Pornography vs. Prostitution

[Angel]

It's hard to see a real difference between pornography and prostitution other than perhaps the latter being more risky (random sex partners) and less accepted than than the other. Other than that, both involve promiscuity, both involve having sex for money, etc. etc.

Debate Questions:
I know there's currently a legal difference between porn and prostitution (one being criminal and the other not) depending on what country you live in, but is there a real moral difference?

[Mr. LongView]

Porn is legal where I live. Regulated.

Prostitution is not. Unregulated.

Consenting, underage kids can not upload a porn tape. (Take this with a grain of salt.) Why shouldn't they?

Teens don't have sex?
Teens don't want to watch teens have sex?
Can't teens make a buck?

Figure out where the line is and draw it.

If legal means unregulated then no.

I think that the morality issue relates to the idea that it is unhealthy.

Crime.
Sex trade.
Potential for abuse.

Just watch an episode of cops....

You must wear a seat belt.
Why?

Prostitution is illegal? (Outside of Nevada.)
Why?

I personally don't think that what the world needs is easier access to porn and prostitution.

In my mind the problem lies in the human condition.

Sure, Gina may be able to pull off the image of a healthy prostitute...
Or she may become a crack whore....

Better to be forced to wear a seat belt.

[His Name Is John]

No modern democracy is as simple as majority rule. We all have constitutions which guarantee the protection of minority rights. Democracy is not the same thing as a dictatorship of the majority.

As I said to you in another thread (a short while ago now), the majority can change the constitutions. This has happened before (most recent example is in Hungry), and it can happen again. The minorities are only protected while the majority look kindly upon them. The majority just vote for people who will change the laws to suit what they want.

Just look at the anti-Jewish feeling in places like France, where ordinary people handed over the Jews to the French police after France had been invaded by Germany. The majority didn't like them, so they were not protected. To be fair this is a bit of a different example (as they were invaded and another government were controlling things).

Constitutions are hardly a iron shield of minorities. They just slow down the process of change.

If you think that a countries constitutions should stay in spite of the majority, then that seems to fly in the face of secular morality. You are making absolute moral laws, what is your justification for them?

[Dantalion]

No modern democracy is as simple as majority rule. We all have constitutions which guarantee the protection of minority rights. Democracy is not the same thing as a dictatorship of the majority.

As I said to you in another thread (a short while ago now), the majority can change the constitutions. This has happened before (most recent example is in Hungry), and it can happen again. The minorities are only protected while the majority look kindly upon them. The majority just vote for people who will change the laws to suit what they want.

Just look at the anti-Jewish feeling in places like France, where ordinary people handed over the Jews to the French police after France had been invaded by Germany. The majority didn't like them, so they were not protected. To be fair this is a bit of a different example (as they were invaded and another government were controlling things).

Constitutions are hardly a iron shield of minorities. They just slow down the process of change.

If you think that a countries constitutions should stay in spite of the majority, then that seems to fly in the face of secular morality. You are making absolute moral laws, what is your justification for them?

eem, maybe it works different in your country, but in mine, when a majority want to force a point on a minority, that majority needs to be 6/10

however, when the majority wants to change the laws protecting the minority from the majority, the majority needs to be 7.5/10, the courts must examine if the change does not go against any international laws, AND the minority has the right and means to block certain laws if they feel their rights are endangered.

your idea of a democracy where 6 out of 10 can completely subjugate the other 4 in whatever aspect baffles me.

now all of that aside, If a couple agrees to capture their love making on videotape, agree to have that video shown on sites where the people who go there know what it is they're going to see, where do you go off saying that kind of behavior should be banned and made punishable by law ?

regulating the pleasure of consenting adults seems like a big issue to a lot of christians, porn to me seems like a 'change the channel' kinda problem

[His Name Is John]

eem, maybe it works different in your country, but in mine, when a majority want to force a point on a minority, that majority needs to be 6/10

however, when the majority wants to change the laws protecting the minority from the majority, the majority needs to be 7.5/10, the courts must examine if the change does not go against any international laws, AND the minority has the right and means to block certain laws if they feel their rights are endangered.

your idea of a democracy where 6 out of 10 can completely subjugate the other 4 in whatever aspect baffles me.

I never said 6/10 can change all the laws. But in your country it requires 7.5/10. You know what? That is still a majority. Just because you need more of a majority doesn't stop it from being a civilised form of mob rule.

[Dantalion]

eem, maybe it works different in your country, but in mine, when a majority want to force a point on a minority, that majority needs to be 6/10

however, when the majority wants to change the laws protecting the minority from the majority, the majority needs to be 7.5/10, the courts must examine if the change does not go against any international laws, AND the minority has the right and means to block certain laws if they feel their rights are endangered.

your idea of a democracy where 6 out of 10 can completely subjugate the other 4 in whatever aspect baffles me.

I never said 6/10 can change all the laws. But in your country it requires 7.5/10. You know what? That is still a majority. Just because you need more of a majority doesn't stop it from being a civilised form of mob rule.

that is true, however the 2 points after the 7.5/10 are equally important. If those 2 aren't met, the majority could even be 99% without any laws changing at all.

[His Name Is John]

eem, maybe it works different in your country, but in mine, when a majority want to force a point on a minority, that majority needs to be 6/10

however, when the majority wants to change the laws protecting the minority from the majority, the majority needs to be 7.5/10, the courts must examine if the change does not go against any international laws, AND the minority has the right and means to block certain laws if they feel their rights are endangered.

your idea of a democracy where 6 out of 10 can completely subjugate the other 4 in whatever aspect baffles me.

I never said 6/10 can change all the laws. But in your country it requires 7.5/10. You know what? That is still a majority. Just because you need more of a majority doesn't stop it from being a civilised form of mob rule.

that is true, however the 2 points after the 7.5/10 are equally important. If those 2 aren't met, the majority could even be 99% without any laws changing at all.

But who do you think can change those two points? To 'update them'.

A majority.

If the majority have their mind set one something, it will be done. They may need more of a majority than 6/10, and it may require several years of changing the smaller laws first, but eventually they can have their way.

[McCulloch]

If the majority have their mind set one something, it will be done. They may need more of a majority than 6/10, and it may require several years of changing the smaller laws first, but eventually they can have their way.

But just about everyone is in some minority or another. The majority would be reluctant to pass laws that bypass the protection of the rights of minorities, since that would erode their own protection.

[His Name Is John]

If the majority have their mind set one something, it will be done. They may need more of a majority than 6/10, and it may require several years of changing the smaller laws first, but eventually they can have their way.

But just about everyone is in some minority or another. The majority would be reluctant to pass laws that bypass the protection of the rights of minorities, since that would erode their own protection.

It depends on the minority I guess.

Say for instance, in the UK, a lot of people hate the traveller community (because of the vast amounts of crime which go almost un-punished - as most traveller camps are off limits for the police). I can really see in the next couple of years people agreeing that all traveller should be horded up and forced to work. Forced to do some good for society.

The problem is, this sounds very similar to what Hitler started doing with those minorities he hated. The majority agreed, or didn't disagree enough to risk their own lives to do anything about it.

Over here in the west we like to think we are 'free' or something, and that democracy has little to no down sides. The problem is, democracy is simply a civilised form of mob rule. While the majority are 'good' people, society is good, but when the majority start to turn 'bad', it is fantasy to suggest the government wont follow.

But I do believe democracy is the best option. I also agree with strict constitutions protecting the rights of minorities and other such peoples. However, it is a dream to suggest that these will remain 'absolute' and wont suffer change over time. democracy generally works, but I think it is closer to 'mob rule' than most people are willing to admit.

[Dantalion]

eem, maybe it works different in your country, but in mine, when a majority want to force a point on a minority, that majority needs to be 6/10

however, when the majority wants to change the laws protecting the minority from the majority, the majority needs to be 7.5/10, the courts must examine if the change does not go against any international laws, AND the minority has the right and means to block certain laws if they feel their rights are endangered.

your idea of a democracy where 6 out of 10 can completely subjugate the other 4 in whatever aspect baffles me.

I never said 6/10 can change all the laws. But in your country it requires 7.5/10. You know what? That is still a majority. Just because you need more of a majority doesn't stop it from being a civilised form of mob rule.

that is true, however the 2 points after the 7.5/10 are equally important. If those 2 aren't met, the majority could even be 99% without any laws changing at all.

But who do you think can change those two points? To 'update them'.

A majority.

If the majority have their mind set one something, it will be done. They may need more of a majority than 6/10, and it may require several years of changing the smaller laws first, but eventually they can have their way.

well, the 'cool' thing is, that those 2 points can counter any attempt to change the points themselves.

I have a law that says 'the minority can block the passing of bills of the majority that infringe on their rights'

the majority says 'we want to change that law!'

the minority says ' sure, you can suggest that change, be we will use our right to block that change if we think your bill has a possibility of getting passed, especially if that bill wants to change that very right'

it's an infinite kind of 'loophole' that guarantees the protection of the minority.

but a more important point has already been made, that everybody belongs to a minority in one way or another, so the system keeps itself afloat.

[His Name Is John]

well, the 'cool' thing is, that those 2 points can counter any attempt to change the points themselves.

I have a law that says 'the minority can block the passing of bills of the majority that infringe on their rights'

the majority says 'we want to change that law!'

the minority says ' sure, you can suggest that change, be we will use our right to block that change if we think your bill has a possibility of getting passed, especially if that bill wants to change that very right'

it's an infinite kind of 'loophole' that guarantees the protection of the minority.

but a more important point has already been made, that everybody belongs to a minority in one way or another, so the system keeps itself afloat.

That is a very good law. At first look I would say all countries should accept it.

The only problem I can see is conflicting rights between minorities. How does your government work that out?