Anyone hear something crazy recently?

[happyvalet]

3 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Look up the word Facetious for me there bud. It'll be your word for the day. 

 

I'm also not sure where I made up "rules" for everyone, but...sure, lets treat it as though I set up a "rule."

See above. Prior to this...I wasn't calling you an idiot, simply pointing out what the consensus seemed to be. 

I am starting to see the perspective of the rest of the board however. 

look up the definition of "rule" ... here, i'll do it for you. from Webster: 

1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action

I guess you're the idiot if you don't understand giving a group of people a directive for how to conduct themselves can be called a rule

[boconnell]

4 hours ago, BAC said:

Your point is well taken and, I would submit, precisely why it should be decriminalized. If so, then every prostitute would be required to register as such, undergo testing, pay her taxes, not walk the streets, be subject to regulation.  It would clean up the profession, and subject them to the same sorts of rights and responsibilities that porn actors/actresses have.

The whole reason that human trafficking exists, and that we have women being coerced into systems of prostitution with abusive pimps, is that the entire industry operates in this shadowy underworld.  It isn't hard to find them: just hop on Google and you'll find thousands of listings for escorts, right out in the open.  There's a fraction of that -- hopefully a small one -- where it isn't really consensual, as the women are underage, or imported from overseas and forced into this line of work.  But the police NEVER go after them, since they can't tell which is which. The police don't want to deal with it get away with it because they don't see the point of sticking their nose into a primarily consensual industry, and they are terrified to going after them, ruining lives, having politicians who partake in the industry come after their heads. So they leave it alone, except in the rare instance that someone's operation becomes *too* visible and someone complains.  

But imagine if it were decriminalized, and prostitutes required to register, be tested, and pay taxes, as in places like Belgium, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nevada.  Then anyone who posts an ad without their registration number, the cops know to *immediately* go after, since they know that person's not legit and might be underage or a victim of coercion/abuse.

That's a win-win for everyone.  It means women who are abuse victim are apt to be located and their abusers prosecuted, while women and their clients who are doing this fully consensually can do so in peace.  As added bonuses, the spread of disease is curtailed, and we add some money to the treasury income tax, as these ladies ought to pay their fair share just like everyone else.

You just made a great argument for decriminalizing prostitution.  If somebody went to a prostitute in the system you are describing, then I'd agree with your earlier post that they did nothing morally wrong.  That is definitely not Kyle Snyder.  He knows what he is doing directly supports trafficking, and he doesn't care.  So while I don't care who he has sex with or whether he pays for it, I do think it's wrong he's illegally hiring women from a disgustingly corrupt practice that traffics women.

[wrestle87]

4 minutes ago, boconnell said:

You just made a great argument for decriminalizing prostitution.  If somebody went to a prostitute in the system you are describing, then I'd agree with your earlier post that they did nothing morally wrong.  That is definitely not Kyle Snyder.  He knows what he is doing directly supports trafficking, and he doesn't care.  So while I don't care who he has sex with or whether he pays for it, I do think it's wrong he's illegally hiring women from a disgustingly corrupt practice that traffics women.

Short of mind reading jedi powers, how can you make an assertion like that?

[wrestle87]

1 hour ago, nhs67 said:

 

Now you're getting it.  We're all just here for fun, man.  Don't let us get you all worked up and hung up on semantics.

Also, ~95% of us generally have the same opinions on ethics ~95% of the time.  We aren't a complicated bunch, mate.

Get us talking actual wrestling, though?  Gloves: OFF.

I have never seen a better description of this board anywhere ever.

[Hammerlock3]

2 hours ago, ckwrestler said:

take it from a 6 to a 10 when you consider that most sex trade workers in the US are forced in to it and are trafficked, and he went in to the encounter likely being aware of this fact.

Also curious where BAC got the "very small percentage" from, or how it's possible to minimize the crime of trafficking?  https://deliverfund.org/blog/facts-about-human-trafficking-in-united-states/ 

i have to save 10 for unrepentant murderers of babies with down syndrome and creed fans. 

[HokieDave87]

20 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I don't know... look at OF girls. Also...what about Vegas? Is it the doing it illegally that you find it hard to believe or is it just the act?

I think a lot of people who will make money the "easy" way. Maybe they will say, 'hey, I made a G today,' and you'd say, 'but you made it in a sleazy way.' That's just the way it is. We gotta start making changes!

 

Seriously though, of course...a lot of people will exploit others as well. That's also an easy way to make money I guess. I'm skeptical that sex trafficking is as prevalent as some are inferring, but...it kinda seems like the best solution to this and most realistic would be just to legalize it. I really can't imagine a more...tortured life than being forced into prostitution, but it does seem to me that Bunny Ranch in Vegas...those ARE consenting adults. How sane they are, that seems relative. 

 

The illegal part, specifically online or on the street. You mentioned two avenues that are way safer than doing it on the street or some sketchy website. I assume you'd find a high percentage of people underage, doing it for drug money, or legitimately trafficked. I find this morally wrong. OnlyFans, a stripper soliciting a high roller, or other instances are what they are but if it's consenting adults it is none of my business.

This part is speculation but I also don't see a sting operation being set up on a website that is linking up of age hookers and johns. Usually cops will only use resources if there's tax money involved (ie; a seedy strip club) or a bigger problem where the operation is tied to some of the more negative scenarios than consenting adults. I'm sure there is a reason they targeted that website.

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, wrestle87 said:

Short of mind reading jedi powers, how can you make an assertion like that?

Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

- quote by someone.  Not sure who 

Edited 5 hours ago by Caveira

[wrestle87]

1 minute ago, HokieDave87 said:

Usually cops will only use resources if there's tax money involved (ie; a seedy strip club) or a bigger problem where the operation is tied to some of the more negative scenarios than consenting adults. I'm sure there is a reason they targeted that website.

I have no dog in this discussion, but we have to address variables where they exist.  Cops are, as we have seen all too often, oftentimes beholden to a locally dictated agenda set by institutional and leadership/management goals.  Each institution of local law enforcement is beholden to the whims of the local decision makers.  There are good ones, greedy ones, lazy ones, amazing ones, and corrupt ones, but we have no idea what local politics are regarding policing or this particular “sting”.

Unless anybody can get the police chief on the horn.  If he’s hiding on this board that would be tremendous.

[HokieDave87]

5 minutes ago, wrestle87 said:

I have no dog in this discussion, but we have to address variables where they exist.  Cops are, as we have seen all too often, oftentimes beholden to a locally dictated agenda set by institutional and leadership/management goals.  Each institution of local law enforcement is beholden to the whims of the local decision makers.  There are good ones, greedy ones, lazy ones, amazing ones, and corrupt ones, but we have no idea what local politics are regarding policing or this particular “sting”.

Unless anybody can get the police chief on the horn.  If he’s hiding on this board that would be tremendous.

Fair point - and why I said I was speculating, but more often than not law enforcement and local decision makers have a reason. Most of these "stings" I have read about are either tied to a larger criminal operation or a strip club that is taking money and not paying taxes on it. No expertise here just what I've seen in the news over the years. This one could certainly be different but I'm sure we'll get more details on it as the legal process goes on.

[scourge165]

46 minutes ago, happyvalet said:

look up the definition of "rule" ... here, i'll do it for you. from Webster: 

1 a: a prescribed guide for conduct or action

I guess you're the idiot if you don't understand giving a group of people a directive for how to conduct themselves can be called a rule

LOL...yeah, I'm really starting to see why this consensus has been building! 

I didn't give anyone a "rule" sport, I made a comment about one guy and AGAIN, then I made a facetious comment...that clever went over your head(which given your disposition is likely not a high bar). 

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, BAC said:

That's fine. Not looking to argue.  But consider doing your homework or read the studies I linked. What you think you know, may not match very well with the reality of the situation.  

I will absolutely look into them when I have some time, and I guarantee that I will come back and admit I was wrong if they change my thoughts. I appreciate you linking them. I'm always open to change my view given new information.

[scourge165]

31 minutes ago, HokieDave87 said:

The illegal part, specifically online or on the street. You mentioned two avenues that are way safer than doing it on the street or some sketchy website. I assume you'd find a high percentage of people underage, doing it for drug money, or legitimately trafficked. I find this morally wrong. OnlyFans, a stripper soliciting a high roller, or other instances are what they are but if it's consenting adults it is none of my business.

This part is speculation but I also don't see a sting operation being set up on a website that is linking up of age hookers and johns. Usually cops will only use resources if there's tax money involved (ie; a seedy strip club) or a bigger problem where the operation is tied to some of the more negative scenarios than consenting adults. I'm sure there is a reason they targeted that website.

I wasn't defending Snyder or necessarily talking about this specific case, I was more talking about your assertion that sane adults don't sell their bodies(paraphrasing, correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying). I think there's a lot of evidence that many do. 

I don't have a strong enough opinion about the state of illegal prostitution in this area or what Snyder did to have a REAL strong opinion. I think what he did to his wife and then what he did to the people who look up to him as more egregious, in this particular case... 

[BAC]

6 minutes ago, boconnell said:

You just made a great argument for decriminalizing prostitution.  If somebody went to a prostitute in the system you are describing, then I'd agree with your earlier post that they did nothing morally wrong.  That is definitely not Kyle Snyder.  He knows what he is doing directly supports trafficking, and he doesn't care.  So while I don't care who he has sex with or whether he pays for it, I do think it's wrong he's illegally hiring women from a disgustingly corrupt practice that traffics women.

I respect that we may have different views on this, but personally, I don't buy the "what he is doing directly supports trafficking" argument.  As mentioned elsewhere, I think people are using "trafficking" so broadly (i.e. escorts traveling) that it's just a shorthand for the sex industry as a whole. If sex with an in-state escort is OK, then just because she traveled from out of state doesn't suddenly make it immoral.

I would agree with you if Snyder was supporting the nonconsensual trafficking of women, including women who are forced, underage, or mentally ill.  I'm sure there's some seriously shady places you can go to do just that, but I sort of doubt Snyder knows where to find them. According to the police report, he got her number from an online ad, texted her, and they met at a hotel.  It's generally agreed in research circles that this is just not where underage or compelled prostitution is found these days.

The most I'm willing to say is that it's wrong to break the law, even when, as here, the law is idiotic. But it's the mildest of transgressions in my book, about on par with ripping off a mattress tag.

[HokieDave87]

1 minute ago, scourge165 said:

I wasn't defending Snyder or necessarily talking about this specific case, I was more talking about your assertion that sane adults don't sell their bodies(paraphrasing, correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying). I think there's a lot of evidence that many do. 

I don't have a strong enough opinion about the state of illegal prostitution in this area or what Snyder did to have a REAL strong opinion. I think what he did to his wife and then what he did to the people who look up to him as more egregious, in this particular case... 

My assertion is that most sane adults don't sell their body by meeting anonymous men at a hotel. There is plenty of evidence that people do sell their bodies in a much safer environment so I'm in agreement with you on that.

To your last point, yes that is awful but I'd need to know more details about this particular case before forming an opinion on which is more egregious.

[boconnell]

14 minutes ago, BAC said:

I respect that we may have different views on this, but personally, I don't buy the "what he is doing directly supports trafficking" argument.  As mentioned elsewhere, I think people are using "trafficking" so broadly (i.e. escorts traveling) that it's just a shorthand for the sex industry as a whole. If sex with an in-state escort is OK, then just because she traveled from out of state doesn't suddenly make it immoral.

I would agree with you if Snyder was supporting the nonconsensual trafficking of women, including women who are forced, underage, or mentally ill.  I'm sure there's some seriously shady places you can go to do just that, but I sort of doubt Snyder knows where to find them. According to the police report, he got her number from an online ad, texted her, and they met at a hotel.  It's generally agreed in research circles that this is just not where underage or compelled prostitution is found these days.

The most I'm willing to say is that it's wrong to break the law, even when, as here, the law is idiotic. But it's the mildest of transgressions in my book, about on par with ripping off a mattress tag.

I don't think you find much of the prostitution world that doesn't overlap with woman who have no choices.  Just like when you outlaw drugs, you don't end up with a bunch of places to buy drugs that aren't directly attached to violence.  It might be caused by the criminalization, but when you choose to wade into that world, you've decided what's more important than not supporting a super dirty corner of the world.

[pokemonster]

I tried reading through this and there are so many dumbasses arguing points that are irrelevant. Point is, Snyder is a poser and a hypocrite. It's not the cops fault, some vendetta against him, and the "who cares" crowd are a bunch of idiots. You can't take anything Kyle has said or done at face value anymore. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he was on PEDs this whole time as well. Where does somebody draw the line if they convince themselves the ends justify the means?

And Caviar, the reddit said he was known to do this in Columbus and that led to their separation. Not that Ohio State aided and abetted him in it. It also said that word on the street are his Ohio State teammates were sick of him. I get it when you're a preachy douche banging hookers. I always found it odd how him and Kollin Moore, or Logan, or the other guys on the team, weren't very close. Makes sense. I wouldn't be close with him either. 

[BAC]

1 minute ago, boconnell said:

I don't think you find much of the prostitution world that doesn't overlap with woman who have no choices.  Just like when you outlaw drugs, you don't end up with a bunch of places to buy drugs that aren't directly attached to violence.  It might be caused by the criminalization, but when you choose to wade into that world, you've decided what's more important than not supporting a super dirty corner of the world.

I think we can probably agree here, for the most part.  Anytime something's outlawed, it is going to attract some related criminal elements, making that corner of the world a bit more unsafe, sleazy and sketchy.  And you're right that the criminalization itself, not the act, is the driver here.

Your reference to "women who have no choices" is a bit strong, but if your point is that it includes a lot of women who simply have no other way to get the money that they need (e.g. to feed/house themselves or their kid), then I agree.  I'm just not willing to say it's immoral to support such women.  To the contrary, I think society should stop stigmatizing them for doing what they must to get by, and should legitimize it with decriminalization, registration, STD/drug testing, taxing... but I digress.

[HokieDave87]

10 minutes ago, BAC said:

I think we can probably agree here, for the most part.  Anytime something's outlawed, it is going to attract some related criminal elements, making that corner of the world a bit more unsafe, sleazy and sketchy.  And you're right that the criminalization itself, not the act, is the driver here.

Your reference to "women who have no choices" is a bit strong, but if your point is that it includes a lot of women who simply have no other way to get the money that they need (e.g. to feed/house themselves or their kid), then I agree.  I'm just not willing to say it's immoral to support such women.  To the contrary, I think society should stop stigmatizing them for doing what they must to get by, and should legitimize it with decriminalization, registration, STD/drug testing, taxing... but I digress.

Two things can be true. There can be an argument that legitimization would create a much safer environment, and also that the current environment doesn't have a way to morally partake without a high risk of taking advantage of women who are in a very bad spot.

[happyvalet]

2 minutes ago, HokieDave87 said:

Two things can be true. There can be an argument that legitimization would create a much safer environment, and also that the current environment doesn't have a way to morally partake without a high risk of taking advantage of women who are in a very bad spot.

there are ways though. I don't know whether the guy in question followed such a path, but it's not hard to find unencumbered sex workers 

[cowcards]

48 minutes ago, BAC said:

I respect that we may have different views on this, but personally, I don't buy the "what he is doing directly supports trafficking" argument.  As mentioned elsewhere, I think people are using "trafficking" so broadly (i.e. escorts traveling) that it's just a shorthand for the sex industry as a whole. If sex with an in-state escort is OK, then just because she traveled from out of state doesn't suddenly make it immoral.

I would agree with you if Snyder was supporting the nonconsensual trafficking of women, including women who are forced, underage, or mentally ill.  I'm sure there's some seriously shady places you can go to do just that, but I sort of doubt Snyder knows where to find them. According to the police report, he got her number from an online ad, texted her, and they met at a hotel.  It's generally agreed in research circles that this is just not where underage or compelled prostitution is found these days.

I haven't read this whole thing deep enough, so apologies if this doesn't hit right. Trafficking doesn't necessarily mean going across state lines. It is all about coercion by one to force another to perform a sex act.

This is the US Justice Departments definition:

"Sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age."

It sounds like this isn't his first time and it has probably been happening for a while. So while this time he wasn't paying someone that was being trafficked, chances are very high that he has done this with someone who has, intentional or not. 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

6 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

The guy on the left looks like he's getting fatter or swelling up as we watch. It's uncomfortable to see. 

He looks like someone tried to whittle a penis out of a hotdog.

[BAC]

3 minutes ago, HokieDave87 said:

Two things can be true. There can be an argument that legitimization would create a much safer environment, and also that the current environment doesn't have a way to morally partake without a high risk of taking advantage of women who are in a very bad spot.

Yeah, I dunno about that.  If you're really tight on money, and need to take a second job as an Uber driver at nights to make sure you can pay your rent and feed your kid, would you want customers to not hire you since they don't want to "take advantage of a guy who is in a very bad spot"?  Are they really doing you a favor and acting righteously if they're avoiding you for that reason?

I agree with the general idea that when you text someone offering an illegal act, you never know for sure what you're going to get.  (Snyder just found this out the hard way.)  But I just think it's a little bit self-righteous to say a john is doing *the escort* a favor by not calling her.  I'll bet she'd disagree.

[happyvalet]

7 minutes ago, Saylors_Tiny_Willie said:

He looks like someone tried to whittle a penis out of a hotdog.

great, now i'm hungry and it's past my bedtime 

[AgaveMaria]

Maybe he can get advice from Donald Trump - we now he pays off whores. Or Robert Kraft, the guy who owns the New England Patriots.

Both rich & "successful" guys who pay for sex.

Edited 3 hours ago by AgaveMaria

[BAC]

17 minutes ago, cowcards said:

I haven't read this whole thing deep enough, so apologies if this doesn't hit right. Trafficking doesn't necessarily mean going across state lines. It is all about coercion by one to force another to perform a sex act.

This is the US Justice Departments definition:

"Sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age."

It sounds like this isn't his first time and it has probably been happening for a while. So while this time he wasn't paying someone that was being trafficked, chances are very high that he has done this with someone who has, intentional or not. 

Nah you're good.  My point is that the term "trafficking" is often used in a more expansive way than how you cited it, in order to make it sound like all escorts are victims of some sort.  They aren't.  You'll see a lot of definitions of "trafficking" as some form of "traveling for the purpose of sexual exploitation," which is short for "escorts who travel."  Actual forced prostitution is much less common, and generally has moved offline from the backpage/craigslist to the street/underworld.  I haven't seen anything saying that Snyder's done this more than once, but unless he is traveling in those seedier circles, which seems doubtful if he's answering an online ad to meet at a hotel, it's highly unlikely he's encountered this.