I would still like to know just WHAT Brothel experience Daniel has had to back up his claims.

Quite a few of the members here are self confessed regular users of recreational drugs, are they also degenerate slime?

IMHO you're just using the drug issue as an excuse, as you usually do when you make grandiose statement about other groups of people(gays spring to mind for some reason)

So lets clarify some points will we?

Use of illict drugs in Australia is a misdememour at best. and in some states possession under a certain quantity is legal.

Being found guilty of a crime does not remove your rights under law.

I didn't say my prostitute friend didn't use illict drugs did I. In actual fact she did, as many of my friends and acquaintances did before and since.

So you will have to come up with some other reason for hating prostitutes 'cos drugs just aren't cutting it.

---

Though I'm not holding my breath because you still haven't come up with a good reason for why LGBT's can't get married.

(February 6, 2013 at 8:15 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Quite a few of the members here are self confessed regular users of recreational drugs, are they also degenerate slime?

That's it Zen set up your pathetic straw man...

Quote:IMHO you're just using the drug issue as an excuse, as you usually do when you make grandiose statement about other groups of people(gays spring to mind for some reason)

Not at all. All I'm telling you is the truth. If someone is high on drugs AND gets assaulted, they cannot then go and sue the person who injured them because they were doing something illegal when the alleged assault took place. Simple. The other person still gets charged with a crime, but can't be sued for personal injury, etc.

Quote:I didn't say my prostitute friend didn't use illict drugs did I. In actual fact she did, as many of my friends and acquaintances did before and since.

You know you've made a terrible argument when a kitten face-palm's itself Zen. If you own cats you may think seeing them face-palm themselves over and over in your house is "normal kitty behaviour", I assure you that it isn't.

(February 6, 2013 at 9:11 am)Aractus Wrote: Not at all. All I'm telling you is the truth. If someone is high on drugs AND gets assaulted, they cannot then go and sue the person who injured them because they were doing something illegal when the alleged assault took place. Simple. The other person still gets charged with a crime, but can't be sued for personal injury, etc.

That may be true down under, but it isn't the way things work on this side of the pond. Over here the victim's state of inebriation doesn't absolve the perpetrator of civil liability.

(February 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Well, transwomen are a minority with a 'significant' portion of them engaging in prostitution... and there is a stereotype where "Every prostitute's a trap!"

So I can see how it might have *something* to do with it... but this much? Someone's got personal problems

I got a little feeling Danny boy here went to a brothel and picked out a girl with somehing between her legs he didn't appreciate. That would sure explain his hostility towards prostitutes, wouldn't it?

Quote:.... We rather do need transmen as members, since I can only answer so much

I could see about getting my boyfriend to join, but he's pretty shy and timid and quiet so he'll probably lurk more than he'll actually post. Also, he tends to get so pissed off over how trans men are largely ignored that he can be really pissy when he goes into trans subject matter.

(February 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: .... We rather do need transmen as members, since I can only answer so much

Ask and you shall receive.

(February 6, 2013 at 7:47 am)Aractus Wrote:

(February 5, 2013 at 10:12 am)TaraJo Wrote: So, by your logic, drug users are not deserving of legal protection? Why? Does that mean if I want to go out and rob peopl, I should specifically target people who I suspect do drugs simply because they deserve it?

No it's not by "my logic" it's how the law works and how it is supposed to work. Courts aren't supposed to waste their time helping people who are doing the wrong thing. Like if you break into somebody's home and get mauled by their dog, you erased your right to sue the owner by doing something illegal/wrong.

Who exactly is being harmed by a person's drug use? The person using the drugs... so let's just pile on and strip them of their humanity and rights under the law? What a wonderful, Christian message that is. Your buddy Jesus liked the hookers, he said we should take care of those who are weakest. This line of thinking you are following, is the same line used in this argument: A woman is raped. She was wearing "inappropriate" clothing (or drunk or high). She therefore is asking to be raped. Your line of thinking is just as wrong as this rape assumption.

He's been told things first-hand by multiple brothel owners? AND a couple of 'drivers' who told him where they were taking the girls?

Damn, now that's power which money just can't buy and the law just can't enforce... boy you're something else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WL5IRrhl20

---

(February 6, 2013 at 9:57 am)TaraJo Wrote: I could see about getting my boyfriend to join, but he's pretty shy and timid and quiet so he'll probably lurk more than he'll actually post. Also, he tends to get so pissed off over how trans men are largely ignored that he can be really pissy when he goes into trans subject matter.

Ashton's in a similar situation. We don't go into gender fluidity very often here, so

And I try to make time and thought for transmen in my posts... can't blame me for not being a transman myself, though

---

(February 6, 2013 at 11:33 am)Gallifrey Wrote: Ask and you shall receive.

OMG! IT WORKED!

Quickly, I've got to ask for something else.

"I would love a million dollars, World, please give me a million dollars?"

---

(February 6, 2013 at 12:20 pm)festive1 Wrote: Who exactly is being harmed by a person's drug use? The person using the drugs... so let's just pile on and strip them of their humanity and rights under the law? What a wonderful, Christian message that is. Your buddy Jesus liked the hookers, he said we should take care of those who are weakest. This line of thinking you are following, is the same line used in this argument: A woman is raped. She was wearing "inappropriate" clothing (or drunk or high). She therefore is asking to be raped. Your line of thinking is just as wrong as this rape assumption.

She (hopefully...) wasn't asking to be raped, *but* her clothing choice likely contributed to its occurrence if it does happen, and *does* put her at further risk of rape.

If I'm waving hundred dollar bills around in the poor-district, I may or may not be asking for it to be stolen from me... but doing so has definitely increased the chance of theft.

I don't think the problem is that s/he might have put herself at more risk. It's more how unspeakably cruel it is to say that to a victim of rape. Rape victims already put up with a lot of self-blame, they shouldn't be told more ways in which they can blame themselves. It's impossible to change the past, anyway, and in the end they're the victim regardless of why they were victimized.

(February 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm)Gallifrey Wrote: I don't think the problem is that s/he might have put herself at more risk. It's more how unspeakably cruel it is to say that to a victim of rape. Rape victims already put up with a lot of self-blame, they shouldn't be told more ways in which they can blame themselves. It's impossible to change the past, anyway, and in the end they're the victim regardless of why they were victimized.

Well, obviously... the problem is that there's someone who was willing to rape them/steal from them/murder them/etc. If we didn't live in a world where people did these things, then actions/appearances could not contribute to their occurrence.

... No kidding that victims (of various offenses, rape is a severe example) put up with a lot of self-blame. I'm not unconnected from this specific example, and yet I don't think it's cruel to observe that various actions on my part influenced (however slightly) whether or not <event> occurred. And I'm not about to engage in special pleading for being hurt by said event(s)

Not much for consolation, but... in torture: nobody escapes unaffected; not the tortured, not the torturer.