for some privacy behind closed doors. What in the past 20 years suggest I'm wrong? This isn't a new debate. I've been right the past 20 and I'll be right the next 20.

Leave me alone. It really is that simple.

---

What harm is caused by seeing a naked person? What harm is caused by a driver who hasn't crashed into anything? Your entire schtick is built on the premise that society only has the right to regulate behavior if a victim has been harmed. In both cases presented, nobody has been harmed. I have just as much right to walk around naked as a hooker has the right to walk the streets of a red light district and solicit John's.

You believing that somehow we are all atomized individuals that have no impact on each other is ridiculous. We live in a society, and the actions we allow and undertake create the culture in which our families exist. Without a common bond in culture, we have no country. And the culture you're advocating for doesn't create any type of respectable country.

We aren't trending towards destruction because of the marginal tax rates. We are trending that way because we have nothing left in common. We can't even agree that it is wrong to allow our daughters and sisters to ***** themselves out for an extra buck. You are legitimately arguing that there is some right to prostitution because you've made consent into your moral authority.

What goes on behind closed doors forms the people that walk into society. That doesn't mean that we should have the gestapo monitoring your every move to be sure you haven't done anything wrong. It DOES mean we should structure our laws to prohibit activities that are both bad for society at large as well as for the individuals partaking in those activities.

But hey, keep thinking that the tax rate is our biggest issue. Nobody is intruding on you unless you're doing illegal things, like prostitution.

Quote:

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy

---

It's so easy in fact that it's never been successful in recorded history.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy

---

It's so easy in fact that it's never been successful in recorded history.

---

If it's not outlawed, what are y'all *****ing about?

Kvetch said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy

---

It's so easy in fact that it's never been successful in recorded history.

---

If it's not outlawed, what are y'all *****ing about?

---

That it's a stupid ****ing pointless law that doesn't work

Teslag said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Outlawing sex work is practically easy

---

It's so easy in fact that it's never been successful in recorded history.

---

If it's not outlawed, what are y'all *****ing about?

---

That it's a stupid ****ing pointless law that doesn't work

---

If it doesn't work, then why would you care? That would mean it has no impact.

Because good people are still going to jail. Just like good people are still going to jail for drug crimes that don't work.

Teslag said:

---

Because good people are still going to jail. Just like good people are still going to jail for drug crimes that don't work.

---

Ah, got it. Doesn't work but also people are being prosecuted. You going to advocate for the outlaw of murder laws next since murder still happens? Or just the laws you don't like because you think people have the right to destroy themselves with drugs and sex?

"Good people" only go to jail when they break the law.

With your track record, maybe just stay out of debates regarding sexual matters.

Quote:

---

"It's harder to get an on-the-books job if you're undocumented. It's harder because you're away from family and friends. It's harder because you may not speak English. For all kinds of reasons, being an immigrant makes you more vulnerable," she said.

---

Well, you shouldn't be here, so….

Of course not, murder deprives someone of their life. Prostitution deprives you of feelz.

And yes, people should absolutely have a right to destroy themselves in any manner they choose. It's their life, not yours.

Teslag said:

---

And yes, people should absolutely have a right to destroy themselves in any manner they choose. It's their life, not yours.

---

Yeah, well I live in society with them and pay taxes that fund their public services. Maybe I'll ship you a couple homeless people to camp in front of your house on the public right of way. I mean, it's a victimless crime assuming you live in an area that criminalizes public camping. It just offends your feelz.

God you have some of the dumbest takes on this site. Booster shots must've done a number on you.

Quote:

---

Booster shots must've done a number on you.

---

I wish you well in your star hoarding derail attempt

I've never seen someone so angry about prostitution. Makes you really wonder.

Who cares… such a stupid law that only serves to make it easier to subjugate and traffic women. You can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her then go buy her stuff. Or even better you can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her, film it for the internet, and then pay her money for the work.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

I've never seen someone so angry about prostitution. Makes you really wonder.

Who cares… such a stupid law that only serves to make it easier to subjugate and traffic women. You can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her then go buy her stuff. Or even better you can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her, film it for the internet, and then pay her money for the work.

---

A Mensa take that prostitution empowers women and prevents trafficking.

You mistake anger for directness. Maybe you just wish to read me as an angry zealot so you can ignore my points and live blissfully in support of a terrible institution that has no place in polite society.

Weird how it's always the same people that support this degenerate crap. Really makes you wonder.

Kvetch said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

I've never seen someone so angry about prostitution. Makes you really wonder.

Who cares… such a stupid law that only serves to make it easier to subjugate and traffic women. You can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her then go buy her stuff. Or even better you can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her, film it for the internet, and then pay her money for the work.

---

A Mensa take that prostitution empowers women and prevents trafficking.

You mistake anger for directness. Maybe you just wish to read me as an angry zealot so you can ignore my points and live blissfully in support of a terrible institution that has no place in polite society.

Weird how it's always the same people that support this degenerate crap. Really makes you wonder.

---

So angry and aggressive.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

I've never seen someone so angry about prostitution. Makes you really wonder.

Who cares… such a stupid law that only serves to make it easier to subjugate and traffic women. You can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her then go buy her stuff. Or even better you can't pay a woman for sex but you can have sex with her, film it for the internet, and then pay her money for the work.

---

A Mensa take that prostitution empowers women and prevents trafficking.

You mistake anger for directness. Maybe you just wish to read me as an angry zealot so you can ignore my points and live blissfully in support of a terrible institution that has no place in polite society.

Weird how it's always the same people that support this degenerate crap. Really makes you wonder.

---

So angry and aggressive.

---

So weak and vapid.

Teslag said:

---

Because good people are still going to jail. Just like good people are still going to jail for drug crimes that don't work.

---

No, they're not because they're not good people.

A monetary exchange does not absolve one of responsibility for others and society. LT said he paid so he didn't have to care and that's your basic attitude here. Money heals all wounds eh? Pretty vapid take.

Likewise drug use changes people and how they treat those around them. They're not 'good' people.

Nonsense, there are plenty of good people that engage in recreational drug use or have or have engaged a high end escort.

Teslag said:

---

Nonsense, there are plenty of good people that engage in recreational drug use or have or have engaged a high end escort.

---

Plenty of 'good' people treat human beings like products to be bought and sold he says.

I've met a lot of recreational drug users that think they're 'good' people but few that actually are. Most are simply rational materialists and completely fine with someone destroying their life because no harm and consent and all that, as if self destruction is a good thing if someone willingly chooses it.

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

Possibly yes

And I think that only shows the absurdity of it all. Alcohol one of the most addictive and lethal drugs in existence and it's use can be viewed as the act of refinement and class at times and less powerful drugs are looked at with criminal disdain.

Teslag said:

---

Possibly yes

---

So it has nothing to do with having a high end bourbon in the privacy of your own home and you've now derailed your own tangent? I guess we're done here.

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Possibly yes

---

So it has nothing to do with having a high end bourbon in the privacy of your own home and you've now derailed your own tangent? I guess we're done here.

---

So drug use in the home is acceptable as long as it's a drug you are okay with?

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

Prostitution empowers women and part of the patriarchy...all at the sane time.

Some people will believe anything if they hear it from the right source.

Teslag said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Possibly yes

---

So it has nothing to do with having a high end bourbon in the privacy of your own home and you've now derailed your own tangent? I guess we're done here.

---

So drug use in the home is acceptable as long as it's a drug you are okay with?

---

Again, are 'good' people going to jail (as you stated directly) for the crime of drinking high end bourbon in the privacy of their own home? Or were you referring to other drugs when I challenged that idea, and retreating to 'well alcohol is a drug too' to back out?

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

that ain't what he was referring to with his 'good people' comment.

NonReg85 said:

---

Prostitution empowers women and part of the patriarchy...all at the sane time.

Some people will believe anything if they hear it from the right source.

---

Prostitution only empowers women if you think they experience sex the same as a man. Which is what a man would naturally think.