San Francisco to Vote on Legalising Child Abuse
August 17th, 2008 at 07:07pm Mark Noonan
There’s really no other way to put this:
A quick reading of the measure that will go before San Francisco voters in November to decriminalize prostitution easily could leave you with the misimpression that the measure is an exercise in fairness that demands that prosecutors go after men who abuse prostitutes and implement policies “to reduce institutional violence and discrimination against prostitutes.” A careful reading of the initiative, “Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers,” however, shows a measure that shields child prostitution and traffickers of human beings.
“If I had just heard from the proponents, I would probably vote for it myself,” said the Rev. Glenda Hope, whose San Francisco Network Ministries helped found the Tenderloin AIDS Resource, in the mistaken belief the measure is meant “to protect women.” But as the executive director of SafeHouse, a residential center that helps women get off the streets, Hope knows too much.
…the San Francisco ballot measure completely ignores the prostitution of children. The measure simply states, “Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.” Astonishingly, there’s no exemption that encourages police to enforce the law for minors.
If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors.
And where does that leave Bay Area youth? “They want new and young,” Jasmine, a former teen prostitute from Oakland who now volunteers for the nonprofit SAGE Project, which fights sexual exploitation, explained to me.
Thus the tail end of the sexual revolution - a ballot measure to allow men (and it will be almost exclusively men) to legally procure boys and girls for sexual gratification. When you de-couple sex from marriage and child-rearing, this is precisely what you get as was predicted back in the 60’s when the concepts underlying the sexual revolution first gained a mainstream foothold. This is absolutely no surprise at all - its digusting, but not a surprise. The piece goes on to note that some are expecting the ballot measure to pass rather handily as San Francisco is a “sex-positive” city - meaning, presumptively, that there is so much selfishness and demand for personal gratification that San Francisco may very well cut itself entirley off from civlization and descend to a level of depravity untouched since the worst of Nero.
You see, back when it was first seriously proposed that we de-stigmatize pre- and extra-marital sex and all manner of sexual deviation those who opposed it weren’t just a bunch of squares with sexual hang-ups who just didn’t want anyone having fun. Not, it wasn’t like that at all - the concept was opposed because it was already known what would come of it. It was known - not guessed-at, not theorised over; known. This is because, waaaay back when, Christianity was (among other things, of course) the cure for a society which had allowed sexual licentiousness to descend to such a level that child-bearing and -rearing was considered a burden and personal sexual gratification trumped all, no matter how sterile and un-fulfilling it steadily became. Christianity knew this in 60, 560, 1060, 1560, 1960 and will continue to know it in 2060 - sex is a powerful thing, and unless carefully contained within proper limits this great gift becomes a taskmaster and a means of self-destruction.
And now San Francisco proposes to legalise the worst of it - because people want it and want it now and exactly how they want it and everyone else can go to Hell as far as they are concerned, San Francisco may do this horrible thing. And then we’ll await the inevitible lawsuit, claiming that the right to privacy means that not only San Francisco, but the whole nation must turn a blind eye to the sexual exploitation of youth. How it will come out will remain to be seen - unless, of course, it turns out there is some remaining level of human decency in San Francisco and this terrible, anti-human initiative is defeated.
UPDATE: And the Democrats endorse.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Corruption, Democrats, Justice System, Kook Left, Legislation, Life Issues, Popular Culture, Religion, Social Issues, Supreme Court
34 Comments
1. Upstart | August 17th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
If the measure passes, the city is likely to become an international haven for pimps who peddle girls and boys, and perverts seeking sex with minors. August 17th, 2008 at 07:07pm Mark Noonan
Ex-congressman Mark Foley (R) Florida, is probably buying his one way ticket now. Limbaugh has known to dabble a bit in the islands as well, he too may also show up.
I could care less about the measure, but seriously the right wing of the Republican Party has lost its mind. It doesn’t mention dogs, cats or goldfish either. This is classic swift-boating.
2. Kahn | August 18th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Upstart, are you familiar with the terms slander and libel?
Foley, jerk that he is stayed above the 18 year old age limit. And implying that Rush is a pedophile could get you sued, if you weren’t hiding behind an anonymous web posting. Well what you erroneously assume is an anonymous posting.
Mark, I encourage you to send Upstarts post and IP address to Rush Limabugh so he can sue him.
3. Mark Noonan | August 18th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Upstart,
We’ve lost our minds but liberals are about to legalise sex with minors?
Friend, you’ve really got to start rethinking your views…
4. What? | August 18th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Noonan, this is just sad. How could you be so dishonest?
There are prostitution laws and there are laws which forbid sexual activity with minors. They are two different sets of laws. Choosing not to enforce the former one does not mean your will not enforce the latter.
Look, if you want to attack San Francisco for legalizing prostitution, go ahead; but don’t lie and say the law legalizes sex with minors.
For someone who laments about how we live in an “age of lies” you certainly seem willing to contribute to the problem.
5. What? | August 18th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I also just noticed this line:
“Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.”
Read that carefully. The measure will not prosecute prostitutes. It says nothing about the johns, pimps, or other persons involved in the sex trade. These individuals are still fair game.
So really the measure reinforeces the idea the child prostitute is a victim and not a participant in the crime by not prosecuting him or her.
So Noonan, do you think we should prosecute child prostitutes?
Here is a suggestion. Before you post some editorial from a bogus source like RCP, make sure you read it and understand it. The people who write such articles clearly don’t care whether what they write is true.
6. ViralNexus | August 18th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Are you serious Mark? Do you really think that the legalization of prostitution would override any and all laws and precedence concerned with protecting minors from sexual predators? So prostitution is legal in San Fran (or will be) so all of a sudden it is now okay to sexually abuse minors… I’m not calling you retarded but you’re… nevermind. Hopefully what this will do is set a precedence for cities to follow in their search to safely and profitably legalize prostitution and God willing marijuana and other safe substances.
First off, the Pimp profession only exists because of the illegality of prostitution. If women who sell sex are protected by law then pimps become irrelevant. Secondly, legalizing prostitution will most likely lead to less prostitutes because they will no longer be endentured to Pimps. Finally, human traficking is a HUGE problem in the US with some 3 million women being sold within our borders each year. It is also a problem we for the most part ignore even though we know just how bad it is. One of the tools that trafficers use to keep their “inventory” under control is the threat of legal ramifications because sex for money is illegal. Take away the illegality and you take away much of the trafficers control.
You have to realize that if prostitution and soft drugs were legal you would eliminate nearly 1/3 of the prison population in the US saving us, the tax payers, billions of dollars per year. These things can be easily regulated to make them as safe as possible while rasing billions in tax profits. You can dream and hope and even pray to rigidly control the choices of others through the heavy arm of the law but the truth is it only makes matters worse. The US government created organized crime because of the prohibition of alcohol and it has created massive and deadly drug cartels because of its prohibition of drugs in the United States.
I understand the fear of creating a society of drug addicts and sex fiends but the idea is outrageous and unfounded. Not everyone drinks and smokes cigarettes and has rampid pre-marital sex just because they are legal but most people try them at least once. People who smoke marijuana or pay for sex are going to do it regardless of its legality but most choose not to. The SAME thing will happen if it is legal, the only difference is that law enforcement will finally be able to focus on more imprtant matters. Less pimps, less STDs, less prisons, and less drug dealers sound great to me so what exactly is the issue?
7. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Less pimps, less STDs, less prisons, and less drug dealers sound great to me so what exactly is the issue?–ViralNexus
Gee-wiz … You’ve done completely lost it.
That’s like saying if we shut down all the prisons there’d be “no more crime”.
California profits only one thing in legalizing prostitution … the destruction of San Francisco. I tell you, it’s scary that we have a place like this in America.
God help us all!
8. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 2:30 am
You have to realize that if prostitution and soft drugs were legal you would eliminate nearly 1/3 of the prison population
That’s completely absurd .. we can eliminate 1/3 to 2/3 of the prison population and prevent future crime another way. Eliminating a huge tax burden.
There’s no sense in repeat offenders.
9. Mark Noonan | August 18th, 2008 at 2:32 am
what and Viral,
If you can’t see it, then I’m really genuinely sorry for you - if you don’t have resources allocated to detect and prosecute child prostitution, then child prostitution will flourish. Remember, this law doesn’t say, “prostitution is legal” it says “the cops are forbidden to investigate and prosecute prostitution”…in other words, as regards sex for money, the cops are out of the game, with no provision in the proposed law to permit continued investigation of underage prostitution.
I can’t help but believe that the way it is written is intentional - that the people who wrote it wanted to ensure that any kind of sex for money - including sex with minors - isn’t chased after by the cops. It would have been very simple to insert language keeping the cops hot on the trail of those who prey on children, but its not in there…and either the authors of the law are idiots, or perverts. You pick, and those are your only two choices….
10. extramedium | August 18th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Mark,
Certainly your own state of Nevada must be at an even lower plane of depravity, since prostitution is completely legal in many counties there. Yet, I don’t recall you ever writing anything about that. It seems that sex is so much more interesting to you when it happens in San Francisco? Why is that?
11. extramedium | August 18th, 2008 at 2:56 am
You too, Jeremiah. Is it scary that we have a place like Nevada in America, or just San Francisco? Why hasn’t the destruction of Nevada occurred yet?
12. ViralNexus | August 18th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Extra makes a good point but unfortunately prostitution in Nevada is only legal in one… or two counties I believe and only because those counties are so remote that prostitution is their only industry. Ironically enough the energy crisis is hurting those counties because the largest consumer, truckers, can’t afford to make it out there.
Mar and Jerry- You have to agree that by and large women in illegal prostitution are generally victims. However despite this they are usually the target of law enforcement efforts. Taking the focus away from them and focusing on the pimps and johns (while still not effective) will help them in the end. If these women are exempt from prosecution they no longer have to take the abuse of johns as pimps as “part of the job” and can instead report the crimes commited against them. THAT MAKES SENSE. And it is a mindless statement to say that this specific law would undermine all other laws protecting children from sexual predators. Laws unless passed for such purpose, do not exempt other laws- I know you aren’t that ignorant so please stop.
Since this is obviously as morally biased objection on the part of Mark and Jerry- what is your solution to the issue of prostitution and human trafficing. Please present something other than what is being done because not only is it having zero impact it actually facilitates it in some ways.
13. ViralNexus | August 18th, 2008 at 3:41 am
On the repeat offenders comment. There is no sense in jailing nonviolent drug offenders and adults involved in a consensual act of which make up 1/3 of the prison population. These are also your repeat offenders so it has to be painfully obvious that things are not working they way they are at the moment. I challenge you to come up with something different of which is grounded in reality.
14. CanadianObserver | August 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Mar and Jerry-it is a mindless statement to say that this specific law would undermine all other laws protecting children from sexual predators. Laws unless passed for such purpose, do not exempt other laws- I know you aren’t that ignorant so please stop.
12. ViralNexus | August 18th, 2008 at 3:38 am
———————————-
The unfortunate fact may be that Mark & Jeremiah really are that ignorant, Viral, and asking them to stop would be an impossible task for them to achieve. Mark’s headline choice for this thread -San Francisco to Vote on Legalising Child Abuse - attests to that.
I, personally, cannot see Legislators, even American ones, leaving children unprotected under the law.
15. Nevada Pundit | August 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Actually extramedium, prostitution is only legal in 2 counties and is only practised in one. The Nevada laws also specifically address age, med exams, locations and are very specific. Very regulated prostitution is very different from a free for all streetwalking city
16. Nevada Pundit | August 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Well I was looking through the web and I could find no San Francisco law that specifically protects children from prostitution, I did find California state laws that specifically protect children from prostitution so what would probably happen is a law suit that would force the city to follow state laws.
Realistically this law will never make it past the California Supreme Court. I do find it a little sick that it would be proposed in such a manner.
I don’t think prostitution will ever go away no matter how much money or resources you throw at it. Heavy regulation and enforcement of legal prostitution is one thing but turning your head from the issue is ridiculous and will lead to an even more unsavory situation in a city already overburdened with prostitution.
1. Zone it
2. Restrict it to whore houses
3. Regulate the health (and age) of the prostitutes
4. Strengthen penalties for street walkers and violators
5. Tax it.
This will clean up the city streets, release resources for other areas of crime, increase the safety, and bring in revenues. While not a perfect answer and least the people that are against prostitution could just not go to the areas it is zoned for.
17. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I challenge you to come up with something different of which is grounded in reality.–ViralNexus.
ViralNexus,
The reality is, the more criminals you let walk, the more crime you will have. And that goes for any behavior that endangers the health and well-being of others. You allow one to do something harmful, and the next gullible person will be influenced to do it.
Let people decide for themselves what they consider to be “right” and “wrong”?
That was Robert’s idea.
Humility? Yes, respect others and the law, and you won’t have to worry about getting in trouble. Unfortunately, it’s not like that, because there is no law. In our day and age, judges are not meteing our justice, they are extending humility, where there is none, thereby, giving them the ‘okay’ cue to continue on doing the same things, being a bad influence on others.
Prison? No, it ain’t working. They are full. And they’re building more. They got it made in the shade, free food, hygiene, work-out yard, the works. The get a life for free.
Keep exercising this prison justice and you won’t get anywhere, and keep legalizing things that are destructive to society and you might as well call it a lawless nation.
Try Capital Punishment for 5 years, and then do the math!!! And tell them, you want humility, practice humility.
18. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
When you boil this down, it all goes back to the ACLU … What was that guys name, that started the ACLU in America? But, anyway, he said he would use our Constitution to bring America down.
And that’s what he said. He was a Communist, and there have been thousands take up the cause of the ACLU. They want to extend rights to criminals, just like Barack Obama, who wants to extend habeaus Corpus to Guantanamo detainees … Well, might as well, we don’t punish the ones we have now, so what’s the use.
Geez, I tell ya, this is crazy …
To all you liberals … hear me, just do me this one favor….
Try to use your head for just once! Would ya?
19. pansy | August 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
As always, neoconservatives seem to view San Francisco through a fun house mirror of dated prejudices. Quit sending your children here to party. They’re loud at all hours of the day and night.
Next up: Hippies dump LSD in San Francisco water supply! International Communism traced to Anarchist Bookstore on Haight Street! San Francisco to name sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush!
20. What? | August 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Mark writes,
“if you don’t have resources allocated to detect and prosecute child prostitution, then child prostitution will flourish. Remember, this law doesn’t say, “prostitution is legal” it says “the cops are forbidden to investigate and prosecute prostitution”…in other words, as regards sex for money, the cops are out of the game, with no provision in the proposed law to permit continued investigation of underage prostitution”
Mark, you are being very dishonest here. You even misquote the article.
Read the law. It says police will not prosecute PROSTITUTES. It says nothing about other people involved in the sex trade who are still fair game.
You are advocating we prosecute the people you claim to be the victims, namely the children who are being forced into the sex trade.
So you are either unable to understand the law or you are a liar. Which is it? Those are your only two choices.
Right about now I suspect you are going to realize you have no response and ignore this comment.
Every time you speak of the “age of lies” I will throw this in your face.
Nevada Pundit,
Read the law and then comment. You have made the same mistake Mark has made.
Jeremiah,
Do you even know what the ACLU does? Where do you get your information? Do you realize the ACLU has stood up for religious people numerous times in the past making sure they are able to practice there religion?
21. Nevada Pundit | August 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Yes but what, do you think that prostitutes wake up every morning and say “oh what I did last night was wrong” and then go down to the district attorneys office and turn themselves in? Police need to go after the prostitutes. Realistically if you saw a 15 or 16 year old girl dressed up for business do you really think that you would tell the difference between them and an 18 year old?
This is a law that people can and will find loopholes in. After all it will be up to the district attorney to prove guilt and that will be very hard to prove if there is any doubt in the mind of a jury that the police went after prostitution or some other sexual offense. Remember, if it is thought that prostitution was involved as the key starting point then the rest of the case must be thrown out since it will no longer be lawful to stop anyone for prostitution.
I guarantee that if this law passes it will go before the California Supreme court and be regarded as unconstitutional in part or whole.
22. What? | August 18th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Nevada,
Again, read the measure. You do not understand it.
““Law enforcement agencies shall not allocate any resources for the investigation and prosecution of prostitutes for prostitution.”
It only says the DA cannot prosecute the prostitute. It says nothing about other people involved.
Prostitution is still illegal. The measure simply views the prostitute as the victim of the crime. The johns will be prosecuted. The pimps will be prosecuted. The only victim, the prostitute, will not be prosecuted. San Francisco’s goal is to help these people instead of punishing them.
This is ultimately what you want, right?
Sorry, but please read and understand what you are writing about before posting. Don’t rely on Mark’s interpretation. He doesn’t read critically. He will believe something if it is something he wants to believe.
23. Nevada Pundit | August 18th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Come on what….you are taking away personal responsibility here. Can you actually tell me that all prostitutes are not in the profession by choice? Can you actually believe that the john is any more wrong than the prostitute? You can’t because it isn’t truth. The measure also doesn’t hold out any help to the prostitutes you are so concerned about and as I said earlier attorneys will drive mack trucks through the loop holes this law will create.
If your going to keep quoting “read the measure” then read more than just the words but the reality behind what the words will create. Your view is short sighted and unrealistic.
24. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Do you even know what the ACLU does?
What,
Yes, I am VERY aware of what the ACLU does, they say they are for “everyones” rights, but it ain’t truth, they’re a bunch of two-faced liars doing Satan’s work.
Here are the stated goals of the ACLU…
the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211);
the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as “free speech” (Policy 4);
the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
the promotion of homosexuality (Policy 264);
the opposition of rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
opposition against parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of parental choice in children’s education (Policy 80)
So, as you can see, the ACLU is out to destroy Christianity and our Judeo-Christian foundation.
This is something that people need to wake up too, and I mean like NOW!!!
25. pansy | August 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Here’s a few words about the ACLU from that hotbed of civil unrest, the Wikipedia:
In 1940, the ACLU formally barred communists from leadership or staff positions, and would take the position that it did not want communists as members either. The board declared that it was “inappropriate for any person to serve on the governing committees of the Union or its staff, who is a member of any political organization which supports totalitarianism in any country, or who by his public declarations indicates his support of such a principle.” The purge, which was led by Baldwin, himself a former supporter of Communism, began with the ouster of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a member of both the Communist Party USA and the Industrial Workers of the World.
I’m feeding the troll here, but I would submit that Jeremiah’s understanding of the ACLU is from the era of the washroom bolshevik.
26. What? | August 18th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Nevada,
That wasn’t the point I was making. If you believe prostitutes should be prosecuted, I have no problem with that even though I disagree.
My problem is when Mark claims that San Francisco has legalized prosititution with minors when it has done nothing of the sort. It has simply decided not to prosecute the prostitute. This view is not radical.
My problem with you is with this post:
“Well I was looking through the web and I could find no San Francisco law that specifically protects children from prostitution, I did find California state laws that specifically protect children from prostitution so what would probably happen is a law suit that would force the city to follow state laws.”
This post demonstrates you have accepted Mark’s inaccurate and dishonest interpretation of this measure. You are saying that SF, with its new measure, is not protecting children from prostitution when the clear language of the measure does not take away any protection. If anything, it protects them from prosecution and will allow them to get help as oppose to being fined or jailed.
Nevada, I have to tell you to read the meausure because you don’t know what it is doing. Instead you are arguing something that is way off point. There is no way Mark or you can say this meausre would legalize underage prostitution.
C’mon, stay on point and admit you blew it. I am not accusing you of purposely misinterpreting the measure. I am only saying you failed to understand its purpose. Mark, I suspect, knew what he was doing when he wrote a whole post about how all of San Francisco wants to legalize child prostitution.
27. Jeremiah | August 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
What?,
While child prostitution may not have been San Francisco’s intentions, that is what the measure will lead to…because anytime you legalize prostitution, then you send the message … “Hey! I’m free to be a prostitute”, and young men, middle age men, onward will pressure and bribe many girls to to do them and their friends and give them money, and pretty soon it becomes a habit.
The point here, and as I suspect Mark is in agreement with me, there is no call for the legalization of prostitution in any form, because you’re just asking for trouble.
Now, you may think that the measure seeks to define who they may or may not fine if caught in prostitution, and keying in on just those of age…it is still a measure that will allow for things to happen, many girls will get raped beyond their will and thus, very unorderly conduct will rule the roost. I’d many, many young girls will get hurt badly as a result of this ruling.
28. Mark Noonan | August 18th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
extra,
Nevada Pundit answered for me on that - and as for the prospect of legal or illegal prostitution, that is not what is at issue here. The acts of consenting adults are not what I’m worried about - what I’m concerned about is the absolute certainty that this law, if passed, will result in an explosion of child prostitution in San Francisco. You might think it won’t - but what police force will go after it? Will the poor Thai girl kidnapped and sold into sex slavery have the ability to go to the police and point out that she was beaten by her pimp the night before?
You’ve really got to think about these sorts of things - the Rules weren’t established arbitrarily; they are the collective wisdom of thousands of years of human history. Those of us opposed are not just fighting against fun, we’re fighting for the lives and liberties of the victims of moral liberalisation.
29. extramedium | August 19th, 2008 at 4:47 am
“Will the poor Thai girl kidnapped and sold into sex slavery have the ability to go to the police and point out that she was beaten by her pimp the night before?”
Of course she would. Why wouldn’t she?
I think the part of this that you are not able to connect with is the fact that all sex workers are not victims. My understanding from reading your posts here is that you believe all women involved in adult industries - strippers, porn stars, prostitutes - are exploited victims, whether they themselves think so or not. I think you would find it quite unsettling if you were to actually meet some of the women in San Francisco who engage in these professions quite willingly. Many are American born, college educated, and not poor drug addicts. Them women would call themselves as “liberated” or “sex-positive”, freed from the cycle of shame surrounding sex put upon them by controlling men (and their bibles).
As for actual victims (such as victims of human trafficking), I’m positive that San Francisco would do everything possible to help them. It’s kindof the capital of helping the oppressed.
30. What? | August 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Jeremiah,
I have no idea what you are saying.
Mark,
You do not understand what you are talking about. The same police force that went after child prostituion before the measure will go after after the measure passes. The only thing this measure does (for the 3rd time) is make it so that prostitutes are not prosecuted. The city will still prosecute those people who pay for sex. Why can’t you understand this?
Then there is this comment:
“the Rules weren’t established arbitrarily; they are the collective wisdom of thousands of years of human history. Those of us opposed are not just fighting against fun, we’re fighting for the lives and liberties of the victims of moral liberalisation.”
This is a bogus argument as it presupposes previous generations were entirely correct in their thinking and that our generation is somehow unravelling that thinking.
Isn’t the more logical argument that each subsequent generation refines and betters the social and sexual mores of the past? Is our current wisedom born from the mistakes of our forefathers worthy of any respect?
You aren’t the first and will not be the last to wag your finger at others’ behavior and cry out for the prudishness of a day long since passed. This fact only demonstrates the futility of such efforts. Society will move on despite your alarmist warnings.
31. Mark Noonan | August 20th, 2008 at 1:41 am
what,
No, they won’t - there’s no upside in it for them and all sorts of legal difficulties to be thrown up by the people who purvey child prostitutes…I’m sorry for you, friend, that you can’t see what an utter catastrophe this law would be, if passed.
Extra,
No, she wouldn’t - someone being held as a sex slave is not someone who has easy movement….
Geesh! Will you guys on the left stop getting your backs up on the subject of sex? Just because sex is involved it doesn’t mean that the more liberal way is always the better way. There’s a limit, ya know?
32. What? | August 20th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Mark writes
“No, they won’t - there’s no upside in it for them and all sorts of legal difficulties to be thrown up by the people who purvey child prostitutes”
Won’t what? Prosecute? Why not? Mark, you have not explained why the District Attorney will not prosecute. You just make assumptions which have no factual basis.
In actuality, this law could make it easier to prosecute. Those prostitutes who want to get out can go to the DA without fear of getting in trouble. The measure also makes sense if society seek to punish identifiable harm. If one prosecutes the prostitute society essentially punishes a victimless crime. If society views the prostitute as the victim if is punishing an identifiable harm.
Noonan, you are kind of two faced on this issue. You speak of the compassion of your religion yet you seem to have little for these prostitutes. You want them punished despite believing them to be the victims. What is with that?
As for the legal difficulties, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you? That is so vague. You are just throwing whatever you think sounds smart. Give me some legal difficulties you foresee. Note that I have already explained the positive legal consequences this law will bring about.
When you make some stupid comment like San Frncisco legalizes child prostitution you are asking to be made a fool. Notice how no one else challenges me on this point? Nevada Pundit couldn’t do it. He didn’t even understand the law. The rest of the wingnuts are silent. They know you chose a losing side on this one and will not defend you.
Here is a word of advice. Don’t go to far off the deep end and you won’t get in this predicament where you can’t explain yourself.
Man, you have a way of wearing me out, Noonan. I could argue all day the world is round and you would shake your head out of pride and stubborness. I suppoe my only goal should be to introduce you to credible thinking. I can’t force it on you.
33. Lou | August 24th, 2008 at 3:09 am
San Francisco Before the “Big One” !
Decent folks everywhere should pray for FEAT (Francisco’s Earthquake And Termination). I left off the “San” which is related to sainthood or holiness because San Francisco is neither saintly nor holy! If anyone wants to pray to a saint, he or she can pray to San Andreas that he will jiggle his Fault until San Fransicko has no more faults. Incidentally, before the Big Jiggle one can Google “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” for a radically different approach to a well-known problem. Lou
34. wood carved statues&hellip | October 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
wood carved statues
yes thank you