France: Just Another Regressive Left Shithole

[ronburgundy]

Should there be a winking emoticon at the end of that?

In case you were serious, legalizing it does in fact allow the "free market" to resolve a large % of the problems.
Making it illegal is the least free market situation you can have and what causes the non-free black market from which most of the real crimes and harm to sex workers arises.
Making it legal would allow the market to resolve many of the problems. It would allow sex workers and customers to report crimes against them just like people working in other industries. It would allow people who run prostitution businesses and treat their workers well to out-compete all the asshole pimps. It would mean that customers were not already engaged in a crime which lowers the threshold on their willingness to commit other crimes against the workers. It would make prostitutes an above board part of the society who would thus feel more self worth and thus raise the threshold of how they expect and demand to be treated.

Regulations on the industry would just make it like every other industry. How many people in France are enslaved in other professions or beaten at work on a regular basis? The answer is essentially none and the entire reason is that these are legal professions.

I can't pull anything over on you, I was being facetious.

Yes, you are right, we would be better off if prostitution was legalized and regulated. Certainly the prostitutes would be much better off.

I figured that even if you were kidding, there are plenty here who would make such an argument or make the counter-argument that it should stay illegal because the free-market would only make things worse because it is so inherently evil and abusive (that is basically iolo's implication).
So, I thought is worth explicating how highly regulated legal prostitution is really a combo of the limited valid points of both "conservative" and "liberal" views on the free market. It illustrates how a market where people can freely choose what exchanges they engage in and with whom does naturally solve (or sometimes just avoid) various problems and abuses that arise when any parties lacks such liberties. It also illustrates how economic desperation and/or social, political, or even physical power differences introduce opportunity of abuse and harm to people involved in such exchanges that require strong oversight and regulation to prevent them.

It actually goes back to the question of the real motives by the generally leftist French government in wanting to keep it illegal for all but the workers. Many of them likely have an extreme ideological distrust of the free market much like what iolo expressed. There is a sentiment on the left that any amount of power differential nullifies any ability of the person with less power to consent or choose anything, even if the more powerful person does nothing to stop them from choosing an alternative. This would bias them against legal prostitution in order to protect their general worldview, and lead them to ignore all reason and evidence that their would be far more choice and thus less abuse with legality.

 

[JonA]

If it's consensual on both sides, I think it's inane to have either person charged and even more inane to have just st one charged. While you're correct that buying heroin is worse than selling heroin and it's fine to distinguish between different roles in a transaction, the rationale behind both charges is that heroin is harmful and therefore the authorities should be involved. Consensual sex is not harmful, so the authorities have no place getting involved in the first place.

I was addressing Derec's general claim, not the specifics about prostitution (and also Loren's reply). I wasn't saying prostitution deserved a punishment similar to selling heroin.

As for the rationale, that's a potential rationale. I think a better one is about what they deserve (whether in the case of heroin or prostitution).

While I haven't checked the statistics and there are available replies, I think if someone wanted to make a serious case for a distinction in treatment in the prostitution case (at least, for street prostitution; one can make similar arguments for other situations), I think the best option would be something along the lines of:

At least 1 in 20 (to be conservative) street prostitutes in France are slaves who behave similarly enough to non-slaves during the brief interactions with clients that the latter (at least, first time clients) usually can't tell the difference (if they can, it's in less than 1/10 cases). This is well known, so a client should know there is no less (aproximation favorable to the client) than a 1/25 chance that he's raping a slave, just for pleasure.
If he is aware of that, he deserves no less than 1/25 of the prison time a person who willingly rapes a slave just for pleasure would deserve. If he is not aware of that, it's due to gross negligence, so he deserves about 1/25 of the punishment deserved by a person who rapes a slave when they should be aware that they're raping a slave, but out of gross negligence fail to be aware of it.
As a client has sex with more prostitutes, he knows or should know that the chances he's raping people increase, and so does the punishment he deserves.

On the other hand, prostitutes who are not slaves deserve no such punishment.

Of course, there are good potential replies, either questioning the two first numbers, or the "no less than 1/25" moral assessment (and maybe a couple more). But that would be a far better rationale to make a serious case.
There is also a bad reply but which would likely be successful in France, I think: reject the idea that desert is the basis for punishment, and attack the character of whoever proposed it.

In any event, the fact remains we're talking about two different acts, and the reasons for or against punishing each (or how much) are different.

I am so God-damned, motherfucking, son-of-a-bitching glad and grateful that we do not live in societies where people are randomly and proportionately punished on the basis that similar people commit crimes at some percentage.

WTF!?

Your proposal is not only frightening, but disgustingly so.

Jesus H. shit Christ.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She looks 14 or 15.

Not even close. She is easily in her 20s and fully post-puberty as indicated by her high cheekbones, overall facial bone structure, large breasts, and thick eyebrows.

But hey, if you don't have a rational argument, why not claim the other guy is a pedophile.

That'd make you a hebephile, not a pedo.

None of your arguments are convincing because first cheekbones are not an indication of adulthood, second a teenager can have breasts which, no, are not significantly large, and yes she is indeed shorter than the women around her, short and thin with no wrinkles. My point is that you actually don't know how old she is and maybe I was playing with that idea little bit.

You see, that is one of the risks you'd be taking if you were engaging in this activity, but you don't seem to care as long as you get yours. That is not only a bad idea for yourself but reckless with someone else.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If it's consensual on both sides, I think it's inane to have either person charged and even more inane to have just st one charged. While you're correct that buying heroin is worse than selling heroin and it's fine to distinguish between different roles in a transaction, the rationale behind both charges is that heroin is harmful and therefore the authorities should be involved. Consensual sex is not harmful, so the authorities have no place getting involved in the first place.

I was addressing Derec's general claim, not the specifics about prostitution (and also Loren's reply). I wasn't saying prostitution deserved a punishment similar to selling heroin.

As for the rationale, that's a potential rationale. I think a better one is about what they deserve (whether in the case of heroin or prostitution).

While I haven't checked the statistics and there are available replies, I think if someone wanted to make a serious case for a distinction in treatment in the prostitution case (at least, for street prostitution; one can make similar arguments for other situations), I think the best option would be something along the lines of:

At least 1 in 20 (to be conservative) street prostitutes in France are slaves who behave similarly enough to non-slaves during the brief interactions with clients that the latter (at least, first time clients) usually can't tell the difference (if they can, it's in less than 1/10 cases). This is well known, so a client should know there is no less (aproximation favorable to the client) than a 1/25 chance that he's raping a slave, just for pleasure.
If he is aware of that, he deserves no less than 1/25 of the prison time a person who willingly rapes a slave just for pleasure would deserve. If he is not aware of that, it's due to gross negligence, so he deserves about 1/25 of the punishment deserved by a person who rapes a slave when they should be aware that they're raping a slave, but out of gross negligence fail to be aware of it.
As a client has sex with more prostitutes, he knows or should know that the chances he's raping people increase, and so does the punishment he deserves.

On the other hand, prostitutes who are not slaves deserve no such punishment.

Of course, there are good potential replies, either questioning the two first numbers, or the "no less than 1/25" moral assessment (and maybe a couple more). But that would be a far better rationale to make a serious case.
There is also a bad reply but which would likely be successful in France, I think: reject the idea that desert is the basis for punishment, and attack the character of whoever proposed it.

In any event, the fact remains we're talking about two different acts, and the reasons for or against punishing each (or how much) are different.

Just because I think some things Angra has written are worth noticing, I am responding...

First, I agree that they are two separate acts as they are done by two separate persons, each with their own mind and own motivation.

Second, people tend to politick around here by painting issues as black and white and if you try to present a nuanced view or a view that a factor involved is not black and white, you'll be attacked...or your argument will be. I think it's a good observation that the purchaser of sex in this instance should know that there is a probability involved...a probability that creates risk...to a potential victim. This is not a black and white issue where someone like ronburgundy sees a picture and says that person has to be an adult and that's a fact! No, these prostitutes by and large are strangers. The purchasers don't know the facts. If they are young looking, they might be minors. They could be "slaves." They could have emotional trauma later. Their bosses could be violent. They could be drug addicts. They could have no other realistic options and hate their "jobs." Each of these possibilities is different and each one has a different probability.

If a potential purchaser (like ronburgundy, for example) claims he is certain that none of these factors exists, he could be in denial because of his strong desires. He's got a conflict of interest and the possible consequence of his actions should have been involved in his decision-making. That makes him accountable.

Whether he is 1/25th accountable or not, I am not going to comment on it. I think that one has to first agree upon that we are talking about risk the purchaser is creating and I don't think that people will agree with that first part.

Finally, I will just add that in the other thread--the one about refugees having babies--people were willing to condemn the parents for creating risks of poor living conditions of the potential babies. But they can't bring themselves to recognize there is also risk by purchasers of sex---based on probability of severe consequences in the same way that risk is typically computed by those two components.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not even close. She is easily in her 20s and fully post-puberty as indicated by her high cheekbones, overall facial bone structure, large breasts, and thick eyebrows.

But hey, if you don't have a rational argument, why not claim the other guy is a pedophile.

That'd make you a hebephile, not a pedo.

None of your arguments are convincing because first cheekbones are not an indication of adulthood,

Yes they are. Female cheekbones become accentuated and facial lines more distinct during female puberty. Very few females under 16 have her features. Like all indicators, they don't guarantee anything but in combination with other information strongly support an age above 20 and more likely to even be above 25 than 15 or under.

second a teenager can have breasts which, no, are not significantly large, and yes she is indeed shorter than the women around her, short and thin with no wrinkles. My point is that you actually don't know how old she is and maybe I was playing with that idea little bit.

Her breast are very large and very uncommon among a 15 year old. Also, you cannot tell at all from that photo weather she has wrinkles, and most women in their mid 20's have skin without wrinkles you could see in a photo like that. She is not at all very thin for a 25 year old French woman, she actually looks quite solid with developed muscle tone, and her face lacks baby fat because that is what happens after puberty. So, you have nothing but the fact that she is shorter than some people around her that are far more likely to be transgenders than she is to be 15. Of all her visible features, her height relative to the ambiguous people near here is the least predictive of age, and the combined probability of everything else favors at least 18 versus 15 or under by about 1000 to 1.

You see, that is one of the risks you'd be taking if you were engaging in this activity, but you don't seem to care as long as you get yours. That is not only a bad idea for yourself but reckless with someone else.

You run the identical risk by having sex with any women under 30. It is the illegality of prostitution that is by far the greatest factor in underage sex workers.
I don't visit prostitutes, but since unlike the French lawmakers, I am sincerely concerned with underage sex workers, I support full legalization that would greatly reduce the problem.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That'd make you a hebephile, not a pedo.

None of your arguments are convincing because first cheekbones are not an indication of adulthood,

Yes they are. Female cheekbones become accentuated and facial lines more distinct during female puberty. Very few females under 16 have her features. Like all indicators, they don't guarantee anything but in combination with other information strongly support an age above 20 and more likely to even be above 25 than 15 or under.

second a teenager can have breasts which, no, are not significantly large, and yes she is indeed shorter than the women around her, short and thin with no wrinkles. My point is that you actually don't know how old she is and maybe I was playing with that idea little bit.

Her breast are very large and very uncommon among a 15 year old. Also, you cannot tell at all from that photo weather she has wrinkles, and most women in their mid 20's have skin without wrinkles you could see in a photo like that. She is not at all very thin for a 25 year old French woman, she actually looks quite solid with developed muscle tone, and her face lacks baby fat because that is what happens after puberty. So, you have nothing but the fact that she is shorter than some people around her that are far more likely to be transgenders than she is to be 15. Of all her visible features, her height relative to the ambiguous people near here is the least predictive of age, and the combined probability of everything else favors at least 18 versus 15 or under by about 1000 to 1.

Dude, you're just guessing. You really can't tell that much from a picture. You can't even tell how pronounced her cheeckbones are from a 2-d image with lighting that could be creating an optical illusion. You just don't know and shouldn't pretend you know.

You see, that is one of the risks you'd be taking if you were engaging in this activity, but you don't seem to care as long as you get yours. That is not only a bad idea for yourself but reckless with someone else.

You run the identical risk by having sex with any women under 30. It is the illegality of prostitution that is by far the greatest factor in underage sex workers.
I don't visit prostitutes, but since unlike the French lawmakers, I am sincerely concerned with underage sex workers, I support full legalization that would greatly reduce the problem.

They already had full legalization and discovered these problems kept growing because the market grew. Legalization did not solve the problem for them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I was addressing Derec's general claim, not the specifics about prostitution (and also Loren's reply). I wasn't saying prostitution deserved a punishment similar to selling heroin.

As for the rationale, that's a potential rationale. I think a better one is about what they deserve (whether in the case of heroin or prostitution).

While I haven't checked the statistics and there are available replies, I think if someone wanted to make a serious case for a distinction in treatment in the prostitution case (at least, for street prostitution; one can make similar arguments for other situations), I think the best option would be something along the lines of:

At least 1 in 20 (to be conservative) street prostitutes in France are slaves who behave similarly enough to non-slaves during the brief interactions with clients that the latter (at least, first time clients) usually can't tell the difference (if they can, it's in less than 1/10 cases). This is well known, so a client should know there is no less (aproximation favorable to the client) than a 1/25 chance that he's raping a slave, just for pleasure.
If he is aware of that, he deserves no less than 1/25 of the prison time a person who willingly rapes a slave just for pleasure would deserve. If he is not aware of that, it's due to gross negligence, so he deserves about 1/25 of the punishment deserved by a person who rapes a slave when they should be aware that they're raping a slave, but out of gross negligence fail to be aware of it.
As a client has sex with more prostitutes, he knows or should know that the chances he's raping people increase, and so does the punishment he deserves.

On the other hand, prostitutes who are not slaves deserve no such punishment.

Of course, there are good potential replies, either questioning the two first numbers, or the "no less than 1/25" moral assessment (and maybe a couple more). But that would be a far better rationale to make a serious case.
There is also a bad reply but which would likely be successful in France, I think: reject the idea that desert is the basis for punishment, and attack the character of whoever proposed it.

In any event, the fact remains we're talking about two different acts, and the reasons for or against punishing each (or how much) are different.

I am so God-damned, motherfucking, son-of-a-bitching glad and grateful that we do not live in societies where people are randomly and proportionately punished on the basis that similar people commit crimes at some percentage.

WTF!?

Your proposal is not only frightening, but disgustingly so.

Jesus H. shit Christ.

Your reply to me, unlike my post, is disgusting.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Second, people tend to politick around here by painting issues as black and white and if you try to present a nuanced view or a view that a factor involved is not black and white, you'll be attacked...or your argument will be.

True.
I've already been attacked, and I already regret posting here, spending time acting in self-defense, etc.
When I'm tired of fighting is self-defense, I will leave and probably refrain from coming back for a while.

Whether he is 1/25th accountable or not, I am not going to comment on it.

Just to clarify, I didn't suggest he's 1/25th accountable. I didn't even say that the rationale I provided was a good one. Moreover, I said I think the law is too restrictive, as there are probably better alternatives.
That aside, the rationale in question does say that a person in such circumstances deserves 1/25 of the punishment, but that's not to say he'd be 1/25th accountable. According to that rationale, he would be 100% accountable, to blame, etc., for a behavior that is deserving of about 1/25 of the punishment of the other behavior, which is an arguable but still not unreasonable position as far as I can tell.

I think that one has to first agree upon that we are talking about risk the purchaser is creating and I don't think that people will agree with that first part.

You mean, you don't think people will agree that the purchaser should reckon there is no less than a 1/25 chance the woman he's having sex with is a slave? (that's what the crux of the rationale is about).

Sure, I said "Of course, there are good potential replies, either questioning the two first numbers, or the "no less than 1/25" moral assessment (and maybe a couple more)".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You mean, you don't think people will agree that the purchaser should reckon there is no less than a 1/25 chance the woman he's having sex with is a slave?

So far people have been very, very quiet on the simple idea of a probability in any scenario at all. I'd like to hear people agree that there are probabilities in the first place.

Because of your post, I did just look up trafficking in France. It appears the French government estimates trafficking to be a much higher percent in prostitution than 1 in 25 according to Wikipedia anyway*. But I think a mere 1 in 25 when the other risks I have recorded are considered still make a strong case that something has to change with the regulation or legislation. The govt shouldn't sit idly by with significant risk to persons.

*The Government of France estimates that the majority of the 18,000 women in France’s commercial sex trade are likely forced into prostitution. It also estimates a significant number of children in France are victims of forced prostitution, primarily from Romania, West Africa, and North Africa. Romani and other unaccompanied minors in France continued to be vulnerable to forced begging.

The only solution I've heard from people for legalization in this thread is for them to say they are for legalization in France while not realizing that France already tried that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because of your post, I did just look up trafficking in France. It appears the French government estimates trafficking to be a much higher percent in prostitution than 1 in 25 according to Wikipedia anyway*.

My post has an estimate of <i>at least</i> 1/20 in street prostitution (which I is far lower than pretty much any estimates I've seen; that way, the figure is less vulnerable to attack), combined with a 1/10 chance of figuring out in a single encounter that the person is a sex slave (that figure is more vulnerable I suppose).

Then:

P(slave|client fails to see signs of slavery)=P(client fails to see signs of slavery |slave)P(slave)/(P(client fails to see signs of slavery|slave)P(slave)+P(client fails to see signs of slavery|not a slave)P(not a slave))
If you assume P(client fails to see signs of slavery|not a slave)=1 (the best for the client), taking P(slave)=1/20, and (P(client fails to see signs of slavery|slave)=1/10, that gives you 9/199, which is greater than 1/25, so 1/25 was favorable to the client too.

The rationale holds the client makes or should make that assessment (or an intuitive assessment without numbers but getting close to that), and then makes a moral assessment on that basis.
The most vulnerable part of the probabilistic assessment seems to be the 1/10 assignment, but on the other hand, someone defending that argument might increase P(slave) from 1/20 to something like the estimates.

The only solution I've heard from people for legalization in this thread is for them to say they are for legalization in France while not realizing that France already tried that.

But did they try hard enough?
My point is that there has to be a sufficient use of resources, also special police units (female police officers would work better), fines for failure to register (except of course for slaves), etc.

Moreover, there is the issue of different types of prostitution. What's the rate of slaves among high-end, college-educated prostitutes? Probably very low.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly--so long as it's consensual both parties conspired to commit the crime. I see no reason to punish one and not the other.

(And I think far more harm comes from making prostitution illegal than would come from whatever increase would happen if it were legal.)

Have you read my previous replies to you, and to Derec?
Anyway, what do you think of heroin? Should buyers be punished too, because they conspired to commit the crime?

Heroin: Yes. (Although, again, I feel that making it illegal does far more harm than if it were legal.)

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Have you read my previous replies to you, and to Derec?
Anyway, what do you think of heroin? Should buyers be punished too, because they conspired to commit the crime?

Heroin: Yes. (Although, again, I feel that making it illegal does far more harm than if it were legal.)

Okay, so you want to legalize both buying and selling. Not what I was going for, but okay. I wanted to use an example to illustrate the problem with that reasoning, but I didn't know you would give that answer.

Still, I explained what's wrong with the reasoning, so the examples shouldn't be necessary (but I might come up with one if I had more info about your position on a number of issues).

 

[iolo]

Is it ever really 'consensual', any more than any other kind of employment? Until we get shot of the system we are forced to live under, those who can afford to simply use and exploit other people to the limit.

If she makes a choice to do it then, yes, it really is consentual.

If you'd been brought up in an institution, been seduced and put on drugs at thirteen or fourteen and had no qualifications whatever, just how much choice would you have been you given?

 

[iolo]

Is it ever really 'consensual', any more than any other kind of employment? Until we get shot of the system we are forced to live under, those who can afford to simply use and exploit other people to the limit.

So do you then propose to outlaw hiring people in general?

Abolish capitalism. Only 99% of people would benefit, of courser, so it is not popular, because the brainwashing system gives us so much 'choice'!

 

[JonA]

So do you then propose to outlaw hiring people in general?

Abolish capitalism. Only 99% of people would benefit, ...

Now that's some funny shit right there.

 

[iolo]

Abolish capitalism. Only 99% of people would benefit, ...

Now that's some funny shit right there.

Sense? 'Brainwashing rules, ok'?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If she makes a choice to do it then, yes, it really is consentual.

If you'd been brought up in an institution, been seduced and put on drugs at thirteen or fourteen and had no qualifications whatever, just how much choice would you have been you given?

So, if someone like that becomes a waitress, are you enslaving her by having her serve you food as opposed to giving her the multimillion dollar contract to build your new office tower, as she'd prefer? If someone like that sells the jewellery that her mother left her so that she can afford to eat, did the pawn shop owner just rob her since she only sold it due to a lack of other options?

We're talking about legal consent here, since this is a discussion of how the law should handle things, not a broader and more philosophical definition of the term.

 

[JonA]

I am so God-damned, motherfucking, son-of-a-bitching glad and grateful that we do not live in societies where people are randomly and proportionately punished on the basis that similar people commit crimes at some percentage.

WTF!?

Your proposal is not only frightening, but disgustingly so.

Jesus H. shit Christ.

Your reply to me, unlike my post, is disgusting.

So instead of addressing my objections to your position, you throw out an "I know you are, but what am I?"?

Telling...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your reply to me, unlike my post, is disgusting.

So instead of addressing my objections to your position, you throw out an "I know you are, but what am I?"?

Telling...

There was no substantial objection other than your attack on me, involving out of place immoral condemnation on moral grounds, and a misrepresentation of my position. I replied with a counterattack that, unlike yours, was morally proper. You now launch another immoral attack. I reply now by pointing out that the attack is immoral. The exchange is on record.

Now you insist on misrepresenting my post, and attributing to me the position I said "if someone wanted to make a serious case for a distinction in treatment in the prostitution case (at least, for street prostitution; one can make similar arguments for other situations), I think the best option would be something along the lines of:"; I didn't say "I endorse that position".
In fact, I said "The law seems too restrictive; regulation plus actual enforcement of the regulations seems like a clearly better option to me. ".

Moreover, even if I were to endorse that position, your condemnation would be out of place. It's a debatable position, not one that deserves such level of condemnation for sure, and certainly not one that you seem to have made a minimum effort to understand, given how badly you're misrepresenting it (i.e., you're misrepresenting both my position by implying that I endorse the argument I suggested, and the argument I suggested. Two gross misrepresentations in a single condemnation).
But whatever, I will try to address the first misrepresenting objection.

I am so God-damned, motherfucking, son-of-a-bitching glad and grateful that we do not live in societies where people are randomly and proportionately punished on the basis that similar people commit crimes at some percentage.

What does that have to do with the position I sketched? Have you even read what I wrote?
If you're so angry (as is clear by your language) that your capacity for reading comprehension is so severely compromised, then go do some exercise or whatever, and come back when you're in a state of mind that allows you to understand what I'm writing.

Of course, my suggestion is not about "people commit similar crimes at some percentage", and it has absolutely nothing to do with people being punished randomly.
The 1/25 of the punishment is an estimate, and it's debatable (among other debatable parts I pointed at). After all, if the risk were 1/(10^999), we wouldn't say the behavior is immoral and deserves 1/(10^999) of the punishment, so the function that gives degrees of immorality isn't linear. But then again, it seems that the function of degrees of immorality varies from behavior to behavior (including intent), and that in some parts of the ranges, a linear approximation isn't that bad, not to mention the 1/25 was already favorable for the client, under the statistical hypotheses of the argument.
So, again, that's a debatable matter.

But let me make it easier in case you're still far too angry to follow my previous hypothetical argument:

Let's say that on the basis of the available info, the client should assign a probability no lower than 1/25 to the hypothesis that the woman he's about to penetrate is a slave and was forced to be there. He deserves roughly 1/25 of the punishment he would deserve if he should reckon it's about 1 (i.e., it's beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a slave).
Do you disagree?
Okay, so how about 1/11? Do you still disagree that he deserves about 1/11 of the punishment?
What if it's 9/10? Do you still disagree that he deserves about 9/10 of the punishment?

 

[iolo]

If you'd been brought up in an institution, been seduced and put on drugs at thirteen or fourteen and had no qualifications whatever, just how much choice would you have been you given?

So, if someone like that becomes a waitress, are you enslaving her by having her serve you food as opposed to giving her the multimillion dollar contract to build your new office tower, as she'd prefer? If someone like that sells the jewellery that her mother left her so that she can afford to eat, did the pawn shop owner just rob her since she only sold it due to a lack of other options?

We're talking about legal consent here, since this is a discussion of how the law should handle things, not a broader and more philosophical definition of the term.

How would she get a job as a waitress? Come off it!