Conquer Club

It's open season in Texas, apparently. This absolutely blows my mind:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... 581027.php

(How about we NOT make this about gun control, and rather make it about just this blindingly ridiculous court ruling?)

I'll agree, that seems a very lame verdict, to put it extremely mildly.

Bollocks.

wait, are you surprised because texas actually decided to NOT use the death penalty?

were you hoping for the death penalty?

do you think this guy will be a repeat offender?

Can we at least ban him from Craigslist?

john9blue wrote:wait, are you surprised because texas actually decided to NOT use the death penalty?
were you hoping for the death penalty?
do you think this guy will be a repeat offender?

ITT: john9blue is in favor of killing escorts for not having sex with someone.

I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Not justifying, just wondering .. perhaps it's another topic altogether.

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Not justifying, just wondering .. perhaps it's another topic altogether.

Option #1 - don't try to buy sex? Since it's illegal and all anyway...
Option #2 - if, having tried to (illegally) buy sex, and find that instead of a happy finish, you just got ripped off, cut your losses and be thankful that you just successfully avoided contracting an STD, despite your best efforts at trying to get one.

Bollocks.

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:wait, are you surprised because texas actually decided to NOT use the death penalty?
were you hoping for the death penalty?
do you think this guy will be a repeat offender?

ITT: john9blue is in favor of killing escorts for not having sex with someone.

you always make it so hard to tell whether you're trolling or just stupid.

can you put "/trolling" or something after your troll comments, and "/genuine" after your posts that you actually believe? would make it easier for both of us. thanks

Serbia wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Not justifying, just wondering .. perhaps it's another topic altogether.

Option #1 - don't try to buy sex? Since it's illegal and all anyway...
Option #2 - if, having tried to (illegally) buy sex, and find that instead of a happy finish, you just got ripped off, cut your losses and be thankful that you just successfully avoided contracting an STD, despite your best efforts at trying to get one.

Bollocks.

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

Since contracts for voluntary sex cannot be settled in court, many people will use their own means to adjudicate. This is another unintended consequence due to their government's prohibition of prostitution.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since contracts for voluntary sex cannot be settled in court, many people will use their own means to adjudicate.

noted for future use

• lady: "Thanks for dinner."
  Saxi: "Do you want to come inside?"
  lady: "Sorry, I have to get up early tomorrow."
  Saxi: "I DEMAND THIS MATTER BE SUBMITTED TO ADJUDICATION!"

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

1. You do realize that not all escorts are hookers, right? Granted, it's not the common practice...
2. Even those escorts that are hookers don't JUST hook...sometimes, they are paid to act as just escorts. She apparently thought that was the deal, and he failed to specify. That fault lies with him, not her.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since contracts for voluntary sex cannot be settled in court, many people will use their own means to adjudicate.

noted for future use

• lady: "Thanks for dinner."
  Saxi: "Do you want to come inside?"
  lady: "Sorry, I have to get up early tomorrow."
  Saxi: "I DEMAND THIS MATTER BE SUBMITTED TO ADJUDICATION!"

How does Esmerelda feel about this?

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

1. You do realize that not all escorts are hookers, right? Granted, it's not the common practice...
2. Even those escorts that are hookers don't JUST hook...sometimes, they are paid to act as just escorts. She apparently thought that was the deal, and he failed to specify. That fault lies with him, not her.

Oh, then she was no defrauding him.. I thought it was established she had committed fraud.

If it had been Wayne Brady, he'd of had to choke a bitch.

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

1. You do realize that not all escorts are hookers, right? Granted, it's not the common practice...
2. Even those escorts that are hookers don't JUST hook...sometimes, they are paid to act as just escorts. She apparently thought that was the deal, and he failed to specify. That fault lies with him, not her.

Oh, then she was no defrauding him.. I thought it was established she had committed fraud.

As far as I'm aware, it wasn't established that she did or did not. However, we can only get one side of the story because the other side is...you know...fucking dead.

Essentially, the Texas law may now be used as justification for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, as well as for any business deal that goes sour. Don't think the car you bought is up to the standards you were told? Shoot the salesman who sold you the car...seems to be justified now.

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

1. You do realize that not all escorts are hookers, right? Granted, it's not the common practice...
2. Even those escorts that are hookers don't JUST hook...sometimes, they are paid to act as just escorts. She apparently thought that was the deal, and he failed to specify. That fault lies with him, not her.

Oh, then she was no defrauding him.. I thought it was established she had committed fraud.

As far as I'm aware, it wasn't established that she did or did not. However, we can only get one side of the story because the other side is...you know...fucking dead.

Essentially, the Texas law may now be used as justification for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, as well as for any business deal that goes sour. Don't think the car you bought is up to the standards you were told? Shoot the salesman who sold you the car...seems to be justified now.

that sounds like Texas to me.

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

nietzsche wrote:I'm not very aware of the whole story, but what were this guy's options? Other than to shoot.

Well...there's always the option of NOT shooting. I mean, all things being equal.

Aside from that, he could have simply learned the lesson of not expecting something from an agreement that wasn't agreed to beforehand, which seems to be what this situation came about from.

Exactly what I thought. The guy was screwed. The hooker had fucked him (NOT!) and he was in a corner. A guy that carries a gun with him I guess has it in his self image that he won't be messed with. He was humiliated and the law was not there to protect him.

Again, not justifying him, his best option was to walk away with a boner. Just putting into his shoes.

1. You do realize that not all escorts are hookers, right? Granted, it's not the common practice...
2. Even those escorts that are hookers don't JUST hook...sometimes, they are paid to act as just escorts. She apparently thought that was the deal, and he failed to specify. That fault lies with him, not her.

Oh, then she was no defrauding him.. I thought it was established she had committed fraud.

As far as I'm aware, it wasn't established that she did or did not. However, we can only get one side of the story because the other side is...you know...fucking dead.

Essentially, the Texas law may now be used as justification for someone trying to force another person into an illegal act such as prostitution, as well as for any business deal that goes sour. Don't think the car you bought is up to the standards you were told? Shoot the salesman who sold you the car...seems to be justified now.

I get your point, and I'm not taking this guy's side at all.

At first I got the picture of a hooker and her pimp defrauding this guy, and he taking justice on his hands. Seemed then that the guy thought he was defending his honor in some way, but at the end he was still guilty of murder. Kudos to his lawyers though.

BBS has a point, if prostitution was legal, we would have cheaper, safer and better quality prostitutes. Prostitutes would have safer jobs as well.

The law was there, the lawyers knew how to use it.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Since contracts for voluntary sex cannot be settled in court, many people will use their own means to adjudicate.

noted for future use

• lady: "Thanks for dinner."
  Saxi: "Do you want to come inside?"
  lady: "Sorry, I have to get up early tomorrow."
  Saxi: "I DEMAND THIS MATTER BE SUBMITTED TO ADJUDICATION!"

Hey, it's all part of the System, bAAby. Ya'erd me?

nietzsche wrote:BBS has a point, if prostitution was legal, we would have cheaper, safer and better quality prostitutes. Prostitutes would have safer jobs as well.

The law was there, the lawyers knew how to use it.

Not to mention less human trafficking. And less people being forced into it in general. As well as a bunch of other rather large issues.

I have yet to see a decent argument for keeping prostitution illegal.

Nordik wrote:

nietzsche wrote:BBS has a point, if prostitution was legal, we would have cheaper, safer and better quality prostitutes. Prostitutes would have safer jobs as well.

The law was there, the lawyers knew how to use it.

Not to mention less human trafficking. And less people being forced into it in general. As well as a bunch of other rather large issues.

I have yet to see a decent argument for keeping prostitution illegal.

Dude. God said so. It's icky and stuff.

Nordik wrote:

nietzsche wrote:BBS has a point, if prostitution was legal, we would have cheaper, safer and better quality prostitutes. Prostitutes would have safer jobs as well.

The law was there, the lawyers knew how to use it.

Not to mention less human trafficking. And less people being forced into it in general. As well as a bunch of other rather large issues.

I have yet to see a decent argument for keeping prostitution illegal.

You sound like a libertarian. You might want to clean your fingertips after typing all of that.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Nordik wrote:

nietzsche wrote:BBS has a point, if prostitution was legal, we would have cheaper, safer and better quality prostitutes. Prostitutes would have safer jobs as well.

The law was there, the lawyers knew how to use it.

Not to mention less human trafficking. And less people being forced into it in general. As well as a bunch of other rather large issues.

I have yet to see a decent argument for keeping prostitution illegal.

You sound like a libertarian. You might want to clean your fingertips after typing all of that.

I do not fall into your American categories. I'm European left wing. Relatively far left at that.