Schraf and Satcomm hand in hand against victimless crimes

quote:

---

You just lost all of your credibility with me schraf.

---

I find this statement most amusing. Like your "credibility" really matters on a forum where people post their opinions anonymously. You're just mad because another left-leaning person thought for themselves and didn't simply "tow the party line" like you.

quote:

---

The fact that Satcomm is in agreement should indicate how far astray you've gone, but pointing that out is not going to cut it with me (it's simply guilt by association, and adhominem).

---

Translation: Oh no! We can't agree with the "Religious Zealot"! That would make us bigoted hypocrites!

quote:

---

Prepare for a major spanking in logic.

---

LOL, sorry Mr. Spock, you haven't driven out your emotions sufficiently to understand logic.

quote:

---

A "victimless" crime is distinguished from other crimes, because all parties involved have consented to the activity in question. A consensual activity, crime or other, does not suddenly change to nonconsensual simply because the person was a victim of another crime in the past.

---

Psychology disagrees with you. There are plenty of cases where one or more of the "consenting" parties have had some sort of childhood trauma.

quote:

---

For example, if a large percentage of secretaries turned out to have been violated as children, that WOULD NOT make being a secretary a NONCONSENSUAL activity.

---

What does consensual activity have to do with a profession or career? Oh I'm sorry, the secretary has to consent to taking the job in the first place. Hmmm, that fits in with prostitution nicely. I doubt many prostitutes said when they were kids "Mommy, I want to be a prostitute when I grow up."

quote:

---

So, to answer your question, do I know how many X were victimized as children? Not exactly, no.

---

Therefore your argument is a baseless asertion based on your own political bias.

quote:

---

Does it matter? Not one bit.

​

And this holds true even if I were to accept your "do you know" insinuation, as if to suggest close to 90% of prostitutes had been abused.

---

So it may be that 9/10 prostitutes were abused and the other 1/10 simply needed cash to get by, and they knew some friends who were making a lot of money in the business. How does this support your claim?

quote:

---

Other than Dworkin's flawed "I asked my man-hating friends" studies, we both know such statistics are not likely. But by all means if you have some credible statistics, bring 'em on.

​

Before you do though, I should point out that it would be more important (statistically) to show how many people that were violated became X, than how many X were violated... that is if you want to make the charge that engaging in X is beyond the will of those who have been victimized (which means they are incapable of truly giving consent) and so becomes an extension of their victimization.

​

Then again, while you are compiling those statistics why not find out how many abused children become adults that drink. Or how about how many go to therapy? How about how many get rank and file jobs (like the secretary example above) instead of administrative level jobs?

---

So you are prefacing, in preparation for her response, the fact that you will not accept any statistical data because there are other nonsensical ideas of yours involved?

quote:

---

In general, do people with self-esteem issues stemming from childhood traumas (sexual or other), tend toward activities and occupations considered "lower" or "illicit" or indicative of "having problems"? Hmmmmmmm. Does that make all of those activities nonconsensual and so further parts of their victimization?

---

Occupations and actions that are "lower" or "illicit" or "indicative of having problems" are often cyclic from youth. There is a cycle of trauma that progresses and often strongly influences the actions of the person in adulthood. I think that was the simple point being made in the first place.

quote:

---

Should victims be the rule by which society measures allowable activity for people who have not been victimized?

---

Just because a person had childhood trauma does not equal them being innocent of the current crimes they commit. It is merely being pointed out that childhood trauma plays a role in their decisions. They are still guilty of the crimes they commit, regardless. It was always their choice to make.

quote:

---

I could have built a slippery-slope argument about where schraf's prudish ideas lead, but why build one when Satcomm provides a reallife example.

---

I can't tell if this is an attack on my character, or if you're referring to an example I have posted. Either way, you use the term ad hominem hypocritically.

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, Satcomm either left "rampant liberalism" off the list of disorders, or maybe that's the cause for child abuse in the first place?

---

I don't consider "rampant liberalism" a social disorder. At least not yet. I consider it a bad choice in mentality.

quote:

---

I would love to have your (Schraf's) comments on Satcomm's charges of homosexuality being caused by child abuse. What if the statistics favor abused children becoming homosexual over entering sexual careers, would that mean homosexuality is nonconsensual and so no longer a victimless crime? I guess I'm assuming (given the PC crap you just spouted) that you wouldn't have anything against homosexuality. And let's not forget the drinking problem I mentioned earlier. Should we bring back sodomy laws and prohibition?

---

This is a pointless argument. Schraf has demonstrated in the past that her and my views on homosexuality are totally different. So there we have it. Just because her and I agree on one issue, doesn't mean that we both agree on everything. That's a pretty narrow-minded assertion.

quote:

---

In a "turnaround is fair play" tactic, I'd love to have Satcomm's explanation regarding Xtian connections to childabuse, specifically those relating Xtian teachings to abuse of children (in the name of Xtianity)and/or the children who then become killers. How about the social disorders of war (crusades), religious and racial bigotry (take your pick), and imposed ignorance (the inquisition, and current laws altering definitions of science in favor of ID theory)? Start looking things up (even in the bible), I think you'll find the connections startling.

---

You'd love to hear my comments based on my faith in CHRISTianity so you can aptly criticize them?You score no points by attacking the historical church in general.

quote:

---

Somehow though, I bet both of you guys turn your back on statistics or the conclusions you'd be forced to draw (given your stand on prostitution) on these particular issues.

---

Nah, I'd turn my back on statistical data that is either nonsensical or not pertainent to the issue at hand.

quote:

---

Or maybe the lesson will sink in? I hope so, especially for schraf. I've had a lot of respect for you (logically) up till now. Believe me this spanking hurt me much worse than it hurt you.

---

A man leading, correcting, and disciplining a woman goes against her philosophy.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

Does past abuse mean that a person is unable to consent?

---

No. And this is a good point, John. However, I do think that past abuse will strongly influence the choices made by an adult.

quote:

---

The issue, at any rate, is whether prostition is a victimless crime. The argument given was that many prostitutes were abused as children. Sorry, but the casuality is backward. You can argue that abuse produces prostitution, but not that the prostitution produced the childhood abuse-- which, quite obviously, happened PRIOR to the prostitution. And it is this later case that must apply for this particular argument that prostitution is not a victimless crime to stand.

---

Hmmm. I've been doing some thinking about this. Childhood abuse is not the only argument I have for prostitution not being a victimless crime. I was merely pointing out that I agree with Schraf, in that, it influences the choices made by the adult in that situation. There are other factors involved. Prostitution is not a victimless crime, because it hurts both parties involved. Oh, we can debate this until we're blue in the face, however the fact remains. I've watched it hurt people, and not just the consenting parties. In places where prostitution is legal or widely present, discretion goes right out the window. It's degrading to the woman, and often plaguing to both parties, whether it be a disease or some sort of conscience issue.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 02-14-2003]

quote:

---

So does football ( American ). Everyone I know who played football in high-school or college has some permanent injury from it. Yet know one talks about 'victims' of football. It is a somewhat glib response, but if you look around, a great many things people do for fun also cause injury. Most sports fit this category. Most jobs also tend to produce a particular set of physical/emotional problems. Secretaries get tendon diseases. Soldiers in combat tend to develop stress related illnesses, not to mention risk the occasional collision with a lead ball. Factory workers risk exposure to dangerous chemicals. Yet this same injury/consent argument is not applied to any of these things.

---

The difference is purchased sex.

quote:

---

The only difference is that prostition involves sex and sex has a stigma to it. To me, the 'prostitution injures both parties' argument is just a gloss covering the underlying prejudices against sex.

---

Sex must not be that serious for you. I understand your position on the matter. Many people, especially in this country, would disagree with you. I'm sure you don't care.

quote:

---

I believe this has been addressed by Holmes. What areas are you talking about? What countries? What time periods?

---

Europe throughout the medieval period. Las Vegas (20th century+). Parts of Los Angeles (20th century+). Parts of New York (20th century+). Prostitution is definitely not a new thing and you know that. Also, I said "widely present", not just legal. It can be "widely present" and illegal. Why do you ask these questions when you already know the answer to them?

quote:

---

Satcomm: It's degrading to the woman.

​

John: Why? This is a cultural prejudice, not an absolute.

---

Oh, and I'm sure you're an expert on anthropology, John?I'm sure a lot of women would disagree with you.Btw, what's wrong with traditional American culture? Why is it so hard for liberal academics to embrace it? It's who we are as American citizens. To speak of it in a negative context like that sounds very anti-American to me.I always say if you don't like it, then get out.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

I'm still finding it ironic to be defending prostitutes from stone throwing Xtians.

​

Have any of you read the Bible? This is the specific example used by God to explain how you should not judge others.

---

I'm still finding it ironic how narrow-minded some liberals are when they make broad generalizations about Christians. You're supposed to be open-minded people by definition.I do not judge the people, but the actions of the people. And I don't condemn them, I condemn the sin. There is a big difference.Example: Someone steals a candy bar from the store. I don't hate them for being a thief, but I hate the action of stealing. I judge it to identify that stealing is wrong. Get the picture?Jesus did say that we shouldn't judge lest we be open for judgement, however he goes on to say in Matthew 7, verse 15-20, that we shall know people and false prophets by their fruits. You can detect them by the way they act, just as you can identify a tree by its fruit.And I pointed this out to Schrafinator in a previous post:http://EvC Forum: THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR -->EvC Forum: THE EVOLUTIONISTS' GUIDE TO PROPER CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOUR------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?[This message has been edited by Satcomm, 02-15-2003]

quote:

---

It's sexist, racist, and classist, for starters.

---

That's a pretty harsh description of our modern culture, dont you think? Would it be better if we were not passionate people, but instead mindless neutral PC robots?

quote:

---

I love America and I'm glad I live here, but "traditional" culture has a very definite dark side.

---

Oh, I'm not arguing that "traditional" American culture is "pure". I'm just reminding that we should not forget our origins and our principles. Otherwise history will continue to repeat itself. (It probably will anyway.)

quote:

---

Because liberal academics are often women, minorities, non-Protestant Christians, and other groups who study the history of the "Traditional" American culture which had excluded them from academia entirely until the recent past, and then restricted (and continue to restrict) their upward mobility.

---

And there we have it. Secular college = Liberal complain-fest for women, minorities, non-Protestant Christians, atheists, and angry white people who want to be like the minority.

quote:

---

To criticize America is to perform a profoundly patriotic act, on the contrary. To be free from the tyrrany of the majority, and to feel free to stand up and say so without fear of reprisal, is the whole POINT of America!

---

I agree. And it's my right to criticize the principles of people like yourself. I wouldn't want either of our rights taken away.

quote:

---

What, do you think that America should become a dictatorship or a Communist state in which only those who agree with the majority, or who are too afraid to oppose them, should live here?

---

Nah, I just think that people like you bitch too much.

quote:

---

What a crazy un-American thinker you are, Satcomm!

---

Nope, I'm simply performing my profoundly patriotic act of criticizing the majority of popular liberals who want to change this country into a turd, and make 50,000,000 laws in place of a few.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?