Video Vigilante Brian Bates

[buster81]

imported post

Off topic, however, while this post isopen, prostitution is essentially legal in Canada. There are some subtleties to the law which aren't really worth going into, but the act itself is not illegal.Opposition to this is often argued by people similar to the Brady Campaign (in a similar method ie. I feel like hookers are bad without any real data to base this position on) withoutmuch effect. The topicofdecriminalizing cannabisis also hotly debated and has some substantial traction. Without a doubt, possession of small amounts is simply frowned upon without any real penalty. Whilelivingthere,I did notseeany chaosat all due to either of these situations.

I take no position on eitherissue, but will tell you that organized crime has much less to do with eitherprostitutionormarijuana distribution than they do in the US. I'm not saying that there are no pimps at all, but there are very few of them. Escorts do not need the "protection" these people offer, as their choice of trade is not illegal. So, I do not believe that anarchy will result in decriminalizing either of these.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

This has nothing to do with OC.. but I did enjoy seeing the video. It was funny!!

But I could care less about prostitution.

We all pay for it one way or another....

You are going to pay for both a date with a girlor a street walker. The only difference is you jump ahead to the objective if you pick up the street walker and you do not have toworry about her asking for your number or if you will call her tomorrow. :lol:

And if you factor in how many dates it takes with no guarantee that you will get lucky... The street walker is going to be a sure thing and cheaper.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Woodchuck wrote:

I absolutely agree that we must have some laws, complete anarchy is complete chaos.

2 consenting adults having sex is a far cry from raping and slitting the throat of a helpless victim.

If there's no victim should it be a crime?

Who says there no victim?  Maybe you're just too short and narrow sighted to see the victims.

 

I lol'd at the videos.  Good for him.

Ridiculous. There cannot be a victim without an act of aggression. Who is the victim? The state, deprived of sales tax? Back up your assertion.

Prostitution is quite comparable to homosexuality, in that the object of concern is a sexual act between two consenting adults. Any "harm" caused by one and not the other is a self-fulfilling prophecy, likely due to the prohibition in the first place (for example, the popularity of "the street" as a place of business rather than private residence).

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

For those who don't think prostitutes are victims aren't looking at the big picture. Do you realize how many prostitutes are FORCED into this lifestyle via trafficking and pimps?

When you eliminate the Johns, then the prostitutes and their "pimps" will start losing "business" in that area, and will venture somewhere else, which is what Brian wants. If you have something you want to say to Brian, comment his youtube videos or send him a message on youtube. He does a good job about responding to these type of things.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

As long as we are this far off topic, well, as a cab driver back in the 70s I used to get approached all the time by women who would ask me if I wanted "a date" DATE???

A "date" is maybe a show of some kind and maybe dinner or something of that sort. A hookup with a hooker is an assignation. Some guys might find prostitutes alluring, I do not.

So I started carrying those "Chick" Christian tracts, you know, the ones where various people wind up in Hell? and offering them when accosted. Worked like a charm!:celebrate



Besides I deal with enough whores every time I freaking VOTE. I actually had a drunk get in my cab a few years ago and say: "Take me to a whorehouse!" So I drove him to the Hart Senate Office Building and told him the Capitol cop was the doorman. Told him the Polish babe named Barbara was good. Drove off.

Wonder if he got lucky.....

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

For those who don't think prostitutes are victims aren't looking at the big picture. Do you realize how many prostitutes are FORCED into this lifestyle via trafficking and pimps?

When you eliminate the Johns, then the prostitutes and their "pimps" will start losing "business" in that area, and will venture somewhere else, which is what Brian wants. If you have something you want to say to Brian, comment his youtube videos or send him a message on youtube. He does a good job about responding to these type of things.

You have it 100% backwards.

Yes, prostitutes are often victims. But prohibiting the act itself does not solve that problem. Far better is to prohibit enslavement, but permit mere prostitution. Then, the slavers will have a hard time competing with legitimate prostitutes.

Furthermore, with the perpetual legal and legislative conflation between the two ended, it will be easier to distinguish between "prostitutes" and "slaves" and work to end one while protecting the other.

Make no mistake, sex slavery is a product of prohibition, not a product of any single transaction (or amalgamation thereof) between consenting adults.

Prostitutes who are not consenting are not prostitutes, they are slaves. This conflation must be whipped NOW, and never allowed to return.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

buster81 wrote:

I take no position on either issue, but will tell you that organized crime has much less to do with either prostitution or marijuana distribution than they do in the US. I'm not saying that there are no pimps at all, but there are very few of them. Escorts do not need the "protection" these people offer, as their choice of trade is not illegal.

This too. Once again, victimization (of scale) is a product of prohibition.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Yeah, "two consenting adults" may be selling and buying illegal drugs too. Does that make it an OK thing to do?

Absolutely. Here again, the vast majority of harm done (to society) is a product of prohibition, rather than the drugs themselves.

When was the last time you saw liquor stores shooting it out in the street over territory?

But don't forget, bootleggers used to do exactly that.

Parallels, much?



Edited to quote Razor (I believe this is a first):

R a Z o R wrote:

And to our south

Drug Control . . begets . . Gun Control

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133857.html

The violence in Mexico is caused by prohibition not firearms .

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

Well then, I agree to disagree (To your stance on prostitution and drug dealing, anyway). Brian has stated many times that he understands it isn't going to make the problem go away, but at least it will be somewhere else, which is his goal. If you're interested in what his intentions are, I'd suggest checking out some more of his videos, including interviews of his, both which can be found on his youtube account. And yes, the fact that it's against the LAW is what makes prostitution different from homosexuality and firearms. Now, if the firearms were being used in a negative way (ie by criminals, gang members) then of course I wouldn't want my kids growing up around the area, but that would be related to the crime, not the guns themselves.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

I get where you're coming from, but I can't help but pointing out what a straw man all this "get it away from the kids" talk is.

What we're discussing is enforcing laws prohibiting acts between consensual adults. What's the problem being addressed? Keeping those things away from kids. Don't you see a disconnect there? Wouldn't it make more sense to outlaw prostitution around kids, since that seems to be the objection here?

Wouldn't it make sense to provide a carrot for those who keep it clean, nonviolent, and in private residence by legalizing it under such circumstances, and maintain a stick for those who won't by continuing to prohibit pimp-based, street prostitution?

 

[buster81]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

For those who don't think prostitutes are victims aren't looking at the big picture. Do you realize how many prostitutes are FORCED into this lifestyle via trafficking and pimps?

I'll give the same answer that I give to anti-gun types when they ask "Do you know how many crimes are committed by guns purchased through the "gun show loophole"?"

No, how many? I usually get an answerthat is not verifiable.

Go to Canada and start talking to prostitutes. They are not hard to find as most agencies have web sites, ads in papers and the yellow pages, and there are review boards for their services. Ask them if they feel forced to do anything. They are free to go as they please. I think you will find that they are not victims, but choose to do this because of a variety of reasons. If a "pimp" wants to exert any control over them, they can simply go to the police. This is because what the prostitutesare doing is not illegal (assuming they are doing it correctly).

(back on topic???) Unfortunately, they are not allowed to OC a gun for their own protection.


There are street walkers, but very few of them. They are typically drug addicts that agencies will not employ. They are victims of their own weakness. They have trouble getting legitimate clients because they are often dirty and look like drug users. Why not just get on the phone, call an agency, make an appointment and party away?

I don't partake in the lifestyle, nor do I condone it, but this information is not hard to find in Canada, because it's not cloaked in the secrecy of organized crime. As I said, I don't take a stand on whether prostitution and/or drugsshould or should not be legalized, but you should at least have facts before forming an opinion.

Are underage girls trafficked?Yes. Their kidnappers are criminals. I don't think anyone is saying that kidnapping and human trafficking should be legalized.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Woodchuck wrote:

I absolutely agree that we must have some laws, complete anarchy is complete chaos.

2 consenting adults having sex is a far cry from raping and slitting the throat of a helpless victim.

If there's no victim should it be a crime?

Who says there no victim? Maybe you're just too short and narrow sighted to see the victims.



I lol'd at the videos. Good for him.

Ridiculous. There cannot be a victim without an act of aggression. Who is the victim? The state, deprived of sales tax? Back up your assertion.

Can I move to fantasy land with you? Life must be so much easier with your head in the sand.

As someone else mentioned, the prostitutes themselves are often victims. Much like drugs, the trade leads to unsavory characters being attracted to the area, which results inthe local community as a whole being a victim. Yes, there's the tax evasion issue. Spread of STD's, consumer protection, it's an unregulated industry. Lost productivity because these girls aren't doing something that benefits society. Point out to me the last time prostitution lead to anything good.

Aggression is only one aspect ofvictimization. Broaden your horizons. You're missing the forest.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

Actually in the state of Oklahoma (And I'm sure many other states) prostitution soliciting within 1,000 feet of a church or a school is a felony, and I agree it should stay that way.

What two consenting adults to *behind closed doors* does not concern me, and I don't concern myself with it *BUT*, when it comes to the streets, where every day citizens walk and spend their time, then it starts to cross the line. The same goes for drug dealing.

If it's done 100% behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, then I wouldn't care... but the fact that it's being done right in front of our very own eyes, and the eyes of children, makes it inappropriate, in my opinion.

 

[Legba]

imported post

If prostitution didn't lead to anything good, men wouldn't patronize them. Duh. ;-/

Sure, there are trafficked people, drug users often commit other crimes to get their dope, etc. so it's not as simple as "live and let live." If it were that simple, I wouldn't care about these things at all. "Just say no" has gotten me through many years without the slightest temptation to indulge in crack whores, say. But I treat people the way they treat me - my take on the Golden Rule. They try to victimize me, my "liberal" tolerance goes away fast.

-ljp

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

marshaul wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Woodchuck wrote:

I absolutely agree that we must have some laws, complete anarchy is complete chaos.

2 consenting adults having sex is a far cry from raping and slitting the throat of a helpless victim.

If there's no victim should it be a crime?

Who says there no victim?  Maybe you're just too short and narrow sighted to see the victims.

 

I lol'd at the videos.  Good for him.

Ridiculous. There cannot be a victim without an act of aggression. Who is the victim? The state, deprived of sales tax? Back up your assertion.

 

Can I move to fantasy land with you?  Life must be so much easier with your head in the sand.

As someone else mentioned, the prostitutes themselves are often victims.  Much like drugs, the trade leads to unsavory characters being attracted to the area, which results in the local community as a whole being a victim.  Yes, there's the tax evasion issue.  Spread of STD's, consumer protection, it's an unregulated industry.  Lost productivity because these girls aren't doing something that benefits society.  Point out to me the last time prostitution lead to anything good.

Aggression is only one aspect of victimization.  Broaden your horizons.  You're missing the forest.

Your lack of experience and ignorance on this subject is astounding. Are you aware that the "problems" you claim are caused by prostitution (rather than prohibition) are virtually nonexistent in legal brothels, like for example the few that exist in Nevada?

You cite its existence as an unregulated industry, yet its very lack of regulation (read: applied liability) is a product of prohibition, which is of course the core of my argument. Legal prostitutes are very well (self) regulated. Look it up. ...Making your attempt to cite this as example of victimization a fallacious argument of monumental proportions.

You want to know one good thing that ever came out of prostitution? Here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480037,00.html

She got an education, and didn't have to go into debt for it. Oh, and some guy got laid, at a price he was self-evidently willing to pay. This is called a win-win situation.

AWDstylez of course, with his "broadened horizons" gleaned through decades of experience (not just with life, but with prostitution) would prohibit this act. After, look at the lack of regulation! The victims!

Your defense of prohibition underlines your credibility outright. And your poor arguments don't help one bit.

Edit: As for the prostitutes being the victims, I've already addressed this argument. You can scroll up to read it, or not. But I won't repeat it.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Actually in the state of Oklahoma (And I'm sure many other states) prostitution soliciting within 1,000 feet of a church or a school is a felony, and I agree it should stay that way.

What two consenting adults to *behind closed doors* does not concern me, and I don't concern myself with it *BUT*, when it comes to the streets, where every day citizens walk and spend their time, then it starts to cross the line. The same goes for drug dealing.

If it's done 100% behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, then I wouldn't care... but the fact that it's being done right in front of our very own eyes, and the eyes of children, makes it inappropriate, in my opinion.

But remember, the law being used is a blanket prohibition. The carrot is not there, and so the law targets innocents and 100% behind closed door prostitutes (yes, they do get busted).

Talk about a just law, and I will agree with you. As long as the only tool is injustice, I will oppose it.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

Yep, I'm certainly aware it's a blanket law, and it covers prostitution regardless of where it takes place. I would support a law that criminalizes public prostitution, but does not interfere with prostitution behind closed doors. I will continue to support the "No soliciting within 1,000 feet of a school or a church" too.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Yep, I'm certainly aware it's a blanket law, and it covers prostitution regardless of where it takes place. I would support a law that criminalizes public prostitution, but does not interfere with prostitution behind closed doors. I will continue to support the "No soliciting within 1,000 feet of a school or a church" too.

Well, this we can agree on quite comfortably.

Edit: I watched a few more of the videos, and I will say that he does handle some real jerks in an appropriate fashion, like those folks stealing aluminum. But then, in defense of my original post, preventing theft in progress isn't what people usually mean by "vigilante".

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

Yeah, by term, it's not really vigilantism.. it's just what he calls himself "The Video Vigilante"

He does present himself with authority.. I'm surprised so many people start apologizing to him as if he was an officer of the law, rather than mouth off to him.

 

[R a Z o R]

imported post

We had a similar discussion during leadership training in the service and I raised questions that ended the debate .

Any cute : daughters , wives , moms , sisters and other female relatives ?

How about girlfriends ?