Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Off Topic - Anything Goes -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito who wrote (820)	3/11/2008 6:30:29 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6846

OK, let's go point by point. >>If murder were not illegal, thwe wife of a murderer would be hurt less too. If that's a valid argument against a law, welcome to anarchy.<< It wasn't an argument for the legalization of prostitution, it was simply an observation. A complete argument for the legalization can be made, but it would require more than one statement. "How about DUI? The cops pull you over, cuff you, haul you to the slammer. You haven't (yet) hit anyone or anything. Where's the victim? Do you favor allowing drunk drivers loose on the roads? Seems to me you have to." >>This whole discussion has been about the Spitzer case.<< Sure. But that doesn't mean we're constrained from mentioning anything that doesn't directly involve the Spitzer case. You started the discussion by saying that the pain Spitzer's wife is going through demonstrates that prostitution is not a victimless crime. Tim pointed out that there are "crimeless victims", too, the spouses of people who cheat. That's a situation that contains elements similar to the Spitzer case. "The victim in the DUI case seems to be the DUI driver." I think I'll leave your last two "points" alone, since they don't really make sense to me as responses to what I said. "Why? You said 'If prostitution were not illegal, she would have been hurt less.' Seems to me to apply perfectly."