Travesty: Abhisit Vejjajiva charged with 'murder'

[Antonio the Sixth]

Between monarchist corrupt bastards and democratically elected populist corrupt bastards the latter is preferable.

^This

[Antonio the Sixth]

The worst approach, which is unsurprisingly the one you appear to prefer due to your own concupiscent selfishness (or selfish concupiscence, it's all the same), is the one taken by the countries in blue on this map.

What's wrong with banning organized (ie, exploited) prostitution?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The worst approach, which is unsurprisingly the one you appear to prefer due to your own concupiscent selfishness (or selfish concupiscence, it's all the same), is the one taken by the countries in blue on this map.

What's wrong with banning organized (ie, exploited) prostitution?

The prostitute are charged for soliciting customers, the customer isn't charged, as he did nothing illegal.

In Canada, note than the Ontario courts stuck down the law, Government is appealing.

That sucks, yeah. However, I would say that ideally laws should punish customers and pimps, while leaving prostitutes alone (ideally, offering them opportunities for another professional orientation).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, this is a corner of the market I'm hugely uncomfortable with leaving unregulated, even if there are at times positive externalities to doing so. Tons of things (and people) end up slipping through the cracks.

...so, that means we agree, right?

I'm not sure what you are saying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The worst approach, which is unsurprisingly the one you appear to prefer due to your own concupiscent selfishness (or selfish concupiscence, it's all the same), is the one taken by the countries in blue on this map.

What's wrong with banning organized (ie, exploited) prostitution?

The prostitute are charged for soliciting customers, the customer isn't charged, as he did nothing illegal.

In Canada, note than the Ontario courts stuck down the law, Government is appealing.

That sucks, yeah. However, I would say that ideally laws should punish customers and pimps, while leaving prostitutes alone (ideally, offering them opportunities for another professional orientation).

Why treat potentially distasteful manual labor involving a vagina any differently from potentially distasteful manual labor involving one's hands? Surely you don't advocate saving female janitors or factory workers and "offering them opportunities for professional orientation"? At least a prostitute gets paid considerably more (a prostitute in a place with sensible laws, at least).

Because I do not believe that sex should be a commodity. It's not that complicated.

(and also what Politicus said, of course)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Many of the opposition to legal and regulated prostitution I hear comes from this idea that sex is somehow "special" in an quasi-spiritual sense and thusly not based in fact.

"I don't think selling sex is right."

"I just don't think sex should be a commodity."

Ect, ect.

It's similar to people who oppose legalization of Marijuana. "It's just bad."

If the sex trade is regulated properly sex trafficking can be cut down. Similar to drug legalization cutting down on drug trafficking. What John in their right mind would choose some dirty street walker over the clean and safe alternative? Don't get me wrong there will always be broke people who have to get their fix but legalization and regulation actually have a notable affect in making sex workers safer. Which is infinitely more then you can say for the high-horsed moralistic stands of some people, which accomplish nothing.

But why don't you accept that there might be a legitimate moral concern about accepting sex as a commodity? Is it so weird to think that sex is a particularly meaningful aspect of human life and must not be degraded in a merchandised relationship? I don't want you to agree with me, but you can't just dismiss these concerns only because they are grounded on morality.

It just seems incredibly arbitrary to me to say that something is perfectly legal until money is involved, and then it's really bad and needs to be banned.

Of course, that's why I think it's fair to have a certain margin of tolerance. Meaning, we're not going to go after a guys who accepts an offer like "OK, I'm gonna have sex with you, but you give me 100 bucks". However, when sex is turned into a full employment, organized in activities that amount to corporations, I think the State can and must step up and take action against the "customers" and against the "capitalists", while leaving the "workers" alone (ideally, helping them).

[Antonio the Sixth]

But why don't you accept that there might be a legitimate moral concern about accepting sex as a commodity? Is it so weird to think that sex is a particularly meaningful aspect of human life and must not be degraded in a merchandised relationship? I don't want you to agree with me, but you can't just dismiss these concerns only because they are grounded on morality.

The issue is that you would be using a moral concern to make laws that would apply to all of the people. Also, the society would be taking a "moral stand" at the expense of more rational laws that would actually improve the lot of sex workers (and their clients, for that matter).

I do think that the fundamental consequences of legalizing prostitution (ie, spreading a merchandised conception of sexuality) would ultimately outweigh its potential advantages. I just think it is fundamentally necessary for a society to cultivate the idea that one's body is not and cannot be for sale.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it inherently wrong in your view to pay for sex but not a big deal to sell it? This seems like an obvious double-standard.[/quote]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them. I am against punishing the victims in any situation, even when the victims are, in some way, consenting. The same applies for drug use: I'm in favor of decriminalizing it entirely while cracking down on drug dealing very harshly.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I do think that the fundamental consequences of legalizing prostitution (ie, spreading a merchandised conception of sexuality) would ultimately outweigh its potential advantages. I just think it is fundamentally necessary for a society to cultivate the idea that one's body is not and cannot be for sale.

Like I said before; this argument amounts to "It's just bad". You are enforcing your arbitrary value judgment upon the entire population.

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

But anyways, this is exactly what politics is about. Politics is about determinating, as a society, what we judge as good and what we judge as bad, and what is the best way to favor the good and combat the evil. You cannot found any public policy without basing yourself on some form of morality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why are you against the single most reliable say to improve the lot of said sex workers? Taking your "moral stand" does nothing to adjust the situation.[/quote]

I think that cracking down on pimps and brothel owners, to the contrary, has the purpose to emancipate their "employees". As I said, ideally the State should take charge of offering prostitutes opportunities to insert themselves in a normal professional career, but I understand that this is a much broader problem. Nonetheless, while legalizing prostitution might improve the conditions of prostitutes, it does not change the fundamentally degrading nature of prostitution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it is indisputable that, in 90% of cases, prostitutes are the victims of merchandised sex rather than their beneficiaries. Of course they get paid for that, so what? Most of them do this job because they feel this is their only opportunity to maintain economic security, and, as Politicus pointed out, this activity physically and psychologically degrades them.

Again, this is true of most menial jobs. Distinguishing menial labor that involves sex from menial labor that does not is simply an arbitrary moral judgment.

Obviously, it is a moral judgment. As I said earlier, it is derived from the belief that sexuality is one of the most fundamental aspect of our experience as humans, and, as such, should be particularly cherished and protected against abuses of any kind.

But tell me, Lief, isn't any policy ultimately the result of a moral judgment? Tell me, for example, why do you support universal health care? Don't you do so because you hold the moral judgment that health care is a fundamental human right?

There's a degree of moral judgment, sure, but there are also policy considerations. It's good public policy and good economics for a country's citizens to be healthy and for there not to be large disparities between those without access to healthcare and those with it.

But the public policy considerations when it comes to prostitution run against your moral judgment. Legalizing and regulating the profession and protecting sex workers, just like we do with all other jobs, is the best way to protect their welfare.

Then all we disagree on is the advantages/disadvantages ratio of legalization. I think that the latter outweigh the former, while you think the opposite. It's a complex issue and I understand the opposing arguments.

Anyways, I'm glad that you admitted that moral judgments do have a role in politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My point is that by imposing your moral judgments on sex workers you are hurting them. Marginalization and stigmatization of sex work (as opposed to treating it like any other work, and affording sex workers the same labor rights as other workers) because it offends your notions of what sex should be actively hurts them, because it denies them basic legal rights (protections against not being paid, workplace discrimination, abuse, rape by their clients, etc.). It's fine that you (and many others) define sex in that way, but by using that definition to inform public policy, you end up hurting the very "victims" you seek to protect. Essentially you are placing the protection of sex as this ideal over the protection of actual people in the sex worker industry.

Where did you get the idea that I supported the "marginalization and stigmatization of sex work"? What I am arguing for is exactly the opposite, it's marginalizing and stigmatizing the parasites who benefit from sex work while doing our best to help their victims to escape from this world. I do not feel any hate or disdain toward prostitutes: to the contrary, I view them as the victims of an unjust society, which the State ought to take care of. Now, I understand that legalizing prostitution might somewhat improve the living conditions of prostitutes. This does not change the fact that the activity of prostitution is degrading in itself. Even with all the guarantees of a recognized labor, sexual labor will remain alienating to a degree infinitely superior to all other labor. That's why, I would rather try to combat prostitution and restrain its reach, rather than let it go even with better work conditions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference is that their idea of morality is stupid and bigoted. I hope you don't see mine as such.

But again I must point out that, by establishing universal health care, you are imposing your own moral judgment (eg health care is a right) to people (eg the wealthy) who might not agree with you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I like to think it isn't arbitrary, since it is derived from deep personal reflections, as well as scientific findings in domains such as psychology and sociology, which it's not worth detailing now.

The same can be said for literally any moral judgment ever. Also, cite your claims about  "psychology and sociology". Because they are worth going into if they are going to be a part of your argument.

I will admit I am not an expert on these argument. Anyways, I think the point as already been made that engaging in regular, impersonal sexual activity generates major troubles with regard to the relationship between the mind and the body. It leads to think of oneself as an object rather than as a person, and certainly destroys self-esteem. Sociologically speaking, I just would think that making of sex a commodity creates a norm that disemphasizes the importance of feelings, and forget about the importance of mutual respects. It makes of sex a desire similar to desires for commodities in a consumer society, rather than something to base on a profoundly individual experience. Ultimately, I would say it alienates both the "workers" and the "consumers" into having significantly lower and less mature form of sexuality.

Edit: I notice that Politicus, below, has put it much better than I could, so refer to her post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the point is, there is no objective standard for "what is materially best for the society". What we think is best for the society is always influenced by certain fundamental beliefs and values we hold. In one word, it depends on our moral judgment. Whether you like it or not, you are as much dependent of it as I am.

You make a good point that, in politic, there is never absolute good and absolute evil. There is, however, a right and a wrong direction, and it is up to political debate to sort out what policy goes in what direction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you paid attention to what I said earlier, you will notice that there are very few countries which have prostitution laws like those I advocate. Sweden is one of the few, and from what I've hear of it it seems to work pretty well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.

You think that's what I'm doing? I'm not saying he's racist nor misogynist. I'm not arguing against a strawman because I'm not arguing in that post at all.

Maybe you should be aware of the irony in judging someone as being disturbed based on apparently not really understanding their posts. You'll have to forgive me for not really caring much about what you think I need to be aware of because I have never seen a post from you that indicates you having anything to offer me in terms of advice.

What you call irony, others would call it being an asshole for no reason.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's always funny to see presumed left-wingers suddenly argue that people working in degrading jobs where they get exploited is a great thing. I guess that mostly just applies as long as the people doing the work are coloured women rather than white middle-class males.

It gets extra funny when Lief himself compares it to working in coal mines.

See Gustaf, this is the problem with you.

I find Lief's arguments to be completely wrong, misguided and somewhat silly. But there's nothing in what he posted that in any way suggests he's a misogynist or a racist. You're just bringing out strawmen instead of actually addressing his points (which you don't need to, since Politicus did that excellently).

That's what I said when I mentioned your "disturbing tendency to judge people very early and to argue against strawmen instead of against them". At least get aware of this.

You think that's what I'm doing? I'm not saying he's racist nor misogynist. I'm not arguing against a strawman because I'm not arguing in that post at all.

Maybe you should be aware of the irony in judging someone as being disturbed based on apparently not really understanding their posts. You'll have to forgive me for not really caring much about what you think I need to be aware of because I have never seen a post from you that indicates you having anything to offer me in terms of advice.

What you call irony, others would call it being an asshole for no reason.

I defined your behaviour as ironic, if you prefer to label it being an asshole for no reason I won't object.

See, you're trying to lecture me on how I should think and behave to be a better person. Which is both incredibly arrogant and very judgmental. Which is a bit ironic. Or assholeish, but I  prefer to think of it as ironic.

Everybody can have something to teach to someone else. You seem to assume that my telling you what's wrong with your arguing style entails that I think I'm a better person than you. I have no idea whether I'm a better person than you (I easily admit I'm less knowledgeable and generally less articulate than you), but this idea is ridiculous. I already admitted that you were right on certain of your criticisms on me during our DSK feuds. Even though you have your flaws, you can be right on certain things. So, who's being arrogant here? The one who dares to question the perfection of your arguing style, or the one who rejects any criticism as arrogance?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I must say, I do rather enjoy the Antonio vs. Gustaf feuds.

It seems to have become a bit of a tradition by now. I'm beginning to think it's just a cultural difference boiling down to the famous French lack of humour though.

I assume this post is another display of your well-known humour, rather than a bigoted ethnic slur. Well done, that's really clever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, you're assuming that because we've had our disagreements I am pathological or disturbed. Which is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think you're a deficient character, merely that you're wrong.

If you were to actually criticize my style of arguing and doing so from any position of authority I wouldn't think of it as arrogance. I personally rarely lecture people on how they should be because I find it generally arrogant. I have no problem taking advice from people who are superior to me but it'd frankly be a sad reflection on me if a forum mostly populated with 15-year olds was generally superior to me. Maybe that makes me arrogant, but then so be it.

See, I'm not asking you to make some major changes in your character or argumentation style so as to fit my preferences. I only take the right to decide how I'm going to post and I don't think not following your life tips makes me as arrogant as you'd like to think. You're not Dr. Phil, you know.

So you only accept advice from people whom you consider superior? That's definitely very mature and not arrogant at all.

I do accept advise from anyone, depending on how convincing their arguments seem to me. You're free to tell me why my criticisms are stupid or wrong, that's smarter than preemptively dismissing them because a stupid kid on an internet forum has nothing to teach to you.

Anyways, no, I don't think you're disturbed or a bad person. After all, you're the one making tongue-in-cheek remarks hinting about the racism/sexism of your opponents.

[Antonio the Sixth]

See, you're assuming that because we've had our disagreements I am pathological or disturbed. Which is a bit on the extreme side. I don't think you're a deficient character, merely that you're wrong.

If you were to actually criticize my style of arguing and doing so from any position of authority I wouldn't think of it as arrogance. I personally rarely lecture people on how they should be because I find it generally arrogant. I have no problem taking advice from people who are superior to me but it'd frankly be a sad reflection on me if a forum mostly populated with 15-year olds was generally superior to me. Maybe that makes me arrogant, but then so be it.

See, I'm not asking you to make some major changes in your character or argumentation style so as to fit my preferences. I only take the right to decide how I'm going to post and I don't think not following your life tips makes me as arrogant as you'd like to think. You're not Dr. Phil, you know.

So you only accept advice from people whom you consider superior? That's definitely very mature and not arrogant at all.

I do accept advise from anyone, depending on how convincing their arguments seem to me. You're free to tell me why my criticisms are stupid or wrong, that's smarter than preemptively dismissing them because a stupid kid on an internet forum has nothing to teach to you.

Anyways, no, I don't think you're disturbed or a bad person. After all, you're the one making tongue-in-cheek remarks hinting about the racism/sexism of your opponents.

Huh? Yes? How is it 'mature' to heed an opinion that is misinformed, wrong or stupid?

If you were giving arguments I could listen to it but if you make an assertion, why would I care?

In this case you're wrong because I don't judge people preemptively or whatever. Why would I even want to do that? I judge them based on what they say. You're also wrong because you don't seem to understand the concept of being sarcastic about silly positions of silly people. Arguing with someone like Lief whose basic creed is anti-thinking is a bit pointless so I settle for making fun of him every now and then.

Oh, and I'm not hinting about racism or sexism. I don't think you get this concept. Which is why you should perhaps not be so fast to judge.

For some reason you seem to think that if a comment is sarcastic, it's of no importance. It's pretty obvious that your jab at Lief was sarcastic. But that does not change the fact it was a baseless and offensive comment. Sorry, it's not OK to slander your opponents, sarcastically or not. Also, for someone who prides himself of having a very subtle humour, making jokes about someone you dislike being a racist and a sexist seems a bit gross.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, see...that's not what it is. So I guess it was too subtle for you.

Certainly. That's the only plausible explanation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This might certainly be true for a few people here, but using this as a line of attack while nothing in Lief's posts hinted about such an attitude remains unfair. And no, supporting the legalization of prostitution doesn't automatically make you a misogynist. That's a position I oppose, and one which, we agree, is detrimental to women in society. But it's also a position that can be defended in good faith and with good intentions. I think Politicus has done a great job disproving Lief's point, as Nathan and a few others, me comprised. There's no need to resort to "sarcastic" remarks of this kind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even if one says something stupid and inconsistent (and yeah, comparing prostitution to manual labor clearly was), that doesn't make it OK to throw insinuations of the kind you did (and again, it doesn't matter if they're "humorous" or not). Especially because one can say something stupid without being stupid. I think it shouldn't be too hard for you to point out inconsistencies in reasoning without throwing this kind of attacks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's wrong to say certain things, even jokingly?

See, one might find it arrogant to phrase a matter of opinion as me not understanding that you're right. I disagree that it is wrong to say these things, even jokingly. And it is incredibly presumptuous of you to lecture me on what I can and cannot say without offering a shred of argument.

Why is it wrong to make fun of someone's position?

There are plenty of ways to make fun of someone's position without bringing up sexism or racism when it's uncalled for.

That you didn't understand something really doesn't make it uncalled for. You should really tone down the pompous self-righteous act because you are, as I said before, not really in a position of authority to carry that. You can consider it arrogant if you want, but I don't see you as my guru when it comes to proper behaviour or how to joke.

I understand you don't like it, but criticizing you doesn't make me "pompous and self-righteous". Considering how often you do engage in criticizing other posters, it's funny you would think so. At least I did recognize that I can be wrong and that my posting style does have some flaws, while you call arrogant anybody who says the same toward you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I never, or at least rarely, venture to tell others what they should do. Offering a criticism is very different from what you're doing.

You might say that you disagree with what I'm doing and explain why you wouldn't do it. But you're telling me that it is wrong and I have to stop it, which is incredibly pompous.

Oh, so the problem is only semantic? You could have said it before. OK, let me rephrase "you shouldn't bring up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate" into "I disagree with your bringing up racism and sexism for no reason in a political debate". Now it's not arrogant and pompous, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this certainly doesn't denote any arrogance whatsoever. Apparently it only takes you one sentence to forget the importance of humility you just told me about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a very good advice, actually. I thought I could be helpful in explaining what, in my view, makes your posting style so frustrating for many posters and tends to prevent constructive political debate, but it's pretty clear you think everything is perfect about your posts. So yeah, I got it, I'll leave you alone from now on. Keep on with your "humour".

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't know where you get the idea I'm emotionally affected by your posts. I appreciate your concerns for my emotional state but don't worry, I'm long used to your abrasive posting style, and you are not among the few posters here whose disapproval I would resent.

I don't know how the hell you managed to interpret my post as an "order", which makes absolutely no sense on an internet forum. It was, as I said already, an advise. An advise, like any other advise that a random person can provide to someone else. An advise that can be right or wrong, and that you are free to follow or to ignore. Yes, the tone of the advise was somewhat angry. I was frustrated because I think you are a pretty smart and articulate poster, and would be a great addition to the forum, if you didn't also happen to be a jerk to people for no reason.

I also like how, despite constantly questioning my understanding, you still don't seem to have understood my point. In defense of your post, you have only kept repeating that it was "a joke", "sarcasm" or "humour". So, what? What the hell does that change?!? Do you realize a joke can be just as offensive, unfair and disruptive of the debate as a serious post?

Sure, but only to people who lack humour. And I think it'd be terrible if such people got to dictate the terms of conversation. And in these cases I think you find the jokes offensive or unfair mostly because you don't get them. So, while I've understood your point you seem to not have gotten mine. You kept saying it was offensive to suggest Lief was misogynistic. But I didn't do that. Nor was that even the joke.

I'm never a jerk to people for no reason, Antonio. Only to those who deserve it. By, for example, attacking me aggressively, calling me a bigot, trying to tell me how to run my life and stuff like that.

That's a very Berlusconian way of thinking...