I don't know where to start.

First off it's the offering/receiving of money for sex that's the crime. Not having sex. How do undercover female cops bust johns over there? Do they have to get penetrated? He admitted he offered to pay for sex and the skank obviously agreed because her "britches" were down too. I think that cop needs to be talked to.

Second .. A HUNDRED dollars?! I don't know what value I'd place on her but it's somewhere between a shot of tequila and a free ride home.

Lastly .. prostitution should be legalized imo. No, not hookers gone wild in the streets, but regulated, isolated and safe.

You can pay two strangers to have sex together (porn), you can let someone have sex with you for free (one night stand), but you can't pay someone to have sex with you (prostitution)?

*boggle*

Lowes guy should charge him for opening up his truck, wtf is that about?

Prostitution is a victimless crime. Anytime you outlaw something it tends to create a dangerous market where victims are aplenty. Look at alcohol prohibition. Did that stop people from drinking? No. But it did create a terrible criminal market driven by violent mobsters.

Free the market and the crime will disappear. Put a stranglehold on the market and you'll manufacture crime time and time again.

"Prostitution is a victimless crime"

I think that's not quite true blankfist. In America I think it's largely true, but there's still human trafficking going on here however it's rampant in other places. The answer is to legalize it, the same with marijuana in my view. If you legalize it, you can deal with it by regulating it.

It's not rocket surgery people, Do No Harm, work towards the preferential option for the people.

^Prostitution is very much a victimless crime. You're equating the extremes of the black market with the act of trading sex for money. Trafficking would most likely end if prostitution was legalized.

There is a huge difference between human trafficking (which is some bullshit moniker for slavery) vs. prostitution. Completely different things.

Lowes guy should charge him for opening up his truck, wtf is that about?

Agreed. The vic should've beat the crap out of the cameraman. He had nothing to lose.

I am somewhere in between. The guy who was filming this deserves to go to jail for a while for approaching this situation the way he did. I am really opposed to these kinds of videos that a meant simply to humiliate and expose people who make mistakes. Its sites like the sift that make me happy that people can come together and have a thoughtful conversation about these kinds of things. Its really too bad that some people watch these things, and sit at home in their comfy chairs, and just sneer at this guy for doing what he did. FUCK that cameraman (i'm still pumped from watching the carlin video earlier).

That said, it is on the issue of whether prostitution is a largely victimless crime where I am finding myself on the fence. I don't know what to say about it right now, but this is a good post. I'll save it for later.

When you upvote things that say "The vic should've beat the crap out of the cameraman. He had nothing to lose." That, to me, means you really DO have a lot of thinking to do about this my friend. Where in your head do you think it's OK that he should beat the crap out of the guy that busted him? I like you .. but I just don't understand some of this shit. This is a guy in a family neighborhood picking up some fat skank and fucking her in the denny's(?) parking lot and you upvote the comment that says the camera guy should get beat? The camera guy is doing the job the cops should be doing. His kids are exposed to people getting paid to fuck every day. I think the guys a frigging hero. And that's with me thinking it should be legalized.

I don't know griefer .. starting to lose hope in you man.

>> ^burdturgler:
This is a guy in a family neighborhood picking up some fat skank and fucking her in the denny's(?) parking lot and you upvote the comment that says the camera guy should get beat? The camera guy is doing the job the cops should be doing. His kids are exposed to people getting paid to fuck every day. I think the guys a frigging hero.


What does that term mean exactly? "Family neighborhood"? A "family neighborhood" as opposed to which other kinds of neighborhoods? And is sex allowed in these "family neighborhoods"?

Certainly "his kids" are not "exposed to people getting paid to fuck every day"? I mean, certainly these dregs of society, these "fat skanks", are trying to be discrete, right? I'd say being closed inside the back of a truck is about as discrete as any bedroom in any of your "family neighborhoods".

This cameraman is not a hero. He's a puritanical asshole who is incapable of coexisting with anyone who chooses to live their lives differently than him. And maybe so are you, burdy.

>> ^burdturgler:

I don't know griefer .. starting to lose hope in you man.


I dont know, burd. I am inclined to agree. And the fact that he did it in a neighborhood with children is preposterous. But i really do think the way in which this guy exposed him was wrong. Just as much as I find it difficult to watch something like dateline, so do I cringe at stuff like this. It simply doesn't feel right.

When I saw him open the truck door I thought the same thing. And you're probably right. I apologize. Legally, I'm sure he had no right to open that truck door. So that would make make the film he got afterwards inadmissible. I agree. The cop didn't dismiss it based on that but maybe he was trying to not get the camera man in trouble .. I don't know. All I know is that I can understand where the cameraman is coming from and I wouldn't want to deal with that on my block. So, while he might be wrong legally .. I still think he's right. I hope his neighbors and the community support him and get rid of the problem but like I said the only real solution is legalization.

One way or another, you always pay for sex.

If you can't identify a victim in all circumstances, it is a victimless crime. If two adults agree to have sex, regardless of why (looks, money, personality, etc.) who could you possibly identify as the victim?

Try to create an example of murder where there is no victim. (or rape, or theft, etc. etc.) Those are not victimless crimes because you can always identify a victim regardless of the circumstance.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^burdturgler:
What does that term mean exactly? "Family neighborhood"? A "family neighborhood" as opposed to which other kinds of neighborhoods? And is sex allowed in these "family neighborhoods"?
Certainly "his kids" are not "exposed to people getting paid to fuck every day"? I mean, certainly these dregs of society, these "fat skanks", are trying to be discrete, right? I'd say being closed inside the back of a truck is about as discrete as any bedroom in any of your "family neighborhoods".
This cameraman is not a hero. He's a puritanical asshole who is incapable of coexisting with anyone who chooses to live their lives differently than him. And maybe so are you, burdy.


I really hate semantics but you're right, not a very well defined term. I don't know about where you live, but it's been my experience that cities, towns, villages etc get divided up into smaller sections. Those are called "neighborhoods" .. usually because you know your neighbors. Those are the places where our kids grow up. Where we try to make friends and meet other families that you trust to help create a safe environment for our children to play in. Yes, there are other places that families live. Shitty, unfortunate places that .. well I wouldn't call it a "family neighborhood". What should I call it? A fucked up set of buildings with people living in them that are drug addicts and completely ignored by anyone who could make a difference there? Again, I don't know what you're experience has been .. but have you ever lived somewhere that was a shitty place to grow up? I have.

There's going to be two views here. You want to fight the cameraman? Or do do you want to fight the law? Don't blame the cameraman for being the "puritanical asshole" fighting the law when the law is the problem. I'm perfectly capable of living with and even celebrating those different than me .. hell I go out of my way almost every day in one way or another to support shit I have no vested interest in. So here's a big Fuck You for that insult. But that doesn't mean my eight year old has to watch some slut negotiate for a blow job in front of the Burger King.

^But your argument is in favor of regulating behavior, and that's the problem I have. I don't want your eight year old to have to watch "some slut negotiate for a blow job in front of Burger King", as you put it, but the truth is you're asking for the world around you to be the way you would like it to be and using the cliched child's innocence as the hyperbolic pawn to do so.

If you don't want your child to see someone negotiating a blow job in front of the Burger King then maybe you should consider never letting your child out of the house, because there are a lot of horny people and Burger Kings in the world.

And if your plan is to get men with guns to use violence against them all so your pure, snow white eight year old doesn't have to see some entrepreneurial woman in Daisy Dukes, then I think you need to stop telling people like griefer_queafer he has a lot of thinking to do, because I think maybe you do. Kisses.

I considered reasonably responding to you. I wanted to because I like you. But you have LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND blankfist.

"you should consider never letting your child out of the house, because there are a lot of horny people and Burger Kings in the world."

You must be stoned.

You're such an asshole sometimes man. I am actually on your side when it comes to legalizing prostitution, in fact I'm the one who brought it up in the thread .. but you have to turn it into something stupid like kids should be exposed to it.

sometimes I think you're like a choggie wannabe

maybe that's why you ban him all the time

Oh here comes the scathing response! I better hold onto my nuts .. I know one thing about you blankfist .. you can never be wrong and you certainly wont apologize for anything .. lol ..

I wonder why this daring man does not simply keep his camera pointed at the hookers and their pimps? It's so liberating to screw a man out of a job, but what's stopping him from following the hookers back to whereever they come from? What's stopping him from following the whores around mercilessly?

If this guy was really a hero, he wouldn't be simply preying on the weak links in this picture.

>> ^longde:
I wonder why this daring man does not simply keep his camera pointed at the hookers and their pimps? It's so liberating to screw a man out of a job, but what's stopping him from following the hookers back to whereever they come from? What's stopping him from following the whores around mercilessly?
If this guy was really a hero, he wouldn't be simply preying on the weak links in this picture.



I know right? It's like he's getting paid to police his neighborhood .. like the police should be doing.

Why does there need to be a whole dramatic scene in the first place?

This guy could throw sand in the hookers' game everytime by simply showing the potential johns the camera and throwing a sharp word or two ("hey buddy, I know what you're up to!") as they stroll the block.

But nooooooo....we HAVE to have a whole dramatic chase, topped off by a voyuer film, and then a righteous lecture. This guy is vying to be the next Dog the Bounty Hunter: same M.O.

How many other hookers scored johns in front of playing kids, while the cameraman wasted so much time to get the Lowes guy arrested? Plenty of quickies near the playground, I'm sure.

Bottom line: this guy is extremely ineffective. If he cared so much about kids, he would skip the dramatics, and aim at effective prevention.

>> ^longde:
Why does there need to be a whole dramatic scene in the first place?
This guy could throw sand in the hookers' game everytime by simply showing the potential johns the camera and throwing a sharp word or two ("hey buddy, I know what you're up to!") as they stroll the block.
But nooooooo....we HAVE to have a whole dramatic chase, topped off by a voyuer film, and then a righteous lecture. This guy is vying to be the next Dog the Bounty Hunter: same M.O.
How many other hookers scored johns in front of playing kids, while the cameraman wasted so much time to get the Lowes guy arrested? Plenty of quickies near the playground, I'm sure.



IT IS fucking RIDICULOUS to expect this guy to walk around his neighborhood everyday, as apparently he has been doing!, enforcing the frigging law and telling people hey asshole you shouldn't be picking up hookers over here by where our kids play. I mean wtf .. this is obviously an ongoing problem over there and he is exposing it. I guess for you that's a voyeur film.

Yes, but if it is an ongoing thing, why not stop the crime before it happens? You could cover so much more ground that way.

In this case, the hooker got her money, and probably lured another john while the cameraman was lecturing the lowes guy.

Where's the incentive for her to stop?

You have to target the source.

You want him to "target the source"?
wtf is he CSI .. he's a dad with a camera in what is basically his backyard.

If this unemployed guy has so much time to patrol his neighborhood, he may as well do it in the most effective way. The way he did it is not effective at all, sans one Lowes guy.

The hooker is paid, and back to work. Only the Lowes guy will not come back. In getting his raunchy film, he himself broke the law. But I guess the (ineffective) means justify the (inadequate) ends.

In that particular instance, he could have been more effective by preventing the crime before it happened.

Disagree?

Wild guess, this guy 1/4 part "citizen crusader" and 3/4 part voyeur who gets off to videos of people having sex. I mean seriously, what he did was akin to someone opening your front door and videotaping you having sex in your living room. He should be charged as a sex offender ala "illicit watching of sexual activity."

I would also sue the shit out of him if I was the Lowes guy.

>> ^longde:
Why does there need to be a whole dramatic scene in the first place?

I don't get this. Did you actually watch the video? This was not the first guy. Not by a long shot. Why don't you take your time and actually watch the video. Read and listen.

I'm happy to provide the drama you are all so desperate for but if you want to participate please at least review the script.

good god this video drove me nuts!
self-righteousness on steroids.
conform-obey-live/think/breath the way you are told.
THIS is how this man is going to "clean up" his neighborhood?
typical hypocritical bullshit.
longde and others have it right.
you got a problem that you think needs to be dealt with?
then DEAL with it!
mainly,deal with the women selling sex around and near your home if it bothers you so much.
but this man didnt do that did he?
no...he stalked,invaded then berated this man.a man,that to me..seemed pretty ashamed,and the man STAYED to take this dickheads abuse!
who was this driver?why was he paying for sex?what is his financial situation?
what kind of marriage does he have?what are his kids like?
mentioned being in iraq..in what capacity?military?civilian?
you dont know?
well neither does mr fancy pants with the camera and neither do i.
who the FUCK am i,or anyone to judge this man?
seems the camera man felt justified to demeanor this man.
i remember they did something similar in salem quite a few years back,how did that work out?
walk a mile in this mans shoes,then get back to me.

I keep wanting to drop this argument but it is EXTRAORDINARILY unfair to ask this guy to go after the women who are selling sex. These women are part of the the victims as far as I'm concerned. Manipulated and addicted to drugs more often than not.

Look maybe this guy is handling things wrong but I say don't fault him for trying to clean up his neighborhood. Obviously the police don't give a shit and he is trying.

I don't know what you're saying enoch .. prostitutes are like the witches of Salem? Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?

"You should consider never letting your child out of the house, because there are a lot of horny people and Burger Kings in the world."

Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless.

WE SHOP THERE OFTEN!

>> ^burdturgler:
I am actually on your side when it comes to legalizing prostitution, in fact I'm the one who brought it up in the thread .. but you have to turn it into something stupid like kids should be exposed to it.


I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks and just go right into what's important. If you go back and reread my comment, you'll see no instance where I said children "should be exposed" to prostitution. The issue is you're trying to expunge the world around you of anything you find objectionable for your kid, and that's a very popular yet dangerous attitude.

You're essentially saying you feel it's okay to police people's behavior. Think about that. Then think about same sex marriage bans and the war on drugs and any number of other violent affronts on people's personal and civil liberties throughout the course of human civilization. You are no different than those who didn't want 'colored people' going to the same schools as their pure, snow white, impressionable children.

It's a scary notion to have people like you and that cameraman feeling justified in dictating the morals we should abide by or else face violence. And all of this done for the sake of whatever fear-driven hyperbole they parade as a victim at that moment: children, family, homeland security, sanctity of marriage, etc.

Just look at the language of disdain you use when referring to prostitutes, burdy. Things like "slut" and "fat skank" are terms that show bigoted hatred, in my opinion.

>> ^quantumushroom:
"You should consider never letting your child out of the house, because there are a lot of horny people and Burger Kings in the world."
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless.


Fuck you.

I don't know what you're saying enoch .. prostitutes are like the witches of Salem? Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?


no..
the comparison is the fraudulent condemnation based on little or no FACTS.
which according to your argument it is the PROSTITUTES who are victims,(thats rich btw),and it is evil penis that is to blame here.
ok BT..lets try this analogy:
a man is outside my house selling crack.
he is there everyday when my kids are coming home from school.
do i:
a.chase down the buyers with video cameras?
or..
b.start videotaping the crack-dealer?

now if i use your logic,(which boggles me btw)the crack dealer is the victim,maybe a bad childhood,maybe he himself is addicted to crack,maybe he craves the company of strangers buying illicit drugs.
no matter....why?
because it is irrelevant to the argument.
nobody is questioning WHY these women are prostitutes,not even mr camera man,its the WHERE they are prostituting.
he has every right to be protective of his family.
i would be too.
my premise is based solely on his tactics.
they do nothing to diminish the prostitution problem,but do everything to make him seem an intolerable prick who is bent on belittling another man for participating in activities he finds repuslive.
seewhatimsayin?
that is all..
talk amongst yourselves.

LOL! His wife can't go the grocery store because of the hookers in the street? Is it because his wife resembles a hooker or because the hookers try to pick his wife up?

The guy with the camera is a complete douchebag: sure, call the cops and get the guy busted but you don't need to harrass him on camera. Also, I'm pretty sure you need a signed release to put his face up all over like that. I smell a lawsuit coming.

>> ^burdturgler:
These women are part of the the victims as far as I'm concerned. Manipulated and addicted to drugs more often than not.

So let me see if I've got this...

Prostitutes are the victims in the victimless crime of prostitution... right?

longde's point was that this guy could be a lot more effective if he just sat around in plain sight filming the hookers. He'd be a deterrent then. They'd have to move on because nobody is going to purchase the goods with a camera pointed at their face. This reality drama show he's made instead gets people arrested, sure, but not the hookers. The rest of them are unfettered while he lectures the truck driver. If you want to put them out of business, you've got to take all their business away and you can't do that by trailing one client at a time.

Why blame him? Blame the cops!

"Protect the children" is the default argument of the unknowing or non-self-aware conformist.

>> ^burdturgler:
Why blame him? Blame the cops!


Let me ask you something. What if the lady he picked up wasn't a prostitute and they were just two adults engaging in coitus without the exchange of money? They still pulled over and did it in the back of the truck and the nosy busybody still pulled open the trailer and videotaped them - just it wasn't an act of prostitution because no money was exchanged. Would you still side with the cameraman?

I have to tell you all something.

I have composed several very long answers to all of this bullshit here .. which I'm sure that a LOT of this is .. just misunderstandings. But to be compared as a racist by someone I stupidly .. stupidly looked up to and thought was some sort of .. distant friend here. Took the wind right out of me. And people are telling me I'm wrong for not wanting kids exposed to sex for money on the street .. yeah .. I'm just done. It was a mistake to come back to this site. Obviously, if I can be called a racist by someone I idiotically thought was my friend than never will anyone get anything I ever say here. I have no friends here. Oh well.

I was damned active getting things done during the last election cycle so at least I accomplished that and I have made hundreds of posts extolling the virtues of freedom, individual liberties, gay rights, anti drug war legislation and, right in this thread, pro prostitution.

Nice knowing I could come back and rock out the votes for a week .. take care and good luck. Tired of fighting 5 on 1.

He should have picked the second hooker.

Guy with camera = dick head
Guy in truck = paying to much for skank

at least the guy picked up the woman and drove away to go in back of the truck i don't see how this would affect children in the area , there are prostitutes all around where i live its not a problem iv Evan talked to some of them when they tired to offer me "business" I just feal sorry for them that they don't know how to make probably more money in a easier more convenient way.

The emphasis on Children and how bad it is for children is complety retarded. the only people affected by this are adults that are offended by prostitution. and in some cases women that are not doing prostitution willingly.

If the guy actual cared for people and making the world and his area a better place he would look at some way to help the prostitutes find other work it would take time but it would be time well spent , He has spent a fair amount of time making editing this video its probably a comparable amount of time speeking to prostitutes and working out what would be needed to help them of the streets.

I'm also fairly sure if you spoke to all the nabors and local business owners u could just make everyone aware of the prostitution "problem" and have people actively call in the police whenever they see it happen. That way the place would have a bad reputation for getting arsted if u try and pay for sex, making it nicer for the camra man dickhead but ultimately would just move the problem to another place.

Holy shit Westy, your typing has improved like 1000%

Paying for someone's food before sex = legal.
Paying someone directly before sex = illegal.


>>"people are telling me I'm wrong for not wanting kids exposed to sex for money on the street..."

Is it really the exchange of money that you have a problem with? There is a good case to be made for "sex in public" being illegal... it infringes upon the rights of others not to be subjected to nasty people screwing in plain view.

The exchange of money changes nothing, but I must admit I don't want to see people bumpin' it in the parking lot while I'm trying to eat, even if it is free sex.

except that prostitution ends up being cheaper

>> ^ponceleon:
One way or another, you always pay for sex.

>> ^MrFisk:
He should have picked the second hooker.


That's what I was thinking...maybe he's into BBW...ops I mean BUG

>> ^burdturgler:
And people are telling me I'm wrong for not wanting kids exposed to sex for money on the street .. yeah .. I'm just done.

And there's the problem. You start with a premise and assume it to be true. People question it, try to debate the concept, but you dismiss it. It is the definition of self-righteous. People are criticising your position of making such a moral assumption. There is a discussion to be had but you arrived with your conclusion already set.

So, someone looking in on your words sees the same self-righteousness as a number of other groups you are offended by being compared to. Forget your "self-evident" truths for a moment and be open to discussion of ideas.


I have no friends here. Oh well.


Arguing is not a personal attack. In fact, most people here have gone out of their way to word things very carefully, even when you began insulting. You are being offended here when the only thing going on is a debate.

My biggest beef with camera man is that he is highly ineffective and preys on the weak and pathetic (i.e., the Lowes guy).

Is he the only guy with a family and kids on his block? Is he the only guy with a camera? In this day everyone in his neighborhood has both. So why not mobilize the neighborhood against the prostitutes. No violence or dramatic confrontations, just a big brother presence to act as a deterent.

I can't help but see a lot of narcissism in his Dog the Bounty Hunter schtick.



Also, because I don't agree with anyone on a particular topic means I take any of this personally.

>> ^burdturgler:
I have to tell you all something.
I have composed several very long answers to all of this bullshit here .. which I'm sure that a LOT of this is .. just misunderstandings. But to be compared as a racist by someone I stupidly .. stupidly looked up to and thought was some sort of .. distant friend here. Took the wind right out of me. And people are telling me I'm wrong for not wanting kids exposed to sex for money on the street .. yeah .. I'm just done. It was a mistake to come back to this site. Obviously, if I can be called a racist by someone I idiotically thought was my friend than never will anyone get anything I ever say here. I have no friends here. Oh well.
I was damned active getting things done during the last election cycle so at least I accomplished that and I have made hundreds of posts extolling the virtues of freedom, individual liberties, gay rights, anti drug war legislation and, right in this thread, pro prostitution.
Nice knowing I could come back and rock out the votes for a week .. take care and good luck. Tired of fighting 5 on 1.


Boo. Cop out.

1. Analogies are not literal. The Salem Witches are an appropriate comparison, because violence was used in the persecution of others. The poster was not suggesting that opening a truck door and burning someone at the stake are equivalent, but they are based on the same principle - that the ends justify the means - if someone is "immoral" per your stance, you have the okay to violently persecute them. Failing to realize this is failing to understand the concept of analogy.

2. Prostitution is a victimless crime. For a crime to have a victim, you must be able to identify a victim in all possible manifestations of that crime. If there is even one counter example, it is a victimless crime. Think to yourself for a moment, can you dream up any possible circumstance wherein one person could pay another for sex, and neither would feel victimized? To help, flip it around - put yourself in the potential-victims shoes - are there any instances in which you would have sex with someone for money, and not feel like a victim? How about $1 trillion to have sex with that one girl at your work, you know who I'm talking about. Would you feel victimized? This is as solid as 2 + 2 = 4, you cannot argue it. If there is a victim in only certain circumstances, it is another, different crime that was committed. Human trafficking is one example used here - another example would be patting someone on the back - legal after a football game, illegal if you are standing on the edge of a cliff. Prostitution is a victimless crime, end of story.

3. Videotaping in a public place is not a crime. The (legal) line was crossed when the "do-gooder" opened the truck without permission of the owner. The fact that he was videotaping them naked, having sex, makes it a sex crime. Voyeurism, peeping-tom-ism, is a sex crime in America - and rightfully so. What he did was equivalent (in principle) to kicking open a bathroom stall and videotaping someone on the toilet. The do-gooder here should justly be charged, and registered as a sex offender.

4. Intolerance is not bad, in fact its very good, its the process by which we define our entire culture. Examples of things we are rightly intolerant of in increasing order of severity: not washing your hands after the bathroom, not covering your mouth when you cough, interrupting others while they are speaking, infidelity, racism, holocaust-denial. Do you go out and burn an racist at the stake? Do you slap people when they don't wash their hands? Do you throw people out windows when they interrupt you? Do you kick open a door and videotape them? Do you beat them with a stick? No...you choose not to be their friend, or associate with them, or ignore their views - just like any other jackass on the street. That is how society and culture are defined. Imagine life without intolerance - where all societal action was open-game and nothing was (nonviolently) condemned. Life would be an unending episode of Jerry Springer.

5. Intolerance as expressed through violence, however, is not okay for the very simple reason that violence is not okay. It has nothing to do with the intolerance motivating it, because as we just realized, intolerance is a good thing. An act of violence always has a victim. Opening a truck door that is not yours is an act of violence, as much as kicking in someones front door. They are different in degree, not kind. Denying the holocaust is not kosher, and you should be very intolerant of such a person, much more so that someone who doesn't wash their hands after going to the bathroom for that matter. But what they are doing is different in degree, not kind. You have every right to nonviolently protest - to videotape them publicly denying the holocaust and put it on youtube, and forward it to their boss. However, you don't have any more right to burn a holocaust denier at the stake than you do to burn someone who doesn't wash their hands. A failure to understand this is a failure to differentiate between concepts of varying degree, and concepts of varying kind.

You know, I wonder if he feels guilty when children watch his videos on the internet; exposing children to unwanted concepts and images. What a fucking douche bag.

*law

Adding video to channels (Law) - requested by MrFisk.

I think all this neighborhood needs is some NO COCK SUCKING signs.

I think you can't know WHY the prostitutes are prostituting... so that's your potential right there. The johns may also be perpetuating some damage to themselves as well.

STD's? Rape? Those would be lessened with regulation.

"These women are part of the the victims" -bt... that is very accurate, of course not always the case.

But since we can't be sure: legalize and regulate, because that is the only available INCLUSIVE option... totally identifying all constants and variabls and controlling them is a pipe dream right now.

BT has been pretty right on i dunno why the semantic games are getting so wild.

and holy shit at westy's spelling... i knew u had casual and serious mode!

Just once I'd like to see one of these videos end with the cameraman getting what he deserves.

>> ^gorillaman:
Just once I'd like to see one of these videos end with the cameraman getting what he deserves.


A copy of Three Amigos on DVD and glass of sherry.

>> ^burdturgler:
... but it is EXTRAORDINARILY unfair to ask this guy to go after the women who are selling sex. These women are part of the the victims as far as I'm concerned. Manipulated and addicted to drugs more often than not.
...
... Are you comparing innocent women burned at the stake to a fat slut who fucked some guy for 20 bucks in the back of a truck?


Fat slut? Yeah, you clearly consider the women to be victims...that's why you use such loving terms for them. Get a life and/or grow up. The only person hurting anyone in this video was the cameraman.

Should'a worked for Home Depot, they got a little mini-detachable forklift on the back of their trucks which could help get a lady like that loaded up.

BTW.... how many times do you think this !%$@$%#$! camera man can repeat this stunt before someone hurts/kills him.

You libertarian meanies are being a bit too rough on burdturgler.

I'm used to your silly accusations of being a violent oppressor motivated by feelings no different than the ones that fuel racism, jihad, and puppy chipping (ask Dick Cheney about that one). I think you're a bunch of morons if you think saying that to people is going to convince anyone to see things your way, but you can't help yourself, like Mr. Lowes here.

For what it's worth, I agree that the guy holding the camera is a douche, and that prostitution shouldn't be a crime.

Thing is, camera guy has a point -- no one really wants their neighborhood to be frequented by streetwalkers, and they definitely don't think it should be done in such an obvious manner in their neighborhood.

As imstellar put it, this is "good" intolerance. The cops obviously aren't doing the job (damn government can't do nothin' right!), and using violence is bad (unless my property is threatened, then shoot to kill is a-okay), so I take my right to free expression, and film the guy, then call the police, and twist their arm until they arrest him.

Sure, opening the door on them wouldn't have been cool if it'd been his personal truck, but what if the guy's boss gave permission to open the company truck when they spoke?

If we assume he just forgot to mention that fact, then suddenly this is just a totally kosher thing that a freedom-loving individual did in order to practice good intolerance and defend us, despite the government's incompetent (and violent!!!) involvement.

Boy, that was hard to type with all the eye rolling talking like that induces in me.

Now, which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice prostitution without regular testing for disease? Neither of you?

Well then, I hope you all catch porcine chlamydia from your legal hookers.

I noticed a few people mentioning having more police. Part of the problem is people have to engage in their communities as well to ensure that they dislike that type of conduct. Otherwise it's kill a few rats(or catch and release, because prostitutes always pay their fines and most don't want any help). It always isn't the easiest solution either. When you're working with CPTED solutions, it also requires other agencies to work at it. Since I can't say what type of shit rats are actually in that area I can't even guess.

But I'll say this, from my uniquely Canadian PoV. Victimless crimes are victimless, while society frowns on it; it becomes more of an issue on the spin offs from it. Those being the ones who get hooked on the drugs, petty theft, B&E, and so on. That's the more pressing concern, because as an area continues the slide down hill, it simply picks up in pace.

Regardless of all that, the guy with the camera is an idiot. The community has serious social, economic and civil issues that have to be dealt with, and it's not a thing that's going to change over night. A near-by city took nearly 20 years to get rid of the shit rats, now that area is a fine upstanding area with houses in the 250k-500k range, with no exceptional criminal element in a middle-class section of the city. (It just shifted to a new area, and again the fight begins a anew).

>> ^NetRunner:

Can someone translate idiot to English for me?

Rich people cant be criminals now? Now im jumping back into the semantic game~My bad


>> ^Mashiki:A near-by city took nearly 20 years to get rid of the shit rats, now that area is a fine upstanding area with houses in the 250k-500k range, with no exceptional criminal element in a middle-class section of the city. (It just shifted to a new area, and again the fight begins a anew).

"^Prostitution is very much a victimless crime. You're equating the extremes of the black market with the act of trading sex for money."

I'm sure the people being taken from their families and sold in to sex slavery understand and appreciate that correction.

"Trafficking would most likely end if prostitution was legalized."

Not necessarily, it would definitely drop dramatically but I don't think it would disappear altogether, slavery still exists for one thing. Also in my original statement I did say it would be best to legalize it. It would definitely help rather than hurt.

I simply can't agree with you separating Prostitution and Human Trafficking for the purpose of Prostitution. Yes two consenting adults exchange sex for money does seem to be victimless. An adult pimping out a small child, or a child trading sex to get enough money just to eat that day is certainly a victim. If we're serious about it we should be looking into how we can help the victims of this sort of thing, rather than claiming there simply aren't any.

>> ^blankfist:
Can someone translate idiot to English for me?


What's the matter, you break the translator you've been using to post with?

>> ^vairetube:
Rich people cant be criminals now? Now im jumping back into the semantic game~My bad
Oh sure. It's obvious crime I was talking about, but apparently you missed the boat.

Its ok people that sleep with hookers get HIV and harpies eventually

1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.

2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?

3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill. How far would we have to travel from this "good intentioned" policy before someone asked the following "good intentioned" questions:

"which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice sex without regular testing for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring annual testing of all persons for disease"
"which of you would join me in requiring armbands be worn which visually display the results of all disease tests"
"which of you would join me in prohibiting those with diseases from having sex"
"which of you would join me in making it illegal to leave your house without regular testing for disease"
and so on...

We can't frame a reasonable argument against any of these ideas if we accept your premise, because they are all based on the same idea of "the common good" being more important than individual misery. Certainly, each would provide more and more "common good" at the expense of more and more individual misery. If "common good" is your only goal, there is no conceivable limit to the policies you could create.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

>> ^NetRunner:
Now, which of you would join me in making it illegal to practice prostitution without regular testing for disease? Neither of you?
Well then, I hope you all catch porcine chlamydia from your legal hookers.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. The ends justify the means. Like a Medusa, this philosophy shows itself a thousand different ways; whether its burning witches at the stake, trespassing to videotape others having sex, or making STD testing mandatory for prostitutes - at its core, is the same monster: the ends justify the means. You cannot support one without supporting them all for despite their varied appearances, they are all one and the same.
2. Irrational Fear. Your argument is framed in fear, a tiger in a bushes or a Cheney in the desert. The results of policy driven by scaremongering and policy driven by reason and intellect have, historically, been more than lopsided. We are not a Fox News audience, so why would you try to provoke us as such?
3. Slippery slope principle/Snowball Effect. I do not think you pay enough respect to this principle. You seem content that humans do not carry simple principles to their furthest reaches, turning a tiny snowball into a 300 ft disaster as it reaches the bottom of the hill.

*sigh* Why do we need to go over this same ground all the time?

#1 conflates the prostitution equivalent of traffic laws with communists calling for a worker's revolution. You've admitted you'd like a violent revolution against people like me. You're a hypocrite, and a fearmonger.

#2 is pure projection. Irrational fear is thinking that the government requiring businessmen to care about their customers is more worrisome than letting businessmen be free to do whatever they can get away with behind a customer's back.

#3 is an example of your own irrational fear. There's a big difference between regulation requiring regular testing for STD's, and requiring testing for everyone. It's like the difference between saying "Football players should wear protective gear to play" and "everyone watching the game must wear the same protective gear". I can probably get the congress to implement the former rule, I'd certainly get laughed at for the latter. These same forces you think rule the private market are certainly at work in democratic politics.

4. Lesser of two evils. You seem distrusting of humans enough to force them into testing, and monitoring their behavior; but trusting enough of humans not to persecute others or abuse their power; yet the entire weight of history and psychology is against this notion. There has been far more suffering at the hands of human persecution than there ever has been at the hands of herpes, HIV, or chlamydia.

This is where you completely lose me. I'm distrustful of all humans. I'm trustful that politicians will obey elections, that our elections aren't being rigged, and that if they were, they couldn't keep it secret, and we'd have a revolution to put those things back in order. Keeping bad politicians out and good ones in is our responsibility. If you have an idea of how to make that effort easier, I'm all ears.

I'm generally trustful that most businesses are just out to make a buck, and have no inherent desire to be evil. I just think that they have a tendency to be amoral in their quest for profit, and often being evil is more cost-effective than being good.

When you're a public figure, you have to either a) sell evil as good, or b) do good. Everyone's capitalistic self interest is in trying to catch them doing evil, and out them for it. So much so, people in many different political sewing circles will make things up, and try to "out" politicians for things they didn't do (like, say, forge a fake birth certificate).

If you're a company with a product, you just don't tell people about the evil, and spend billions on marketing the positives of the product. If someone happens to catch them doing something evil, and tells the world about it, they get a vehement denial, and a disinformation campaign, maybe even a lawsuit (though they seem to do that less these days).

The market libertarians imagine is a figment of mathematical fancy -- out here in the real world, there isn't perfect information, there isn't perfect competition, and there are very few truly rational economic actors. Even if there were, what you would need to enforce a libertarian free market would be a government with perfect information, perfect enforcement, perfect impartiality, clear consensus on how to apply the law, and all the power it needs to enforce it.

Out here in the real world, we trust no one, least of all people who have a profit incentive for being indifferent to the harm they cause people.

Last word.

NetRunner, your position is out of control

You managed to dismiss 4 legitimate points without so much as internally considering them. I mean, thats one hell of a mental barrier.