Prostitution Laws

Would it go under current events?

Probably 'Political', but it could also fit in 'Philosophy'. I know that the previous education arguments went there.

I have to take care of something, I'll post it soon.

Only of the highest quality, I imagine.

Are they part of the hiver master-race, my queen?

Queen? I didn't know Stalin swings that way.

Alright, well I'm gonna skip any ethics/morals debate, as you said it's all relative to the audience and the individuals arguing, and it's not entirely imperative to an argument about policy; policy being an extension of the practical needs of the society more so than the philosophical ideals, IMO.

Now in this sentence you pretty much, as I see it, contradicted your previous stance on the prostitution issue, you claim to not care about what others do with their lives, which includes what they consent to in the bedroom, so long as it doesn't impact you or anyone you find personally important. I would say that it's the right and responsibility of the peoples involved to either use protection and/or get themselves checked out, and demand that their partner do the same. So, as it's the responsibility of the individual to ensure their own safety, it's not entirely right to make prostitution illegal based on the grounds that it could provoke injury, in this case spread of STD's, if the parties involved don't take proper precautions. Further the vast majority of STD's are spread not through brothels, but regular old unprotected sex by, and pardon my French, stupid fuckfaces who ruin it for others, meaning that if you really want to stop STD's, it has to be through education and not continuing to make prostitution illegal.

In addition to this, there's also the fact that having sex as a profession wont necessarily increase ones likelihood of spreading disease. This is because if any sex-based industry wants to keep its clients and its workers (prostitutes or pornographic actors/actresses) happy and healthy respectively, it needs to take precautions that ensure nobody involved will contract a disease or other such complications. Therefore, I would imagine that any reputable brothel would take steps, such as routine checkups, required use of condoms and other contraceptives, and even making it so that potential customers will require a medical checkup beforehand, to allow their clientele and workers safety and peace of mind. And if it turns out that the brothels are unwilling to comply with such measures, then the regional or national government should step in and forcibly apply such rules so as to keep its citizens free from such afflictions. Due to these assertions on my part, I would like to disagree with you and say that the spread of STD's is not a valid reason to not legalize prostitution.

Yeah, we need to legalize it, man!

Yay and nay.
I stated before that I find it unreasonable to allow for an activity that harms people in general.
In this case, I have narrowed it down to just myself and the people I care about.
Its not necessarily a contradiction, because I cannot guarentee anyone and neither can anyone guarentee me, that legalizing something or making something illegal will not negatively impact myself or anyone I care about.

I would also note that 'anyone I care about' is a completely subjective phrase which can fluxuate in size to include or disclude anyone at any time.
For example, I could just be talking about my family or I could be talking about a broad amount of people, like the citizenry of an entire country.

As for your view of the responsiblities of the individual:
It is true that an individual should take responsibilities for their own choices. However, it is also true that laws should place them in a position that they will not have to deal with an absurd amount of ridiculous dangers. Take the laws protecting the environment for example. An individual has the responsibility to make sure not to move into a polluted area, but a government also has the responsibility to make sure that a company does not harm others when producing its product.
There is, of course, also the point that the individual is only so capible of doing something. You assert that the individual should 'prevent any harm to themselves'. Well, in some cases, that is beyond the ability of the individual. Take the pollution example again. The individual [and this has been shown in numerous cases] can complain about the pollution all they want and be ignored [barring violent acts]. The government, however, cannot be ignored. So we see that the individual taking what is 'right' into their own hands is not always the preferable option. Its also known as vigilantism.

I am not as firm on anti-prostitution as you seem to make me out to be. If you misinterpreted what I said or I overstated something, I apologize [the latter being much more likely than the former].
Prostitution is one of those arguments in which I simply disagree with its legalization on the basis of a single argument or group of arguments and oppose it.
Should there ever be any proof to the contrary of what I object to it on, I will simply concede.

In this case, my argument is that prostitution could lead to a rise in STD spread. I believe this due partly to the fact that STDs were shown to have increased spread during times of sexual openness often dubbed 'sexual revolutions'.

Though, as I have stated, I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter either way. I simply wish to raise a valid concern. I probably would abstain from a vote on the legalization of it unless some compelling evidence was presented that made me concerned.

There are other concerns, but again, they are ethical and such and I don't want to get bogged down in one of THOSE debates.

Note: if you find some of this nonsensical, I blame the fact that I am playing Wurm Online as I write this and the sound of saws is in the background.

That's fine mate, I often say things in nonsensical ways, though that really happens regardless of what I'm doing. Also I'll admit I'm not entirely that big of a proponent of legalized prostitution, I see no problem with it, but I probably wont make overt efforts to try and see its fruition.

Back to the debate, I can definitely see your point that the individual isn't fully capable of controlling the world around them, and thus can't take all the measures necessary to prevent harm. However, I believe that in the case of sexual intercourse (always assuming it's consensual) that any party involved does have absolute control of their actions, and thus they always have the ability to go and procure some condoms, ask the others involved about their history, and/or check themselves out after sex with a new partner. Thus if anyone gets STD's as a result from sex, it's more the result of irresponsibility on the part of those involved, rather than if how they procure the sex (by paying for it, having it come about from a relationship, etc).

I can see your point and agree somewhat.

However, I would also point out that it is part of the responsibility of the government to ensure that an epidemic does not occure for the sake of individual 'freedoms'. There is a limit to their say in the actions of an individual, yes, but there are also limits to the actions of the individual. A carrier may not mean to harm others, but they can still do so.

Alright, I see what you mean. However, if a government were to try to control aspects of ones life that could result in similar consequences of epidemics or disease spread in general (washing ones hands, touching literally anything, hell even the act of carrying a disease and thus allowing it to mutate could all be considered harmful to the entire population) it would result in a completely unwieldy system full of inefficiency due to sheer size. Further, I don't believe the government even has the capabilities to prevent people from exercising their sexual urges, hence the existence of illegal prostitution, and that rather than try to regulate and force the population into making better decisions and not screwing everyone else over; it would be a better use of resources and effort to educate the populace on how to practice safe sex.

I see your point, but I would argue that education is no guarentee against the spread of STDs. There are, unfortunately, alot of people out there who would never use the education effectively. For example, some STDs have carriers who themselves are not afflicted, but can transmit it to others. The only way to find out if you are a carrier [the only safe way] is to get tested. Yet, even with this reletively well-known information, how many people will actually pursue testing?

You can battle the spread at the source in many ways, but chief among them is either A) Your suggestion [education], or B) limit the ability of the disease to spread.
Of course, you can and have to research cures, but that is an uncertain timeframe, even with the best of funding.

While I am in no way opposed to education [infact, I support the idea], I believe that stemming the source as best as possible by making a practice that would spread STDs the fastest [potencially] is the best course of action in the meantime.

Note: and yes, I am still playing Wurm as I write this, so please forgive some errors.

Says who?

Says the purpose of the government.

The government is as much to protect the individual as to protect them from the blatent stupidity of others.

Consent is invalid, you do not consent to have to make a living.

But I believe that the governments only obligation is to defend the nation and protect the citizens from criminals (assault, theft, murder, tresspassing, slander, etc). What makes your belief on the purpose of the government superior to mine?

The question actually makes no sense.

I stated that the government's duty is protect its citizens from the stupidity of others. Criminals included.

So the real question is whether you consider spreading a disease to be a crime.

For my own self, it is not so much a crime as something that the government ought to stop.
Especially since my haz-mat suit is at the dry-cleaners and I don't have time to stop any of the upcoming epidemics.