Again you are making the assumption that every prostitute was in a position of "final, only choice"...when really only very few were. In between should be all the requisite interventions that an ideal society offers...when you bypass this with an easy highway of full on individualist choice triumphs all, you simply erode and undermine social fabric.
The point is informing people of those risks....bypassing this and saying its absolute free choice, do as you will with no adequate mitigation from the society/law/morals/family...is precisely why its a wretched situation regarding prostitutes in the developing world (they are captured and forced to varying degrees
@Zibago points out) and not much better in developed world either (as
@Desert Fox pointed out is often the cause to add to my own story of talking with one). Tell me have you actually every talked to any sex workers yourself in both Europe and Bangladesh? Or everything is spoonfed to you on the issue in some way?
Most contraception is fine. Killing a baby (pre or post birth) isn't.
As long as they are not "well informed" (and very few in the developed world are either), what do you propose? Just say ok let them be uninformed and let consequences happen to the vast majority of them.
I'd like to see you try apply that with driving. Its fine if you are "uninformed", just go out and drive the car...learn that way! Or is it better to ban driving for those that are "uninformed" about it?
According to who? This is an unfounded argument made by Atheists themselves (our "rise" = natural = new = correct = moral) . There has always been a prevalence in humankind for Atheism and its larger world of A - B materialism, whether they were nominally part of a larger socio-religious body or not....who exactly was surveying this in any accuracy over time (since you Atheists esp do not believe in any power that can do just that to the detail/resolution needed governing peoples minds and hearts)? Saying people are increasingly "leaving" "pushed" out
because of religion or perceived inadequate moral standards is quite ludicrous when you have zero data to base it upon.
The deterioration of society over time is largely due to the human ego thinking truth lies within the fickle individual self (esp emotion)...and deluded itself to the level saying imperfection is actually perfection. This process has existed since time immemorial.
Religion itself has been perverted away from its essence (when our conscious was still new, our spirits bold, our egos still weak) in pretty much every case by this....yet you hold it up as some monolithic edifice that is being righteously rebelled against. Yes you, a person that has clearly not read one word of say even Plato and Aristotle yet trying to give me your copy-paste modernist take on a millenia old phenomenon long discussed by some of the greatest humans that walked the earth. Sorry I'll take a pass.
Again you miss the point. It increased out of the blue in many instances simply by the populist feelings of a time period. Results of populist feelings (and how they come about and wax and wane) are
not an argument for moral standards. You either get that or you don't and you clearly don't....so waste of time to continue on it.
Where did I say find (each and every) and kill the homo? Committing (as society) to finding each and every sin and having death for every sin is a sin in itself, because you make no distinction for the level of sin....and in fact you impose a human ego when you take away (from a proposed perfect higher authority/moral-giver) that which cannot be seen/analysed by humans....i.e we must only punish with sound logic and argument accessible to us.
In fact it is for this reason I do not suggest death for any sin (esp in an ideal society)....but society must debate how to punish those that do wrong and morally reprehensible things (and society exists at many levels past the state too) and what scale (of enforcement and punishment is most appropriate)....not (if it wants to sustain and prosper) out of the blue change what is wrong to being right with no regard of any basic moral framework other than individual "make everything Easy + materialist + indulgent" feelz....ignoring its much larger body of existence and its own inherited intuition from that.
Again no point continuing this tangent either. Fire and water difference here...
Nice far-leftie strawman. Precisely why Trump won may I add (and hillariously exposed the hypocritical non-follow through of self-strawmen arguments the lefties made about leaving the US if Trump won) ...and also precisely why many more of him around the world coming up (given this predilection for strawman hypocrisy by the left, stupidly adding much transient counterforce against them, alienating and polarising even neutrals.... when natural decline will give them everything they want long term anyway). I will enjoy this all very immensely.....this is the catch 22 for the leftie, they want everything at every level (that their feelz dictate) within their lifetime (because nothing after)....but the desperation of bringing that about leads to the reverse force happening because way more people still have a basic essence left on what makes us human.
@Desert Fox @Psychic
OK so what level? Should she be allowed to kill the fetus/baby a day or two before its born? Lets find where your line is first....before I sewer your "argument" even more.
Yes coming from the Trotskyist (living in his comfort but hypocritically labels others by assuming the same for them) who I doubt had any serious conversation with a prostitute in the first place (yet loudly triumphs complete "free choice" as panacea or even solution for the issue)....it says so much when you assume I haven't talked to women who have went through the "choice" of having an abortion, when you assume I have not read the studies of psychology of the women that allow a "doctor" to kill their unborn baby (spinal nervous system be damned even)...increasingly for convenience (rather than rape etc that form less than 1% of abortions which at least we can have a serious argument about)....and assume that I have not studied where the arguments for mass-scale abortion first came from (heres a hint: eugenics, black people, KKK party + parallels worldwide).....among the myriad other assumptions YOU make in YOUR comfort. Such a person so brazenly attempting to apply what he clearly is to others in such negative fashion is hypocritical, ironic and delusional....hard to strike all those 3 at once...good job leftie.
You see lefties assume so much and then use those assumptions as their logic....and build a flimsy pyramid on it all the time....and then get super triggered when it collapses (because it always does in their timeframe given their worship of the lifetime only +materialism only). It comes right out of the same thing Karl Marx had when he raped and impregnated his servant girl and kicked her out right after....and then preached that he cares about the same oppressed people. Normal folk inherently can grasp these double standards.....too bad they decline over time and the leftie-zombies multiply....but thats fine too in the end you see, leftie-zombies suck at fighting when it comes to that....cycles are never kind to them at any timeframe....and they take it way more badly because this life is all they believe in.
Yes people who are adamant will find way to murder other human beings. And?
"Give their child up for adoption or worse neglect the child"......so do you also propose we murder all poor people (at some threshold line of income/suffering/neglect you draw, just like I am waiting for you to draw one for the unborn baby)....because they are corollaries of this concept for larger society? Or is there something to life anyway (say having it in first place than not having it because of another's decision) that should be inviolable as the moral standard i.e "Thou shalt not kill"?
Drawing a line in first place for when one side initiated murder is fine is a major slippery slope...because it can (and has) been applied past wherever you choose to apply it first on some individual "comfort + life should be easy" feeling you have.
You didn't explain shit till you explain to people that know people that were murdered by those high on drugs/alcohol etc.
Again drugs and getting high wouldn't be so much of a problem IF the effects are fully internalised (as you seem to assume time and again)....heck even caffeine is a mild stimulant....sugar is addictive and damaging too. I'm talking about the hardcore drugs that have clear externalities, as extreme as murder, 1000 times increase in likelihood of suicide (or convincing others to do such) and tons of other disturbing crap "you in your room" seem to have no idea about or have completely deluded yourself about....I don't care which.
If anything with such massive negative externality should be allowed on demand harnessing instant free and fickle choice....you are free to show you are not a hypocrite and live among such a pure free choice society....lets see how long you are able to personally tolerate living inside or near to the "needle banks"/"drug zones" in Toronto and Vancouver
@Jlaw Maybe Sweden has them too? So put up...or accept you simply preach past that gated compound (from the reality) of yours.
Jain gurus stay in their ashrams (removed from society, similar to nude beaches and communities)...they dont walk around in the middle of a conventional town/city like that...they realise the social norms more than you do.
Again making more strawmen here is not productive....I am asking you clearly, should conventional society be allowed to impose norms regarding nudity, public masturbation and sex or not?
I am not talking about kids going naked in some slum or people deciding to do it only "sometimes". I am asking you is public indecency standards ok to have or not? - they essentially are society imposing itself on people that would otherwise streak among full public view (i.e people that dont want any of that)....hence why such people form their own limited communities and such AWAY from such places if they want that as the norm.
But you said that this imposition by society should never happen anywhere, anytime for anyone (and then you still draw lines and say "DONT" and "DO" when it suits you anyway, doing the exact same thing you criticize others for doing...and that is frankly laughable).
Seriously you are so below the surface of consistency you have developed deep sea gills...and that is your life now.....but you want to convince others you are a surface dweller, that is futile.
But these are defined areas. I'm talking about in general, what right does general society to impose in the general areas the norms and customs? Its imposing on your right to be nude, fornicate etc in public as much as the individual may want to.
If there are limits and controls to be had there, you cannot suddenly say your dial level of it is inherently superior to another. Either you are for controls and limits, or you are for zero of them. Which is it.
Again thats your personal opinion. Trying to expand it as some defacto standard for society because its just "easier" that way is extremely flawed.
People have become overall higher ego and weaker in every other regard over time....its not really surprising.
Why would I be? Allowing for divorce separates the wheat from the chaff....it is a good indicator regarding the decline of society, why should it be artificially repressed?
Again the moral standard should be governing what is done within a marriage and promoting it as the ideal union for humans in society. Why does the starting/ending of marriage in society enter the topic? Lot of things decline as humankind declines in worth overall. Those that still believe in a higher concept and ideal will band together and coalesce and defend and argue and fight if needed...is there something wrong with that?
So? Again I have answered that. If you have no loyalties to any consistent position, but the position should be just dictated at any time by a) what is "increasing" in society b) what the level in society regarding some issue is in first place ....you are basically going to be controlled forever (and the examples of history are many) and I have limited interest in engaging with such people beyond that. Bedrock foundations are the stone and mortar of civilisations just like gravity is that for the Stars that forged the non-hydrogen atoms in first place....but even Stars have their lifetime because of entropy.....but it does not mean the Star was devoid of a higher purpose than the proton soup from which it was formed from.
That is more interplay. Is the friend paying his own way or his parents paying for it? If the parents are providing the funding, they ought to have a strong say in it. If not (and friend is an adult etc), the friend should have a full say on it (i.e he takes a loan or whatever and pays that back himself). If he feels so strongly on it, the latter option was always there right? If there's parent easy street (funding, room, board etc), they get to set what the field of study is, its their money they are investing after all. Thus there is only so much coercion envelope a parent can have to begin with (depending on the individuals personality and character etc) when you finish mandatory schooling stage....its not really pure force vs pure choice ever.
