Why are people agiants prostitution?
Tim_Tex wrote:
I think they think prostitution is a proliferation ground for STDs and HIV/AIDS.
Or it goes against their religious beliefs.
Or it goes against their religious beliefs.
If it were the proliferation of STDs the government would be better to legalize it, regulate it, and require std testing for those participating. That is what Nevada, and countries that legalize prostitution do. Part of the reason these issues exist is because it is an underground economy and it has all of the problems of an underground economy, drugs, abuse, criminals, trafficing, etc. I am not saying legalizing it solves these problems, sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. But criminalizing the women involved, who are sometimes victims can cause problems as well.
But you got down to the primary issue of why it is illegal, which is religious and moral beliefs. Truth be told, the problems associated with it increase when the act itself is illegal. The thing is religous people have a problem with prostitution because of the adultry issue.
I am not saying prostitution is good or bad, I personally am not a fan of it. But just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I don't understand the nature of the problems. Its a complex issue with no easy answers.
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
jc6chan wrote:
chiyoko wrote:
How does his views creep you out? He is not stating that his views are the same as Islamic terrorists. He is stating his side of the debate, which is "morality = subjective or objective?" I think you took his examples out of context. He is actually making intelligent points on the discussion in my opinion.
He is saying that there's no telling if Islamic terrorists are doing the wrong thing. And that there is no such thing as unarguably wrong. I'm glad that he views certain things as wrong, but if you say that nothing can be plain wrong, then its a scary world out there, with certain individuals doing certain things when it is convenient to do so.
This entire discussion isn't one of ideology, but of FACT-
not one of us can name a single act which,
unqualified,
every single person would consider wrong.
I view the mass breeding and slaughtering of animals as the modern day Holocaust,
yet I'm immersed in a culture where it's the norm and even joked about.
I view the commodification of human sexuality and the female body as morally atrocious,
yet here I am in a thread with people who likely couldn't disagree more.
There is not a shred of empirical or analytical evidence suggesting moral codes exist outside the individual human mind,
which, dependent on conditioning,
can create a moral system whereby honor killings, rape, genocide, and torture are all not only acceptable but desirable-
and it does.
We see those types of acts perptrated every day,
and had you been culturalized in a different region of the world,
you'd likely be complacent or even welcoming of their occurance.
You or I might say these things are barbaric and morally unjustifiable,
but if asked why, what would we answer?
"Because hurting people is wrong, without qualification."
We would have to refer BACK to our own subjective moral system.
That's called circular reasoning-
"X act is wrong because I think it is, and I think it is because it's wrong."
_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.
jc6chan wrote:
chiyoko wrote:
How does his views creep you out? He is not stating that his views are the same as Islamic terrorists. He is stating his side of the debate, which is "morality = subjective or objective?" I think you took his examples out of context. He is actually making intelligent points on the discussion in my opinion.
He is saying that there's no telling if Islamic terrorists are doing the wrong thing. And that there is no such thing as unarguably wrong. I'm glad that he views certain things as wrong, but if you say that nothing can be plain wrong, then its a scary world out there, with certain individuals doing certain things when it is convenient to do so.
_________________
"Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" ...WS Burroughs
Quote:
Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels......
And yet you brought it up anyway. I wonder what that says about you and your views on Muslims as a group?
Most of the people who support terrorism usually support it because they hate westerners, period, and not because they really believe they're doing anything the Qur'an tells them to do. So when people randomly bring up "Islamic extremists" to illustrate a point that could've been illustrated with an example that's closer to home, one has to wonder if that isn't just subtle bigotry rearing its ugly head.
Bethie wrote:
jc6chan wrote:
chiyoko wrote:
How does his views creep you out? He is not stating that his views are the same as Islamic terrorists. He is stating his side of the debate, which is "morality = subjective or objective?" I think you took his examples out of context. He is actually making intelligent points on the discussion in my opinion.
He is saying that there's no telling if Islamic terrorists are doing the wrong thing. And that there is no such thing as unarguably wrong. I'm glad that he views certain things as wrong, but if you say that nothing can be plain wrong, then its a scary world out there, with certain individuals doing certain things when it is convenient to do so.
This entire discussion isn't one of ideology, but of FACT-
not one of us can name a single act which,
unqualified,
every single person would consider wrong.
I view the mass breeding and slaughtering of animals as the modern day Holocaust,
yet I'm immersed in a culture where it's the norm and even joked about.
I view the commodification of human sexuality and the female body as morally atrocious,
yet here I am in a thread with people who likely couldn't disagree more.
There is not a shred of empirical or analytical evidence suggesting moral codes exist outside the individual human mind,
which, dependent on conditioning,
can create a moral system whereby honor killings, rape, genocide, and torture are all not only acceptable but desirable-
and it does.
We see those types of acts perptrated every day,
and had you been culturalized in a different region of the world,
you'd likely be complacent or even welcoming of their occurance.
You or I might say these things are barbaric and morally unjustifiable,
but if asked why, what would we answer?
"Because hurting people is wrong, without qualification."
We would have to refer BACK to our own subjective moral system.
That's called circular reasoning-
"X act is wrong because I think it is, and I think it is because it's wrong."
I want to ask you...are you against the UN making international laws on things like human rights and such? I can't change your views but it looks as though people who came up with regulations for the international community wouldn't necessarily agree with you. You may see it as "forcing morals on others" but thats your view. Others see it as "enforcing social justice". Of course, you can then ask "what is defined as socially just", then I can't argue with you further.
Also, some basic things like hurting or killing others is wrong (aside from self-defence) comes from the fact that human beings shall treat others as you would want to be treated. I believe that unless you are mentally retarted, it is in every human being to feel the empathy. Humans choose not to follow these morals for various reasons such as anger, greed, etc... but I believe that these are things that can distract the person from acting right, but it doesn't make the acts of murder and unnecessary violence right.
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
jc6chan wrote:
I want to ask you...are you against the UN making international laws on things like human rights and such?
No, I'm not. Because those laws are in accordance with my personal morality.
That doesn't change that those morals are, in fact, subjective
jc6chan wrote:
I can't change your views but it looks as though people who came up with regulations for the international community wouldn't necessarily agree with you.
I don't know how well-versed diplomats are in philosophical ethics,
but even an idiot will acknowledge that there is NO universal standard of moral conduct among human beings.
jc6chan wrote:
Also, some basic things like hurting or killing others is wrong (aside from self-defence) comes from the fact that human beings shall treat others as you would want to be treated.
Again, this is your OPINION. If I proclaim that crucifying as many kittens as possible is a just and honorable thing to do, there's nothing objective you might refer to to prove otherwise. This is a discussion of opinions.
jc6chan wrote:
I believe that unless you are mentally retarted, it is in every human being to feel the empathy.
Intelligence is only remotely related to empathic abilities.
And to whom we extend that empathy (rich men? poor men? black men? women? animals?) is largey determined by who we are TAUGHT to feel empathy for by our culture and society, and only a select few individuals critically examine those teachings.
jc6chan wrote:
Humans choose not to follow these morals for various reasons such as anger, greed, etc...
You haven't been paying attention. People commit acts because those acts are WITHIN their moral code at the time, not in SPITE of it. The people who are executing gays in Sudan and burning people ALIVE as witches in Kenya genuinely and fervently BELIEVE their actions are just.
jc6chan wrote:
but I believe that these are things that can distract the person from acting right,
"right" here meaning "what chan agrees with", I'm guessing?
jc6chan wrote:
but it doesn't make the acts of murder and unnecessary violence right.
That's the entire point- there IS no objective "right". Conversely, there is no objective wrong.
_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.
jc6chan wrote:
chiyoko wrote:
How does his views creep you out? He is not stating that his views are the same as Islamic terrorists. He is stating his side of the debate, which is "morality = subjective or objective?" I think you took his examples out of context. He is actually making intelligent points on the discussion in my opinion.
He is saying that there's no telling if Islamic terrorists are doing the wrong thing. And that there is no such thing as unarguably wrong. I'm glad that he views certain things as wrong, but if you say that nothing can be plain wrong, then its a scary world out there, with certain individuals doing certain things when it is convenient to do so.
No, he is saying that the Islamic terrorists feel that they are morally right. He did not say that he felt that they were correct in feeling this. He is saying that morality is subjective. The debate is about whether or not morality is subjective or objective. He was giving you an example of how morality is subjective and not concrete. The fact that you disagree with the Islamic terrorists shows that morality is in fact subjective and your morals are different.
menintights wrote:
Quote:
Consider (oh god, I hate to use this as an example but.....) Islamic extremists who believe that according to the quoran (sorry if I misspelled no disrespect intended) he is to kill all infidels......
And yet you brought it up anyway. I wonder what that says about you and your views on Muslims as a group?
Most of the people who support terrorism usually support it because they hate westerners, period, and not because they really believe they're doing anything the Qur'an tells them to do. So when people randomly bring up "Islamic extremists" to illustrate a point that could've been illustrated with an example that's closer to home, one has to wonder if that isn't just subtle bigotry rearing its ugly head.
Muslims as a group are entitled to their religon. I don't think hyperbole said he supported terrorism. (Excuse me for jumping in here) I think this is going in an entirely different direction. As everone hates to have their statements twisted around you are doing the exact same thing. He gave an example to support his side of a debate. He did not claim to support the views of Islamic terrorists.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Hi people |
18 Sep 2024, 10:08 pm |
My people! |
18 Sep 2024, 10:06 pm |
Why do people get surprised if you're a certain age and... |
11 Nov 2024, 12:40 pm |
When did you realize people don't like you? |
22 Nov 2024, 6:08 am |