“I guess I’m made of something that Brandy Britton wasn’t made of.”

…..That should be on her obituary..or tombstone….
Ms Palfrey did what she did…out of her own volition. Whether she killed herself or was murdered, that lifestyle has consequences. She could have been a doctor, lawyer…..and yet Brandy Britton was a professor who ALSO happened to have decided for that type of life.
Rio
Semper Fi!

On May 1st, 2008 at 6:19 pm, nbarry said:
Prostitution may not be dignified or noble, but the purpose of legalizing some forms of it is to keep it safe, clean and honest. Gambling isn’t dignified or noble, but politicians have no problem legalizing certain forms of that vice. As for morality, more damage is done to society by people violating the Ninth Commandment than by violating the Seventh.

Politicians have one critieria for legalizing certain forms of gambling: How do we maximize revenue? (Okay, I exaggerated for effect, but stay with me for a moment.)

You tell me why almost every state has a legal, state-run lottery drawing (or two or three), a game of pure chance with crummy odds and with little overhead. Why have most of these same states not allowed legalized poker rooms, a game where sizing up the odds, and sizing up your competition in order to win tip it into the territory of a game of skill. Could be because the house doesn’t make as much profit which can be taxed (compared to the number of slot machines that could be put in that floor space)?

Sorry for the rant, but as an avid poker player, this argument rang a bit hollow.

You aren’t: your parents are making that choice. Not to get nit-picky, but your parents can also let you drive their car on their own private property, should they have the inclination, at whatever age they want. But you bring up a good point: there are lots of inconsistent age limitations in our society, giving different ages for “maturity.” This is because our laws are formed and change ad hoc and piece by piece. It wouldn’t take much effort to say “OK, 17 years of age is the limit, go buy your guns, booze, join up, etc.” It would take one piece of legislation. It would just take political cahones, which apparently are in short supply these days, and most of our politicians don’t value logical consistancy very highly, if at all (e.g. This isn’t helping my children).

On May 1st, 2008 at 10:50 pm, sclawstudent said:
RE AK grizzly post #72,
I abhor moral relativism; moral relativism is itself immoral, anti-life, and anti-mind.
As a poster on a conservative site, I made assumptions about what your moral values are. I presumed that your, and my, moral values would prohibit us from violating someone else’s freedom when they have not harmed someone else. Yet, your stated views would lead to the opposite result. I was attempting to point out that your reasoning forced you to contradict what I assumed *your* moral values were. I thought you would dismiss any arguement saying that you violated *my* morals because you don’t know me, but would listen to one that focused on your own values.
Now that that is cleared up, what is the answer to the question? (What is the logic in saying that you are rational enough at age N to put your life at risk by doing X but not by doing Y?)

Well apparently there was a whole lot of assuming going on all around. So my apologies for assuming you and khan were moral relativists.

As to your repeated question, I would agree with the premise but argue it’s practicality. For example, I could never figure out why when I signed up for the Army at 18 that I could be shipped off to a hostile foreign country and potentially die but not be able to buy a beer after I got off work. However, there are so many instances where absolute freedom doesn’t seem to make sense. The legal age to drive is 16 in most states, and driving remains one of the most dangerous things most people do on a daily basis based on fatal car accident statistics. Yet anyone in this country can use a gun legally for target practice on a range for example at any age the parent feels the child is responsible enough to use said firearm. So I think your question breaks down in certain situations due to what society has deemed to be an appropriate age for certain dangerous activities. Since I could take your question and ask:

What is the logic in saying that you are rational enough at age 6 to put your life at risk by doing shooting a gun but not by driving a car?

I interpret the posts as saying that the same attitude is behind both:

Oh…illegal aliens problem?
Grant them amnesty, and legalize them.
No more illegal aliens.
Problem solved.

Oh…prositution and drug crimes?
Legalize prostitution and drug use.
No more prostitution and drug crimes.
Problem solved.

Both could be considered to be a gimmick to sweep a problem under a rug, and make a problem disappear from a statistic book.
Presto! The statistic book shows resolution of (a) problem(s).

Next problem we need to “deal” with….

1. I am somewhat in favor of the decriminalization of marijuana, and prostitution. I have not engaged in either of those, though, and have no intention to.

2. I am very much for a strong border, and don’t understand why anyone would try to equate the issues in my point #1 here with border security.

3. I am not saying that the madam should have received a “free pass”. Reality is, she broke the laws, and had to deal with the consequences. I’m all for that. I’m more about the big picture, and the thought that it’s not a law that is necessary (IMHO).

Let’s not fall into the weeds on this. Something seems awfully fishy about this, and I think it is still a possibility she killed herself (to avoid spending all that time in prison), but I also realize it’s very likely someone powerful didn’t want her to talk.

again, all i’m sayin’ is she was just as much a criminal as a border jumper, the tone and implications of several posts on this thread are that she should have been given some sort of pass, which is wrong for her to be given a pass JUST LIKE it’s wrong to give the border jumpers a pass …

Kall me a kook. This is a real konspiracy theory.

Equating the decriminalization/legalization of prostitution and drugs to giving a free pass to illegal immigrants? There is no comparison; they are worlds apart. You think just because someone is an advocate for personal responsibility, accountability, and liberty that they are in favor of open borders/amnesty/etc.? Let me assure you, you’re dead wrong.

my morals are my own; if you want to engage in that behavior, that is your own doing. if you find it immoral, then don’t do it, but don’t tell me that it is government’s role to be your moral arbiter. if you like to gamble and i think gambling is morally wrong, i’m still not going to stop you, because it doesn’t affect my life, liberty, or property. i love how some here are so quick to presume someone else’s beliefs. without fail, they are incorrect. for the record, i abhor relativism. i do cherish liberty, personal choice, and personal responsibility. if you want to smoke, gamble, solicit prostitutes, i don’t care. neither should government. you alone are to answer to yourself and to your spiritual authority, and not to me or to government.

always with the “what about the children” appeal to emotion. no, a parent engaging in prostitution is not infringing on the child’s right of life, or liberty, or property. as for your silly example of the date rate drug, if you want to ingest it yourself, i’m fine with it. if you want to use it to commit assault on someone else and hurt someone else, then i’m not. why? because you are forcefully infringing on someone else’s rights. it’s really not a complicated concept.