Does Firefly promote Prostitution?

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Monday, January 26, 2004 05:41
VIEWED: 17201
PAGE 5 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

HARDWARE

Friday, January 23, 2004 2:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

And the definition of "promiscuous" is someone who's getting laid more than you do.
--Kala

So everyone on the planet is more promiscuous than I am?

Nah, there's monks and nuns and virgins everwhere.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 2:46 AM

Thank you for your insight DORAN. You were closer to the situation than I was.

As for "promoting" prostitution, I don't see that Firefly really promotes anything!

As I see it, Mister Whedon has created a futuristic situation, and is merely showing how a certain set of characters deal with it.

I think the reason we are all here is because he has done it ... ummmm ... rather well!

STEVE580

Friday, January 23, 2004 3:05 AM

Quote:
f you lived in Canada, or somewhere else with a socialized health care system? Consider this scenario: Some Canadian smokes ciggarettes, inhaling cancer-causing nicotine. The tar and carbon monoxide probably don't help either. Eventually he gets cancer, and 5 doctors have to slice a tumor out of him in a giant operation. The Canadian taxpayer unfairly has to pay the bill due to someone's negligence.

True, that would be a problem. But if you compare the cost of healthcare for drug users vs the cost of banning drugs...far cheaper to treat, rather than prevent.

Quote:
But that's just babble. I say legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling, but you'd need a permit for the first two, and you'd need to pass a class about the risks. Of course, you'd also need to let me have an assault rifle for defense against drugged-up theives.

Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution.

And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle

?
-Steve

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 3:34 AM

I know you are saying this tongue-in-cheek, but the practical fact is that smokers cause LESS of a drain on a Socialized medical system than non smokers. They die much earlier.

As far as raising the penalties until they violate the Constitution! Drug and smoking laws themselves are in violation of the Constitution.

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 3:55 AM

"Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution."

Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.

"And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?"
-Steve

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.

WULFHAWK

Friday, January 23, 2004 5:14 AM

All ladies, not just prostitutes, should be allowed to negotiate their sexual fee at any time...this would encourage both parties to maintain health and fitness.

All adults should have the right to keep and bear arms...under thier arms, on their belts, on their shoulders...this would encourage politeness and discourage overt criminal acts.

All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Ain't gonna happen, but a fella can wish, can't he?

Take my love
Take my land

SUCCATASH

Friday, January 23, 2004 5:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for... a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Why should drugs be free? Aside from marijuana, which should be grown freely. I shouldn't have to take a shift at the morgue for smoking a joint when I get off of work. If someone made me look at dead people for every joint I smoked, well that sounds pretty damn messed up. Talk about Evil, whoever made me do that would be.

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 6:13 AM

Quote:
All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

TANSTAAFL -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

TANSTAAFT -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Fair Tax.

Are you proposing that Gummymint stick a tax board bayonet in one persons back to pay for someone elses drugs?

That's still slavery!

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

STEVE580

Friday, January 23, 2004 6:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.

Of course; I wasn't thinking. What you do with your body isn't the governments concern. I retract my previous statement.

Quote:
I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.

Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one. I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either. I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 8:03 AM

Quote:
Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one.

Just because one CAN, doesn't mean one MUST, or WILL.

Quote:
I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either.

Currently, they don't need to. Not when they can -- with a few well placed campaign contributions -- get the gooferment to use them on their behalf. 'Sides, Corporations themselves are a creation of the gummymint.

Quote:
I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve

It already exists! Libertarians call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), or Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP.)
In short; No one -- no individual, no group, no government -- has a right to initiate, advocate, or delegate the use of force against any other individual, or group, or government, for any reason what-so-ever.

Many a philosophy -- which people hold as beneficial -- views violence as the very definition of evil. Who benefits by this? The "good?" No, it is only evil that benefits, when men of ill will discover their victims disarmed and bound for slaughter by their very beliefs!
If we are to have a civilization, and if that civilization is to endure, we must come to view violence in a neutral light. Examining only the circumstances of its wielding. Initiated violence, especially for collective purposes, is the sum of all evil ever perpetrated by men upon man. So, can we not then view resistance to initiated violence as beneficial? Perhaps even good? If not, then we needn't look to the future for some "ultimate triumph of evil" -- it has already occurred.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE