SIR_Sergeant

I don't think it would be possible. It would require such a perfect combination of mindsets and behaviors that it could never be achieved.

This guy gives everyone who films police and legitimately stands up when their rights have been violated a bad name.

I understand civil disobedience as being done purposefully in an attempt to change the laws that exist. Going above the speed limit or passing through a stop sign isn't that. Lunch counter sit ins like the ones in the 1960s are a great example. They worked.

*I'm aware not all conservatives (it's an umbrella term) believe the exact same things, don't jump on me for that* I think some of their opinions tend to be hypocritical. They preach small government but don't follow up on it. They want to impose their morality on you through government force (laws). Abortion, drug prohibition, gay marriage, lack of separation of church and state, etc. They want a massive military (which is a part of government), even if it majorly contributes to the national debt and lines the pockets of defense contractors. *hint hint* Eisenhower *hint hint* They back the police almost without question. If you're so opposed to the government, why do you unilaterally stand behind their agents? They want to get government out of the way of business, but then they buddy up to the lobbyists and the corporations that pay the campaign bills. They appeal to the Founding Fathers as if they were the intellectual descendants of those men, even though classical liberalism mirrors contemporary libertarianism (which I do not consider in-line with contemporary conservatism or liberalism) and not the GOP or the Tea Party. I'm sure what I say next will go totally unheeded and I'll be blasted as a "typical libtard," but as a libertarian (and registered independent), I am generally opposed to a significant number of things both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, support. I'm sure this thread will end well.

1. I honestly don't know. I've only shot a gun once. 2. Call him out and tell him to pay for it. 3. I'd have to treat her like any other case. To do otherwise would be wrong. 4. If it really wasn't an issue I'd probably just leave them be. If I had to do something I'd just ask them to stop and leave. No difference whatsoever if they're homosexual. 5. Try to do whatever I could do stop it as quickly as possible. I'd call for help as well.

I don't think there's a specific set of criterion you can lay out for this, but as a general idea, if you find a law to be immoral or a violation of your rights in some way, then civil disobedience is justified. I know that's very broad but I don't think there's any better way to approach it.

Play nice kids.

You're not being discriminated against in any way legally though. You aren't barred from entering into a legal contract (in some states). You've been and still are a massive majority in this country.

How?

I can see the realities of prostitution I'm trying to get across to you aren't coming through. Can't say I'm not surprised. I feel like a broken record at this point in the discussion; I don't think there's much more I can add or contribute that Hastings or I hasn't already said.

They would pay income taxes like anyone else. There's also no necessary condition the individual would need a license. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that street prostitution is a highly coercive in nature, backed up by the threat of violence?

ITT: Shitty understandings of science.

I'm supportive of the theory behind the notion that you should be allowed to determine who can be your customers are and are not, but the realities of this are not so great. It's a legal out for discrimination. I don't see how this could stand up to a legal challenge against the Civil Rights Act of '64. And let's not kid ourselves. This sole intention of this bill is to allow assholes who hate members of the LGBT community to discriminate.

You guys are failing to make important distinctions between the realities of legal and illegal prostitution. They each operate under vastly different circumstances.

I do agree that the impact on human trafficking would be less than the impact on drug cartels, but there is definite reason to believe there would be some degree of impact. Human trafficking a global issue of a mind-boggling scale, so determining the exact impact is difficult. I think this is also due in part to the nature of the two matters. Way more people consume marijuana (in the US at least) than solicit prostitutes. They're different animals but generally "vices" that have thriving black markets follow similar trends when an effort is made to decriminalize/legalize it.

Providing legal competition in the face of a black market severely impacts the black market. The legalization of marijuana in Colorado alone has had a large financial impact on the Cartels.

In regards to Example 1, why take the risk of getting caught by the police when, if it were an option, you could go to a legal brothel with no chance of legal trouble and a much higher level of safety? In regards to Example 2... I'm not going to do what you've done and try to put myself into the mind of a prostitute because I've never been one and I've never talked to one (and I suspect the same is true for yourself). However, it would make more sense to work in a brothel than on the street for a pimp for several reasons. As I've said however many times now, it would be much safer. You're not going to be kidnapped, beaten up, or murdered if you're working in a brothel. You'd probably make more money as well. I don't know the average prices for the various services provided, but I'd imagine the price would be higher in a brothel than on the street or online simply because of the nature of the operation. Higher prices would result in higher wages for the workers. I think you're also missing the point that prostitution, as is, very coercive in nature. Most people involved in prostitution and sex trafficking either took to it out of extreme circumstances or were forced into it (or some combination of the two).

I can't tell you if they'll be willing or not. However, I would prefer to at least present them the opportunity. To say that they want to continue doing drugs isn't entirely accurate. Drug abuse is a disease, and isn't something easily addressed by an abuser. It's an incredibly complex issue that we could discuss for hours on end. I think creating a potential gateway to help is better than leaving a person to whither away to hard drugs on the streets.

Clarkson is a troublemaker and probably does need to be disciplined, but this will kill the BBC in terms of viewers. They put way too many of their eggs into a single basket.

The prostitutes themselves wouldn't have to deal with the regulatory guidelines so much as the brothel owners/managers will. It works in places that have it.

I think Hastings addressed your concerns pretty well. It may be a different type of business in comparison to what most are but the models to follow already exist. Of course no regulatory system will be perfect, none are. Writing quality legislation and policy isn't easy. I've written mock legislation and read plenty of real legislation. Enforcing it can be even more difficult but it gets done regardless.

It would depend on the specifics of the legalization. A fairly straightforward plan could require all brothels to hold some kind of license and be subject to routine inspections for appropriate business practices. Any brothels operating without the proper licenses or engaging in prohibited business practices would be shut down or face some kind of legal action/fines. It might not be easy but by all means it would be better than the status quo.

A couple things: First, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that "prostitutes are known to do drugs." Of course some do, but to say that they all do is impossible. However, given their situation, is it really that surprising that drug abuse could be a problem? Someone that is a victim of drug addiction could be easily persuaded into becoming a prostitute. Given the nature of prostitution and human trafficking in general, drug abuse is an easy way for for pimps/traffickers to keep their victims under easy control. Drug abuse could also be a coping method for the realities of such a difficult life. I think in this thread we've forgotten that we're talking about human beings. Real people. Second, testing in regards to legal prostitution would be for STDs, not drugs. However, an employer might be willing to have their workers drug tested (or this could be some kind of mandate required by legalization). This would do a number of positive things. It would create a incentive for sex workers to remain drug free if they wanted to remain employed. It could also provide an entry to treatment for a sex worker to rehabilitation. A prostitute on the street isn't going to take a drug test, and they're not going to get the help they need. Legalizing prostitution could potentially open some doors to people that need help. Finally, no one is saying that legalizing prostitution is going to eliminate the illegal trade. However, it would almost certainly decrease it. A good comparison is drug/alcohol prohibition. When drugs or alcohol are prohibited, use goes up and an illegal market flourishes. When they're legal, use generally goes down and so does illegal activity. See National Prohibition or Colorado.

I stopped getting excited for E3 and new games in general a while ago. Nothing lives up to the hype. Watch Dogs was a game with a ton of promise that turned out to be a pile of shit. The only game I can think of that I've been genuinely excited for is the new Star Wars: Battlefront. It'll probably be a retextured Battlefield 4/Hardline but I want to be optimistic.

Sex, drugs, and money still come up in his music, but I think the way he integrates it is better. Sometimes his sexual lyrics are actually pretty funny.