Say Anything Blog

If the state wants it to be illegal the state can enforce it. 

If the municipality feels that it is not in their interest to allocate resources to enforce a state statute, that is the type of decisions that they are required to make.

I have a big problem with local municipalities being able to violate state or federal laws with impunity.

I guess I can agree with that statement on the basis that the states draft laws that apply to said states citizens. The citizens stand a much easier chance of a state law being repealed than a Federal law. I’m not too hip on preventing the states from having the ability, (or right, if you will), of ignoring laws passed by the U.S. congress. The reason I feel this way is that I think the Federal Government should be limited to ensuring the freedom of the people of the country. Each national law they pass takes away a bit of our individual freedoms. Unchecked, we’ll eventually have none.

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

Section four of the ballot measure – under the heading “Prostitution Shall Be Decriminalized” – further states that the city, county, and district attorney “shall not subject sex-workers to life long economic discrimination associated with having a criminal record.”

That’s where they went too far.

San Francisco has a right to declare that their city cops are not going to concern themselves with vice crimes.

San Franciscans have no right to declare that others do so as well. San Franciscans are not the sole voice of their county, nor are they the sole voice of the district attorney’s office.

The ballot measure states, “San Francisco’s law enforcement agencies shall not apply, nor receive federal and state monies that institute racial profiling as a means of targeting alleged trafficked victims under the guise of enforcing the abatement of prostitution laws.”

Federal and state laws detail the conditions of receivership. San Franciscans are allowed to add in their own limitations in receiving that money, provided that none of those limitations violate the law.

Then again, San Franciscan cops are probably deputized with the authority of also enforcing state and federal laws. They’re probably not allowed to ignore those laws.

... and let’s not forget that in the Bay area, about 30% of prostitutes are male, servicing the gay community; many of them boys in their teens; homeless run-aways, drug-addicts, or just hungry.

There are no words to describe what San Franciscans are doing in this horrendous ballot measure.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

They’re probably not allowed to ignore those laws.

No, Lik...2 words...Code Pink… which I’m not sure is or is not short for “city council”

"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”

A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years

I have a big problem with local municipalities being able to violate state or federal laws with impunity.

I disagree, wholly. I feel that local control is imperative and that, with the increases in travel and transport costs, local control will be on the rise over the next 10 years or so. Contrary to what Neiman’s personal moral strictures, which he feels we all should abide by, I don’t feel that people elsewhere should be subjected to my moral sensibilities.

As far as the moral valence of prostitution, who cares? If you don’t want to sleep with prostitutes, don’t. Simple as that. Why worry about what your neighbor is doing? Thats what busy body Democrats and these Christian Communists (it’s what you are Neiman) like Neiman think we should be worried about.

I think they are both wrong.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

arbuckle:  Prostitution spreads disease, encourages infidelity and family disintegration, supports the drug trade, and preys on the very young to satisfy johns. Morality aside, prostitution always denegrates communities where it flourishes.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

pparets
Notice that I did not comment on the moral valence of prostitution.

In response, one might argue that it is something that will go on no matter what. If we look at the correlation between drug use and criminalization, and assume that similar trends generalize, someone who wanted less prostitution per capita would advocate for decriminalizing it and regulating it, as the Dutch have done. I suspect that the San Franciscans will site those moral downfalls in an attempt to regulate it and delimit those ill effects. Amusingly, you are arguing with the same argument, albeit for a different form of regulation. I suggest you look at the effectiveness of such similar efforts, e.g. the war on drugs.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Oh wait, I forgot.

Christians only like things if they are banned, sinful. They like hypocrisy. View the sex adventure rates among Texans, for example. View Foley, Craig, and the Baptist Sunday school teaching D.L. anti-homo homo Troy King from Alabama.

Neiman is just worried that he won’t be able to get that extra thrill out of picking up prostitutes. Clearly, by his speaking out against it; and noting general trends we see among GOP public figures; one can deduce with ease that Neiman is probably a regular ‘John’ himself.

Sorry Neiman, but I’m sure those San Franciscans aren’t trying to ruin your thrills.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I am amused that Sparkless always attacks my moral beliefs and falsely claims I am trying to force my morals on everyone else, because he has a very limited intellect; but under this thread I only objected to local municipalities flaunting state criminal laws. I do understand the argument that we have too damn many laws and we are losing many of our liberties because our lawyer legislators like making laws. I also appreciate the need to allocate resources in more produtive ways. I also do not like the state wanting to control everything in local municipalities.

That being said: I still do not like the idea of criminal laws being ignored, such arbitrary law breaking by cities is making human trafficking, drug proliferation, sexual disease transmission, destruction of neighborhoods, a break down in safety for children, the elderly and other innocent people from crime generated by such activities, illegal immigration and a host of other social problems. In such cases, I am only suggesting the state should cut off certain state funds to those cities until the are willing to enforce state laws and if it is a matter of needed funding, then the state should allocate necessary funds for enforcing such laws as long as they want them enforced.

One note to Sparkless: Under your philosophy, we should not demand that child molestors and child rapists submit to our moral values either. We have no right prohibiting sexual intercourse in the public square, drunk driving or a host of other moral strictures on anyone. Of course that is nonsense, every society enforces certain rules of moral conduct, the difference here is that your list of moral conduct that should be restricted or outlawed is different from mine, so it is a matter of who makes up the list and you just don’t like my list, the Judeo-Christian moral values.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Christians only like things if they are banned, sinful. They like hypocrisy. View the sex adventure rates among Texans, for example. View Foley, Craig, and the Baptist Sunday school teaching D.L. anti-homo homo Troy King from Alabama. Neiman is just worried that he won’t be able to get that extra thrill out of picking up prostitutes. Clearly, by his speaking out against it; and noting general trends we see among GOP public figures; one can deduce with ease that Neiman is probably a regular ‘John’ himself. Sorry Neiman, but I’m sure those San Franciscans aren’t trying to ruin your thrills.

You are not an atheist, you are passionate hater of Christ and the Church, because you do not want any moral values operating in your life.

Your constant atacks against me and my faith border on a sexual obsession for me on your part. Are you feeling homosexual love for me Sparkie?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

you are passionate hater of Christ and the Church

what? i am attacking hypocrites. are you saying that christ and the church are hypocrites?

Are you feeling homosexual love for me Sparkie?

best comment you have ever made! wouldn’t you like to know. bwahahaha.

Of course that is nonsense, every society enforces certain rules of moral conduct

don’t equivocate. local, state, fed… which is ‘society’? You want a washington strong situation. you just don’t say it like that. this is how you say it.

I still do not like the idea of criminal laws being ignored

you cannot oversimplify the manner in which jurisdictions and power structures are embedded within one another. after you make the distinctions, you merely site criminal laws with no nod to what criminal laws you speak of.

i like the 10th amendment. you?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

also, reform comes from the localities, not washington. moral and otherwise. i know that you are disappointed the days of a slavery and white christian male political structures are over, but so be it. people are hitting back now.

marijuana laws are going under enforced, as with prostitution, and al jazeera is being shown in some localities. 11% of vermonters support spearating from the USA. they are marrying men to men in SF. they are mandating evolution be criticized in Louisiana. I threw that last one in because i Know its important to you. it works for all of us, not matter how retarded our ends are. but washington should be ‘eunichized’ to use randy grapes coinage.

that’s how change happens, no? i say let the localities be diverse. if you don’t like sex on the public green, move to Oklahoma with all the other repressed porn watchers and freak out at home.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Under your philosophy, we should not demand that child molestors and child rapists submit to our moral values either. We have no right prohibiting sexual intercourse in the public square, drunk driving or a host of other moral strictures on anyone.

False.

Child molestors/rapists are violating the rights of another individual. Thus making any argument over morality moot.

The “public square” and roads are publicly owned, making it perfectly acceptable for the public to agree upon and set certain conduct standards.

Notice, arbuckle, how you assume and describe those who oppose prostition - “sex on the public green” - as repressed porn-addicts.

And you have the gall to complain about stereotyping!

The term that comes to mind is hypocritical ass.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Sparkie:
I know you are wholly incapable of understanding this; but I’ll try nontheless:

In every age, every geographic location and in every civilized society there have been certain moral absolutes that have existed, adhered to and enforced. For instance, even in those societies permitting human sacrifice, the taking of an innocent life not for these perverse religious purposes was viewed as murder and society exacted the most severe penalties for violating that moral absolute.

There are other moral absolutes that must exist for any free society to remain free. Stealing is an example of such a moral absolute, taking something without lawful ownership musy be condemned and there must be laws to punish thieves, otherwise no one is safe in their homes or with their hard earned goods. Or, child molestation must always be condemned and unlawful to protect innocent children.

Even in those societies that have turned a blind eye to prostitution and/or had no laws against it, it was never approved by the society in general, it always fell under the catgory of sexual immorality and was therefore a moral absolute. Prostitution has always existed, always will, even in ancient Israel, because there are always certain people that reject any restrictions on their sexual behavior; but legal, easily available prostitution is destructive of the family, the basic building block of any healthy, prosperous and free society. It is the cause of the spread of disease, always has been and it always will corrupt he soul of both the man and women thus engaged, because they both absolutely know it is wrong - it is written in their hearts.

In this age these moral absolutes are being challenged and overthrown to the harm of our nation and the world. You have a right to reject them too, but when you demand that no strictures be placed on such immoral behavior on society as a whole, it is not just your immortal soul and future involved, you are harming our society and the moral decay of America, like ancient Rome and every great empire, will cause us to fall into the sewers of history. Your desire to engage in immoral acts is your choice, when you want to remove legal and moral restraints on such immoral acts that you might have moral license, you are playing your role in the destruction of this once great nation.

Lastly, I have never presented myself as or pretend to be a paragon of moral virtue, neither in my past life or today. But, if I kill a man today that does not make killing right for me or anyone, it is still wrong no matter how weak I might be and how I might fail. It is the alcoholic than can with the most authority preach against abuse of alcohol, failure does not change the nature of any wrong thing, in fact it establishes it as being wrong. So, you are now free to stop accusing me of self righteousness in these matters.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Ken: Child molestation is not immoral? If it is immoral it is a moral issue. If it is not immoral, what is it?

If all things are moral and acceptable, what right do you or any community in telling Sparkie he cannot engage in sodomy in full public view? That is judgmental, you are trying to force your views about such matters on him. That was the context of my comments should you decide to pay more attention next time.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Ken: Child molestation is not immoral? If it is immoral it is a moral issue. If it is not immoral, what is it?

No no no, it is immoral. I didn’t intend to give you the impression that it was. My point was that the morality of child molestation doesn’t matter at all since it is a violation of an individual’s rights. Even if one were somehow make an argument demonstrating its morality, the fact that it is a violation of rights justifies its illegality.

If all things are moral and acceptable

That’s not what Sparkie or I are saying. Things can be immoral, its legislating morality that is the problem. Drunk driving isn’t illegal because its immoral, but because it poses a very real threat to the lives of other innocent motorists.

what right do you or any community in telling Sparkie he cannot engage in sodomy in full public view? That is judgmental, you are trying to force your views about such matters on him.

The community owns public areas so they can agree upon and set certain standards of conduct while in those places. What’s wrong is legislating morality on private property.

Ken: IMO that is pure sophistry! It is nonsensical!

Are you saying that Child molestation, which most often occurs on private property (home) should not be legislated against? Such nice, politically correct distinctions between public and private property cannot be rationally applied to certain moral absolutes. First, it is determined if certain behavior violates our national or state basic instincts of moral right and wrong and then we determine the parameters of any subsequent laws. If child molestation is not immoral, why make it unlawful at at all? Its immoral nature is the first cause for such laws!

For instance, sodomy is morally wrong, perverse and presents health risks to both parties to the act. So, we say it is a moral wrong we choose not to allow in any place easily accesible be the public and then we determine if we think it should be lawful in private or not. But, the point is, its moral correctness or lack therefof was the primary cause behind any laws being enacted.

Prostitution occurs on public property and without the consent of the citizens that live in those areas, only by the consent of wholly immoral municipal officials. It brings in crime, it is the source of disease transmission not only to the parties involved but to innocent victims as well and quite often it destroys the families of the johns when exposed. So, while no one is usually harmed by the transaction on the street, the sexual intercourse being in some private place, it needs to be made unlawful in both areas because of the harm it does to others not directly involved and that harm results from their immoral acts.

There are many difficulties legislating morality, I agree; but we do it all the time, when we pass laws against certain human behavior. There are certain moral absolutes that apparently you and Sparkie don’t even agree exist at all. Yet, every civilized society until recent decades have acknowledged and legislated against them. As an example, incest, a private consensual activity has always been unlawful not because it is in the public square but because it is immoral, that is a moral absolute.

When the people of California through their legislators condemned and outlawed prostitution, they did so because they viewed it as immoral activity with harm to the family and our social moral values. What right then, getting back to the freaking thread, does San Francisco have in telling the police they are no longer to enforce that law?

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Are you saying that Child molestation, which most often occurs on private property (home) should not be legislated against?

Did you read what I wrote? Child molestation violates the rights of the child, hence it is (as it should be) illegal no matter where the crime is committed. Its illegal because it’s a violation of rights, not because it is immoral (though it is immoral).

If child molestation is not immoral, why make it unlawful at at all? Its immoral nature is the first cause for such laws!

No it’s the fact that it violates the right’s of the child which form the basis of such laws.

For instance, sodomy is morally wrong, perverse and presents health risks to both parties to the act. So, we say it is a moral wrong we choose not to allow in any place easily accesible be the public and then we determine if we think it should be lawful in private or not. But, the point is, its moral correctness or lack therefof was the primary cause behind any laws being enacted.

I agree that we can place certain limits on behavior in the public square. But determining whether “we think it should be lawful in private or not”? Okay comrade. If it doesn’t violate another individual’s rights then society and the government have no business legislating anything that happens on private property.

Prostitution occurs on public property and without the consent of the citizens that live in those areas, only by the consent of wholly immoral municipal officials.

If a community wants to allow prostitution in public areas, then okay. If they don’t, then okay. But individuals should be allowed to engage in prostitution if it occurs on private property.

It brings in crime, it is the source of disease transmission not only to the parties involved but to innocent victims as well and quite often it destroys the families of the johns when exposed.

According to that logic (aside from the crime), adultery should be illegal too. And I have news for you, any additional crime that prostitution brings in is already ILLEGAL. Punish people for those crimes.

There are many difficulties legislating morality, I agree; but we do it all the time, when we pass laws against certain human behavior.

Just because “we do it all the time” doesn’t make it right.

There are certain moral absolutes that apparently you and Sparkie don’t even agree exist at all.

You’d be wrong to assume that. I believe in a lot of moral absolutes. Sleeping with prostitutes and raping children are both immoral. However, only child rape violates the rights of an individual, thus it should be illegal. Prostitution OTH, is consensual and doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, thus it should be legal on private property.

As an example, incest, a private consensual activity has always been unlawful not because it is in the public square but because it is immoral, that is a moral absolute.

I agree that it’s immoral and I find it disgusting. I don’t, however, think it should be a crime. Neiman, you don’t have to show or prove to me that there is a historical precedent for legislating morality. I already know that one exists. I’m arguing against the historical trend of legislating morality. Laws should exist to protect the rights of the individual. All other laws, including ones legislating morality, restrict liberty and freedom.

Actually, even where prostitution is legal, it’s generally a stretch to argue that it’s consensual.  The reality is that people are impelled into that trade by abuse, drug addiction, or outright slavery.

And yeah, it’s also a great way to catch an STD.

bike bubba
on your logic anyone with a drug addiction is coerced into doing anything that they make money at. ass.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Your skill at logic is only exceeded by your graciousness, Sparkie.  Let’s try again: drug use coerces people into professions where they believe they can make enough money to support their drug habit. 

Since this tends to be more than is given by most jobs, especially entry level jobs, the drug user tends to go to prostitution, crime, and other “opportunities” with a higher cash flow.

In other words, the compulsion for the next “high” does in fact coerce the drug user into careers they would not otherwise choose. 

You seriously need to listen to what people like Neiman and pparets have to say on this.  Despite the rhetoric, prostitution is anything but a victimless crime, and hence San Fran is once again choosing its “Bohemian” reputation over the well-being of its residents.

How sad.

Let’s try again: drug use coerces people into professions where they believe they can make enough money to support their drug habit.

Since this tends to be more than is given by most jobs, especially entry level jobs, the drug user tends to go to prostitution, crime, and other “opportunities” with a higher cash flow.

In other words, the compulsion for the next “high” does in fact coerce the drug user into careers they would not otherwise choose.

Save them and make their decisions for them! Parent them like a good democrat would.

Thanks for the rhetoric.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”