A giant Teutonic brothel - Has liberalization gone too far?

[The Brain]

You can't say that!! But it got said!

[The Brain]

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

[Razgovory]

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

People understand it differently.  The liberty of an anarchist and the liberty of a capitalist are different, but both may hold that liberty dear.  150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

[crazy canuck]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

[The Brain]

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

People understand it differently.  The liberty of an anarchist and the liberty of a capitalist are different, but both may hold that liberty dear.  150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

BB isn't an anarchist, a capitalist or, AFAIK, a slave owner or slave owner enabler.

[Capetan Mihali]

BB isn't an anarchist, a capitalist or, AFAIK, a slave owner or slave owner enabler.

Source? 

[Eddie Teach]

While BB may not be a capitalist by occupation, I've seen no reason to believe he's not one by ideology.

[Capetan Mihali]

More on point, I'd like to explore the actual distinction between pornography and prostitution, beyond anecdotes cutting in both directions (trafficked vs. doing it a little while, drug-addled vs. sane, etc.) -- if anything, the semi-permanency and dissemination of the sexual exploitation in pornography seems to make it potentially more damaging to the sex worker.

In both cases, someone is being paid to engage in sex acts they wouldn't usually perform (or don't independently desire performing) with someone they wouldn't usually perform them with, for the gratification of another.  I don't get fundamentally why the gratification of the at-home masturbator vs. the actual sex partner changes the ethical equation.  The fact that an act of prostitution is being filmed and circulated globally doesn't stop it being prostitution, does it?

I can't in good conscience support criminalizing the users of prostitutes more than the users of recorded acts of prostitution.

And then the question of the "grey area" world of sex work, primarily strippers.  Who, I'm told, do more than just take their clothes off onstage (e.g. physically stimulate the genitals of paying clients via lap-dances, etc.).  Do these customers, even the ones who do no more than watch (and throw singles on-stage), "buy a woman" for gratifying their desire?  It doesn't seem that distinguishable from prostitution or pornography to me.

[Berkut]

Keep following the chain though - what about visual depictions of nudity with the intent of arousing a customer?

Is Playboy fundamentally exploitative, regardless of the opinions of the models involved? The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition?

[The Brain]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

[Legbiter]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

Feminism: the pussy cartel of old and ugly women, against their younger, more beautiful counterparts.

[The Brain]

While BB may not be a capitalist by occupation, I've seen no reason to believe he's not one by ideology.

"Trust me. I'm a doctor by ideology."

[Ideologue]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

Feminism: the pussy cartel of old and ugly women, against their younger, more beautiful counterparts.

Iceland: only good for location shooting, and even then only about half the time.

[Barrister]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

It's not pedantic in the last - it's the central reasoning of Malmo-Levine, which I linked to.  Pot activists tried to argue that the government needed to show a 'compelling need' before criminalizing pot.  The SCC disagreed.

[Berkut]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

It's not pedantic in the last - it's the central reasoning of Malmo-Levine, which I linked to.  Pot activists tried to argue that the government needed to show a 'compelling need' before criminalizing pot.  The SCC disagreed.

It is completely pedantic, because you are making a point you know does not apply to the discussion. There is no question about what the state needs to do, as I already stated. The discussion is about what the state ought to do.

Just because the Constitution allows the state to do something doesn't make it a good idea.