★R-18 ★ Prostitution Law

[Potjeh]

How is prostitution a worse job than half the stuff you can see on Dirty Jobs? The main difference is that it pays a LOT more.

I mean, if we're gonna abolish all dangerous jobs, who's going to put roofs on our houses and put them out when they catch fire?

[pyrale]

How is prostitution a worse job than half the stuff you can see on Dirty Jobs?

I'm afraid I don't know what dirty jobs is, so it's kinda hard to give a precise comparison.

To answer your general question, some jobs are dangerous, yes. Usually, they are being regulated so that the workers have minimum exposure to risk. Sometimes they aren't, or sometimes the laws are not upheld.

So you say, why not regulate prostitution rather than ban it ? First because it has a terrible record even in the countries where it is allowed. Second because unlike carpenters or other dangerous jobs, it does not provide necessary services. I don't think there's a single legal job that has a worse ratio between the toll it takes on its workers and the benefits it provides to society.

its something we call "objective" thought, pyrale. you dont necessarily have to see them as potential ~someone~, but expecting each to be an idealistic person as you hope is not realistic, thus i find it rather subjective and could not see as working solutions.

How is it objective to call someone you don't know and never met a potential something ? Should we treat you as a potential genocidal dictator and react accordingly simply because the rules of physics don't explicitly ban this possibility ? It's not serious and goes nowhere as a tool of policymaking.

let me ask, how do you decide when a problem is solved? maybe your glass of problems is half empty while mine is half full?

Formally put, never. Once you have regulated on something, you still have to uphold it. Sometimes you will see that further action is needed, and sometimes, you'll see that it has good results (and sometimes both).

Sometimes, yet, you'll see that a problem that once was common has receded to such a point that in a casual internet discussion, calling it "solved" makes more sense than producing hundreds of pages of analysis on its current state. If you see my point.

and you see what happened even after french government did make a regulation of not building BMC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordel_mil ... e_campagne
not saying making regulation is bad, though. just saying you cannot just expect everyone to act like a saint just because you have education or regulations.

Of course some people won't respect the law. The need to enforce the law and the best way to do it is another problem, though.
Do you allow murder in japan simply because prohibiting it doesn't have perfect results ?

[borka]

http://www.france24.com/en/20111207-fra ... -abolition
http://www.france24.com/en/20120624-fra ... rafficking

[Tonkyhonk]

How is it objective to call someone you don't know and never met a potential something ? Should we treat you as a potential genocidal dictator and react accordingly simply because the rules of physics don't explicitly ban this possibility ? It's not serious and goes nowhere as a tool of policymaking.

someone you dont know are always potential somebody!
if you find me a potential genocidal dictator, its your choice! i mean, who knows i aint one?

let me ask, how do you decide when a problem is solved? maybe your glass of problems is half empty while mine is half full?

Formally put, never. Once you have regulated on something, you still have to uphold it. Sometimes you will see that further action is needed, and sometimes, you'll see that it has good results (and sometimes both).

Sometimes, yet, you'll see that a problem that once was common has receded to such a point that in a casual internet discussion, calling it "solved" makes more sense than producing hundreds of pages of analysis on its current state. If you see my point.

ah, so you finally agree! many problems arent technically solved.

and you see what happened even after french government did make a regulation of not building BMC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordel_mil ... e_campagne
not saying making regulation is bad, though. just saying you cannot just expect everyone to act like a saint just because you have education or regulations.

Of course some people won't respect the law. The need to enforce the law and the best way to do it is another problem, though.
Do you allow murder in japan simply because prohibiting it doesn't have perfect results ?

hello, can you read?

[borka]

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/ ... yfb_00.htm

[Potjeh]

I don't think there's a single legal job that has a worse ratio between the toll it takes on its workers and the benefits it provides to society.

Trapeze artist, crab fisherman, diamond miner.

Oh, and you should really watch Dirty Jobs, it's a good show and Mike Rowe is a really funny guy.

[borka]

Nuklear Power Plant Fallout Cleaner

[Potjeh]

Well that's actually rather important to the society, whereas the jobs I listed just provide pointless luxury. More pointless than sexual release, for sure.

[borka]

i guess the men aren't going for sexual release only - often enough they're just lonely...

Also crabfishers (crab = northseashrimp commonly called) are (where) important in some regions - as Crabs do have lots of Proteine which was rare in areas where it was hard to have animals...but Lobsterfishers provide pointless luxury

[Potjeh]

In this day and age you don't really *need* crabs for protein. And I singled them out because I was thinking about Deadliest Catch, ie these fishermen are taking on ridiculous risks for something that society would do just fine without. I don't think lobster fishing is nearly as dangerous.