Converation thread

But in what sense is banning prostitution an infringement on liberty?

It’s not a liberty, it’s a civil right, something still up in the air, but that’s just one of many issues, it’s just smaller because that’s the intent.

How is it a civil right to have s–x outside of marriage, when that produces children, in many, many cases, who will grow up without a father-mother family structure, which leads inevitably to higher poverty and crime? Have we considered the plight of the children who may be conceived through such immoral ways?

Not necessarily gonna produce kids, hence the fact that so many manage to make a job out of it, and making it illegal just makes the disease and immorality far worse, leading people to go to worse places for that. It has a net benefit too it.

Not necessarily? What about the kids they do have, which number in the thousands? It deals a blow to the nuclear family, the building blocks of free societies, puts children at risk for abortion or a birth into poverty, and corrodes the morals. What's to like?

Well contraceptives, “night-after” pills, and protection help lower that, and as you’ve said before, the adoption system is MORE than willing to help. This stuff will already happen, we’re just allowing it to be done in a safer manner.

Help "lower" that – But not ELIMINATE IT, which is the only moral outcome for the children. I have said the adoption system is more than willing to help, and I have no doubt they would adopt children born of prostitution – but I don't have enough faith in human nature, which is sinful, to trust the already perverted and immoral parents not to murder their child in the womb or leave him in the streets, rather than try to find him a home.

Another false thing: prostitutes aren’t inherently bad people either. Most of them just want money, though it’s more likely for them to be bad people, we overall have a net positive gain for civil rights and safety of sex work.

They just want money huh, so they defy the man-woman family structure and basic morality with impunity?

They don’t get sent to jail for screwing with someone they aren’t married to, people do this a lot already, it’s just adding money to the mix for this.

A problem that should not be criminalized, and can be dealt with through less negative means than using the law as a punishment for something that’s largely on the social side.

A crime that should not be punishable with imprisonment – only because I'm not willing to pay for these losers to be in prison, not because I have a sliver of sympathy for them – but a crime that should be punished with HEAVY FINES, because THAT doesn't affect me at all but it still discourages it.

What exactly about it prompts it being illegal?

Because (1) The Bible is only ultimate standard that can explain the laws of logic and the preconditions of intelligibility, and the Bible shows that it is immoral (2) It spawns children who will grow up in a single-parent household in many instances (3) It erodes the nuclear family, the building block of a free society (4) It creates temptations for otherwise virtuous men (5) If it is fined, then government can discourage it while at the same time not costing innocent taxpayers a penny.

The Bible was explicitly stated to not be the basis of law, nor is it acknowledged as a basis for it in most any society, and when it has, people fail miserably to avoid a warped version of Christianity, so no, it can’t be the basis for this law. It doesn’t necessarily deal with those circumstances, and by that logic, we shouldn’t allow single-parent households at all, which is also extremely difficult and dangerous f an idea. The nuclear family is not directly harmed, people cheat for free all the time, this just decriminalizes doing it for money. The same logic in my last…  Read more sentence applied for “otherwise virtuous men”. The government doesn’t have a strong reason to discourage it, and if that’s the case, then why don’t they just make it cost money to be allowed to do that instead? They could gain more from it.

I literally just explained to you WHY the government has a strong reason to discourage it, but you just respond with this word salad nonsense about not thinking the Bible is the basis of law. Why shouldn't it be? Wouldn't God's laws be higher than government's laws? And since you have demonstrated an obvious inability to make a logical argument against God, why are you assuming, again, that He doesn't exist?

The nuclear family is not going to be damaged much by allowing something that already happens to continue with the addon of money being involved. Someone can screw with someone else if they’re willing to pay for it, I don’t freaking care, that’s not hurting people directly, that’s something that already happens anyway without criminalization in most places, and the nuclear family is fine. I literally don’t even care about that thing, and I’m fine with others doing it as they wish, though I find it shameful to do in a marriage, that will happen with or witho…  Read moreut pay all the time, and people shouldn’t be punished for that, they’ll deal with that enough in their relationship with whatever partners they had.

Why is the Bible not a great basis for laws? As I demonstrated, it is the ONLY LOGICAL POSSIBILITY – and as you demonstrated, the atheist has ZERO rational rebuttals to the logical proof presented. As it is the only logical possibility, meaning that it must be the inerrant word of God, it is the best basis for laws that human beings have at their disposal. If you would like to argue otherwise, you're going to have to first justify your capacity for reasoning, morality, and the reliability of your senses, explain what your ultimate standard is, and show me how it can justify everything that is knowable. I've done this, now your turn.

I don’t have to explain to you why we exist or why senses exist to explain why it’s illogical to think that just because you have an explanation you’re not necessarily right. I don’t have to explain anything to you to have a non-belief, that argument falls to the hands of someone who is trying to empirically prove something, and a proof trying to prove itself is considered fallacious and false. The Bible is not made to be a basis of governance, it’s a book meant to teach individuals in religious movements how they should be, but at no point did the United States…  Read more government establish itself as a Christian state, and at no point should the Bible be a basis of law because not only has it led to hellish outcomes such as the Holy Roman Empire, but to the abuse of biblical teachings and reduction of freedom for those who do not have the same Christian interpretation. I’m tired of explaining that, the Bible wasn’t made to be a law, not on the government side.

I don’t have to explain to you why we exist or why senses exist to explain why it’s illogical to think that just because you have an explanation you’re not necessarily right. I don’t have to explain anything to you to have a non-belief, that argument falls to the hands of someone who is trying to empirically prove something, and a proof trying to prove itself is considered fallacious and false.

Did you sleep through my entire comment proving Christianity, or just weren't responsible enough to read it? Remember that all human beings must have an Ultimate Standard…  Read more of Truth – the one belief that justifies every belief an individual has. It does not have anything that precedes it proving it because otherwise it wouldn't be an ultimate standard. So circular reasoning must be used in order for him to have faith – or rational confidence – in his ultimate standard of truth and thus justify his perception of reality and capacity for reasoning and rational debate. Therefore it must be a non-contradictory, self-proving ultimate standard that can explain the reliability of human senses, the laws of morality, and the laws of logic in non-arbitrary terms. It must also explain everything that is knowable. If it fails on any one of these counts, it cannot be the ultimate standard upon which one's perception of reality is based, thus making it necessarily false. My ultimate standard is the Bible. Yours appears to be some humanistic cultism, or atheism, or Darwinism – I can't accurately say, because you've failed to provide your ultimate standard, because you know that in so doing your entire position on virtually everything will instantly crumble to shreds. I have asked you for it dozens of times, looking for another perspective upon which to have a rational debate, but instead of seriously considering my arguments in your emotionalism and human desire to feel you've been right all along and not admit that you are wrong and that certain behaviours are sinful, have dispensed with this logic entirely because you wish to continue living the life you are living and/or persist in your beliefs because that's what's comfortable for you. It's sad, but that's the self-evident truth. Your ultimate standard failed, making every single one of your beliefs unjustifiable, arbitrary, and thus inherently irrational, but as mine succeeds in the test I can logically use the Bible as the framework for any position I please, objectively, logically, and consistently. Because my Ultimate Standard of Truth can account for the preconditions of intelligibility, and is self-constituent and logical, it makes perfect since to base decisions in every aspect of human life – certainly in government – based upon the single logical possibility in existence. This includes the policy we're supposed to be debating here. Again, this is just the argument I already made writ large, I had to restate it because you sidestepped it without satisfying any of its logical critiques. I apologise if this is too philosophically deep for you – but ultimately you must make these reflections and considerations, which can be understood with just a little thought by any one, to examine if your beliefs are rational. Your eternity depends upon it, and I don't want you to suffer for eternity because I hate human suffering. That's why I persist in this conversation.

This does not however prove that the Bible’s teachings must be the basis of government because the Bible was not built to be a basis for that in the first place. It’s for the individual and religious movements, not governments.

What a desperate argument this is on your part! Basically, by using the words, "this does not however" instead of addressing the claims, you said, "Sure, your viewpoint may have been logically proven beyond a reasonable doubt and mine may be intellectually bankrupt, false, and fallacious – I'll give you that much – but that doesn't mean your worldview should be used to create laws! Why should its morality not be used in determining the most important decisions if it's the only logical position and all others can be dismissed as false after mere minutes of logical scrutiny? You're basically asking me to not act on a demonstrable truth and instead represent false positions. And that's laughable and absurd.