Look, I'm not defending any of those positions, frankly I think most of them are stupid, so I'm certainly not going to get sucked into a position arguing for th

Look, I'm not defending any of those positions, frankly I think most of them are stupid, so I'm certainly not going to get sucked into a position arguing for them. But is it really worth it to ask 'hmm, why would prostitution be illegal?'. There have been 1000's of man-years of work put into that - start at scholar.google.com, then continue in your local universities' library, and one could spend every waking hour the next 40 years studying past discourse on it and still not be done. Those questions have been rehashed and researched 1000's of times deeper than anything we could every write here. Masquerading the questioning of the obvious as a question does not add to the vast majority of discussions. But yay, let's reduce every news item to 'hmm, does morality really exist?', and drown the actual new things about those items in tangential hemming and hawing, because putting a little bit of effort into trying to get some basic knowledge about a subject before partaking in a public discussion is too much work. Normally I wouldn't even has responded if it weren't for this "you know, people with "normal" intelligence can disagree as well" Of course, that's the whole point of my comment, that it doesn't take much empathy to see why some people would feel it just that society enforces a prohibition of those 3 things! If even I can understand why some people feel that way (of course you'd have to know me IRL to get the implications of stressing that), it shouldn't be hard or even take effort for a 4-9's proportion of the general population to do so. By using a glib 'I don't see, within my moral framework, why they should be illegal, therefore it's stupid that they are' argument, the GP is denying exactly that. Then again I'm just a grumpy misanthrope so what I do know...