namelesstavern.net

ps im not arguing it should be legal or illegal i believe both should be legal and taxxed to hell... that being said doesnt matter atm neither is a victimless crime..

Is there a victim to the crime if an independent adult woman not in Nevada decides to sell her time and sex? She's not under the influence of drugs or a pimp, it's purely her choice. Say she even really enjoys the job, but it's illegal. Her selling herself is a crime, but who's the victim?

As for drugs: You have random guy X. He's successful, makes > 100k a year, but likes to kick back and get high when he's at home and isn't planning on going out again. He doesn't drive while inebriated, and uses a vaporizer for the weed to avoid the cancer risks of smoking, or bakes pot-cookies and eats one. He's committing a crime, but who's the victim?

Yes, with abuse and mis-use there is damage. But that's true for a number of things, both legal and illegal. Responsible drug use is still illegal, but I don't see any victim.

Likewise for prostitution, coersion and crime surrounding the life/job also certainly has victims, but the prostitution itself, if the person doing it WANTS to be doing it? That I don't see there being any victim, despite it being a crime.

-Arlos

read my post i said if prostitution was legal it wouldnt be a crime and would be victimless. stop picking apart posts and looking at it . I said if it was like nevada we wouldnt even have this conversation. - You are picking it apart trying to prove a point and acting just like mindia ignoring an entire argument.

You can look at the end drug user and pretend there is no crime behind x guy doing a rail of coc shaped like ukrain. But how dod that coc get there, who smuggled it how many tax dollars of YOURS and MINE were wasted trying to prevent it How many corrupt polititions or govt workers were paid to get that coc into that mans house.

You are looking at the crime from the end user - not the entire process of what it takes for drugs and prostitution to happen

Mop, I never said "if the prostitution was legal". My entire argument there was based on it being ILLEGAL, yet it still being a voluntary choice by someone, who may even enjoy the job. Note, I said: "NOT in Nevada".

Let me repeat a bit more clearly.

1) Woman lives in a spot where prostitution is illegal.
2) She is fully adult, and decides that she wants to become a prostitute of her own free will. She's not forced into it in any way, even via monetary pressures.
3) She enjoys being a prostitute, she likes sex and enjoys the income.

Now, what she is doing *IS* a crime. But, I don't see there as being a victim involved.

I also disagree with the inappropriateness of considering just the end-user or actual prostitute. We're discussing the nature of the crime itself. If you consider ONLY the crime itself (the act of the drug use itself, or the act of charging money for sex), then I don't see there as being a victim.

Sure, there is significant societal baggage that effects more than just the end-user that has grown up around the crimes themselves, I'm not disputing that. But that's an entirely seperate argument. I considered the argument to be more one of "Why are victimless acts crimes" at its most fundamental level, rather than the slant you're giving it.

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:I'm gonna laugh my ass off when some retard who is burning the flag in front of a camera, in some typical stupid protest, gets clocked by somebody.

so instead of a peaceful demonstration of someone's beliefs, you're advocating violence?

you are what's wrong with this country.

Burning the flag isn't a peaceful demonstration. You are what is wrong with this country.

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

you still haven't explained why you think physical violence is a justifiable response to someone who just wants their opinion to be heard.

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:I'm gonna laugh my ass off when some retard who is burning the flag in front of a camera, in some typical stupid protest, gets clocked by somebody.

so instead of a peaceful demonstration of someone's beliefs, you're advocating violence?

you are what's wrong with this country.

Burning the flag isn't a peaceful demonstration. You are what is wrong with this country.

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

you still haven't explained why you think physical violence is a justifiable response to someone who just wants their opinion to be heard.

I didn't say it was justifiable. I said I would laugh my ass off if it did happen. Aah, another classic personal attack from the magnificent Brinstar.

See you are taking one person having things go perfectly fine and then saying that the thing as a whole is victimless, you can't do that, just as I said before that not every person who does drugs or whores has a victim situation. The crime as a whole makes many victims and that is the issue.

Like Mop said I am not arguing if I think it should be legal or illegal I am just saying in its current state it is hardly victimles.

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:I'm gonna laugh my ass off when some retard who is burning the flag in front of a camera, in some typical stupid protest, gets clocked by somebody.

so instead of a peaceful demonstration of someone's beliefs, you're advocating violence?

you are what's wrong with this country.

Burning the flag isn't a peaceful demonstration. You are what is wrong with this country.

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

you still haven't explained why you think physical violence is a justifiable response to someone who just wants their opinion to be heard.

You lose because you tried to argue with Mindia.

Zanchief wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:I'm gonna laugh my ass off when some retard who is burning the flag in front of a camera, in some typical stupid protest, gets clocked by somebody.

so instead of a peaceful demonstration of someone's beliefs, you're advocating violence?

you are what's wrong with this country.

Burning the flag isn't a peaceful demonstration. You are what is wrong with this country.

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

you still haven't explained why you think physical violence is a justifiable response to someone who just wants their opinion to be heard.

You lose because you tried to argue with Mindia.

He loses because he's Brinstar.

Narrock wrote: How apropos.

Apropos doesn't fit in that context.

Sorry, it's a big pet peeve of mine... people always use it as a substitute for appropriate in an effort to sound smarter (than they really are). Ooh, a French word. Impressive. It's no different than the pompous fuckers who constantly throw in Latin in completely unnecessary circumstances. In your case, it TOTALLY stands out.

"Apropos" ('a-pre-po)

1. Opportunely
2. In passing
3. Incidentally

Oh, how again did I use the word incorrectly?

Well lets put the definition in the context you used it.

How opportunely, how in passing, and how incidentally.

This is like 'irony' all over again.

Adivina wrote:Well lets put the definition in the context you used it.

How opportunely, how in passing, and how incidentally.

Brinstar wrote:

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

In this context, he thought (and I use that term loosely with Brinstar) that his typical childish attack was used at an opportune moment. ie: right after my post. To which I responded, "How apropos" with a rolleyes icon.

I have to agree with everyone else here, it doesn't fit in that context

Ok, I took the word "Apropos" out. Happy now?

Thank you

The Kizzy wrote:Thank you

You're welcome.

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:

brinstar wrote:

Narrock wrote:I'm gonna laugh my ass off when some retard who is burning the flag in front of a camera, in some typical stupid protest, gets clocked by somebody.

so instead of a peaceful demonstration of someone's beliefs, you're advocating violence?

you are what's wrong with this country.

Burning the flag isn't a peaceful demonstration. You are what is wrong with this country.

ahh, the classic Pee Wee Herman defense. nice.

you still haven't explained why you think physical violence is a justifiable response to someone who just wants their opinion to be heard.

By the way... what's the point you're trying to make with your new sig?

small blurb I google'd that 'splains it for you...

I am going to teach the world about the word "apropos." Here's my best advice: just don't do it. Leave "apropos" for the folks who edit literary journals. Apropos is not a short-cut version of "appropriate." We don't use it this way: "He was oddly dressed, so it seemed apropos that we shank him." Wrong. "Apropos" means "being at once opportune and to the point" as in "relevant" or "regarding." "Apropos your recent liposuction accident ..." Right. Apropos "apropos," the "o's" are long, the "s" is silent.

vonkaar wrote:small blurb I google'd that 'splains it for you...

I am going to teach the world about the word "apropos." Here's my best advice: just don't do it. Leave "apropos" for the folks who edit literary journals. Apropos is not a short-cut version of "appropriate." We don't use it this way: "He was oddly dressed, so it seemed apropos that we shank him." Wrong. "Apropos" means "being at once opportune and to the point" as in "relevant" or "regarding." "Apropos your recent liposuction accident ..." Right. Apropos "apropos," the "o's" are long, the "s" is silent.

I took it out.

I guess you could say a victimless crime is a crime where there is no immediate victim.

If the gov't banned football, you could make the same claim that playing football is not a victimless crime.

You could probably even make the argument that their are no victimless actions, period.

There are no victimless crimes, just like there are no selfless actions

arlos, from your posts your sounding more and more light a libertarian and less like a socialist... government regulation of people lives is bad. come to the dark side and join the libertarian party

thats a pretty cynical way of looking at things, it would make for a sad world