Tucker Carlson is a self-described libertarian who mentioned more than once this morning that in he has in the past supported fellow libertarian Ron Paul for president. Little wonder, then, that Carlson takes a live-and-let-love attitude toward the escort-service scandal that is threatening to rock Washington.
For those who have not been following the case, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "DC Madam," owner of an escort agency, turned her clients' phone numbers over to ABC. On tomorrow's "20/20," ABC is apparently planning to disclose the names of some of those clients, who are reported to include Bush administration officials, prominent lobbyists, CEOs and the head of a conservative think tank.
To discuss the ethical issues involved, Carlson had as guests on the early-morning version of his show today the owner of the legal-in-Nevada Moonlight Bunny Ranch, Dennis Hof, and two of his employees, Audrey and Brooke. MSNBC has shaken up its lineup today to provide all-day pre-game coverage of tonight's GOP debate.The highlight of the segment was this exchange between Carlson and the two women.
View video here.
MSNBC HOST TUCKER CARLSON: Maybe Audrey and Brooke can speak to this. The temptation must be if someone famous comes in, and you see that famous person naked, the temptation must be to tell all your friends about it. It's tempting, isn't it?Then came the line of the day.
BUNNY RANCH WORKER BROOKE TAYLOR: No, it's exactly the opposite. I enjoy telling people that I've been with someone they might be interested in knowing but not telling them. It's fun.
CARLSON: Hmm!
BUNNY RANCH WORKER AUDREY: I think every business has a code of ethics and we certainly do as well.Insert joke about ethics, DC bigwigs and Audrey's business here.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Sorry, had to look this up in
May 3, 2007 - 08:06 ET by rimskySorry, had to look this up in MW.. just thought I'd missed something. Emphasis mine
Pronunciation: \ˈe-thik\
Function: noun Etymology:Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ēthikē, from ēthikos Date: 14th century 1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> — often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> bplural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>
How many people went to jai
May 3, 2007 - 08:09 ET by JDWHow many people went to jail instead of 'telling' on Clinton?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
When did Carlson ditch the bo
May 3, 2007 - 08:27 ET by GalvanicWhen did Carlson ditch the bow ties?
ABC is apparently planning to
May 3, 2007 - 08:51 ET by ding7777The Bush administration is trying her and her female employees (but not the johns) for prostitution. Her unusual defense stategy is that no prostition took place and the publicly revealed johns will agree with that - it was all escorts and massages!
The shocker of this trial is not going to be who the johns are but who the female escorts are.
ABC going throuh list of na
May 3, 2007 - 08:57 ET by MightyMouthABC going throuh list of names:
Lets see... Republican: expose.
Democrat: toss
Republican: expose.
Democrats: toss,toss,toss
Republicans: expose,expose,expose
Bill Clinton?!?!?: toss and burn.
Gimmie a break.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
It was personal when Clinto
May 3, 2007 - 09:04 ET by JDWIt was personal when Clinton had Monica under his desk.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
MightyMouth - the DC Madam
May 3, 2007 - 09:09 ET by ding7777MightyMouth - the DC Madam is going to call the johns into court as defense witnesses. It will be a matter of public record - not your perceived media bias of ABC.
Why aren't you angry that Gonzales is wasting money on this instead of going afer homeland terrorists or illegal immigration?
So ABC is going to give ALL
May 3, 2007 - 09:11 ET by MightyMouthSo ABC is going to give ALL the "witnesses" the same treatment? Riiiiiiiight.
I guess NB can close up shop, no need for a site exposing media bias, if there is no media bias.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MightyMouth - sex sells - the
May 3, 2007 - 09:42 ET by ding7777MightyMouth - sex sells - there will be no media bias.
Too bad Gonzales' Attorney for DC Jeffrey Taylor priority is consensual escorts instead of solving the anthrax case.
Apparantly Republican sex &
May 3, 2007 - 09:50 ET by MightyMouthApparantly Republican sex "sells" much better than Democrat sex. And what's the deal with Gonzales? Do you have some kind of infatuation?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
She's betting the named con
May 3, 2007 - 11:25 ET by JDWShe's betting the named conservatives will not testify publicly against her. In addition she has the opportunity to eliminate them. Since she is leftist biased, no need to throw the dems under the truck.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Geez Ding777, I take 6 weeks off and you still haven't learned.
May 3, 2007 - 10:40 ET by acaiguanaGeez Ding777, I take 6 weeks off and you still haven't learned.
Anything.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Let's see if it works. It cou
May 3, 2007 - 08:58 ET by Gat New YorkLet's see if it works. It could - depending on the meaning of is is.
Is the Justice Department pro
May 3, 2007 - 09:52 ET by GalvanicIs the Justice Department prosecuting, or is it the DC city DA? Normally, prostitution is not prosecuted at the Federal level, unless (I guess) it involves crossing state lines (interstate commerce clause) or something similar.
UPDATE: I see a Federal judge is involved, so DoJ must have a role.
the Bush administration is tr
May 3, 2007 - 10:37 ET by dahliatraversthe Bush administration is trying her and her female employees (but not the johns) for prostitution
I agree it takes two parties to commit this crime and both should be prosecuted or neither. But while President Bush appointed all US Attorney's including Jeffrey Taylor, it's a bit of a stretch to say that it was the Bush admin who ordered the prosecution of this particular defendant. If they were ever to start picking people out for prosecution, there would be people much higher on the list than the DC Madame. And when the press found out about targeted prosecutions, they could be counted on to keep it under their hats, couldn't they ...?
dahliatravers - With regard t
May 3, 2007 - 13:48 ET by ding7777dahliatravers - With regard to the 8 fired US Attorneys, Gonzales has said over and over and over again that US Attorneys are to prioritize prosecutions based on the Administration's policy. There are still mutiple outstanding DC anthrax cases which the FBI could be solving, not victimless crimes like the DC Madam case.
I'd trust the legal prostit
May 3, 2007 - 09:03 ET by sarcasmoI'd trust the legal prostitutes a hell of a lot more than I trust the big spending control freak politicians who want to outlaw them. Their profession DOES develop ethics when allowed to be legal, as Mr. Hof (not "Huf") made clear. He does not disclose clients' names, and the "DC Madam" probably wouldn't, either, but for big government's attempt to outlaw a victimless crime & revenue source amid a sea of red ink. In this case, with some hypocrites, I'm sure we're about to see some poetic justice, and I plan to be making tasteless jokes about it the whole time, but I need better material than a low-level state department bureaucrat.
JMR
Does legalization create co
May 3, 2007 - 09:08 ET by JDWDoes legalization create competition?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
No, free markets do that na
May 3, 2007 - 09:14 ET by sarcasmoNo, free markets do that naturally; but prohibition of consensual "crimes" invariably creates an un-natural corruption black-market within law enforcement & the political/legal system. The fact that most people apparently don't see this stuff is very strange to people like me, because to us it's obvious from history or present-experience.
JMR
Why don't you think that in
May 3, 2007 - 09:26 ET by JDWWhy don't you think that in this case legalization can do the same?
In addition, how does HIV come into play?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm s
May 3, 2007 - 09:31 ET by sarcasmoMaybe I wasn't clear. I'm sure the market competition creates itself when the oldest profession is legal, all big government has to do is get out of the way and people will be paying eachother for sex. Generally, as in tiny Nevada counties or Amsterdam, when it's legal the girls all have to get tested for various diseases. When it's not they don't. Hopefully, the AIDS consequences of such a policy would have been obvious to politicians by now, but for some reason, cluelessness reign supreme for those who wish to regulate the sex business.
JMR
Many use prostitution as a
May 3, 2007 - 12:15 ET by JDWMany use prostitution as a means of maintaining drug habits. If legalized, it would not make sense to be anything other than 'self-employed'. As such, 'rates' could be lower than general market competition. In light of the addiction, why would such a person ever be tested?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Let's look at the real-worl
May 3, 2007 - 12:24 ET by sarcasmoLet's look at the real-world laboratories, shall we?
1. None of Mr. Hof's employees has ever looked like a druggie to me, unlike the illegal prostitutes on the streets of central FL (I've never been to Amsterdam). Drugs are a separate problem, let's stick with whether prostitution should be legal in this conversation, since problems engendered by statist laws such as those against consensual sex between adults tend to engender good-sounding excuses for other statist laws such as the drug laws, anyway.
2. None of Mr. Hof's employees OR the various sex businesses' legal employees in Amsterdam avoid testing -- they're all tested. In fact, the marketplace in the LEGAL sex trade (again, UNLIKE the illegal side) demanded safe sex (condom use for all sex acts). If legalized prostitution is the absolute anarchy you seem to think it would be, how come all these girls in the real world labs get tested? Answer: Once it's legal (and taxed...I know, heaven forbid any new revenue source amid this sea of red ink...) the state, as well as consumers, all have an input they didn't have before into how it's actually done in the real world. Crime does not pay...Taxes.
JMR
As I said, I am unconcerned
May 3, 2007 - 13:03 ET by JDWAs I said, I am unconcerned about the 'house' prostitutes. The street business is a problem waiting to happen. Raincoats are anything but a guarantee. The last thing we need is an HIV problem, at least the houses keep records.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Ok, the thing is, in this m
May 3, 2007 - 13:39 ET by sarcasmoOk, the thing is, in this modern age, the internet is becoming "the house" (replacing, to an extent, the madam and the pimp, except that girls on the illegal side tend to have precious little police-support for security in most places). We already have an HIV problem worldwide, but the Dennis Hofs of this world don't contribute to it, but Dennis also brags on Tucker's special that his records - if any exist - are totally-private, and records don't prevent diseases. Sexually transmitted disease will exist, but the free market in legal prostitution in the places where it's allowed to exist has led naturally, and AFAIK without government force, to condom-only establishments. I'm told this is not the case with street prostitutes in the illegal trade, but those prostitutes -- especially the diseased ones -- wouldn't be likely to flourish in a free sex marketplace IMO. Already, in an unfree, prohibited "black" sex marketplace, huge internet solicitation agencies have been busted here in FL, and huge prostitute ratings-agencies are said to still exist. Human beings want to buy and sell adult sex acts. Governments can either make tax money off that fact of life, or keep letting an attempt to deny that basic fact of life cost taxpayers more... To me the answer is obvious -- leave peaceful people alone.
JMR
What are 'totally private r
May 3, 2007 - 15:02 ET by JDWWhat are 'totally private records'?
We disagree with regard to street sex as well as the protection of condoms.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
You'd have to ask Dennis. I
May 3, 2007 - 16:50 ET by sarcasmoYou'd have to ask Dennis. I think legal prostitution would eliminate the street sex I see daily under the current system, and put it all in one controlled place. I think condoms in those places would be better than no-condoms on the streets, which is what happens now. I guess we disagree, but I can't see your logic...
JMR
Redundant, legalized prosti
May 3, 2007 - 17:28 ET by JDWRedundant, legalized prostitution for street hookers who are addicts will create too many problems, I am not convinced parlors will eliminate this business.
I do not have the numbers in front of me but risk reduction in intercourse is highest on the basis of choice of partner. The type of sexual act would rank second and raincoats third.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Thanks for the catch on the
May 3, 2007 - 09:18 ET by Mark FinkelsteinThanks for the catch on the spelling of Hof.
No problem. I predict, beca
May 3, 2007 - 09:26 ET by sarcasmoNo problem. I predict, because of the HBO series "Cathouse" which I've never watched, that prostitution will be much more legally-available in the USA very soon. People are starting to see the ladies working in the sex business as adult human beings with minds of their own, rather than as slaves or children, and that's always bad news for prohibitionists. Where prostitution is legal, it's provably safer for both sides of the transaction -- and therefore all of society -- whether or not opponents wish to admit it.
JMR
Hi sarc...Are you getting rev
May 3, 2007 - 17:10 ET by bigtimerHi sarc...
Are you getting revved up for the debate...ought to be interesting to say the least.
You know Paul is going to get his say tonight, anyway I hope he does if Matthews can shut up long enough for people to answer.
If all can agree that we by o
May 3, 2007 - 09:24 ET by King of the BritonsIf all can agree that we by our nature (or by being created) we have the right to life, liberty, and property, then someone please explain to me why prostitution should be illegal? If I own myself (which I do) and I choose to sell a service (my having sex with someone) to someone desiring that service, then whose business is that but mine and my willing client? Most on this board accept this free market ethos and want the disgusting contemptible politicians to keep their grubby claws off of that. Why are drugs and prostitution any different? If you find it morally wrong, then do not partake or participate in such dealings. By trying to outlaw either, you are no better than the liberals who want to outlaw smoking or guns.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Morality
May 3, 2007 - 09:52 ET by NortoBeliever
Quite candidly I see this site as being rather fired up for the return of a moral agenda in this nation regrdless of what all the other losers are doing outside our borders. By your logic, abortion should not be "prohibitioned." Why, because it makes people want to have them even more! There is right and there is wrong. Am I perfect, no, but I know the difference and can "choose" a path to either and there are consequences each time. I am sorry this subject will get so much play, it simply innures the unsuspecting one step further.
I am also sorry, believe it or not I just noticed you may be from one of the world's least Christian nations. Where even doctors, who are generally quite liberal on the abortion issue, have taken to refusing to perform "capital punishment without a trial, and no chance of appeal." I am waiting for some Grandfather to stand up and say, "do not take the life of my Grandchild" and get the issue to court. You got my blood rolling.
Uhhm, Norto, what are you tal
May 3, 2007 - 09:59 ET by King of the BritonsUhhm, Norto, what are you talking about? Are you sure that you are replying to what I wrote?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
King, if I understand the phi
May 3, 2007 - 11:38 ET by ForeverOnTheRightKing, if I understand the philosophy behind what your saying, I believe you have bought hook line and sinker, liberal tripe that has been told over and over again. That is “whatever I do as long as it does not affect you it’s none of your business, and if you don’t like it don’t participate.” It’s a half truth, and a half truth is as good as a lie. On one hand I will never meet you and so yes what ever you do will not affect me and I won’t participate. But in the big picture it’s a lie. Once enough people hold to your view, your morality will eventually affect me directly and measurably. And frankly your philosophy leads to a moral decline and chaos. I am not saying this because I want to debate you on this point, I don’t. I thought that it is worth voicing my disagreement with you, perhaps it will give you something to think about.
Why is anything illegal then?
May 3, 2007 - 11:54 ET by TruthMongerWhy is anything illegal then? All laws are based upon a certain morality...
Laws allow for something we like to call "civilization..."
And the politicians who pas
May 3, 2007 - 11:58 ET by sarcasmoAnd the politicians who pass them are all SO moral... Seriously, laws that try to punish "crimes" which have no victim lead to moral deterioration of society via disrespect for all laws due to the stupid-ass government-enlarging laws which don't respect the will of peaceful people who want to do business. There's an absolute moral difference between a law against killing you and a law against selling you a BJ, and only the most-obtuse zealots here won't see that moral difference. IMO. Laws prohibiting victimless crimes do not work, unless you count the inevitable corruption of ALL levels of law-enforcers as 'working'!
JMR
...this is your moral code -
May 3, 2007 - 12:05 ET by TruthMonger...this is your moral code - much different then mine - so who's shall we say is better...?
Neither. I won't send men w
May 3, 2007 - 12:12 ET by sarcasmoNeither. I won't send men with guns to enforce mine on you if you don't send 'em to enforce yours on me. Deal?? Also, it's more an overview of historical policy failures by victimless "crime" laws than it is any sort of moral code. The important moral code for me is "leave me alone, so that I can leave you alone." Most people like it in theory, but most control freaks don't, for obvious reasons, and control freaks tend to lie and thereby fool most people. I don't lie.
JMR
We will have to choose betwe
May 3, 2007 - 12:14 ET by TruthMongerWe will have to choose between one or the other...and men with guns will be enforcing it as usual...
The crux of your error is the "victimless" part - which is very inconclusive at this point...
Why? Why keep making the sa
May 3, 2007 - 12:56 ET by sarcasmoWhy? Why keep making the same mistake and growing big government bigger?? Sex for some people is just a job. That's life. But it's no excuse for passing laws which don't work and take away law enforcement resources from laws which DO work.
And you've failed to show which party to the transaction is the victim, so I'm not sure just how I'm in error. Illegal prostitutes in FL look like victims of something to me, Dennis Hof's employees don't.
JMR
Moral laws are not a mistake
May 3, 2007 - 13:10 ET by TruthMongerMoral laws are not a mistake in my book...
There is certainly ample evidence about the damage done by prostitution to everyone involved...certainly enough to make your victimless notion highly inconlusive...
Can you spot all of the emotinally and sexually abused people walking down the street? Do they all look abused to you? How does their state affect their work? Their interaction with families and friends? What does this cost employers in terms of lost productivity due to depression, anxiety? Health insurance claims? Psychotic drugs and therapy? Suicides? Subsequent abuse of others? Etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...
"Can you spot all of the
May 3, 2007 - 13:21 ET by King of the Britons"Can you spot all of the emotinally and sexually abused people walking down the street? Do they all look abused to you? How does their state affect their work? Their interaction with families and friends? What does this cost employers in terms of lost productivity due to depression, anxiety? Health insurance claims? Psychotic drugs and therapy? Suicides? Subsequent abuse of others? Etc...etc...etc...etc...etc..."
Any abuse of anyone's person or property is a crime under any free system. Employers who lose productivity because one of their employees are depressed should seek someone whose productivity equals their salary.
Please explain how someone who is in therapy or someone who commits suicide, or someone who submits an insurance claim affects you?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
I'm only scratching the surfa
May 3, 2007 - 13:26 ET by TruthMongerI'm only scratching the surface of the impact of immoral behavior here. And you can't deny someone employment due to mental illness. You can't necessarily spot it in an interview anyway...
...how do insurance claims effect me? It raises our cost of insurance...
Any abuse of anyone's person or property is a crime under any free system.
An you want to legalize this sexual abuse called prostitution?
In a civil, as opposed to p
May 3, 2007 - 16:42 ET by sarcasmoIn a civil, as opposed to political, system, not all that's immoral can be made illegal. If you want less mental illness, work for smaller government with me. And I fail to see how prostitution between consenting adults is any form of "sexual abuse." It's a transaction that has gone-on for centuries between individuals, and a potential revenue source amid this sea of red ink due to massive fiscal irresponsibility of "major" party politicians excluding Ron Paul. Hell, arrest ME!! I once prostituted myself, in a Hooters no-less, and in front of two cops -- very loudly (I might have been drinking beers) -- but all they did was laugh at me and refuse to arrest me just as all the Hooters girls refused to pay me to do what I wanted to do for free, anyway. It's a stupid law, and everyone knows it. The whole place was laughing at that law that night.
JMR
Absolutely this is abusive...
May 3, 2007 - 16:54 ET by TruthMongerAbsolutely this is abusive...it's a horrible way to treat women...
Your love of the almighty dollar at such an unbelievable personal expense to these women is absolutely staggering...
Wait a second, I'm confused
May 3, 2007 - 18:31 ET by sarcasmoWait a second, I'm confused. What do you mean by "it's"? Legal prostitution in general?? Or me in particular illegally prostituting myself to the girls of a south Florida Hooters in front of the cops that drunken night, but failing to get myself arrested??? And how the hell are the girls pictured above victims of anything? They're doing what they want and what they're good at, you just don't like it.
And while I do love money (the dollar's not my favorite, and these days it's certainly not almighty!) sadly, none of the Hooters girls took me up on my many offers. (If I recall correctly, my asking price went down as low as five bucks, with still no-takers!) And yes, BT, I'm looking forward to the media letting Paul finally speak for once, and worried about Matthews...Plus I think we'd learn a lot more from watching a poker game among 'em.
JMR
Truth, I don't know if you ar
May 3, 2007 - 12:07 ET by ForeverOnTheRightTruth, I don't know if you are replying to me or not. But I do agree with you. I am against moral decline. That's why I said what I said, I feel King's statement to be faulty, moral relevancy is a slippery slope. I am surprised for a conservative blog that there are some here with liberal moral values when it comes to sex. Sorry, King if I am stepping on your toes, I am just calling it the way I see it.
...I was agreeing with you -
May 3, 2007 - 12:09 ET by TruthMonger...I was agreeing with you - my post was essentially just the larger question of this kind of discussion...
And I think you'll probably find alot of "libertarian" conservatives thinking pretty liberally on social things like gay marriage, abortion, prostitution, gambling, etc...
And if I understand your phil
May 3, 2007 - 12:01 ET by King of the BritonsAnd if I understand your philosophy correctly, you are a tyrant that is no different than the tyrants on the left, except that you believe that you are morally righteous because you have [fill in the blank here] on your side. Your form of tyranny is no different than the left's form of tyranny, you simply use different sources for your support.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
...so let's go with your tyra
May 3, 2007 - 12:06 ET by TruthMonger...so let's go with your tyranny then and call it a day?
Yep, Truth, let's call it a d
May 3, 2007 - 12:13 ET by ForeverOnTheRightYep, Truth, let's call it a day, I can see where this is going. King is getting feisty and starting to call names etc etc.
Sounds good! King is "ty
May 3, 2007 - 12:16 ET by TruthMongerSounds good! King is "tyrant for a day" then - hooya...!
How is what I advocate, in an
May 3, 2007 - 12:32 ET by King of the BritonsHow is what I advocate, in any form, tyranny?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
...i suppose the same way you
May 3, 2007 - 13:02 ET by TruthMonger...i suppose the same way you can call our morals tyranny...
Someone here will have to live under a system they don't like...it's unavoidable.
No, it is not. Much like sa
May 3, 2007 - 13:16 ET by King of the BritonsNo, it is not. Much like sarcasmo states - I won't send people with guns to enforce my morals upon you if you don't send people with guns to enforce your morals upons me. Then you will be free to not engage in prostitution or drugs. You will also be free to associate with people who believe the same as you do.
Please don't make the mistake as most do when discussing these issues that all else remains the same. IN that case, I would agree with you that this cannot be done, as then any drug addict can get treated on my dime or any hooker can get cured of STDs on my dime. Please also do not mistake my passion for liberty as possessing low moral values. My personal morals believe it to be wrong to sell one's body for sex. However, I believe it to be equally immoral for me to force others to live, what I believe to be, a moral life.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
...legalizing prostitution fo
May 3, 2007 - 13:32 ET by TruthMonger...legalizing prostitution forces your morals on me, just like keeping prostitution illegal forces mine on you right now...
This is actually progress.
May 3, 2007 - 16:35 ET by sarcasmoThis is actually progress. You understand & admit that you're forcing your morals onto those of us who disagree, although I fail to see how what I propose would actually force anything of mine on you or tax you like your idiotic policy taxes me. You're free to avoid and boycott brothels and those who frequent them as far as I'm concerned. What you don't seem to understand is that with our way of doing things, prostitution becomes a revenue source instead of an endless money-sink as it is right now. It's stupid to put people in jail cells for this kind of "crime." Besides, the saying does not go "The power to enforce is the power to destroy," does it?
JMR
Progress is the conservatives
May 3, 2007 - 16:48 ET by TruthMongerProgress is the conservatives middle name:)...
Why am I not surprised that you can admit I'm forcing a moral situation on you, but to have it your way does not force your moral situation on me...just like I'm forced to live with legalized abortion right now and all of it's dire consequences...
You want to justify the sexual abuse of prostitution on the grounds that it generates tax revenue? The left sure does love it's taxes doesn't it...
As it stands now, if someone
May 3, 2007 - 17:34 ET by King of the BritonsAs it stands now, if someone goes out and pays a prostitute to have sex, then the State, with its guns will arrest said person and the prostitute. Why? Because people like you are okay with tyranny when it is in defense of your morals. However, if people were free of your tyranny, and someone when out and paid a prostitute to have sex, then NO ONE would show up to anyone's house with guns and force anyone to do anything. It was a voluntary transaction between two consenting adults. That is the difference between your morals and my freedom. Just like no one has to force you to accept someone selling fruit for a living, no one would force you to accept a person selling their body for a living. You would simply be forced to allow people to be free and that seems to be your problem.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Again then why have any laws
May 3, 2007 - 17:50 ET by TruthMongerAgain then why have any laws at all?
I would have to live in a state of legalized immorality and live with the subsequent social diseases directly impacting my health and finances...and I'm already experiencing that with legalized abortion, gambling, pornography...I already have to deal with some of the tyranny of your moral code...
This is why we have prostitution laws, pot laws, heroin laws, pedophile laws, necrophelia laws, beastiality laws...
According to your logic they should all be legal...
That is right, everything tha
May 3, 2007 - 20:51 ET by King of the BritonsThat is right, everything that does not infringe upon someone else's right to life, liberty, or property should be legal. According to your way of thinking, it would just take someone who believes something immoral to make a law against it. Things such as drinking, smoking, guns, violent movies, video games, etc. could just as easily be outlawed using your logic. They all contribute to the immorality of our society and have a direct impact on your health and finances. Are you ready to hand over any of those things to someone in government who might believe they should be outlawed? And still using your logic, what if the majority of people in our government someday turn out to be Muslim? What if they believe that women not covering their faces are immoral and make a law forcing women to cover their face? What you advocate is the road to tyranny. You may believe that freedom is too dangerous to tolerate, but rather a dangerous liberty than a peaceful servitude.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Truth, you have been going ro
May 4, 2007 - 09:37 ET by ForeverOnTheRightTruth, you have been going round and round with King, it's THEE reason when you suggested that we "call it a day" I left the thread. You'll never get anywhere with King, as far as I know he could be playing with your head. I've run into people like him before on a blog. They become feisty and argumentative etc. I don't know if it's the nature of blogging or the nature of the people you run into. King sees no danger in legalizing prostitution amongst other things and can’t see any reason so therefore it’s “tyrannical” to create a law outlawing them. There are reasons to outlaw immoral activity that transcend morals, there are bad consequences to these actions, that’s why there’re morals around them to protect people and society. They are not created to be “tyrannical” and deny a pleasure.
"If all can agree that
May 3, 2007 - 11:45 ET by ckc1227"If all can agree that we by our nature (or by being created) we have the right to life, liberty, and property, then someone please explain to me why prostitution should be illegal?"
It shouldn't be. Seriously, it's pretty ridiculous when you think about it. A woman can sleep with 30 guys, and it's fine and dandy, but if she charges the 31st a $1.00, the two of them have committed a terrible wrong.
...some would say all 31 were
May 3, 2007 - 13:39 ET by TruthMonger...some would say all 31 were terrible wrongs...
Should we make a law making s
May 3, 2007 - 20:52 ET by King of the BritonsShould we make a law making sex illegal too since it goes against your strict moral code?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
Hey, if we don't pass some
May 4, 2007 - 09:46 ET by sarcasmoHey, if we don't pass some sort of control-freak law, then by the "logic" we've already seen on this very thread, we're "forcing" the immorality of the other 30 on others. It's surreal, but that's how the control-freak side really thinks...
JMR
Reminds me of my tours in Kor
May 3, 2007 - 09:33 ET by Sua SponteReminds me of my tours in Korea and going to the "Steam and Cream"...just for the massages, you know
"I think every business
May 3, 2007 - 09:52 ET by uc"I think every business has a code of ethics and we certainly do as well."
"Bunny Ranch"?
Really gets me thinking and surmising. >>> We could have gone into Iraq in 1992, we could have gone into Iraq in 1993 as well as the rest of the Clinton years, Clinton could have developed a plan and left a plan for such when Saddam's having WMD was even more certain.
With Politics being almost as old a profession can we really say Bush really had another choice? Clinton had choices like avoiding going in so as to avoid being President during an unpopular conflict that could have cost him reelection. How are we to jive Clinton's words and inactions, words about spreading freedom and justice?
WMD or not, Saddam still had chance to prevent this Operation. WMD or not, Saddam still wasn't doing better and may shortly (thanks to Clinton's inaction) have gotten out from under UN sanctions and started nuclear race against Iran. Surely we can't assume Saddam wouldn't have responded to Iran's nuclear program, can we?
"Liberty and Justice for all."
Oh, and on another note who noticed that now that President Bush can out green Gore his nuclear pronunciation as nuclear is easier and no longer just "new clear" maybe hint at a cleaner air energy? Could it be?
The "oldest profession
May 3, 2007 - 12:06 ET by MilesDThe "oldest profession" is farming (or shepherding)
I doubt it...And I'm doubti
May 3, 2007 - 12:11 ET by sarcasmoI doubt it...And I'm doubting you'll convince anyone else, either. The oldest profession and one of mankind's greatest motivations is -- like it or not -- sex in a cave. The oldest way to pay for it was a lump of gold or a piece of hunted food. Farming and livestock came WAY later.
JMR
"Oldest profession&quo
May 3, 2007 - 12:51 ET by Mark Finkelstein"Oldest profession" is a useful euphemism for you-know-what. For that matter, surely hunting predates farming or shepherding as a profession.
A "profession" is s
May 3, 2007 - 13:17 ET by MilesDA "profession" is something only a human can do. Animals survive by hunting or gathering. And I doubt very much that pre-historic man "paid" for any mates. (Although I don't know anything about the anthropology of this at all)
Google is your friend. Try
May 3, 2007 - 16:28 ET by sarcasmoGoogle is your friend. Try "primates paying for sex" without the quotes...Here is but one example. In general, male monkeys care most about sex and female monkeys about food in many experimental situations. And the idea of "money" or at least tokens is nothing new for other species of primates in research, they quickly learn it means "food" and become motivated by it without having to understand or misunderstand concepts of what money really is and does.
JMR
A "profession" is s
May 3, 2007 - 13:17 ET by MilesDA "profession" is something only a human can do. Animals survive by hunting or gathering. And I doubt very much that pre-historic man "paid" for any mates. (Although I don't know anything about the anthropology of this at all)
Please, can we leave sheep ou
May 3, 2007 - 12:58 ET by Jack BauerPlease, can we leave innocent sheep out of this ribald topic.
lol
May 3, 2007 - 13:44 ET by dahliatraverslol
baaa baaa
May 3, 2007 - 13:46 ET by Jack Bauerbaaa baaa*.
*No sheep were harmed in the making of this post.
What is the oldest profession
May 3, 2007 - 13:43 ET by dahliatraversWhat is the oldest profession?
A physician, an engineer, and an attorney were discussing who among them belonged to the oldest of the three professions represented. The physician said, "Remember, on the sixth day God took a rib from Adam and fashioned Eve, making him the first surgeon. Therefore, medicine is the oldest profession."
The engineer replied, "But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos and confusion, and thus he was the first engineer. Therefore, engineering is an older profession than medicine."
Then, the lawyer spoke up. "Yes," he said, "But who do you think created all of the chaos and confusion?"