溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: Where is the logic.................... [打印本頁]

作者: puZZle 時間: 2009-12-10 12:19 標題: Where is the logic....................

法令無法遏止印度最高法院建議賣淫合法化
(法新社)2009年12月10日星期四 21:35

（法新社新德里10日電）印度媒體今天報導，儘管法令限制一籮筐，印度性交易仍蓬勃發展，最高法院因此建議讓賣淫合法化，以解決猖獗的性交易問題。

「印度聯合新聞通訊社」（Press Trust of India）引述最高法院告訴副檢察總長的話：「如果這是世上最古老的行業，當法律無力矯正時，何不讓它合法化？」報導中未說明是那位大法官做此建議。

賣淫在印度是違法行為，但警方往往視而不見。

據「國家愛滋病管制組織」（National AIDSControl Organisation），全印約有120萬名性工作者，其中許多人多年來一直敦促讓賣淫全面合法化。

性工作者去年獲人壽保險投保權利，他 o們也為納入印度勞工法保護而奮鬥。

今年7月，德里高等法院（Delhi High Court）為男同志性交除罪。人權運動者認為，此舉不但有助於遏止愛滋病在印度擴散，更可鼓勵愛滋感染者勇於尋求治療，並吸收相關資訊。

印度政府估計，全印愛滋感染者達200萬至310萬人。（譯者：中央社何宏儒）

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-10 12:24

Well, this is the same "logic" when HK government said they can't stop illegal soccer gambling, and so the government hosts the legal gambling!

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-10 13:03

也同加拿大某D人所想不謀而合窩。。。不是說讓大麻合法化咪唔使怕D人繼續因大麻而犯法的嗎﹖ 是誰說的﹖ 我忘記了。。。總之有D人諗野。。。真係好“得”

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-10 13:03

well, same thing in here too about legalizing drugs

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-10 13:04

well, same thing in here too about legalizing drugs
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-10 14:03

GIVE ME 5

。。。我地同時說了同樣的話啊

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-12-10 13:09

Yes it should be legalized.
There's no reason why you can't do certain things as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.
However, at the same time they should maximize the penalty for all crimes.

So, you can smoke any weed you want, but if you ever rob someone for money to buy weed, you should receive death penalty.

And also, they should also have a law where all obese, smokers and any self-inflicted long term patients do not receive free medical care.

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-12-10 13:10

Yes it should be legalized.
There's no reason why you can't do certain things as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.
However, at the same time they should maximize the penalty for all crimes.

So, y ...
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-12-10 14:09

I agree with you this time

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-10 13:12

7# sheep

係喇係喇﹐殺人放火全部 LEGALIZED 更好﹐想做乜都可以做﹐兼無人犯法﹐天下太平﹐真好啊。。。

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-12-10 13:20

7# sheep

係喇係喇﹐殺人放火全部 LEGALIZED 更好﹐想做乜都可以做﹐兼無人犯法﹐天下太平﹐真好啊。。。
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-10 14:12

World become better and better when criminals getting lesser and lesser.

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-12-10 13:37

印度人咸湿係人都知啦，个法官咪順水推舟咯！

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-10 14:47

Yes it should be legalized.
There's no reason why you can't do certain things as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.
However, at the same time they should maximize the penalty for all crimes.

So, y ...
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-12-10 14:09

Max penalty for crimes will never happen. So your claim that it should be legalized should not happen too?

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-12-10 14:50

Max penalty for crimes will never happen. So your claim that it should be legalized should not happen too?
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-10 15:47

for those who scare of the penalty, will not do anything
for those who are not scare of it dies soon

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-10 14:50

印度人咸湿係人都知啦，个法官咪順水推舟咯！
CWong 發表於 2009-12-10 14:37

Really? I only know Japanese are 咸湿 lor...

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-10 14:51

for those who scare of the penalty, will not do anything
for those who are not scare of it dies soon
sheep 發表於 2009-12-10 15:50

the thing is max penalty will never happen in a society wor

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-10 14:55

Really? I only know Japanese are 咸湿 lor...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-10 15:50

all male human beings are...

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-12-10 15:24

本帖最後由 habitrailspace 於 2009-12-10 16:31 編輯

all male human beings are...
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-10 15:55

唔係點會有妳和我
同埋隻牛要飲水

作者: news 時間: 2009-12-10 16:30

yeah might as well legalize it and make some money out of it...its a profession

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-12-10 17:05

the thing is max penalty will never happen in a society wor
shutterbug 發表於 2009/12/10 14:51

not in a democratic society

one of the major downside of democracy

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-12-10 17:32

Really? I only know Japanese are 咸湿 lor...
shutterbug 發表於 10/12/2009 14:50

曰本嗰Ｄ係淫賤(淫賤到冇人有)！

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-10 19:04

低能，適量吸大麻唔會食人，
安全地嫖妓都唔會死人，
我最唔明點解要將兩樣野拉埋一齊講，
我諗嫖妓除左有「直接」金錢關係之外，
做既野同你老公／老婆做既分別唔大，
你可以接受飲酒飲醉，之但係吸大麻吸high就唔得？？
吸大麻比飲酒對身體更少傷害，
嫖妓比強姦非禮更少傷害，
合法化只係可以監管，將傷害減到最細。
唔好將呢d同索k，白粉比，嗰d殺傷力太大。

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-10 20:05

但係咁喎Moi哥，如果鐘意咗食大麻high嗰種feel，會唔會容易啲想試吓更high嘅feel呢？即係食啲強啲嘅丸仔呀，K仔嗰啲。
講到嫖妓，當然，係唔會physically傷到人，單身寡佬嫖妓都唔出奇。但係，如果呢樣嘢係合法，老公都可以好自由咁嫖，老婆又可以合法地搵鴨，咁樣好咩？

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-12-10 20:43

老虎都因為咁出事
一早Pay per F 咪幾好

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-10 21:38

what a nice topic "where the logic is......."
well obviously, u will think this is logical if u think it in the way to solve the problems in the society
Otherwise, u will find it illogical if u look at this with moral or religious standard

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-10 21:43

合唔合法都係會滾，
要咁講，飲酒都要禁，因為醉都唔夠high,一定要吸下毒先夠喉，根本係無限上綱。

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-10 22:32

合唔合法都係會滾，
要咁講，飲酒都要禁，因為醉都唔夠high,一定要吸下毒先夠喉，根本係無限上綱。
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2009-12-10 22:43

好提議呀﹐一於禁~~

作者: ricrick 時間: 2009-12-10 22:35

無論咩野，如果去到人人都做，吾合法都吾得，時間問題

好似以前，男女偷情是重罪，要浸豬籠

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-12-10 23:29

Yes it should be legalized.
There's no reason why you can't do certain things as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.
-agree

老公都可以好自由咁嫖，老婆又可以合法地搵鴨，咁樣好咩？ - hmm. i think it is another issue. just like you can smoke in your own house, but if your partner doesn't like it. 咁樣好咩？

吸大麻比飲酒對身體更少傷害
are you sure? but the doctor on a radio show had an opposite option wor. he said 大麻 can cause permanent brain damage

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-10 23:57

"hmm. i think it is another issue. just like you can smoke in your own house, but if your partner doesn't like it. 咁樣好咩？"

Well...I won't accept my partner to smoke, nor I smoke myself. My nose can't stand the smell.

OK..back to topic...我諗每個人嘅接受程度都唔同。我認為道德上嫖妓同吸大麻都係唔啱嘅行為，亦希望法律能夠反映出嚟。

作者: puZZle 時間: 2009-12-11 00:09

interesting

if intercourse with your wive/gf/bf/husband are only comparable to substance usage... nothing to say

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-11 02:23

alcohol can cause permanent liver damage, also.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-11 02:52

道德標準係好奇妙既一回事，
「醉酒」同「high」邊樣可以接收範圍入，條線由上面畫。

作者: noa 時間: 2009-12-11 04:34

本帖最後由 noa 於 2009-12-11 05:47 編輯

非常logical. 我讀crim時, 第一堂個prof已經教 "when there is no law, there is no crime". 娼妓合法化減低o黎罪案數字呢個做法好logical.
law同道德標準基本上是不掛鉤. 超速駕駛係犯法, 但幾乎人人都或多或少超速駕駛, 但無人會覺得超速駕駛唔道德; 又例如西方無法律限制婚外情, 但普羅大眾會覺得婚外情唔道德. 將法律同道德標準混為一談只是一廂情願o既想法

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 09:18

本帖最後由 Littleprince 於 2009-12-11 10:26 編輯

人類最初點解需要法律﹖ 如果人人都達到最高道德標準 (愛人如己) 就不用 (因為既然愛人如己就不會殺人﹐不會偷盜﹐等等)﹐可是﹐因為人係自私的﹐他們都會偷隔離屋的雞﹐隔離屋的錢﹐會殺隔離屋只狗﹐ETC。ETC。法律先至有需要﹐從而慢慢形成﹐所以殺了隔離屋只狗的懲罰與殺了隔離屋個老婆係不一樣的。。。

假如人人都嫖妓所以嫖妓應該合法化﹐某程度上無問題。。。但係當你無限上崗﹐話因為人人都愛殺人而放棄殺人需要接受懲罰﹐這就會有很大的問題。。。道德標準無錯係不斷下降﹐但觀乎人類社會﹐當去到最低就會有人出來拉番高DD﹐這一切都是循環﹐否則現今我們都唔存在了﹐以往都曾發生過無數次大屠殺﹐若因此而制定法律話殺人無罪﹐我和你的祖先都早早就死去了。。。

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 09:51

我飲一杯酒，可以係為咗飲一支靚嘅紅酒而飲。並唔係為咗要飲醉而飲。但係食大麻，唔係為咗要high咁食嚟做咩？
speeding都係唔應該，對其他道路使用者構成危險，不過如何介定speeding就有商確如地。

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 10:02

我飲一杯酒，可以係為咗飲一支靚嘅紅酒而飲。並唔係為咗要飲醉而飲。但係食大麻，唔係為咗要high咁食嚟做咩？
speeding都係唔應該，對其他道路使用者構成危險，不過如何介定speeding就有商確如地。 ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 10:51

u drink wine for taste not representing other people would be the same with u also
some people just like showing off their drinking skills (can drink alot without getting drunk) by drink alot and still go to drive or go to pick a fight

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 10:04

I don't mind passing law to stop selling alcohol and cigarette too.....LOL

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 10:13

I don't mind passing law to stop selling alcohol and cigarette too.....LOL
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 11:04

yes u can use law to make many things illegal, like smoking and drinking, but have u considered what would be the consequence?
two facts:
1. no law to regulate the ingredients / production process of those stuffs
2. human cannot get rid of smoking and drinking since hundreds of years ago
consequences:
many people die because they drink and smoke the stuffs that are not really what they are supposed to be made of

I got nothing to say if u said those people die because of smoking the fake cig and drinking the faked wine deserved the death

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 10:26

u drink wine for taste not representing other people would be the same with u also
some people just like showing off their drinking skills (can drink alot without getting drunk) by drink alot and sti ...
chunsh 發表於 2009-12-11 11:02

just like somebody takes some weeds or drink wines before driving a plane (747) to show how brave they are and you agreed with this and don't think it should be stopped?

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 10:26

speeding都係唔應該，對其他道路使用者構成危險，不過如何介定speeding就有商確如地。 ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 10:51

作者: news 時間: 2009-12-11 10:55

just because it's legalized....it doesn't mean one has to do it...it's one's choice to choose what, how often and how much one wants to do it
just like your wine example...it's your own decision on how much you are going to consume to achieve the satisfaction that you desire

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 11:06

just because it's legalized....it doesn't mean one has to do it...it's one's choice to choose what, how often and how much one wants to do it
just like your wine example...it's your own decision on ho ...
news 發表於 2009-12-11 11:55

不知你家中有無細路仔呢﹖假如你告訴你個仔﹐你可以隨便吃家中任何東西﹐包括你的藥和煙﹐你猜你 5 歲的仔仔會不會拿來試試呢﹖雖說是自由選擇﹐但對於不懂分是非的細路來說﹐準代表可以做﹐代表做左唔會受罰﹐他們就會去試。。。相反若你說﹐仔仔﹐你甚麼都可以食﹐但不要碰我的煙和藥。。。他就算做都只敢偷偷做﹐做了也怕被罵。。。而我細個係乖細路﹐爸爸說了不准碰的﹐我真的完全沒有碰過。。。

當然﹐就算法例禁止﹐也還有好多人做﹐就像上面乖同曳細路的例子一樣。

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 11:07

不要告訴我加拿大人個個都識分是非黑白﹐係就早已天下太平

作者: news 時間: 2009-12-11 11:12

假如人人都嫖妓所以嫖妓應該合法化﹐某程度上無問題。。。但係當你無限上崗﹐話因為人人都愛殺人而放棄殺人需要接受懲罰﹐這就會有很大的問題。。。道德標準無錯係不斷下降﹐但觀乎人類社會﹐當去到最低就會有人出來拉番高DD﹐這一切都是循環﹐否則現今我們都唔存在了﹐以往都曾發生過無數次大屠殺﹐若因此而制定法律話殺人無罪﹐我和你的祖先都早早就死去了。。。Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 09:18

you are comparing an apple to an orange

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 11:36

7# sheep

係喇係喇﹐殺人放火全部 LEGALIZED 更好﹐想做乜都可以做﹐兼無人犯法﹐天下太平﹐真好啊。。。
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-10 13:12

Don't be silly. The key concept was "as long as it doesn't harm anybody else". You count 殺人放火 doesn't harm anybody else? Cool.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 11:43

但係咁喎Moi哥，如果鐘意咗食大麻high嗰種feel，會唔會容易啲想試吓更high嘅feel呢？即係食啲強啲嘅丸仔呀，K仔嗰啲。
講到嫖妓，當然，係唔會physically傷到人，單身寡佬嫖妓都唔出奇。但係，如果呢樣嘢係合法，老 ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-10 20:05

Nonsense. Your men can have casual sex with their friends or neighbors next doors if they want, not necessarily related to 嫖妓 becomes legalized or not. To tie your men's heart is definitely not based on whether 嫖妓 is legal or not.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 11:46

you are comparing an apple to an orange
news 發表於 2009-12-11 12:12

oh was I?

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 11:48

Nonsense. Your men can have casual sex with their friends or neighbors next doors if they want, not necessarily related to 嫖妓 becomes legalized or not. To tie your men's heart is definitely not bas ...
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 12:43

well.. I consider 嫖妓 better than 偷食添。。。

不過﹐我覺得嫖妓只適用於那些未婚﹐無女友﹐有性需要﹐又無其他方法解決的人。

若有老婆還嫖妓﹐其實都係 CHEATING 的一種。

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 11:58

well.. I consider 嫖妓 better than 偷食添。。。

不過﹐我覺得嫖妓只適用於那些未婚﹐無女友﹐有性需要﹐又無其他方法解決的人。

若有老婆還嫖妓﹐其實都係 CHEATING 的一種。 ...
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 11:48

True, which I also agree. But some people (ladies) tend to think too much. To legalize it doesn't turn non-interested guys to become interested all of a sudden if they have no such "gene" inside. Just like, same sex marriage is legalize won't turn regular men into gays. Or, eating **** is always legalized (I suppose), but not everybody will eat like the gals in two gals one cup. Right?
May I say, 嫖妓 legalized might be good for single men. But as I said, to tie your married men is nothing to do with whether the law is there or not. They will remain loyal to their women even it became legalized, if they're really loyal guys.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 12:03

To tie your men's heart is definitely not based on whether 嫖妓 is legal or not.

yeah, that is the point

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 12:07

本帖最後由 fibbi 於 2009-12-11 13:13 編輯

48# Ultraman

Yeah...guy may have genes for "call chicken" or cheating no matter what, but if things are illegal, they will "think twice" if they wanna do it, since there are bigger consequences (e.g. criminal record, trouble of going through court etc.).

I think the basic idea of law is to define what is right/wrong and punish those whoever did something "wrong" so that there is "order" in our society. In most cases, laws are defined so that we can't do something harmful to others (e.g. killing, stealing, and also include speeding, drinking and driving, drugs, and the list goes on).
For same sex marriage, prostitution, those seems like "no harm to others" and that's more of a discussion of why it is illegal. But to me, I think anything that is not right to do, could be reflected on the "law". But of course, everyone has his own opinion on these topics.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:11

Don't be silly. The key concept was "as long as it doesn't harm anybody else". You count 殺人放火 doesn't harm anybody else? Cool.
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 12:36

嫖妓又怎可以算為 "as long as it doesn't harm anybody else“呢﹖ 起碼傷害了他的另一半了﹐假設他有的話。。。再者﹐好多人嫖妓唔當個女人係人﹐只係工具﹐報紙成日都有講﹐甘咪傷害埋個妓女囉。

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 12:13

本帖最後由 chunsh 於 2009-12-11 13:15 編輯

再者﹐好多人嫖妓唔當個女人係人﹐只係工具﹐報紙成日都有講﹐甘咪傷害埋個妓女囉。
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 13:11

傷害?
physically or mentally?
if u talked about physical abused, thats why we need laws to protect them

and how come u guys just can't face the truth?
legal or not, 嫖 cannot be stopped. Making it illegal just means no laws to protect those people

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 12:19

48# Ultraman

Yeah...guy may have genes for "call chicken" or cheating no matter what, but if things are illegal, they will "think twice" if they wanna do it, since there are bigger consequences (e ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 12:07

You missed out another fact (which most gals don't realize). Most guys like to enjoy the feel of "stealing". That means, they might enjoy calling chicken more when it's illegal; but once it's legal, they might feel less interest to do so.

作者: news 時間: 2009-12-11 12:20

本帖最後由 news 於 2009-12-11 12:23 編輯

oh was I?
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 11:46

put aside those that are forced to be prostitutes..it will be another issue..but for your argument...they can choose to provide or not to provide and receive or not to receive sex service...you can choose to murder or not to murder too but you can't choose to be murdered or not be murdered

if you think they are the same...you have a serious problem

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 12:21

嫖妓又怎可以算為 "as long as it doesn't harm anybody else“呢﹖ 起碼傷害了他的另一半了﹐假設他有的話。。。再者﹐好多人嫖妓唔當個女人係人﹐只係工具﹐報紙成日都有講﹐甘咪傷害埋個妓女囉。 ...
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 12:11

Let's stick with single men but not married men. Then single men have no other half to hurt.
Second, if those men just pay and do the trade in a normal way, which involve no mental illness or violence kind of thing, the chickens are getting paid for what they ask for, considered a fair trade. Still no hurt.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 12:25

再者﹐好多人嫖妓唔當個女人係人﹐只係工具﹐報紙成日都有講﹐甘咪傷害埋個妓女囉。 ...
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 12:11

If you want to talk about extreme or rare case. How about those church pastors sexual assault church fellows? Can I say going to church and believing in God is very dangerous so people rather not to do so at all?

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 12:28

53# Ultraman

haha if guys enjoy the feeling of stealing, then let's bring it bigger consequences. prison for 20 yrs and 打藤, how about that?

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-11 12:29

Even if it's legalized, the protection is still very limited, so what's the benefit? the money to enforce will be high just like the safe injection sites. Who will be paying for it? We always emphasize the user pays right? Even if ther users agree to pay, I don't think the users only can cover the cost. So at the end the other taxpayers have to fund it or the price for using prostitute goes double or triple. Then we'll be back to square one where prostitudes will opt out of this program and do it under the table again.

Moreover, prostitution is tied to many other crimes, if prostitution is easily available it will open doors for these crimes.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:33

本帖最後由 Littleprince 於 2009-12-11 13:36 編輯

put aside those that are forced to be prostitutes..it will be another issue..but for your argument...they can choose to provide or not to provide and receive or not to receive sex service...you can ...
news 發表於 2009-12-11 13:20

oh did you missed this sentence? "但係當你無限上崗"
I don't mean to compare anything so your argument 並不成立﹐所以你話咩 COMPARE APPLE TO ORANGE 我先覺得奇怪﹐我有COMPARE 過咩野嗎﹖

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:34

If you want to talk about extreme or rare case. How about those church pastors sexual assault church fellows? Can I say going to church and believing in God is very dangerous so people rather not to ...
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 13:25

甘你即係話嫖妓無傷害任何人﹖

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:36

傷害?
physically or mentally?
if u talked about physical abused, thats why we need laws to protect them

and how come u guys just can't face the truth?
legal or not, 嫖 cannot be stopped. Making it ...
chunsh 發表於 2009-12-11 13:13

然則 LEGAL 左就可以 PROTECT 她們了﹖加拿大好似係合法化的﹐你點解釋豬場東主那件事呢﹖

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 12:40

其實，點解我哋會覺得單身寡佬叫雞無問題呢？唔係hurt唔hurt人嘅問題，我真係覺得要叫雞係好墮落嘅一件事。當一個人會覺得偷情係刺激，叫雞（或者性）只不過係肉慾發洩嘅時候，我會覺得好可悲。

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:42

本帖最後由 Littleprince 於 2009-12-11 13:45 編輯

其實，點解我哋會覺得單身寡佬叫雞無問題呢？唔係hurt唔hurt人嘅問題，我真係覺得要叫雞係好墮落嘅一件事。當一個人會覺得偷情係刺激，叫雞（或者性）只不過係肉慾發洩嘅時候，我會覺得好可悲。 ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 13:40

我只係退到一個無可避免的情況﹐即是“寡佬﹐有強烈性慾﹐唔叫雞就會禁不住去強姦人”﹐o甘解咋

其實也傷害人的﹐傷了他自己(過後的罪疚感﹐及身體 - 有機會染病)﹐他父母 (身體髮膚受之於父母)﹐傷了未來的女友及配偶 (的心)﹐那妓女的身心靈。。。我個人當然仍是不同意嫖妓的。

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 12:43

本帖最後由 chunsh 於 2009-12-11 13:45 編輯

其實，點解我哋會覺得單身寡佬叫雞無問題呢？唔係hurt唔hurt人嘅問題，我真係覺得要叫雞係好墮落嘅一件事。當一個人會覺得偷情係刺激，叫雞（或者性）只不過係肉慾發洩嘅時候，我會覺得好可悲。 ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 13:40

male mammals are "designed" physically to have moment that only have sexual desire
if a single man cannot find a sex partner to satisfied his needs (including his hands) for long period of time, he will be in "abnormal" mode

作者: news 時間: 2009-12-11 12:44

本帖最後由 news 於 2009-12-11 12:47 編輯

不知你家中有無細路仔呢﹖假如你告訴你個仔﹐你可以隨便吃家中任何東西﹐包括你的藥和煙﹐你猜你 5 歲的仔仔會不會拿來試試呢﹖雖說是自由選擇﹐但對於不懂分是非的細路來說﹐準代表可以做﹐代表做左唔會受罰﹐他們就會去試。。。相反若你說﹐仔仔﹐你甚麼都可以食﹐但不要碰我的煙和藥。。。他就算做都只敢偷偷做﹐做了也怕被罵。。。而我細個係乖細路﹐爸爸說了不准碰的﹐我真的完全沒有碰過。。。
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 11:06

yes you are correct if you perceive the substance or matter that you are referring to is 'wrong'...i'm not trying to justify whether it is right or wrong or whether its beneficial or harmful..i'm just saying just because it's legal..it doesn't mean you have to do it...it only means you can and it's your choice to persue it

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 12:45

然則 LEGAL 左就可以 PROTECT 她們了﹖加拿大好似係合法化的﹐你點解釋豬場東主那件事呢﹖
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 12:36

Please stop talking and relating to more nonsense. Everyone can kill anyone even killing is surely illegal. Not limited to prostitute. Taxi drivers can kill their riders, so taxi should be illegalized?

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 12:47

然則 LEGAL 左就可以 PROTECT 她們了﹖加拿大好似係合法化的﹐你點解釋豬場東主那件事呢﹖
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 13:36

laws cannot protect us completely, u are using the wrong example
we have laws to protect our lives from murder, but people still got murder from time to time. So are u saying that setting up laws to against murder is useless?

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:47

Please stop talking and relating to more nonsense. Everyone can kill anyone even killing is surely illegal. Not limited to prostitute. Taxi drivers can kill their riders, so taxi should be illegalize ...
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 13:45

係咩﹐唔準講廢話的嗎﹖點解我看見好多好多廢話既﹖

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 12:49

好了 enought for today

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 13:01

64# chunsh

wow...if guy has no sex for long time then he turns to abnormal mode? base on what? medical studies?
Is 10 months a long time?

Then what about the wife is pregnant and can't have sex. Does it mean the husband need to find a neighbour or chicken to have sex with?

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 13:26

Even if it's legalized, the protection is still very limited, so what's the benefit? the money to enforce will be high just like the safe injection sites. Who will be paying for it? We always empha ...
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-11 12:29

For the money issue, no matter in which way would be pretty much the same.
Either, to spend money to arrange special or more cop teams to investigate and stop illegal prostitution; or, to spend money for protection such as safe house, injection, body check etc. In whichever way is still using taxpayers' money.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 13:28

係咩﹐唔準講廢話的嗎﹖點解我看見好多好多廢話既﹖
Littleprince 發表於 2009-12-11 12:47

Oh of course you can be one of them. But as long as you tell me you're talking about nonsense/garbage, I can ignore you.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 13:35

本帖最後由 chunsh 於 2009-12-11 14:37 編輯

64# chunsh

wow...if guy has no sex for long time then he turns to abnormal mode? base on what? medical studies?
Is 10 months a long time?

Then what about the wife is pregnant and can't have sex. ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 14:01

I just know why peter keep calling someone "you moron...."
u know, what I am talking about are those men who CANNOT find another half, the physical needs and the mental loneliness can turn an angel to a demon

A man with a pregnant wife is not lonely, he know he has a holy task to protect the woman he loves and his off-spring. Also, the men I talked about have no way to know when will he be able to find a partner (the infinite time of waiting....)

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 13:46

73# chunsh

I'm not a bug inside your stomach wor, can't get what you mean all the time right?

Anyway, you can't convince me as I can't convince you either. Just express different opinion jeh. If you think I don't have a point, it's fine. I'm not here to ask people to agree with my view mah.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 13:51

73# chunsh

I'm not a bug inside your stomach wor, can't get what you mean all the time right?
Anyway, you can't convince me as I can't convince you either. Just express different opinion jeh. I ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 14:46

ok, understood

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-11 13:53

本帖最後由 MoiRhapsody 於 2009-12-11 14:54 編輯

完全唔知扯到冥王星....
如果酒唔係會令人high同醉，根本唔會有人會俾咁既價錢黎飲。講好飲，大把野好飲過酒，而且亦都會有人係enjoy大麻味。

Then what about the wife is pregnant and can't have sex. Does it mean the husband need to find a neighbour or chicken to have sex with?

yes,問題係有係度，男人係有強烈既生理需要，解決方法有好多種，接唔接受到自己諗。

合法同唔合法並不代表一件事完全啱晒或錯晒，一腳踏兩船，搞大人地個肚走佬，考試唔溫書肥晒，全部都冇犯法添，之但係啱唔啱丫？？？
正如Noa所講，任何立法保障／禁止都係damage control。
由嫖妓合法推到殺人合法，先至係無限上綱呀，醒目。

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2009-12-11 14:03

BTW,
到底知唔知無限上綱點解？
如果有人話要殺人合法因為嫖妓合法，呢個人係白痴。
如果有人話同嫖妓唔應該合法因為會令到殺人合法，就係無限上綱，兼白痴。

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-12-11 14:10

76# MoiRhapsody

做錯事(e.g. fail exam, dump a pregnant gf in your example)唔一定犯法，但係犯法嘅就一定係錯事，啱嘛？

"如果酒唔係會令人high同醉，根本唔會有人會俾咁既價錢黎飲。"
$50 for a bottle of red wine. I drink a glass at a time, don't get high, don't get drunk wor...

"而且亦都會有人係enjoy大麻味。"
Hm...算我無知/孤陋寡聞我真係無諗過有人會鐘意大麻浸味。。。

講到尾，我係覺得不道德嘅行為有法律去監管無乜問題。我真係覺得嫖妓係不道德行為嘅一種。我唔介意你話我古老喎，我都會係咁教啲仔女（如果有嘅話）。

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-12-11 14:19

Oh of course you can be one of them. But as long as you tell me you're talking about nonsense/garbage, I can ignore you.
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 14:28

you don't have to mention to me as I can tell myself and will just ignore you, you can see that

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-12-11 14:19

76# MoiRhapsody

做錯事(e.g. fail exam, dump a pregnant gf in your example)唔一定犯法，但係犯法嘅就一定係錯事，啱嘛？

"如果酒唔係會令人high同醉，根本唔會有人會俾咁既價錢黎飲。"
$50 for a bottle ...
fibbi 發表於 2009-12-11 15:10

i dun support this post
something here u will never understand bcoz ur not up to that LEVEL

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 14:29

["如果酒唔係會令人high同醉，根本唔會有人會俾咁既價錢黎飲。"
$50 for a bottle of red wine. I drink a glass at a time, don't get high, don't get drunk wor...]
Yes, many people drink alcohol not intend to get drunk, but to enjoy the taste of it.

[ "而且亦都會有人係enjoy大麻味。"
Hm...算我無知/孤陋寡聞我真係無諗過有人會鐘意大麻浸味。。。]
Well, I'm not a 大麻 guy. But I somehow believe, those who take 大麻 might enjoy the smell of it too. Which it makes sense, or if they hate or can't bear the smell, they won't take it.

[我真係覺得嫖妓係不道德行為 (交易) 嘅一種]
Agree.

[我係覺得不道德嘅行為有法律去監管無乜問題]
Agree.

作者: chunsh 時間: 2009-12-11 15:31

本帖最後由 chunsh 於 2009-12-11 16:33 編輯

i dun support this post
something here u will never understand bcoz ur not up to that LEVEL
habitrailspace 發表於 2009-12-11 15:19

just curious, what level?

作者: habitrailspace 時間: 2009-12-11 16:26

just curious, what level?
chunsh 發表於 2009-12-11 16:31

like some lyk disagree with the snow tires. they never tried it (they are not up to that LEVEL)

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-11 16:35

For the money issue, no matter in which way would be pretty much the same.
Either, to spend money to arrange special or more cop teams to investigate and stop illegal prostitution; or, to spend mone ...
Ultraman 發表於 2009-12-11 14:26

Not really. If it's illegal the police is working in a black box and you don't know how much police force is allocated for prostitution. They can do more or less depending on budget.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-11 23:09

Not really. If it's illegal the police is working in a black box and you don't know how much police force is allocated for prostitution. They can do more or less depending on budget.
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-11 16:35

No matter it's legal or illegal, do you really think they'll disclose the actual expense to the public?
Try not to think too much and relate too much. We don't even count corruption in any cases, who knows the actual figure is?!

作者: shutterbug 時間: 2009-12-12 00:59

No matter it's legal or illegal, do you really think they'll disclose the actual expense to the public?
Try not to think too much and relate too much. We don't even count corruption in any cases, who knows the actual figure is?!

I don't need to know what the actual figure is. I just want to point out to you that going one way or the other will not be the same for money spent like you said. That was my point.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-12-12 01:08

I don't need to know what the actual figure is. I just want to point out to you that going one way or the other will not be the same for money spent like you said. That was my point.
shutterbug 發表於 2009-12-12 00:59

Come on! Who said "exactly the same"?! However, no matter in terms of manpower and/or money and/or other factors, they could count as "comparable" to each other. Which, we have no idea and no solid figure for how much exactly they are going to spend on each case, but certain manpower and money (and other possible factors) would be spent anyways. Unlike someone said/thought, sounded like no manpower nor money will be needed to spend on a specific case. And that was my point.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)