[mantas]

Military is a necessity for a society. Actually, a mandatory service may be a good deterrence from questionable endeavours in foreign lands.

Meanwhile prostitution is a disadvantage to society as a whole when you take the whole surrounding business and expenses.

[danShumway]

> Military is a necessity for a society

Is the argument here that people are too young to make an informed decision about military service before 25, but that it's important for our national security that some of them make that decision anyway? This feels a bit less like a response to GP's point, and a bit more like a more general argument that national security sometimes requires us to take advantage of minors.

If the argument is that social benefit sometimes outweighs moral costs, then that seems to me to be an argument that we should also look at the social/individual/financial costs of criminalizing prostitution and approach the issue at least partially through an effects-based lens rather than a purely moral one.

On the other hand, if we're willing to take a hard stand that some transactions aren't really consensual when incentives are involved, and that (particularly for minors under 25) some people aren't really able to make fully informed decisions about some topics in general -- well, it's not that I'm against that conclusion, I do think that incentives and life situations and information/maturity do play into whether or not a contract/interaction can be actually consensual in a real sense. But it's just... that conclusion has implications, and I don't think those implications can be swept under the rug just because the military is important.

[PickledHotdog]

How is prostitution a disadvantage in a country where it's legalised and regulated, exactly? Seems like you're using your own prejudices and applying them broadly

[mantas]

Vast majority of voluntary prostitution services providers have major issues. Mental health issues, substances abuse and so on.

Looking at all sorts of research, having sex come with an emotional baggage for vast majority of people. Which is natural given the evolutionary role.

Can it benefit a society to push vulnerable people to provide services that are likely to cause mental instability? Can it even be seen as a neutral at bottom line?

Buying side is usually riddled with all sorts of issues too.

As a society, we should strive towards helping people to find mates organically and help to build lasting relationships.

[sofixa]

> Military is a necessity for a society

Citation needed. It's highly dependent on the country ( e.g. the Maldives sure as hell don't need an army, but a navy/coast guard is important), it's circumstances (nobody is endangering the US or Canada in any way).

[nomel]

Military is there to protect enforce the sovereignty of the society. Without it, the society is at the whims of its neighbors.

> Navy is important.

Navy is military, of course.

> nobody is endangering the US or Canada

Or, nobody is endangering the US or Canada because of the US military.

[feet]

Or they could try getting along with their neighbors instead of threatening them

[nomel]

Military is used, the vast majority of the time, as a deterrent to prevent threats. There's a war going on in Ukraine right now that is a good example of how sometimes "getting along" isn't an option, for one of the parties, who didn't have a sufficient deterrent.

You have to either accept that some humans are "bad", and have deterrents for them, or you have wait for a "bad" human to come and take what they want.

[feet]

Wow its almost like that could have been avoid if both sides tried to get along

Russia seems like its being an arsehole, the "not threatening your neighbors" bit goes both ways

Its possible to have mechanisms to deal with bad actors that aren't blatant threats of violence

[nomel]

> could have been avoid if both sides tried to get along

I don't understand this. Putin believes Russia will benefit more from not getting along, taking what he thinks Russia needs, meaning he thinks that the current war is the best course of action, and beneficial in the long term. What would the motivation be for "getting along" when that would be detrimental? Agreements can't alway be made, because "best" is different depending on the perspective. For example, look at Nazi Germany. Non violent mechanisms wouldn't convince them that genocide wasn't the best course of action.

> Its possible to have mechanisms to deal with bad actors that aren't blatant threats of violence

Do you have an example, ideally one that has proven successful in the past? Currently, sanctions, limiting bank transactions, etc are used as non violent mechanisms. All of these were used against Russia, yet tanks still came over the border. What sort of non violent mechanism do you think could have been used have been to stop, or now remove, the Russian tanks within the Ukrainian border?

When I say this, I don't mean it in a way that is belittling, but you might want to look at some history books for examples of the perceived irrationality of leaders that result in wars. You can't always make someone agree with you.