Religious Right in Canada

[ToadBrother]

As for saying making something illegal deters things. If speeding weren't illegal, I'd be driving 160 klicks as much as I can providing weather. Some people however don't care about speed limits and drive 160 clicks anyway. So yes, making things illegal does deter some people.

So now we're comparing speeding (which has no monetary benefit for the offender, quite the opposite in fact) to prostitution (which does have a monetary value for the offender)? Just how far do you want to try to stretch things to get over the fact that you have no evidence?

[Mr.Canada]

Yes, Obama has chosen a pro life minister, but if you think in your poisoned little mind that that means that Obam is pro life, or that he's going to be supporting pro life policies, then you're even dumber and more pitiable than I thought.

Obama is a Christian and a powerful leader who the people listen to. How fast do you think the Liberal party will twist its policies to the right in order to fall in line with Obama? The Tories policies are already there. Obama and Harper will get along famously and will be seen together often.

[blueblood]

Paying for sex is illegal. If you go and have a massage, you're not breaking the law. If you hand the girl a few hundred bucks for the "extra service" you and her (and probably the massage parlor, which gets a cut somehow) are breaking the law. And massage parlors have been nailed for running common bawdy houses before, so you're not even right on that count.

The stupid ones have been nailed. Is it illegal to pay for a massage (even if it's expensive), is it illegal to all of a sudden have sex? There's not a lot of evidence to warrant a conviction when they "conveniently hooked up"

So now we're comparing speeding (which has no monetary benefit for the offender, quite the opposite in fact) to prostitution (which does have a monetary value for the offender)? Just how far do you want to try to stretch things to get over the fact that you have no evidence?

lets talk about bars serving people who are obviously intoxicated and some who bars who don't. It's of monetary value to pump the person full of booze. Some bars don't want the fine, some bars don't care. Same goes with anybody considering breaking the law, some don't because they don't want to break the law, some break it anyway.

[ToadBrother]

The stupid ones have been nailed. Is it illegal to pay for a massage (even if it's expensive), is it illegal to all of a sudden have sex? There's not a lot of evidence to warrant a conviction when they "conveniently hooked up"

It's illegal to pay for sex. Massage parlors have been nailed for doing just that.

lets talk about bars serving people who are obviously intoxicated and some who bars who don't. It's of monetary value to pump the person full of booze. Some bars don't want the fine, some bars don't care. Same goes with anybody considering breaking the law, some don't because they don't want to break the law, some break it anyway.

At some point I'm sure you will stop post irrelevancies and admit you don't have any evidence. I wonder how many bad analogies you've got left before you go "You know, I don't actually know if anti-prostitution laws in fact have actually convinced some women not to be come prostitutes".

[ToadBrother]

Obama is a Christian and a powerful leader who the people listen to. How fast do you think the Liberal party will twist its policies to the right in order to fall in line with Obama? The Tories policies are already there. Obama and Harper will get along famously and will be seen together often.

Obama is a liberal Democrat. He is never going to seek the abolition or further curbing of abortion.

[Mr.Canada]

Obama is a liberal Democrat. He is never going to seek the abolition or further curbing of abortion.

The LPC is far left of Obama atm so I said wait to see how fast Ignatieff pulls the LPC to the right to be closer to Obama's policy line. It'll be almost comical. The Tories however already have much in common with Obama's Dems policy wise and I'm sure Harper and Obama will get along very well and work well together. Once the centrist Canadian voters see these soon to be great men working together so well on progressive issues the Tory majority will become reality.

[blueblood]

It's illegal to pay for sex. Massage parlors have been nailed for doing just that.

At some point I'm sure you will stop post irrelevancies and admit you don't have any evidence. I wonder how many bad analogies you've got left before you go "You know, I don't actually know if anti-prostitution laws in fact have actually convinced some women not to be come prostitutes".

Is it illegal to pay for a massage?

Is it illegal to have sex?

What I've proposed in my bar example is called logic, try practicing it sometime.

[ToadBrother]

Is it illegal to pay for a massage?

Is it illegal to have sex?

What I've proposed in my bar example is called logic, try practicing it sometime.

You're just intentionally being an idiot, so far as I can tell. It is illegal to pay for sex, whether it's on the street or in a massage parlor. If you pay for sex in a massage parlor, you are breaking the law, the person you're having sex with is breaking the law, and since the massage parlor gets a kick back for both the massage and the "extra" activities, the massage parlor is breaking the law. And seeing as massage parlors do get nailed by the cops as being common bawdy houses, not only do you have a lack of logic, you're not even grasping reality here. I am in awe of how far you'll go just so you don't have to admit you had no evidence for your initial claim.

[ToadBrother]

The LPC is far left of Obama atm so I said wait to see how fast Ignatieff pulls the LPC to the right to be closer to Obama's policy line. It'll be almost comical. The Tories however already have much in common with Obama's Dems policy wise and I'm sure Harper and Obama will get along very well and work well together. Once the centrist Canadian voters see these soon to be great men working together so well on progressive issues the Tory majority will become reality.

So let me get this straight. Last week, the Conservatives were going to rocket to ultimate power by putting limits on abortions. This week they're going to rocket to ultimate power by hugging a new President who most definitely will never sign any further limits on abortions in the United States. Does that just about size up your claims?

[blueblood]

You're just intentionally being an idiot, so far as I can tell. It is illegal to pay for sex, whether it's on the street or in a massage parlor. If you pay for sex in a massage parlor, you are breaking the law, the person you're having sex with is breaking the law, and since the massage parlor gets a kick back for both the massage and the "extra" activities, the massage parlor is breaking the law. And seeing as massage parlors do get nailed by the cops as being common bawdy houses, not only do you have a lack of logic, you're not even grasping reality here. I am in awe of how far you'll go just so you don't have to admit you had no evidence for your initial claim.

It is however legal to pay for a massage. It is legal for two people to have sex. What part of that don't you understand. It's called a loophole, and only the stupid massage parlors have been nailed by it. It's very hard to prove in court. Unless you think hooking up in places other than the bedroom is illegal.

If "massage parlors" got nailed by the cops for starting up a business every time, there wouldn't be massage parlors in the first place then now would there. How many massage parlor cases get thrown out of court?

My original claim was based on logic, if you can't see that some people don't do things because they are illegal, your just missing the boat.

[WIP]

Even Obama has chosen an Evangelical Pro Life Minister to speak at his inauguration.

And he's also included an openly gay bishop to deliver the invocation....he tries to cover all the bases.

[ToadBrother]

It is however legal to pay for a massage. It is legal for two people to have sex. What part of that don't you understand. It's called a loophole, and only the stupid massage parlors have been nailed by it. It's very hard to prove in court. Unless you think hooking up in places other than the bedroom is illegal.

If "massage parlors" got nailed by the cops for starting up a business every time, there wouldn't be massage parlors in the first place then now would there. How many massage parlor cases get thrown out of court?

My original claim was based on logic, if you can't see that some people don't do things because they are illegal, your just missing the boat.

You're just endlessly repeating yourself. Massage parlors do get nailed for being common bawdy houses, and you don't have any evidence. Making crap up and then saying "it's logical" is not a justification, it's just simply you making crap up.

[blueblood]

You're just endlessly repeating yourself. Massage parlors do get nailed for being common bawdy houses, and you don't have any evidence. Making crap up and then saying "it's logical" is not a justification, it's just simply you making crap up.

Some get nailed and some don't. There are lots of "massage parlors" listed in the yellow pages. Some of those are legit and some aren't.

Once again logic says that if people don't respond to the negative consequences of laws, why are they created in the first place? Apparently your world view consists of penalties for breaking the law as being useless. Why are penalties for breaking the laws written if they're useless? It would save taxpayers a lot of money to not have jails then wouldn't it? Maybe just maybe some people look and say "golly gee darn I better not do that or something bad might happen to me" Are you the type of person that repeatedly burned themselves on the stove when they were young?

[ToadBrother]

Some get nailed and some don't. There are lots of "massage parlors" listed in the yellow pages. Some of those are legit and some aren't.

If they're selling sex with the employees, even in a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge-wheres-my-50%" fashion, they're breaking the law. I never said all massage parlors were basically just bordellos. So much for your capacity for logic.

Once again logic says that if people don't respond to the negative consequences of laws, why are they created in the first place?

Some laws are passed simply because they make the lawmakers look good, or make some portion of the electorate think something useful is happening.

Apparently your world view consists of penalties for breaking the law as being useless.

Wow! You really are logically challenged. Where did I ever say that? Just because some laws and penalties are worthless or worse doesn't mean all laws and penalties are worthless. You really are trying damned hard not to admit you didn't actually have any evidence for your claim.

Why are penalties for breaking the laws written if they're useless? It would save taxpayers a lot of money to not have jails then wouldn't it? Maybe just maybe some people look and say "golly gee darn I better not do that or something bad might happen to me" Are you the type of person that repeatedly burned themselves on the stove when they were young?

You're a sad sad fellow, bereft of most even normal logical processes. You're like a walking, talking, breathing fallacy.

[blueblood]

If they're selling sex with the employees, even in a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge-wheres-my-50%" fashion, they're breaking the law. I never said all massage parlors were basically just bordellos. So much for your capacity for logic.

Thats up to the judge and jury. Either the lawyer sucks or he doesn't. A good lawyer would get them off.

Some laws are passed simply because they make the lawmakers look good, or make some portion of the electorate think something useful is happening.

So they pass penalties to make lawmakers look good? So when they made the penalties for robbing a bank it was to make lawmakers look good? I think it was to punish the criminals and disuade potential bank robbers, just like with prostitutes. Some won't become one to stay out of jail and will find work elsewhere or become a "gold digger", some or most won't care two whits about the law and become prostitutes anyway and take the risk of jail time. The point being, some are disuaded.

Wow! You really are logically challenged. Where did I ever say that? Just because some laws and penalties are worthless or worse doesn't mean all laws and penalties are worthless. You really are trying damned hard not to admit you didn't actually have any evidence for your claim.

That's a matter of opinion on which laws are worthless or not, if a few prostitutes are kept off the streets due to the fear of going to jail, the law did it's job. If you can't see that punishment disuades some people from doing bad things, then why don't you see children repeatedly touching a hot stove?

You're a sad sad fellow, bereft of most even normal logical processes. You're like a walking, talking, breathing fallacy.

Score 1 for team blue, thanks for coming out.

[DrGreenthumb]

It is however legal to pay for a massage. It is legal for two people to have sex. What part of that don't you understand. It's called a loophole, and only the stupid massage parlors have been nailed by it. It's very hard to prove in court. Unless you think hooking up in places other than the bedroom is illegal.

If "massage parlors" got nailed by the cops for starting up a business every time, there wouldn't be massage parlors in the first place then now would there. How many massage parlor cases get thrown out of court?

My original claim was based on logic, if you can't see that some people don't do things because they are illegal, your just missing the boat.

Ahhhh Conservatives and their loopholes. Remind anyone of their attitude towards election finance laws?

Conservatives are always shooting their mouths off about punishing the criminals( and the sinners), but they act like the laws don't apply to themselves. They are never breaking the law, they just "have a different interpretation" of it.

[DrGreenthumb]

Thats up to the judge and jury. Either the lawyer sucks or he doesn't. A good lawyer would get them off.

If you can't see that punishment disuades some people from doing bad things, then why don't you see children repeatedly touching a hot stove?

Score 1 for team blue, thanks for coming out.

1)So its ok. from a conservative standpoint, to do crimes as long as you have a good lawyer who will "get u off" ? Jails only for people without enough money to buy justice right?

2)Children almost all will touch a hot stove at least once even if you tell them not to. Once they know it hurts they don't touch it again. Anyone who'd think of punishing a kid for burning themself is an idiot, plain and simple.

3)you actually think you scored some sort of point?

[blueblood]

Ahhhh Conservatives and their loopholes. Remind anyone of their attitude towards election finance laws?

Conservatives are always shooting their mouths off about punishing the criminals( and the sinners), but they act like the laws don't apply to themselves. They are never breaking the law, they just "have a different interpretation" of it.

Wow another brain fart. He who breaks the law goes to the clink, rich, poor, conservative, Liberal. Nice to see you found another tinfoil hat.

[blueblood]

1)So its ok. from a conservative standpoint, to do crimes as long as you have a good lawyer who will "get u off" ? Jails only for people without enough money to buy justice right?

2)Children almost all will touch a hot stove at least once even if you tell them not to. Once they know it hurts they don't touch it again. Anyone who'd think of punishing a kid for burning themself is an idiot, plain and simple.

3)you actually think you scored some sort of point?

1) No it's not OK, if you do a crime you are rolling the dice. Good lawyers lose sometimes as well, it's up to a judge and jury. If your lawyer sucks or there is overwhelming evidence, off to the clink you go. How's Conrad Black doing? Tinfoil for everyone!!!

2) The burning in itself is punishment. Some people will comit crimes whether you tell them or not. It depends if they like getting "burned" by the justice system or not. Some do, some don't.

3) Two as far as dealing with you.

[madmax]

Either the lawyer sucks or he doesn't. A good lawyer would get them off.

Sex sex sex .............

[blueblood]

Sex sex sex .............

Touche, that's funny right there.

[DrGreenthumb]

1) No it's not OK, if you do a crime you are rolling the dice. Good lawyers lose sometimes as well, it's up to a judge and jury. If your lawyer sucks or there is overwhelming evidence, off to the clink you go. How's Conrad Black doing? Tinfoil for everyone!!!

2) The burning in itself is punishment. Some people will comit crimes whether you tell them or not. It depends if they like getting "burned" by the justice system or not. Some do, some don't.

3) Two as far as dealing with you.

if the burning was the "punishment" then as that logic would apply to drugs, prostitution, the negative effects of the drugs would be their own punishment and the possible STD would be the punishment for being a prostitute or a john, we would not need a jail/fine to punish them because the consequences of their actions should serve as just punishment on their own.

You are just not very good at presenting a logical argument are you?

A burnt hand is a consequence of an action taken, not a punishment. A hot stove has no ideas about right and wrong, and does not "punish" anyone. A hot stove, like a bag of weed is an inanimate object.

Also the better a lawyer is the more money he charges, so what you are indeed advocating is a different standard of justice for those who can afford to buy their way out of trouble.

I still don't see you scoring ANY points at all, can we get an impartial judgment here please? And no high priced lawyer to bend the rules for blueblood.

[blueblood]

if the burning was the "punishment" then as that logic would apply to drugs, prostitution, the negative effects of the drugs would be their own punishment and the possible STD would be the punishment for being a prostitute or a john, we would not need a jail/fine to punish them because the consequences of their actions should serve as just punishment on their own.

You are just not very good at presenting a logical argument are you?

A burnt hand is a consequence of an action taken, not a punishment. A hot stove has no ideas about right and wrong, and does not "punish" anyone. A hot stove, like a bag of weed is an inanimate object.

Also the better a lawyer is the more money he charges, so what you are indeed advocating is a different standard of justice for those who can afford to buy their way out of trouble.

I still don't see you scoring ANY points at all, can we get an impartial judgment here please? And no high priced lawyer to bend the rules for blueblood.

Society pays for the negative effects of drug use, be it laziness, support to organized crime, and other potential health effects. The drugs/prostitutes are the hot stove, and the burning is jail. The added consequence of going to jail deters use of drugs and prostitution. Not all buy into that and your an example of it, however there are others that do. If you can't see that, you should get out more.

A burnt hand is a punishment. Last time I checked having a burnt hand sucks and so does jail. Don't want a burnt hand, don't touch the stove. Same goes with illegal activities and jail.

There is no different standard of justice. Conrad black had the best lawyers in the world, and he went to jail. Same goes with skiddies, a lot of the time the free lawyer they get will get them off. Some lawyers do have ethics and ideoligies as well, some good ones are fine with taking a wage to help out poor people. Take off your tinfoil hat.

My ability to project a logical argument is just fine. Your ability to project a non-tinfoil hat argument isn't.

[Wild Bill]

So they pass penalties to make lawmakers look good? So when they made the penalties for robbing a bank it was to make lawmakers look good? I think it was to punish the criminals and disuade potential bank robbers, just like with prostitutes. Some won't become one to stay out of jail and will find work elsewhere or become a "gold digger", some or most won't care two whits about the law and become prostitutes anyway and take the risk of jail time. The point being, some are disuaded.

That's a matter of opinion on which laws are worthless or not, if a few prostitutes are kept off the streets due to the fear of going to jail, the law did it's job. If you can't see that punishment disuades some people from doing bad things, then why don't you see children repeatedly touching a hot stove?

Score 1 for team blue, thanks for coming out.

You seem to have a very digital world view, i.e. on or off, all laws or no laws.

Of course some laws are necessary and respected. Robbing a bank is a good example, if a trifle obvious. Some laws however have little or nothing to do with 'true' crime but rather 'morality' or 'lifestyle'.

Lifestyle laws are a whole different fish kettle! They are driven by opinion. Sometimes it is a social majority opinion and sometimes it is simply a matter of a lobby group acquiring the clout to get some politician to cater to them. Also, over time social opinions change on lifestyle or moral issues.

Laws against drugs, particularly marijuana and also prostitution are very ineffective, in that only a tiny fraction of drugs are ever found and confiscated, a tiny fraction of users are ever charged and as for prostitution...it seems to be perpetual, flourishing everywhere. If it becomes too blatant we see some arrests but otherwise, as long as it keeps a reasonably low profile it just goes on and on.

So why are such laws enacted? Well, one thing they do well is to get votes for lawmakers! The kind of citizen who gets upset at the notion that other folks might be doing something that HE disapproves of is also the kind of citizen who thinks that passing a law by itself solves a problem. He never goes back to audit a new law and see if it actually did anything. For him its usually enough to think that some politician has 'kissed his butt' and made something he doesn't like illegal.

I'm NOT just being cynical! This is EXACTLY the way the 'system' works! The way things are speaks for itself.

Every politician knows that on such issues its a free shot to cater to the more 'prissy' segment of society. Most people aren't involved so they don't care. Those that are doing such illegal things are going to do them anyway! Why not, since the chances of being caught and the fines involved are so very low? So you don't lose any votes and you pick up a fair number of 'free' ones.

Now consider what would happen if you tried the other approach, such as legalizing marijuana or prostitution. The people who don't like such things would immediately abandon any interest in any other issues that formerly determined their vote. They would vote as a Bloc AGAINST you!

This might actually influence the outcome of the next vote and put you out of office.

The real world demands that you make some distinctions. It's not black and white. There are shades of grey. Laws are no different. You can't consider lifestyle laws as being in the same context as theft or murder.

[WIP]

Some get nailed and some don't. There are lots of "massage parlors" listed in the yellow pages. Some of those are legit and some aren't.

Once again logic says that if people don't respond to the negative consequences of laws, why are they created in the first place? Apparently your world view consists of penalties for breaking the law as being useless. Why are penalties for breaking the laws written if they're useless? It would save taxpayers a lot of money to not have jails then wouldn't it?

And you are demonstrating another weakness of fundamentalist moral philosophy: adherence to laws, whether political or divinely mandated, is the ultimate goal, whether those laws (divine or political) have negative consequences.

I don't use drugs or massage parlors, but I start withdrawing my support for punitive laws against either when the end result is worse than the crime being legislated against. If the laws against prostitution are not reducing the problems associated with them, and it's still going on on the blackmarket, like the drug business, then the policy should be changed to something that leads to better outcomes. You want laws written to combat "sin" as determined in whatever your favourite holy book is; and sin must be fought at all costs, as Reagan's drug czar - Bill Bennett, responded when confronted about the growing blackmarket narcotics business: "we have no choice regarding fighting this war. If present laws and enforcement aren't working, then both have to be made tougher to eliminate the problem." When morals are a priori, and have nothing to do with events on the ground, we end up with laws and enforcement policies that keep plowing ahead and making life worse for everyone, even people not directly affected by vice crimes.

Maybe just maybe some people look and say "golly gee darn I better not do that or something bad might happen to me" Are you the type of person that repeatedly burned themselves on the stove when they were young?

The burned hand is a consequence of a careless or foolish action - touching a hot stove; so it makes sense to set a personal rule to stop touching hot stoves and avoid getting burned. Now, to use that analogy in this situation, you have to assume that the consequences of prostitution are always bad, for both the prostitutes and their clients; and this is probably not true, since even though it is illegal, there are at least a few women who are able to make a comfortable living at the higher end of the prostitution business -- and I guess that means they aren't getting their hands burned.