Does Firefly promote Prostitution?
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Monday, January 26, 2004 05:41
VIEWED: 17201
PAGE 8 of 8
Quote:
Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."
Prolly should have put a "big grin" icon on my post. Sorry 'bout that.
The list of republican Cons (Neo, and Paleo) who have voted for what I call "victim disarmament" is quite long. I don't have the time to sit back, remember, and write them all down, but would you consider the NRA to be a conservative organization?
Here is the record of the NRA:
They gave their approval to the National Firearms Act of 1934:
They helped write the Uniform hand gun law of 1938:
They endorsed and openly campained for the Gun Control Act of 1968:
They sat down with Handgun Control,Inc., and wrote Act 17 -- a gun control law passed in Pennsylvania in 1995 -- and lied to their members about what was in the law:
They endorsed the Brady Bill, came up with their own unconstitutional National Instant Check System, and wrote the Maryland Hand Gun Ban.
I see we use the language a little differently.
When I speak of "principle," I mean a political or philosophical position which is of first importance ... inviolate! By that standard, the only principle the republican party has is -- in my view -- that of getting elected ... by any means necessary!
Shrubya himself has stated that he will sign the renewal of the so-called assault weapon/magazine ban into law if it comes across his desk this year.
When he was Prez, daddy Bush banned the importation of military look alike firearms. And he did it by (unconstitutional) executive order! All on his own!
You are right regarding Iraq. But even then, the republican party has alienated a lot of republican voters on this issue. It's going to be a verrrrry interesting election year.
As I see it, there isn't a zinkys worth of difference between the dems and the reps -- they both want the government to expand.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
While I agree with you, I have to say that this is a conservative, Republican principle. It's also a conservative, Republican principle that your nation can be invaded for having "banned" weapons. Not criticizing you, just pointing that out.
I can see where this might be confusing.
If you have a gun, okay, that means you can either use it defensively, or offensively. How do we (meaning the rest of society) know what you are going to do? For most things, we wait and see what you will do, give you the benefit of a doubt.
But, when discussing WMDs there are two problems. First off, its the matter of damage such action can cause. Even if you have a 200 round clip in your assault rifle, you are not going to do that much damage, relative to the total society, before you can be stopped. While 200 dead (assuming you were a perfect shot) might be terrible, its a far cry from the potential damage that can result from a single WMD attack.
The second problem is their small size. One estimate I have read is that if all the antrax that Saddam admitted to having were in powder form and ready to use as a weapon, it would fit in 4-40 pound suitcases. With the ability to infect millions of people.
A nuclear bomb is really not that much different from a regular bomb, except it packs a hell of a lot bigger bang in a far smaller package. Small size make it harder to detect, or stop. While someone walking around with 200 rounds of ammo and a long gun, well that tends to get noticed.
Essentially, because the potential damage is so much greater, even slight risks have to be removed. Even if its a 1 in a million shot that such an attack could occur, all it takes is for that 1 shot to kill millions of folks.
And because of their small size, that makes detection and prevention all that much harder. Which increases the risk of such an attack succeeding.
Plus, in the case of Saddam, he's already shown that he has no compunction against using such weapons. Ask the Kurds.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Not sure I see the similarity. If spend tonight with a whore, how is that the same as you stock-piling ICBMs? It isn't that the latter is a more extreme example of the first; they don't fall into the same category at all!
It depends on who you ask and their particular view of morality. Some do see whores as a threat to civil structures and potential problems with regard to families, the view of sexuality etc. Some see it as more an "internal rot" as opposed to a direct physical danger as represented by my ICBMs.
Which brings up the entire question of where the line should be drawn, which is really what the argument is all about. Some want the line way over there, keeping you from your whores. Some want the line way on the other side, allowing me to keep my missiles. Some want it somewhere in the middle, but defining that middle ground gets tricky, unless you have some kind of rational doctrine concerning "harm" or "threat"
And some are worried we might get together and trade. Some of my missiles for some of your whores
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Hey I only know what I read in the paper. And the way I see it, democrats are the only one's pushing gun control, and Republicans are the only one pushing the Iraq war, and implying threats about all the other nations suspected of having weapons. (Except for North Korea, who has been boasting of their "nuclear deterent" for some time now.) I know there's a difference between neocons and old-style conservatives, but I find it more convenient to group them together. By Republican principle I mean "something Republicans in general support."
As someone who is a Republican, I would kind of like to explain a couple things.
First off, the two big issues to me are guns and taxes. I don't trust other people enough to completely believe that either party, if holding unchecked power, would not devolve into a form of tyranny. So how best to prevent it?
Guns: private ownership gives the people an ability to rebel if needed. (Not necessarily to win a rebellion, but to start one.) The threat alone serves as an addition check on overreaching government power.
Also, since cops can't follow me around all the time, there may come a time when I might have to defend myself. I want the means to do so. Not that I want to use it, the hope is that it serves as a deterent against criminals and such.
Taxes: I understand that certain things have to be done, using a government. Honest cops, judges, strong military, that sort of thing. I think that education can be seen as important enough to warrent some government involvement. And I recognize there is no such thing as a free lunch.
But, Laffer curve aside, higher taxes means more money to the federal coffers, which means giving the government more resources to do more things. Even things I really don't want them to do. So by reducing government funds, you limit government resources and thereby limit the things they can do. Limit the regulations and imposition they can enforce.
[The bug in this thinking is the fact right now we are on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Because taxes are a product of income, tax rates affect economic activity. High tax rates slow economic activity, and thereby REDUCE government revenues. Lower taxes end up increasing federal revenues, this side of the curve. Even though they are taking a smaller percentage, is smaller of a bigger pie. and hence bigger in total. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but we are seeing it work today.]
So, letting me keep my guns puts a brake on government overreach, lest they piss us off too much. Letting me keep more of my own money not only limits their ability to interfere, but also gives me resources to work within the system to prevent such overreaches.
Heinlein said it best. "Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Right now, the Republicans will let me keep my gun, and lower my taxes. The Democratic party seems intent on higher taxes, and removing my gun. That makes my choice a lot easier.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting; this began as a discussion of whether "Firefly" promotes prostitution, but now has become more of a discussion of whether prostitution ought to be legal.
Let's deal with the questions separately:
(1). "Does Firefly promote prostitution?"
In a word, no. The profession of Registered Companion is technically prostitution, but the social and legal framework in which it is shown to exist is so different from modern western civilization* that it can't be said to promote prostitution in the current sense.
(2) "Should prostitution be legal?"
In a word, yes. One of the few admirable features of the Alliance, IMHO, is the existance of the Companion class. A service contract between two individuals that does not affect others adversely should not be a concern of the government, or law enforcement.
Most of the negative results of prostitution can be directly linked to its illegal status; those that cannot be so linked can be more effectively dealt with in a framework of legality. In Thailand, for example, where prostitution is legal, taxed, and licensed, all sex workers are require to pass a twice-monthly medical exam; this encourages the prostitutes to insist on safe sex, resulting in a remarkably low STD transmittal rate.
By contrast, hookers in the US often refuse to carry condoms for their customers because prophylactics are considered "proof of intent" in most courts. Whether you like the idea of sex for hire or not, it exists, and will continue to exist. The public interest is not enhanced by a legal policy that discourages safe sex.
As for moral arguments, I think it was the apostle Paul who compared prostitution to a sewer; an utterly dirty, filthy, disgusting thing that is absolutely necessary if you don't want to live with consequences that are even more dirty, filthy and disgusting (not the exact wording, of course.) Personally, I don't find the idea of sex-for-hire to be automatically off-putting, but even if you do, the current laws make a bad situation worse.
Final Note: In my travels in various nations, I have noted that the decorative value of individual prostitutes is in direct a direct proportional relationship to the legality of prostitution within a society. -- or, in plain English, "The more legal hooking is, the prettier the hookers."
(This is considered to be a general ivariant, and henceforth is to be known as "RocketJock's 1st law of prostitutional aesthetics.")
--Rocketjock
*Footquote: "Western Civilization? It sounds like a wonderful idea; you should try it."
--Mohandus Ghandi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I admit I only wanted to make a sarcastic jab, not invoke a thoughtful discussion. But whatever.
Quote:
Right now, the Republicans will let me keep my gun, and lower my taxes. The Democratic party seems intent on higher taxes, and removing my gun. That makes my choice a lot easier.
Yeah, that viewpoint calls to me. But then I support abortion and gay rights, and hate Bush, so I end up supporting the demoncrats for now. But sooner or later they'll win the presidency, betray me, and I'll be rooting for the GOP.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I gotta say I disagree with Drakon's Republican view of taxes. So far, Bush's tax cuts have enlarged massive deificits, failed to increase jobs much, and also improved the economy immensely. But I think it's important to balance the budget.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Yeah, that viewpoint calls to me. But then I support abortion and gay rights, and hate Bush, so I end up supporting the demoncrats for now. But sooner or later they'll win the presidency, betray me, and I'll be rooting for the GOP.
I feel the same way - except, when you look at the democratic candidates...I'll just vote Libertarian, I guess. I mean, they won't win, but it's not like my vote'll make a differance no matter who I vote for.
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME