Your absolutely right that characterising an entire generation as the 'same' is flawed.

However, I also believe there is more to the whole 'entitled millenials' view than just the bias of 'those darned kids again'.

I think the lumping of generational groups is just a miswording and but reading of the problems facing society at different times. Baby-Boomers as a generation were just people, same as millenials, same as anyone else. The thing is, kids born between 1910 and 1930 grew up in a world at war. Baby boomers grew up in a post world war/cold war era. The societal problems that shaped those times and people still existed, so dismissing the problems as just perception or bias isn't necessarily a good idea.

I've been out of high school 20+ years, and the notion of participation ribbons for everyone was already starting then. The notion that losing or winning isn't important, even if you lost because you were lazy, or won because of years of hard work was already starting. The problem of basically denying hard parts of the real world has been building for 20 years, and the current generation has been buried even deeper in it.

For anyone born in Canada or the USA to cry that no amount of hard work, talent or anything else can help them get ahead and that the system must be changed to help them is insidious. When 80-90% of everyone born in Canada or the USA will never know real hunger, never face homelessness, never have a warlord burn and destroy everything they own, complaining about the inherent injustice of being born where you were as a Canadian or American is just wrong.

The ideology that has grown up in the western world over the last 20+ years has the stink of the rich, entitled world we've enjoyed here. We have a society so removed from hardship, that hardship is working 10 hours a day, 5 days a week to lead a life more comfortable than 90% of the world.

It's not millenials, it is however the society that millenials are growing up in(so all of us).

And now we got much further from understanding each other again.

Would we have any luck coming at this from an entirely different angle. What do you propose that Jewish Europeans, Jewish Palestinians and the Jewish populations around the Middle East should have done between around 1910 through 1948? Staying in Europe was a death sentence and it's just good fortune the allies were able to retake it while any of them were left alive. The jewish population of Palestine was being similarly disenfranchised, but unlike in Europe they weren't as badly outnumbered. The confrontations with the Arab Palestinians had turned violent, and their leadership openly admired Hitler. As preparations for WW2 got underway, British and Allied strategy was taking the strategic route of marginalizing the Jewish minority because the Arab majority support was more important to holding the region.

I don't see anything but death and suffering to the jewish population if they just follow what I gather as your position of basically living by the rules and the law of the land, whether they like it or not.

I take issue with the part about birth rates and the 35-year population forecast.

Firstly, the premise that we (Germany) need to stabilise our population level stems primarily from the depopulation of parts of the country, the north-east most of all. However, the cause is not low birth rates. It's urbanisation, which is part and parcel of capitalism. Everything gravitates towards the centres while the rest becomes hinterland to be exploited for resources.

Secondly, population forecasts turn into horseshit real fast. If we were to look at a 35-year forecast created in 1980, we'd miss the reunification, the breakup of Yugoslavia by NATO, about a dozen wars in the Middle East and the destabilisation/desolation in large parts of Southern Europe. Nevermind the EU with all its freedom of movement agreements that were recently suspended.

If we had made a 35-year forecast in 1910... well, you get my point.

Thirdly, Europe is not a singular unity. Our ongoing assault on the economies of Southern Europe (aka austerity) lead to a mass exodus already, Same for the Baltic countries. Unfortunatly, those countries who lost a significant portion of their young and educated over the last years are also the countries who are least equipped to deal with mass immigration in an orderly fashion.

Which brings me to my fourth point: many folks make the argument that we cannot possibly pay for the integration of 800k refugees, much less for 400k a year. Well, we payed for reunification in the most inefficient, corruption-inducing and anti-social way imaginable by piling the cost exclusively on our version of social security. And you know what? It still fucking worked. If Germany can shoulder the cost of reunification, the EU can pay for 2-3 million refugees. End of story.

Finally, we need immigration. Not to maintain population levels, not to even out low birth rates. We need it to not become too homogenous, especially Germany. Too much consensus, too much group think, not enough confrontation and cultural diversity. Shake things up before people start believing their own bullshit again about their own superiority. We've seen it already vis-a-vis Greece.

@eric3579

Does the Polish Six Flags guy look familiar? It's the very same racist imbecile who described the plan to create a unified driver's license across Europe as "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Ticket" while doing the Nazi salute.

I'd rather have a thousand Syrian refugees than people like him.

im no statist but this video is so childishly naive as to be laughable.

might as well call the free market jesus.

jesus is the way and the light.
follow jesus for salvation.
only jesus can absolve you of your sins.

this is about power.
if the libertarian is willing to acknowledge that the government is bloated and corrupt but unwilling to recognize the abuse of power wrought by corporations...because the corporation is part of the "free market"...they can end their sermon right there.

i am no longer interested.

if a libertarian preaches the importance of individual sovereignty and individual rights but dismisses that they are part of a community in a larger society.
they can proselytize at somebody elses door.

if a libertarian wishes to shower me with the glories of private property and ownership but ignore the importance and basic human dignity of the very workers who produce everything for those private owners.

then i say unto them that they wish to enslave their fellow man and the freedom they seek is for them alone and the rest of humanity be damned all in the name of profit and greed.

they can take their cult of ayn rand and masturbate somewhere else.

UNLESS....
they are willing to admit that:
1.as @VoodooV pointed out,we live in a society and a society is populated by PEOPLE.

2.that people deserve more than just the right to trade freely (which i agree with) but that human dignity and compassion,and yes..the right for life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

3.that the corporation is actually MORE vicious than a government.a corporation is amoral by design! so if we are going to address the abusive powers of government,the abuses of corporations should be recognized as well.

4.the argument that corporations would not exist without governments is a canard.that may have been true in 1910 but no longer.there are corporations that have a higher GDP than most nation states.

5.the argument that governments start wars are only half-truths.can you guess what the other half is? thats right! banks and corporations using their power and influence to oppress third world nations...through the use (or abuse to be more accurate) of this nations military.see:smedley butler.

6.while a non-state would be amazing i am not naive enough to believe it could ever happen in our lifetime.yes many arbitrary borders have been penned by empires but there will always be lines drawn by cultural,religious and ethnicity..lets be honest.

7.while i do not share voodoos optimism in this democratic representative republics current health status (i feel it is broken and dysfunctional),it is a FAR better thing than the authoritarian,totalitarian system that is the american corporation.unless they went all democratic on me and i didnt get the memo.

8.government does have a role in our society,though it should be limited.
defense (not illegal and pre-emptive wars of aggression).
fraud control and law enforcement.
roads,fire,police,education and health,because thats what a society does for each other.
we take care of each other.
you dont like that? move to the mountains..have fun!

9.the corporate charter should be re-written."for the public good" should be re-instated for one thing.
a.i was talking to a libertarian and he used the term "non-aggression" and i really REALLY liked this.so a corporation will be held responsible for any and all:destruction to the ecology (local and abroad),destruction of peoples health,home and property.externalization of any sort will be seen as "aggression" and the CEO and all officers will be held liable to be paid by:dissillusion of company of jail time,they can choose.
b.a corporation is NOT a person and ZERO funds will be drawn from company money to purchase a legislator.they may spend as much money as they wish from their own personal accounts,but ALL contributions shall be made public over a certain amount.
c.any corporation that has been found to pay their workers so little as to put the burden on the tax payer shall be found performing an "aggressive" act against the american people and shall either pay the amount in full or forfeit their company.

dammit.im rambling ...again.
but oh baby am i digging this non-aggression dealio!

can i rewrite the corporate charter?
please please please please.....

*promote the discussion

*lies
So much of this is simply factually incorrect or misleading.
I'll link sources above my information

http://www.historyliteracy.org/download/Sears2.pdf
First of all, in 1910, the school year was only 99 days in length. Only half of eligible students attended, and only 8% graduated from high school.

Furthermore, in 1910, only 35% of 17 year olds were in high school.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/12/ready-or-not-77-million-kids-and-adults-heading-back-to-school-soon/
Compare that to today, where nearly 100% of young people attend high school and OF COURSE it's going to cost more. DURR!

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending
Meanwhile, even though spending has gone up by an absolute number, the percentage of GDP from the federal and state governments has remained steady at 2% or LESS, with rising costs from local spending, in part, because of an increased privatization of schools.

Oi vey, and they rallying against FLUORIDE??? Seriously?
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/dewitt-more-ferocious-fallacies-about-fluoride/2139759
"high rates of exposure were very high indeed — up to 11.5 parts per million. And many of the other highly exposed groups were drinking water with more than 3 parts per million of fluoride.

That's more than four times the concentration used to protect teeth: 0.7 parts per million.

And that, by the way, is the same or lower than the level in the water supply of some "low exposure" groups in the studies. In other words, the standard fluoridation level in this country was presented in some of these studies as an amount that allowed kids' IQs to flourish."

Stop fear mongering. Get some science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

>> ^westy:

Protesting on the street doesn't really do much to achieve anything , If you want to make actual change in america you have to be very wealthy.
hundreds of thousands of protesters simply cannot compete with tvs in every home and propoganda channels owned by billoinairs.

If using the internet employees can some how do a global strike that would have a big effect , but I'm sure the billoinairs would change the laws or use propaganda to make it near imposable for people to do that.
You will only ever see full on strikes when people cannot afford food or basic things so long as we have them most people will alow themselfs to be opressed/exploited.


What about the woman's movement of the 1910s or the civil rights movement of the 1960s?

I think this video needs coupled with his The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained.

I don't know if we can ever get a constitutional amendment passed to get rid of the electoral college, which is why I've long advocated just getting rid of the winner take all in every state. Whoever wins the congressional district, gets that district's electoral vote, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote of the state as a whole.

If we combined that with the Singe Transferable Vote type system explained in the Problems with First Past the Post video, we would have a system that better represents the people.

We still have an issue then with the large states being under represented and small states and DC being over represented, and he doesn't go into detail on why that is in these videos. We have had 435 Representatives since 1911 (save for a couple years where we had 437). The 1910 US Census said we had 76,212,168 people, so with 435 Representatives that gives us 175,200 people for each Representative, so we'll round that up to 200,000. The 2010 Census pegged us at 308,745,538, so each Representative now represents a bit over 709,750 people. If we kept with the 200,000 figure we would have 1543 Representatives now, and with modern technology there is no reason they would all need to be in the Congressional building for votes, just in their office in their home district. Heck even if we raised it to 250,000 people, a full quarter of a million, we 1234 or 1235 Representatives, which still insures people are better represented in Congress and at the electoral college if that is still in place once we fix First Past the Post and up the number or Representatives. Congress itself set the limit to 435, so it wouldn't take an amendment to fix it, unless we wanted to insure that it was fixed forever. I don't think we would need an amendment to move to the Single Transferable Vote either, just a law stating all Federal offices must use that method.

Of course to afford that many Representative they, and the Senate, probably need a pay and budget cut. So good luck on that, which may be reason enough it would never pass... that and the lobbyist trying to stop it since such a move would make their job harder and far more expensive.

We do need an amendment limiting the term of the Supreme Court, especially since they are appointed and not elected, and a term limit would be needed even if they were elected. An amendment that specifically exempts anyone who is in now and perhaps appointed within a few years of passing should be passable I would think (if they could agree on what the limit should be), then again, they haven't made a real effort to limit the Supreme Court term yet.

The primary system needs fixed as well, but I think that would be harder to fix. Even with a Single Transferable Vote in place, if it isn't party locked, you have people from the other party purposely voting for the person who would most likely lose against their candidate. Even party locked, you still have people saying they are one, voting for the person you best guess will lose, and then voting for your real candidate during the actual election (which should never be party locked). However, a single Transferable Vote does make "fringe" candidates that don't get the mainstream press coverage, like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and the like, to raise higher, which is probably why the parties themselves would fight any real primary system reform.

Is it just me, or does the lead singer of Mumford and Sons remind anyone else of a 1910s era ragtime Ricky Gervais?

Probably just me.

Wrong, this is the youngest in WORLD HISTORY where girls are reaching menarche. It has to do with the amount of food a girl consistently gets. Often hunter-gather women even after they hit puberty will be sub-fecund, can't get pregnant, until 18, 19 or 20 years old. Your position is completely wrong. It wouldn't serve a purpose, even then, to marry a girl so young, except that she had a tight hairless vagina that would bleed. It really is as disgusting as it seems. Please stay on your high-horse, don't let biology get in the way.

>> ^joedirt:

What ignorance...
You can look from a modern perspective about what is morally appropriate age of consent but you are a fucking absolute idiot if you pretend that 18 years is ok, and say 13 isn't. It all depends on historical context. You have to look at the society at the time.
Go back to Jesus's time. How old was Mary? What was age of marriage in Moses day? How about what would be ok in the US in 1910? What about in the 50s? Hate to tell you this, but for probably hundreds of millions of years, when a female reaches puberty that is when they begin to copulate.
You are fucking idiot if you think it's wrong to breed dogs that under the age of 5 but somehow humans are so different. It's all cultural morals and depends on the society. Do you know what was "normal" in the 700s before you start throwing around kiddie fucker.
You do realize your own great great grandfather was probably also a kiddie fucker, ever think about that?

Everyone should know that BicycleRepairMan is descended from a long line of "kiddie fiddlers"!!!

>> ^joedirt:

What ignorance...
You can look from a modern perspective about what is morally appropriate age of consent but you are a fucking absolute idiot if you pretend that 18 years is ok, and say 13 isn't. It all depends on historical context. You have to look at the society at the time.
Go back to Jesus's time. How old was Mary? What was age of marriage in Moses day? How about what would be ok in the US in 1910? What about in the 50s? Hate to tell you this, but for probably hundreds of millions of years, when a female reaches puberty that is when they begin to copulate.
You are fucking idiot if you think it's wrong to breed dogs that under the age of 5 but somehow humans are so different. It's all cultural morals and depends on the society. Do you know what was "normal" in the 700s before you start throwing around kiddie fucker.
You do realize your own great great grandfather was probably also a kiddie fucker, ever think about that?

Everyone should know that BicycleRepairMan is descended from a long line of "kiddie fiddlers"!!!

Ignorance? Historical context? You're kidding right? Shariah permits child brides. Shariah is followed today. Prepubescent children are being married off right now.
If you really think this is ok because it was culturally acceptable historically speaking, then you sir, are full of shit.

>> ^joedirt:

What ignorance...
You can look from a modern perspective about what is morally appropriate age of consent but you are a fucking absolute idiot if you pretend that 18 years is ok, and say 13 isn't. It all depends on historical context. You have to look at the society at the time.
Go back to Jesus's time. How old was Mary? What was age of marriage in Moses day? How about what would be ok in the US in 1910? What about in the 50s? Hate to tell you this, but for probably hundreds of millions of years, when a female reaches puberty that is when they begin to copulate.
You are fucking idiot if you think it's wrong to breed dogs that under the age of 5 but somehow humans are so different. It's all cultural morals and depends on the society. Do you know what was "normal" in the 700s before you start throwing around kiddie fucker.
You do realize your own great great grandfather was probably also a kiddie fucker, ever think about that?

Everyone should know that BicycleRepairMan is descended from a long line of "kiddie fiddlers"!!!


oh my god, you are way more fucked up than this video is good. And this video is pretty dam good.

What ignorance...

You can look from a modern perspective about what is morally appropriate age of consent but you are a fucking absolute idiot if you pretend that 18 years is ok, and say 13 isn't. It all depends on historical context. You have to look at the society at the time.

Go back to Jesus's time. How old was Mary? What was age of marriage in Moses day? How about what would be ok in the US in 1910? What about in the 50s? Hate to tell you this, but for probably hundreds of millions of years, when a female reaches puberty that is when they begin to copulate.

You are fucking idiot if you think it's wrong to breed dogs that under the age of 5 but somehow humans are so different. It's all cultural morals and depends on the society. Do you know what was "normal" in the 700s before you start throwing around kiddie fucker.

You do realize your own great great grandfather was probably also a kiddie fucker, ever think about that?


Everyone should know that BicycleRepairMan is descended from a long line of "kiddie fiddlers"!!!

awesome sauce sister!! Cheers!

In reply to this comment by NicoleBee:
*doublepromote!

did a presentation in my high school law on this so here's a lil breakdown for ya'll-

Prostitution is a legitimate business and it needs to be legalized to stop unnecessary crime and spread of disease in the community and to enforce the human right of fornication to its extent.

Why Legalize?

When you make something illegal, whether it is drugs, guns or Prostitution, it goes into the underground. Circuits of black market trade and illegal activity are formed. Plainly, when something is illegal, it becomes dangerous instantly for anyone in contact with it. The reason that prostitution does spread disease and murder is only because it illegal.

1. When prostitution is illegal, there is no way of controlling the spread of HIV, AIDS and STDS. Prostitution only accounts for the spreading of 3-5% of STDs while 30-35% is teen-related. Making Prostitution illegal increases the number of the disease’s victims. If a prostitute is infected with AIDS, and she does have 868 partners that year, without a condom that is 868 new cases of AIDS, only further to be spread. Although this is very unlikely since most prostitutes use condoms. The issue of pregnancy also occurs, since AIDS will be passed on directly. With the legalization of prostitution this problem will be wiped out entirely and the number of HIV, AIDS and STDS will go down significantly. All brothels mandatory check their clients monthly, sometimes weekly, and mandate the use of condoms.

2. Again, making prostitution illegal makes it extremely dangerous for prostitutes to work. Prostitutes are the most targeted female group for violence. If a prostitute is raped or violently abused, she cannot go to the police. Prostitution fatality rates are extremely high and the homicide rate for female prostitutes was estimated to be 204 per 100,000. Perpetrators include violent clients, pimps, and corrupt law-enforcement officers. Serial killers also target prostitutes since the authorities will show less effort to solve the case as apposed to the murder of a schoolteacher or secretary. Jack the Ripper is said to have killed at least five prostitutes in London in 1888. In a recent US study of almost 2000 prostitutes followed over a 30-year period, by far the most common causes of death were homicide. The homicide rate among active female prostitutes was 17 times higher than that of the age-matched general female population.

3.Will eliminate all other illegal infusion such as drugs, gun crime and violence.

4. Will eliminate pimping completely

5. Will help stop the underground child sex slave trade and sex trafficking.

6. The fear of being prosecuted will not exist. This will not prevent prostitutes to go to authorities when needed. Men whose intention is violence or a combination of sex and violence can then be stopped.

7. Most women who prostitute have no previous work experience and live in poverty. Legalizing prostitution will provide prostitutes with a safe work environment and a legal, beneficial job. In result, poverty rates will drop.

8. Less accidental pregnancies causing women to go onto further poverty taking that child down with them.

9.”It costs $2,000 per case to arrest, court, and jail a prostitute. Cities spend from $1 million to $23 million dollars, for an average of $7.5 million dollars, on prostitution-control. Despite the expenses made trying to prevent prostitution, it hasn't been prevented, but only driven underground to places where prostitutes are in the greatest danger of having their rights violated by pimps, clients, and cops. Instead of spending an average of $7.5 million trying to prevent prostitution and arresting prostitutes, cities should spend that money preventing rights-violations against prostitutes, and punishing those who commit crimes against prostitutes.

History

Prostitutes have existed in every human civilization knows to date. It is only recently that a 180 was done in its regard. Throughout 1910 and 1915 the Woman’s Christian Temptation Union strongly influenced the ban of Prostitution. This was the same time as the alcohol prohibition. In 1949 The United Nation released an act that stated that prostitution is against human morals and should be abolished. Since then it has been, in many countries, especially the U.S, which is supposed to be the land of the free.
Prostitution is said to be the oldest female profession. It was one of the only way for females to do gain money throughout most of history, since they were greatly oppressed by men. Mind you male prostitutes did exist and still exist. In Greek and Japanese societies, prostitutes were held on a higher level then most other women. They had an excellent income, were respected and influential figures and admired throughout the community. They were called Hetaeras and Geishas. Although Religion is the main reason prostitution is currently illegal, it was actually a main supplier and benefited of prostitution throughout history. Cyprus and Corinth temples were in charge on thousands of prostitutes. The bible also contains prostitution. King David’s grandmother was one. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church was the main supporter of brothels and gained more wealth and power from it. Augustine of Hippo claimed that Prostitution is a necessary thing, in order to stop greater sins such as masturbation, rape and sodomy.


World Prostitution and Criminal Code

Muslim Countries- Death Penalty
Thailand-prostitution is illegal
New South Wales, Australia- any person over the age of 18 may offer to provide sexual services in return for money.
Victoria, Australia- a person who wishes to run a prostitution business must have a license. Prostitutes working for themselves in their own business, as prostitutes in the business, must be registered. Individual sex workers are not required to be registered.
Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Netherlands- prostitutes are tax-paying and unionized professionals and brothels are legal
Bulgaria and Sweden- outlawed pimping, legal prostitution
Japan- vaginal prostitution is against the law and fellatio prostitution is legal
Turkey- street prostitution is illegal. There are government-run brothels in most cities, which house sex workers. Private brothels must have a license.
Brazil and Costa Rica- prostitution per se is legal, but taking advantage or profit from others' prostitution is illegal
United Kingdom-prostitution is not formally illegal, but several activities surrounding it are outlawed such as pimping, brothels, street and car prostitution
America- Nevada and Rhode Island have legalized prostitution. In all other states it is illegal. A Prostitute can be sentenced up to 15 years in prison.
Canada-prostitution itself is legal, but most other activities around it are not. Pimping is illegal and it is illegal to negotiate a sex-for-money deal in a public place. Section 213 of the Criminal Code states that communicating for the purpose of prostitution is a summary conviction offence. Summary offenses are considered "less serious", carrying a maximum six-month jail term, a $2,000 fine, or both.


Statistics

One prostitute may have 868 partners a year. This is knows as a under reported number.
16% of 18-59 year old men have paid for sex (arguably also under reported)
Per a hundred thousand people, 23% are Prostitutes.
1 in 3 women in jails re arrested for prostitution
15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes, 59% of prostitutes have thought of committing suicide, compared to 61% of non-prostitutes.
77.8% of arrests are women, 22.2% men. In larger cities, 20-30% of prostitutes are male


Hypocrisy
There is a president place for the US constitution to support prostitution.

In 1965 the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Connecticut found a right of privacy that covered the right for couples to use birth control.
1973 that right of privacy was extended to abortion in Roe vs. Wade, which later extended to Laurence very Texas to same sex conduct.

Based on this principle Prostitution should therefore logically extend to encompass the right of consenting adult to procure fornication part of a monetary transaction. The hidden agenda is social control.

It is a human right to have sexual intercourse whether it is free or paid for
Prostitution is said to victimize. If a woman willingly provides sexual services to a man who is willing to pay money for it, there is no violation of human rights.
Catholic and Christian group’s word cannot hold a strong meaning since their religions have been the top benefactors of prostitution throughout history
It is hypocritical for the government to say they are banning prostitution with people’s well being in mind when it is the ban that provokes thousands of deaths related to prostitution.



If Legalized

Brothels would be completely legal with guidelines of monthly health checks and security.

Private prostitution would be legalized with a license. A mandatory course would be required for education on health risks, contraception, prostitute rights, smart and careful choice of customers and advertising recommendations.

Street prostitution would not be made legal because 80% of prostitutes are killed on the street and although with legalization this number will improve, I consider it still dangerous. A 1500$ penalty and community hours will be enforced instead of imprisonment.