Tiffany at Showworld
- Thread starter billyS
- Start date
It's an illegal transaction anyway. It's not like she's going to call the cops and say "hey, this guy told me he'd give me $120 for a BJ and he only gave me $80, so please arrest him for stealing $40 from me". He didn't receive what he bargained for, but rather got something less so he paid less than the agreed upon amount. I don't see anything wrong with what Billy did.
Good grief indeed.
I am not stating they are equivalent acts. I am stating they are related by being on the continuum of the same mindset required to commit these acts. That being that it is OK to reduce another human being to a worth status lower than your own, and than on the basis of that perceived lower status do something to them you wouldn't want done to yourself.
That is precisely how some governments go about justifiying killing millions because 'they're not really people anyway... at least not in the same sense you and I are".
It was precisely how it was justified that Billy contracted for one thing from a drunken working gal but, after services were rendered, remitted something else. "Its OK. I got ripped off here before by others. Besides, she's just a drunken hooker.", and by extension... its not like she's a real person or anything. At least, not like you and I are.
I am not stating they are equivalent acts. I am stating they are related by being on the continuum of the same mindset required to commit these acts. That being that it is OK to reduce another human being to a worth status lower than your own, and than on the basis of that perceived lower status do something to them you wouldn't want done to yourself.
That is precisely how some governments go about justifiying killing millions because 'they're not really people anyway... at least not in the same sense you and I are".
It was precisely how it was justified that Billy contracted for one thing from a drunken working gal but, after services were rendered, remitted something else. "Its OK. I got ripped off here before by others. Besides, she's just a drunken hooker.", and by extension... its not like she's a real person or anything. At least, not like you and I are.
First off I am not trying to break anyone's balls, and I don't think people like JL are either. We are discussing an ethical viewpoint.
Lying to my wife is not cool. As I have said before it is the only part of this whole thing that I have a problem with. I have absolutely no problem with my wife sexually seeing other people. In fact, if she was down with that we would simply incorporate it into our lives and do it together. Other than the lying about it [by om mission only by the way... and isn't that going to put me in a quandary if she ever asks the direct, pointed, question] I am not treating someone differently than I would want to be treated myself. And I am not cool with that part of it, and I would change it if I could.
Lying to my wife is not cool. As I have said before it is the only part of this whole thing that I have a problem with. I have absolutely no problem with my wife sexually seeing other people. In fact, if she was down with that we would simply incorporate it into our lives and do it together. Other than the lying about it [by om mission only by the way... and isn't that going to put me in a quandary if she ever asks the direct, pointed, question] I am not treating someone differently than I would want to be treated myself. And I am not cool with that part of it, and I would change it if I could.
You need to understand that this is 'theft by deception' which is still theft.
I don't think that what you did is the same thing as committing genocide. What I am suggesting is that you used these two justifications to qualify the act you conducted.
1) Someone did it to me, so it was OK for me to do it.
That would have been fine in my book if the person you did it to was the person who did it to you. This wasn't the same person, and that shoots this justification in the ass.
2) She's just a drunken sex worker.
And here is where I think you really went wrong. Like I said, it is reducing some one's status as a human being to one lower than that of your own. That is the slippery slope. That is what leads to, at its very far end, the kind of acts I was describing.
Do I think you are capable of such acts? No, not at all. Do I think they exist on opposite ends of the same continuum. Yep.
Because you are human, and as such are flawed. That doesn't mean that since we acknowledge we are flawed we don't try and aim for better. I'm not talking religious rhetoric here. I am talking man's contract with his fellow man. Just because we are capable of being unethical doesn't mean we give up on the notion of being ethical.
You made a contract and than you welshed on it. You attempted to justify it by reducing the value of the person you made that contract with, so it is now OK to welsh on it.
We've probably all done it. That fact doesn't mean we should just say... OK, we've all done it so its all right. It isn't.
It's the "Golden Rule" Bill. Too high to get over. Too low to go under. Too wide to go around.
I don't think that what you did is the same thing as committing genocide. What I am suggesting is that you used these two justifications to qualify the act you conducted.
1) Someone did it to me, so it was OK for me to do it.
That would have been fine in my book if the person you did it to was the person who did it to you. This wasn't the same person, and that shoots this justification in the ass.
2) She's just a drunken sex worker.
And here is where I think you really went wrong. Like I said, it is reducing some one's status as a human being to one lower than that of your own. That is the slippery slope. That is what leads to, at its very far end, the kind of acts I was describing.
Do I think you are capable of such acts? No, not at all. Do I think they exist on opposite ends of the same continuum. Yep.
Because you are human, and as such are flawed. That doesn't mean that since we acknowledge we are flawed we don't try and aim for better. I'm not talking religious rhetoric here. I am talking man's contract with his fellow man. Just because we are capable of being unethical doesn't mean we give up on the notion of being ethical.
You made a contract and than you welshed on it. You attempted to justify it by reducing the value of the person you made that contract with, so it is now OK to welsh on it.
We've probably all done it. That fact doesn't mean we should just say... OK, we've all done it so its all right. It isn't.
It's the "Golden Rule" Bill. Too high to get over. Too low to go under. Too wide to go around.
Last edited:
You need to know three things about what you said...
First you need to understand "Theft by deception" as a concept.
Second, a perceived lapse in contractual performance [her not letting Billy come in her mouth] is not justification for a wilful lapse in contractual performance [his hiding the fact that he wasn't paying her the full amount agreed upon]. Had he mentioned he was dissatisfied and than paid less, willingly excepting their might be consequences for that, that would have been a different story.
Third, I think you need to presume that "genius" has just shot himself in the foot with any provider reading these pages. I mean, who would contract for services with a person who thinks it is OK to not pay, or not to pay in full?
First you need to understand "Theft by deception" as a concept.
Second, a perceived lapse in contractual performance [her not letting Billy come in her mouth] is not justification for a wilful lapse in contractual performance [his hiding the fact that he wasn't paying her the full amount agreed upon]. Had he mentioned he was dissatisfied and than paid less, willingly excepting their might be consequences for that, that would have been a different story.
Third, I think you need to presume that "genius" has just shot himself in the foot with any provider reading these pages. I mean, who would contract for services with a person who thinks it is OK to not pay, or not to pay in full?
Terrible of you to use the "W" word to describe someone going back on his word. When you start doing that - reducing a nationality to just a degrading term, next you will be joining Imus in call ing Chinese Asians Chinamen and then who knows - maybe the "N" word. (the preceding is asinine as obviously from what I know of you via this board you simply don't do that.)
As far as the legal issue (theft of services)- I regret I started it as I was merely trying to say the it is a legal term that does not apply to illegal activities. I'm not a legal type - but I would imagine if you paid 20 bucks for a bj and the girls just bolted out of your car w/o delivering it, there was no civil legal issue, and perhaps the only criminal legal issue might be YOU doing the solicitng of the BJ (please correct me if I'm wrong - it happens from time to time).
Next, if I agree on XX for BBBJCIM and the CIM part is not performed I reserve the right to re-negotiate the deal. That is not stealing IMHO. I don't do that by handing the girl a wad of singles with a 20 on the outside and bolt out the door before she can count it - I say you wanted xx for somethinge - you didnt give me what I paid for - I am giving you xx-whatever.
In a similar manner if I promise "a good tip" I determine what a good tip is - just part of the risks of working in illegal activities.
Now the next moral question is: "If the woman doesn't do CIM but offers to perform a BBBJ for XX providing that you promise to tell her the second before you pop - and you don't - do you owe her more money?"
As far as the legal issue (theft of services)- I regret I started it as I was merely trying to say the it is a legal term that does not apply to illegal activities. I'm not a legal type - but I would imagine if you paid 20 bucks for a bj and the girls just bolted out of your car w/o delivering it, there was no civil legal issue, and perhaps the only criminal legal issue might be YOU doing the solicitng of the BJ (please correct me if I'm wrong - it happens from time to time).
Next, if I agree on XX for BBBJCIM and the CIM part is not performed I reserve the right to re-negotiate the deal. That is not stealing IMHO. I don't do that by handing the girl a wad of singles with a 20 on the outside and bolt out the door before she can count it - I say you wanted xx for somethinge - you didnt give me what I paid for - I am giving you xx-whatever.
In a similar manner if I promise "a good tip" I determine what a good tip is - just part of the risks of working in illegal activities.
Now the next moral question is: "If the woman doesn't do CIM but offers to perform a BBBJ for XX providing that you promise to tell her the second before you pop - and you don't - do you owe her more money?"
Cute, but weak. It is standardized language readily quantifiable by the definitions found in Webster's, Cambridge, etc.
Look, genius, its simple. The test is would you want to be treated the way this sex worker was treated under similar circumstances. If the answer is yes, than the action was fair. If the answer is no, you have some re-thinking to do.
Look, genius, its simple. The test is would you want to be treated the way this sex worker was treated under similar circumstances. If the answer is yes, than the action was fair. If the answer is no, you have some re-thinking to do.
Last edited:
For those of you so concerned about the "golden rule", what about how Billy was treated? He offered a certain amount for a set service. He did not receive the service he bargained for, so why should he be obligated to give the amount he originally offered? Also, 2 other things: 1) a drunk person can not enter into a contract and 2) illegal activities can never be the subject of a valid, enforceable contract.
Here's my read on this....FWIW
Fuck the legal arguments here, they're moot. We can go on and on, and disect every minutia on this particular event, but it's getting old and going nowhere.
If you agree on a figure for service, that's what you're honor-bound to pay. If the service was not up to expectations....pay the fee and never return. Then report back here. Always take the high road and act like a gentleman, and the angels will be on your side.
Fuck the legal arguments here, they're moot. We can go on and on, and disect every minutia on this particular event, but it's getting old and going nowhere.
If you agree on a figure for service, that's what you're honor-bound to pay. If the service was not up to expectations....pay the fee and never return. Then report back here. Always take the high road and act like a gentleman, and the angels will be on your side.
welsh /wɛlʃ, wɛltʃ/ –verb (used without object) Informal (sometimes offensive).
1. to cheat by failing to pay a gambling debt: You aren't going to welsh on me, are you?
2. to go back on one's word: He welshed on his promise to help in the campaign.
There are numerous definitions of Welsh stating that it can be offensive - this one is the 1st (and only) one I looked up and was in dictionary.com.
Anyway, fair is a word whose meaning varies greatly upon who you talk to. My kid saw a show about Africa where the lion goes after (and kills) an injured young antelope. "how unfair to pick on the injured and defenseless animal".
If you meet up with a provider who obviously (a drug problem perhaps) needs some cash real soon - is it "fair" to use observation as a negotiating tool to get more services for less money?
Using your "test" the answer is no. But say this person isn't exactly your type but at half the going rate - well what the hell. Do you say - "Sorry, it is wrong to take advantage of you and since I'm not interested in you at your normal full price, I'll just pass on the offer?"
1. to cheat by failing to pay a gambling debt: You aren't going to welsh on me, are you?
2. to go back on one's word: He welshed on his promise to help in the campaign.
There are numerous definitions of Welsh stating that it can be offensive - this one is the 1st (and only) one I looked up and was in dictionary.com.
Anyway, fair is a word whose meaning varies greatly upon who you talk to. My kid saw a show about Africa where the lion goes after (and kills) an injured young antelope. "how unfair to pick on the injured and defenseless animal".
If you meet up with a provider who obviously (a drug problem perhaps) needs some cash real soon - is it "fair" to use observation as a negotiating tool to get more services for less money?
Using your "test" the answer is no. But say this person isn't exactly your type but at half the going rate - well what the hell. Do you say - "Sorry, it is wrong to take advantage of you and since I'm not interested in you at your normal full price, I'll just pass on the offer?"
RuffToy - I got a kick out of your response. Most hobbyists are cheating on someone when they pay for play, so I don't think the angels will ever be on your side regardless of whether you give the woman the full amount or not. So we are honor-bound to pay whatever was agreed upon, but the girls can get away with not providing the agreed upon service(s)??? Where's the moral justice in that?? If I wanted to give $120 and not get anything back, I'd just donate the money to charity and get a receipt so I can take a deduction on my income taxes!!
Whether you're cheating on your SO or not is completely irrelevent. This is about a specific event between two people.
Look, you can do what ever you like. Rip off a provider because it's easy. It's your face in the mirror that you see.
I don't operate that way. In fact, when I double or triple book reservations in restaurants, I always call to cancel. Why? Because that's my style.
I am not preaching from the pulpit. I couldn't care less about Tiffany. I just treat people in the manner I would like to be treated. And you know what....it works just fine for me.
Look, you can do what ever you like. Rip off a provider because it's easy. It's your face in the mirror that you see.
I don't operate that way. In fact, when I double or triple book reservations in restaurants, I always call to cancel. Why? Because that's my style.
I am not preaching from the pulpit. I couldn't care less about Tiffany. I just treat people in the manner I would like to be treated. And you know what....it works just fine for me.
Where did you see any info that shows he didn't get what he bargained for? Here's what billys wrote:
Sounds to me like he got what he asked for and didn't deliver on what he promised to give her in return for the services. That's theft. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then your on my list of the "ethically challenged".
Sounds to me like he got what he asked for and didn't deliver on what he promised to give her in return for the services. That's theft. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then your on my list of the "ethically challenged".
Last edited: