Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes

quote:

---

2) I am friends with some prostitutes (and escorts and porn actresses) and they are nothing like the stereotype schraf or Satcomm just painted. It is that demonizing which hurts their feelings and in turn, my own. Given that they were not abused as children, why abuse them now?

---

Are they not whores? Do you really think men who watch porn are in it for the respect factor? They chose the profession, they can deal with the social stigma.

quote:

---

And these comments were focused at two specific Xtians... you and jdean.

---

Who the hell said I was Christian??? Your judge of character rivals your grasp of reality. Seriously, I think an amputee has a better chance of getting a hold of the real world than you.Why do you feel so deeply for prostitutes? I'm guessing you have a relative who is one. Otherwise, I just don't see how you could get so upset over a prostitutes feelings getting "hurt".

quote:

---

And are you really backing jdean's callous and meanspirited post?

---

My thoughts and his thoughts are apples and steak. We are not the borg collective. There was nothing mean spirited about my post. Prostitutes are whores just as Sally Jean who humps every guy on the block is a whore. One gets paid the other doesn't. Stating prostitutes deserve to get aids is mean spirited. There is a difference.

quote:

---

Would you have argued with Jesus if he said it wasn't nice for jdean to call the adultress a whore (in the vindictive manner he did)?

---

Adultress is a PC synonym for whore. Don't be so naive.I do believe prostitution should be legal and regulated. A person who provides a service for free should be able to charge for the service if there is a demand. And of course, there will always be a demand for that service.

quote:

---

My grasp of reality is just fine, but I may not always be the best judge of character. Very funny zinger you got in though.

​

I admit I assumed you were a Xtian given your previous posts (in other threads) have been rather right leaning. My mistake if this assumption was wrong. Sorry.

---

I have never eluded to believing in God if you pay attention to my previous posts.

quote:

---

Yes they can take the abuse, but it does hurt, and they shouldnt have to take it.

---

Life is synonmous with strife. Applies to all not just those in the sex industry.

quote:

---

Unless you were using the term "whore" as a term of endearment, like one gay calling another a "fag", it was meanspirited... just not as mean as you could have been.

---

I called them whores to get a rise out of you. It worked. I am quite fond of strippers and porn stars. Actually just the other day I ran into an old high school chum who was stripping.

quote:

---

Well then we stand in agreement. Not sure why you had to attack me so personally, and why you said I had such a weak grasp of reality.

​

If you believe this, didn't you think my initial post made sense?

---

You have muddled other's post with mine. No where did i refute anything you said. I only said prostitutes are whores and they can cope with the stigma. Nothing else. Schraf is a feminist loon and her logic reveals that. I don't think satcomm read into schraf's statement correctly the first time.I don't agree with your every one is happy no one hurts mentality.

quote:

---

I just admitted I made an assumption because your previous posts were right leaning and NOT that they said you believed in God.

​

That's twice you haven't properly read something I wrote.

---

I read your post just fine. I don't understand how you came to the assumption I was an Xtian. Simply saying my views were "right leaning" isn't sufficient enough to brand some one religious. I was pointing this out to you, again.

quote:

---

If all you do is write to get a rise out of people, you just hit my kill filter chum. I came here to discuss and debate, not get sucked into meaningless conversations with jerks.

---

We are debating are we not? The purpose is to win the debate not to give a monotone speech. Let me lay it out for you, chum:1. I say something to get you mad.
2. You spout off (which would be out of form for you).
3. You lose credibility in the debate.
4. Your temper loss results in my views being more attractive.Now me saying "holmes is an idiot" would not be appropriate and I have not done any such thing.Of course "stone throwing Xtians" wasn't mean spirited was it? I'm sure that's your term of endearment just as whore was mine.I am honest and admit the tactic. Others use the tactic but feign ignorance to it. Why is this an issue?

quote:

---

Again, you can't seem to read. I didn't say your post was an attempt to refute mine.

​

I stated quite clearly my realization that we had been in agreement the whole time, and then puzzled why you'd attack me and prostitutes so personally since we were in agreement.

​

I got my answer now. You are a jerk, trying to get a rise out of me rather than saying anything intelligent.

---

No, clearly would be "Do you agree with what I said?" Instead you imply I didn't understand the contents of your post and didn't agree with it. Or perhaps I read it that way. I am sorry if that is the case.

quote:

---

I never said that, and I don't believe that. I stated quite clearly that there are people that get hurt and aren't happy.

---

I never said you said it either. It is what I interpreted from your posts. It appears i'm not the only one.

quote:

---

Since you just admitted that you make posts to simply piss people off, and you can't seem to read (maybe just to get a rise?) I will not be talking to you again.

---

I admitted to making one post to get a rise out of you. Not all posts. The original post to this thread appears to be the same thing. You wanted to "spank" schraf and satcomm and were quite malicious about it. Don't point your finger at me hypocrite.

quote:

---

Do you deny that male desire for dominance and for feeling powerful is, or never has been, at the root of the sex trade, along with the historical exclusion of women from good-paying jobs?

---

The first statement is true. That is why were are men. The second statement is feminist mumbojumbo. I know women who turn down "good paying jobs" because they can make more money stripping.Waitressing is a job which would apply to your second statement.

quote:

---

I think the bell curve just got skewed to the right....

---

I apologize dearly assistant professor Page. Unfortunately the bottom page of my vocabulary calender was torn that day. I had no idea the word used had a different definition than intended. I don't believe I can cope with any more judgement by your red pen. Perhaps you could provide some tutoring?