CowboyLogic
Active Member
Tewder, Marko and mrtinfoilsocket have explained my position better than I probably can (both the problematic human trafficking aspect of the sex trade and the hypocrisy in how some people have dealt with Layton's controversy), but I'll respond anyway.
Several people have accused me of trying to change the topic, but they've either forgotten or willfully ignored what I was responding to in the first place.
I was responding to a UT poster who said that right-wing politicians are forgiven for their controversies and scandals while left-wing politicians are not. This is why I brought up Jack Layton, as this claim is simply not true when you look at his scandal. Layton is directly pertinent to this discussion, as his controversy was effectively glossed over by much of the media and his support base.
Once again, I'm not trying to deflect or change the topic, just address the erroneous claim that only right-wingers get away with their scandals. As I've said, I personally do not care that Layton was found in a massage parlor.
Personally, I do not care what any politician does on their own time, so long as it doesn't effect their job or me. All I really care about is whether a politician is performing their job well and putting forward an agenda I believe will be good for the city. I'm really not sure why the personal lives and moral choices therein of politicians is anybody's business, and I'm not going to vote for somebody on the basis of what they like to do in the personal time. If Layton wants to get handies or Ford wants to smoke crack, I really could care less.
You quoted me saying that Layton was found in an illicit massage parlor and then posted something like "its true if you repeat it enough". I'm not sure how that constitutes agreeing with me rather than accusing me of propping up a lie.
Yes, crack use and close ties with drug traffickers are much worse than utilizing the services of a sex worker, particularly when said sex worker is an Asian escort in an illicit massage parlor.
Not every sex worker is necessairly a victim of human trafficking, but that's the point really - enough sex workers are the victims of human trafficking, particularly when you're dealing with immigrants or Asian escorts from massage parlors, and there's essentially no way to know whether or not the specific sex worker who's jerking you off is doing it of her own volition or has been forced into it. Massage parlors, specifically Asian massage parlors, are well known for being hot beds for human trafficking. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/135/.
It would be one thing if Layton was found in the company of a high-end escort or even a licensed body rub parlor, such as one I read about in the Toronto Life sex issue (which hired Western girls and paid decent rates), but he was found in a seedy, Chinatown shiatsu massage parlor. This is incredibly problematic, and whether or not the specific girl who serviced Layton was a sex slave, there's a good chance she was.
The behavior is illegal and there is collaborating evidence in the form of an officer's notes from the incident.
Interestingly enough, Layton was on city council at the time and, according to the officer's interview, was a thorn in the police force's side at the time.
As to whether repeated offenses would have been tolerated, anything I say would be conjecture. However, its worth noting there is no proof Ford has repeatedly smoked crack - we're speaking of one incident here.
How is smoking crack with a bunch of gang members any less of a personal indiscretion than going to an illicit massage parlor? In both instances, money is being channeled to a criminal organization. I fail to see the distinction between purchasing crack from drug traffickers and purchasing a girl's services from a sex trafficker.
In this very thread, multiple people have said as much.
[/QUOTE]But to be clear, wrong is not just wrong in the case of public office -- the type of issue matters, as it impacts on how the person can do their job, and whether they will be unduly influenced. The mayor of a city of 3 million hanging out with murderous drug gang members and smoking crack is indeed worse, and thus "more wrong", than a city councillor getting a handjob. The failings are in no way equivalent -- both are wrong, but the one is far more wrong than the other.[/QUOTE]
It's not just a "city councilor getting a handjob"; its a "city councilor getting a handjob from a likely victim of human trafficking". When you factor that in, there is very little distinction between the two acts - in fact, smoking crack is probably less worse, as in both instances a criminal organization is being funded, but only in the latter does the act directly victimize someone.
I think you're really stretching by trying to equivocate going to a massage parlor and drinking Nestle Cafe coffee.
There is a lot of exploitation in all manners of industries. However, I feel the obvious and important distinction between using a prostitute and buying coffee is that (a) the consumer is directly administering or is a direct part of the exploitation in the former, while (b) the exploitation is far removed and essentially a byproduct of the latter. If you want to get pedantic, almost every consumer choice we make involves some degree of exploitation, but its a real leap to equivocate any of them (including pornography) with an Asian massage parlor.
Several people have accused me of trying to change the topic, but they've either forgotten or willfully ignored what I was responding to in the first place.
I was responding to a UT poster who said that right-wing politicians are forgiven for their controversies and scandals while left-wing politicians are not. This is why I brought up Jack Layton, as this claim is simply not true when you look at his scandal. Layton is directly pertinent to this discussion, as his controversy was effectively glossed over by much of the media and his support base.
Once again, I'm not trying to deflect or change the topic, just address the erroneous claim that only right-wingers get away with their scandals. As I've said, I personally do not care that Layton was found in a massage parlor.
Personally, I do not care what any politician does on their own time, so long as it doesn't effect their job or me. All I really care about is whether a politician is performing their job well and putting forward an agenda I believe will be good for the city. I'm really not sure why the personal lives and moral choices therein of politicians is anybody's business, and I'm not going to vote for somebody on the basis of what they like to do in the personal time. If Layton wants to get handies or Ford wants to smoke crack, I really could care less.
You quoted me saying that Layton was found in an illicit massage parlor and then posted something like "its true if you repeat it enough". I'm not sure how that constitutes agreeing with me rather than accusing me of propping up a lie.
Yes, crack use and close ties with drug traffickers are much worse than utilizing the services of a sex worker, particularly when said sex worker is an Asian escort in an illicit massage parlor.
Not every sex worker is necessairly a victim of human trafficking, but that's the point really - enough sex workers are the victims of human trafficking, particularly when you're dealing with immigrants or Asian escorts from massage parlors, and there's essentially no way to know whether or not the specific sex worker who's jerking you off is doing it of her own volition or has been forced into it. Massage parlors, specifically Asian massage parlors, are well known for being hot beds for human trafficking. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/135/.
It would be one thing if Layton was found in the company of a high-end escort or even a licensed body rub parlor, such as one I read about in the Toronto Life sex issue (which hired Western girls and paid decent rates), but he was found in a seedy, Chinatown shiatsu massage parlor. This is incredibly problematic, and whether or not the specific girl who serviced Layton was a sex slave, there's a good chance she was.
The behavior is illegal and there is collaborating evidence in the form of an officer's notes from the incident.
Interestingly enough, Layton was on city council at the time and, according to the officer's interview, was a thorn in the police force's side at the time.
As to whether repeated offenses would have been tolerated, anything I say would be conjecture. However, its worth noting there is no proof Ford has repeatedly smoked crack - we're speaking of one incident here.
How is smoking crack with a bunch of gang members any less of a personal indiscretion than going to an illicit massage parlor? In both instances, money is being channeled to a criminal organization. I fail to see the distinction between purchasing crack from drug traffickers and purchasing a girl's services from a sex trafficker.
In this very thread, multiple people have said as much.
[/QUOTE]But to be clear, wrong is not just wrong in the case of public office -- the type of issue matters, as it impacts on how the person can do their job, and whether they will be unduly influenced. The mayor of a city of 3 million hanging out with murderous drug gang members and smoking crack is indeed worse, and thus "more wrong", than a city councillor getting a handjob. The failings are in no way equivalent -- both are wrong, but the one is far more wrong than the other.[/QUOTE]
It's not just a "city councilor getting a handjob"; its a "city councilor getting a handjob from a likely victim of human trafficking". When you factor that in, there is very little distinction between the two acts - in fact, smoking crack is probably less worse, as in both instances a criminal organization is being funded, but only in the latter does the act directly victimize someone.
I think you're really stretching by trying to equivocate going to a massage parlor and drinking Nestle Cafe coffee.
There is a lot of exploitation in all manners of industries. However, I feel the obvious and important distinction between using a prostitute and buying coffee is that (a) the consumer is directly administering or is a direct part of the exploitation in the former, while (b) the exploitation is far removed and essentially a byproduct of the latter. If you want to get pedantic, almost every consumer choice we make involves some degree of exploitation, but its a real leap to equivocate any of them (including pornography) with an Asian massage parlor.
