stock777's posts don't show up for me, so I must have him on ignore. Apparently for good reason. Did he actually say that a man hiring a woman for sexual services represents 'perversion'? In fact it is that suggestion itself which is perverse. As RM has pointed out, it is almost always those who have something to hide that take this type of stance.
We say you're a fucking idiot, but you knew that already. Besides, it figures you would defend your line of work (which, by the way, I have no major problem with as long as the women are not being forced into the work. And guys like you who do it for gratis and to satisfy their closet homosexual fantasies, well, as long as you don't hassle me I could give a shit)....worn out that relatively fresh set of kneepads you just purchased last week, yet?
the mark of a true HYPOCRITE is someone like you that thinks the laws they support are REAL laws and the laws that others support are just moral crusading. Well, who gets hurt when someone robs a bank, dodo? It's insured isn't it. You say insurance rates go up, point to indirect effects, well, MANY indirect effects can be pointed out for prostitution too, lunkhead! The jerkoffs on the left (and I count so called libertarians with them because they think alike on this) think they can support massive laws of any kind and they are justified, while any law proposed by the right is "moral crusading". Well, I'm calling you diddle-heads out as freaking HYPOCRITES yourselves. And whatever Feeble attempt you come up with in your drug swallowed mind to "prove" that your laws are "real" laws while everyone else's are not will just fall upon deaf ears. I've learned long ago that hypocrisy reigns supreme on this board. So go ahead, spell out your delusions.
If we'd use a logical approach, we would only consider an act a crime, if a victim was involved. Prostitution, doing drugs, gambling, all have no victim. All of these and a whole lot more should be taken off the books.
All they need to do is live their lives in accordance with their own morals and set an example for others to see and appreciate. Where they go wrong is using the force and guns of government to make the rest of us live according to THEIR way. Is there really much of a difference between the above here in the U.S. and what the Islamo Goons are doing in the middle east? Not as radical of course, but certainly a similar process.
Fox: >the mark of a true HYPOCRITE is someone like you that >thinks the laws they support are REAL laws and the laws >that others support are just moral crusading. I am not familiar with RM's positions on all things so don't think of this a call to his side, however I am curious as to whether you understand what I consider to be his point ... morality crusaders don't care if there is a victim or not. I'll give you a simple example: Where's the victim when a consenting male and female (perhaps even married) engage in oral sex in the privacy of their own homes? And yet there are people (some of which I personally know) who believe that it's immoral and thus should be illegal. "morality crusader" = one who creates victims where there are none. IMO JB
Is it fair to tar someone as a "moral crusader" when they are fighting to preserve traditional moral standards, often against the force of the state? I draw a distinction between people who want to force their views on others, and people who simply want the government to stop undermining their religious values and parental rights. I acknowledge that the line separating them may not always be clear. I think the War on Drugs is a big mistake, and I resent self-appointed moralists telling me what I should eat, drink, smoke, snort or whther I should have a gun in my own house. I also resent the schools thinking it is their job to indoctrinate kids in the dictates of political correctness, scare them silly with global warming fantasies and teach them the ins and outs of homo sex in elementary school.
AAA: >Is it fair to tar someone as a "moral crusader" when >they are fighting to preserve traditional moral standards, >often against the force of the state? Yes -- they don't need to crusade, they can happily live their lives according to those "traditional moral standards" (BS IMO) and let everyone else live their lives according to more appropriate moral standards. Live and let live. JB
Only difference would be that there is a sect of Islamo Goons who not only want to get their people to live life their way, they tell us that since we over here don't want to live life their way, we're candidates for beheading or getting a 767 crashed into our skulls.
AAA I think what you wrote is pretty much the same thing Rearden wrote except for the protecting religion part. For what it's worth I help my granddaughter who's in 3rd grade with her home work after school several times a week and there is no homo education at her school or any other PC type stuff only basic studies. There is some save the earth, recycling stuff and global warming stuff though. But the global warming is backed by evidence which is backed by the majority of scientist, if they are right or not, or if man is partly responsible or not will remain to be seen. The good thing about science is the teaching changes constantly as the evidence and proof changes.