First of all, some individuals choose to work in the sex trade. They are not "prostituted". This all seems fairly demeaning towards those women who utilize their agency to make that choice. What exactly is your take on the individuals who seek these positions of their own volition?

Could you argue that there are sexist issues within what society considers to be "valuable" work? Sure, but I don't really think the sex trade is a good example of that. It is the desire for sex which causes female pay to inflate within these positions, not a sort of reflection of what we believe to be a woman's "true worth". You'll have to put forth a lot more evidence if you wish to make an argument for that...

While I don't agree with your solution, it does nonetheless present an interesting question that I'm afraid you'll have to ask them because I don't know the answer.

I mean I guess because then they'd be "MTGOWs" and nobody would pity them anymore or...something like that, probably.

Well you didn't use that wonderful word called "other(s)" before, which you did to explain yourself this time around, so that would change how it reads. I'm still not sure why pointing out political motivation is odd, since it seems it's being pointed out for other reasons in other situations.

This is more clear now as well. A liberal friend of mine would surely fall under this 'my wife is basically my property' belief. Any guy that looks at her in just the wrong way or if he even catches her flirting in the slightest, he loses his shit. So I must then ask if any liberals feel this way? Any at all, even a small minority. 

Well by this logic someone could say the El Paso shooting wasn't necessarily politically motivated either. Sure they may have written a manifesto, but how does that prove anything? The individual clearly has issues, so much so they mowed down a bunch of innocent people with a gun at a store, and when they write down some stuff it's supposed to be taken seriously? Some people today have this idea that if you don't have a degree or professional title, your knowledge or opinion on certain matters is less worthy or useless altogether, so why should a crazy person be believed when they write an explanation as to why they did something? How does anyone know what that lunatic was really thinking and feeling? Why would you take their word for it?

I'm not saying if a manifesto is written that it should be completely disregarded, but what exactly does it take to pin down motive to a mass shooter, who clearly isn't right in the head?

That's some really hot takes you have here in this thread.

1) prostitution: If you're a little bit familiar with the history of prostitution you should know that abolishing it is basically impossible, illegalising prostitution only creates a huge black market without any government control or standards for sex workers.

2) What's your problem with porn?

3) surrogacy: Sure the exploitation of poor women is a problem but it can be minimised if you force the companies to take proper care of their surrogate mothers. I also fail to see how surrogacy is sexist or misogynist in its nature. Doesn't surrogacy primarily help women who can't bear a child themself?

No. There are people that commit crimes for the first time but the odds of a criminal committing multiple crimes are really high because of how we treat them.

The study links methods they use for DNA testing and it works for that so it works to identify the guns.

What experience?

1. People who commit a crime once have a high chance of doing it again. Most gun owners never partake in gun violence so background checks do work.

2. What's the CSI? Is that some type of TV show or movie? People don't just pick up guns and shoot they've had contact with their guns multiple times so DNA can be left on it.

3. Well if you registered guns and owners you'd have to have some type of bar code or gun code on the weapon to identify it. There are almost 400 million guns already in circulation and shooters would just take gun registration number or code out. Now if you want the government stalking what you buy thats on you but a lot of people dont.

4. The odds of a criminal committing another crime are pretty high. With a background check you'd be able to prevent the shooting and there would be no need for a registry.

5. The study links methods they used for DNA testing and it works for that so it works to identify the guns.

Fun casualties? That is one way to frame it, I guess you aren't the one tasked to clean up the mess... So...

Are you seriously making the argument that unless we can end all crime that we shouldn't ban guns?

That is like saying unless we can ban all drugs we shouldn't have drug laws.

The limit should be dependent on the argument that you can present to the table on why you need a certain amount of weapons.

But if you are a collector or using them for sport, I don't see why the limit should only 1-2, provided you have undertaken the appropriate training, have them registered and secured.

This argument is a logical fallacy, I will let you work out which fallacy it treads on.

Crime will exist irrespective of whether guns exist or not... And is not an appropriate excuse to retain a free-for-all on gun ownership.
What is trying to be done is like trying to cure one type of cancer (guns), not all forms of Cancer at once. (All other forms of crime)

Here in Australia if you were to go to the Supermarket and buy a knife, you are required to provide evidence that you are 18+ years or older for example, this directly reduced under-age knife-related crime.

In short everything needs to be weighed on a case by case basis on it's individual merits, your argument seems like a clone from the NRA which is full of holes.

It's not supposed to end all violent crime. It's meant to reduce gun-related crime... Please learn the difference.

Citation needed.

I think you should watch this which deconstructs your arguments entirely.

That's kind of authoritarian of you. You'd be taking the agency away from these individuals. Some of these individuals choose their work and profession. No doubt we can improve the lives of the individuals who work in these fields and we definitely should. But we shouldn't criminalize/demonize these fields of work and dehumanize these individuals because it would only cause harm to the women and men involved. Legalization of these practices means we can provide sufficient healthcare to these women and men to make sure they're safe and taken care of through legislation and regulations.

Sure it might be "parasitic" now but that's because these professions are viewed in a demeaning/dehumanizing way, the same way it seems you view them, and thus the individuals involved don't get the care they deserve because people just want to ban it rather than improving their lives through legalization and regulation.

I understand your argument, there's definitely a big element of misogyny and sexism in these professions, that's clear as day, but that won't be solved by criminalizing them and dehumanizing the people involved. You'd be taking it too far and it's just not logical and ethical to criminalize these professions.

Unfortunately, when I try to watch this it says it's unavailable in my country (USA).

Misogony has exists way before porn became as widespread as it is today. It's pretty silly to think that having restrictions on it would reduce the amount of misogyny. It could possibly lead to more misogynist cause people would be outraged.

That's a shame. Silly region blocks.