Do the right thing?

I'd pass on the cash. I couldn't let my conscience do anything else.

The dilemma you have is a BIG problem over here and it's costing everyone that drives a lot of extra money to insure their cars due to false whiplash claims.

Don't do it. Obviously fraud if you do.

That's definitely what I'm thinking I'm gonna do, pass on it. As tempting as it is.

I would pass on it. Too much risk for too little money.

He is already in the WRONG by switching seats and submitting a false police report. That's a CRIME!

And the thing is that even if you do the right - don't go for the money, one day you learn that insurance companies are amongst the sleaziest around. (Won't be surprised if 80% of those on staff are either RickyBoyDugan or txtittyfan types.) At that point you'll probably kick yourself for not taking the money, but it's still the right thing not to take it.

Does your friend have DUIs? How will you feel if he gets in an accident and kills somebody?

Alucard, please don't make an e-citizens arrest. How about a e-slap on the wrist this time?

Dougster, that's the main reason I even considered taking the money. The fact that I watched Sicko by Michael Moore again a couple days ago doesn't help.

ilbbaicinl, No, he's drug/alcohol free. But, any situation like that where someone gets hurt or even killed is extremely sad. As a matter of fact me and my former teammates (he's one of them) made a pact to never have more than a few beers if we drink anything at all, after one of our teammates was killed in a car accident with a drunk driver a couple years ago. What made you ask that?

I never heard of someone losing their license for public urination or something, it seems to normally happen because you did something that could cause a bad/fatal accident. If I knew somebody was driving who was endangering others, that seems a bigger concern than any money issue.

Many or most dancers/escorts don't pay all the taxes they "should". So we're all in a somewhat grey area being a part of that. I'd have to admit I've done my share of shady stuff to come out better money-wise. I would feel bad if I did something that directly caused harm to anybody. But, dealing with the government or big companies, they have very limited concern about whether or not they are ripping you off. So it wouldn't be so terrible to give them a taste of their own cooking.

You would also have to consider the risk of the police using high-pressure investigation tactics, and whether you or your friend would crack under them.

"I never heard of someone losing their license for public urination or something, it seems to normally happen because you did something that could cause a bad/fatal accident. If I knew somebody was driving who was endangering others, that seems a bigger concern than any money issue."

He lost his because of child support payment issues. In GA they can take your license until you catch up on payments.

"I would feel bad if I did something that directly caused harm to anybody. But, dealing with the government or big companies, they have very limited concern about whether or not they are ripping you off. So it wouldn't be so terrible to give them a taste of their own cooking."

This is also true.

While its very unlikely that you will ever have to go to court and testify via a civil suit, it could happen before payment is ever done. If you testify you'd have to further perjure yourself. My recommendation is say you're fine and you don't want to go any further and drop the matter before it gets out of hand.

So the lawyer wants you to sue a school (public sector i think) and then also it is a false claim. This is a double whammy to the rest of us. Schools get public or tax funding. So this could cause thier insurance to go up because of the fraud claim. Then adding a claim will increase stats for that area which will could increase insurance factors in the area. So yeah go ahead and fuck the rest of us over.

That is the problem with insurance. Lawyers go after big entities...ie: schools, cities, etc. because they know they will settle for little or have high limits so they can ask for the moon and get 1/4 of what they asked for and that is considered a win for the big entitie. FUCK Lawyers who do this. The ocean isn't big enough and neither is the rock i want to tie to thier feet.

Well THAT sounds pretty fucked up. If it's truly a case that he's bailing on a kid of his, to me, that's much more sleazy and immoral than check fraud, shoplifting, and such type of non-violent crime.

So, if you get behind on child support, will GA take away your DL rather than garnish your pay? That would be about as mega-fucking-retarded as it gets, but not surprising from the government.

be a man tell the cops the trouth

Well, as tough as it might be for some to admit it, Alucard *is* correct. You have both already committed crimes by doing what you did; adding insurance fraud might not be the wisest move. All it would take is for one witness you didn't see to come out of the woodwork and tell an insurance investigator what happened.

In fact, if the story you've related here is at all in line with reality, you could expect a competent insurance investigator, who isn't constrained by a silly thing like the Constitution, to look into your internet posting habits to see if you perhaps bragged about anything to others.

Don't bother. More trouble that it is worth - especially if you are on the take.

"So yeah go ahead and fuck the rest of us over."

Well...since you put it that way...

"So, if you get behind on child support, will GA take away your DL rather than garnish your pay?"

That's a good question. Maybe it's for the people who don't have any wages to garnish. I'll have to look into that.

"be a man tell the cops the trouth"

The only question the cops asked ME was if I was hurt. I said no. I told him the truth. He asked to see my license, I gave it to him. He wrote some stuff down, gave it back to me, and sent us on our way.

The bus driver DID crush the car, that was her fault. Their insurance is gonna have to cover that, no question. As far as me getting any money for "injuries" I'm against it. I helped enough with the license thing, other than that, I'm done with it.

I'm still curious to hear how others would handle this situation though.

@Che: " For instance they may argue that legalities do not define right and wrong. Stealing from the rich or from “evil” corporations becomes justice. To them, just because something is a "crime" (such as engaging in prostitution) doesn’t mean it is wrong."

If you can't tell the ethical difference between theft and sex for money, then I question your implied claim of being a "higher evolved life form".

TUSCL is a hell of a place to discuss ethics.

gmd mentioned something I forgot to say, you committed insurance fraud. Hope you get caught.

Thanks gmd.

Lol, That's mean, Alucard. And how did I commit insurance fraud? Did I miss something?

I'm starting to get the feeling Alucard doesn't like me much. lol

I never really could grok what people are talking about when they mention free will. Seems like a mythical notion if you believe we are all just bits of some bug wave function evolving according to mathematics beyond our control. Then if you are evertiian like I am, it's all deterministic from the the multiverse's point of view. You think you have a choice, but if it is not logically impossible you make all decisions with some non-zero probability somewhere. Other problems is that we say humans have free will, but where does it start?

Are humans the only ones with it? Does an ape have it? A dog? A fish? An insect? A plant? A car?

I also don't get what che is saying that given this 'free will' you have the rights to determine the ethics of the situation for yourself? So mass murderers, for example, just determined the ethics, and as long as they didn't complain about the consequences, all is good?

I'm starting to think Alucard doesn't like many people very much....

Lol! Yes, my suspicion is that alutard was picked on because of his mental problems when he was young and faced considerable rejection from females because of it, and that bred some deep misanthropy and misogyny in him that he constantly projects onto others here.

I'm in agreement with everyone, it's too much risk. But damn with that money you could be making it rain at Magic City with all the rappers lol.

The bigger issue is, avoid people who can make babies and not feel any sense of responsibility. Otherwise, you may wind up with your throat cut for half a ham sandwich.

goodsouthern & Dougster, he proves how true that is with his "SPECIAL POST SCRIPTUM" on his profile page.

ranukam, that's the only other reason I even considered it! lol

Just keep on with the ridiculous guesses Dougster and keep looking stupid.

@staxwell: "And how did I commit insurance fraud? Did I miss something?"

Apparently you did. If you represented yourself, even by implication, as the driver of a vehicle which was involved in an accident to any insurer for the purpose of having that insurer pay for damages pursuant to that accident, you will have committed insurance fraud. If the bus company's insurance company finds out, they will deny the claim.

If the officer reported you as the driver, your friend might be screwed. Ironically, depending on the location, his suspended license might have made no difference at all in the bus company's liability. He might have gotten a ticket, but the bus insurer would still have paid. However, by misrepresenting yourself as driver, you've given them an entirely legitimate avenue to denying payment. And opened yourself up to criminal prosecution.

Good luck.

Interesting. Thanks for the info, gmd.

I don't think it's fraud since who was driving does not seem to have any relevance as to who was at fault or who is due money. The owner of the car is due money, not the driver. But giving false statements to the police is a crime. However, if your friend has a morally valid reason for not officially paying child support, if he's directly buying food/clothing/toys and paying rent for the kid cause the b-mama doesn't, then you did the right thing even if it's legally a crime.

"I don't think it's fraud since who was driving does not seem to have any relevance as to who was at fault or who is due money. The owner of the car is due money, not the driver."

That's what I was thinking.

Lol the whole thing with him and the babies mother is the typical drama. He is in the kids life though, and does make sure he's taken care of. Of course, an angry woman is an angry woman, and nothing's enough for her.

Che: "if one considers it equivalent and chooses for themselves which 'crimes' are ethically right and which are ethically wrong then denying someone else that same option of choice is hypocritical. By logical extension, such a person possesses a sense of entitlement to 'dictate' to others while not submitting to the same for himself (i.e. megalomania)."

This is a bit far fetched. Counter-example. Someone decides to illegally hide persecuted people in some country. (Pick your favorite innocent minority.) So now that person is excluded from being able to make moral judgments against those who disobey insider trading laws in another country?

"1) something simply being defined as a “crime” cannot be the equivalent of something being wrong"

I definitely agree with this^^.

alutard: your story just doesn't add up alutard. Your the one who looks stupid think you can convince people you are who you try to project yourself as.

Actually, you can make my counter-example above even more extreme to make it even more obvious that Che's statement doesn't make sense. Someone harbors persecuted people in one country illegally. He has chosen to break a law. So now he is a "meglamanical hypocrite" if he condemns other who choose not to obey laws against murder?

If I was your philosophy 101 professor, I'd be handing out alot of D's in this thread. :-)

Just a practical observation from being in business for a very long time.

You do NOT fuck with insurance companies. Insurance, whether it be medical, fire and casualty, life, disability, whatever, is a necessity in life. Insurance companies compete for customers but these companies also have the quaint idea that defrauding one insurance company is defrauding them all. Just as escorts have a 'bad date' list, insurance companies share data about fraudulent claims.

If you do this and are discovered, do not be surprised if you are unable to obtain insurance of any kind at non-extortionate premium rates in the future.

Che: that's even more tangled. If someone considers the legal equivalent to the ethical, and then decides to that doing something illegal is not ethical, of course that is blatantly illogical. Is there anyone in the world who thinks that way? To make it even simpler I don't think there is anyone who even equates legal and ethical to begin with. Not sure where your going with that strawman.

I didn't read the entire thread, so this might be a repeat comment, but this IS insurance fraud and in most states insurance fraud is a felony. Good luck with your decision.

So are you saying then no choice is unethical providing you are willing to live with the consequences? I.e. if you are willing to suck the pissibility of punishment when the time comes or off yourself first (since you are accepting the consequences of that action) then you can do anything (e.g. Murder or steal) and no one can say you were acting unethically?

Anyways all ethical discussions ultimately never end up making sense because (certain narcissistic but widely admired philosophers notwithstanding) nobody has solved what is called the "is/ought" problem. But saying there is no ought is problematic too. :-)

Staxwell must consider himself immune to a possible felony charge.

Making Dougster’s head hurt, that's funny.

@farmerart, thanks for the insight. I didn't realize fucking with one company is fucking with them all.

I'll definitely pass some of this advice on to my friend.

azdd, Thanks, man. I already decided I'm not gonna fuck around with that. I hadn't even done it yet and I was already feeling guilty about it when I got the phone call.

@Doug and Che, please continue. I don't know if it's because I'm high or not, but this is very interesting.

(I didn't read all the posts, too much and too many blue dugly's)

I'm not that opposed to you switching seats that much. Is it technically wrong? Yeah sure. But did you really hurt anyone, no. You kept a friend from trouble and from paying a shit ton to get his car fixed. In some situations I would say it's fucked up, but not this one.

Why you should leave the lawyer alone:

A. You don't want anyone digging into this since you're already legally in the wrong
B. You're not hurt and it would be dishonest to fuck over the tax payers for no more reason than because you can.
C. Shyster lawyers should be discouraged, not encouraged. Today they're helping you (really themselves) tomorrow they're helping some asshole sue YOU frivolously.

Address me directly, Alucard. Before you cross the line of "IMPUNITY". lol

And no, I learned a few years ago (back when I thought I was Superman) I'm just as susceptible as the common man.

Not even draculA lived forever.

-Stax Van Helsing

"A. You don't want anyone digging into this since you're already legally in the wrong
B. You're not hurt and it would be dishonest to fuck over the tax payers for no more reason than because you can.
C. Shyster lawyers should be discouraged, not encouraged. Today they're helping you (really themselves) tomorrow they're helping some asshole sue YOU frivolously. "

I agree 100%. And the lawyer just calling me out of the blue like that (when I had spoken to NO one about the accident) was kind of a red flag for me.

Stax - I think you have already decided. But my two cents is don't do it! Not worth it at all.

@rh48hr, yeah risking my freedom isn't worth $5-$20k. Can't see strippers in jail...at least not the ones I wanna see.

"And the lawyer just calling me out of the blue like that (when I had spoken to NO one about the accident) was kind of a red flag for me."

Just like traffic tickets some of these guys are trolling the court records for these instances so they can contact you. I know one lawyer who had an employee simply calling them (for a gift of course) any time anything promising popped up.

A friend of mine whose mother passed in a nursing home received 4 or 5 calls from lawyers a few months after it happened trying to persuade him to go after the nursing the home (she was in her late 80's and died naturally).

These people are the scum of the earth, and are part of the reason healthcare is fucked up.

Insurance fraud is a felony in most states. Are you sure no one saw you switch seats, a student on the bus perhaps? You have disclosed on this site the fact that you filed a false police report. Is this thread subject to pre-trial discovery if an insurance company lawyer finds out about it and your admission that you switched seats? STOP!

Just an FYI, this probably isn't fraud bc your friend is not obtaining funds he wouldn't otherwise be entitled to.

Also,FYI, I hope this is a great friend of yours. You are in a bad spot. If he files an injury claim and they low ball his offer and he files a lawsuit, you will be deposed. You will be under oath and have to continue the lie or take the 5th abt being the driver as admitting you weren't would be incriminating yourself for giving false statements to the officer. Testifying falsely under oath is perjury. It's a felony and usually comes along with a nice fine and mostly suspended jail time. Which means no voting, no guns, tough job prospects if you ever need to look for one, etc.

Also, this accident is now going down in the insurance index as you being a driver in a collision. That's staying on your index forever. Accidents that aren't your fault aren't supposed to raise your rates, but don't be surprised if your rates increase at some point with little reasoning. Insurance carriers don't like people who are involved in accidents. Insurance rates are all abt risk and someone with an accident on their record when it wasn't their fault is viewed by carriers as a bigger risk than someone with no accidents.

If I were you, I'd stop talking about the situation. No reason to create a bigger footprint about the situation, even if its an "anonymous" Internet board.

Damn. I missed all of this. That will teach me to go to a strip club.

Couldn't the argument be made that since the friend wasn't suppose to be driving, the bus driver was somehow not at fault. Thus fraud? I'm just speculating, I already said I don't think switching was that big a deal.

"A friend of mine whose mother passed in a nursing home received 4 or 5 calls from lawyers a few months after it happened trying to persuade him to go after the nursing the home (she was in her late 80's and died naturally)."

That's slimy as fuck!

SuperDude & kg, I use a dummy email address for this site, if that makes any difference.

I wish you guys could see the PM Alucard just sent me! OMG! I'm in a good mood right now, but damn if I wasn't that might've hurt a little bit. lol

What did I even do to you, Alucard, for you to keep calling me names and wishing jail time on me? lol You do realize jail could ruin my young life, right?

Filing a false police report is still something of a problem. It may land him in court.

No, because the fact that the friend has a suspended license has nothing to do with how the accident happened. The proximate cause of the accident was the bus drivers negligence, not the lack of a license by the non-negligent driver.

I say if alutard is sending harassing PMs he has crossed the decency (not to mention sanity) line with IMPUNITY! Go ahead and post publicly for all the works see. Will be comical to watch the little fucktard flip out over it too.

I say if alutard is sending harassing PMs he has crossed the decency (not to mention sanity) line with IMPUNITY! Go ahead and post publicly for all the works see. Will be comical to watch the little fucktard flip out over it too.

No, that's not a significant difference. There are IT companies that specialize in finding info online that are used by law firms, insurance carriers, govt agencies, etc, regularly. If I hired the company I use on this case, I can promise you I would expect them to find this post and they almost assuredly would. They are good at their jobs. And frankly, there almost assuredly are no other similar accidents in and around Atlanta recently. A school bus backing into a car is not a normal fact pattern. They mine the Internet for info, find this post, and you can deny the username/email is yours all you want, but nobody is going to buy it.

I think that's been his plan from the start, Dougster: To get me to post the PM's so he can play the victim and get sympathy from the members. I mean the guy put me on ignore in December, yet he's sent me 9 PM's this month. I won't even give him the satisfaction...not yet, anyway.

That's interesting, kg. Makes me wonder why there hasn't been any raids on my favorite club with all the explicit reviews of prostitution. I probably should stop talking about it though.

Going back to the discussion between Doug & Che:

Would Alucard be an example of a "megalomaniacal hypocrite" with how he wants me arrested for switching seats with the driver (which is a crime) while him engaging in illegal prostitution (which is also a crime) is perfectly fine? He must consider himself immune to any charges, right? He even went as far as recommending a sex act to a fellow member here:

*Alucards profile* "I like reading, movies → [2350+ DVDs/Blu-Rays] & computers and, of course ideally → absolutely SCORCHING HOT 8+ {in terms of Looks & Body & Personality} Adult Spinner Dancers who have NO GAG reflex & provide EXPERT "Wet & Crazy Wild" Deep Throat BBBJCIMWS [You should REALLY learn to love BBBJCIMWS jerikson40, they're AMAZING!!!]"

"That's a CRIME!"

I don't want you to get caught though, Alucard.

-Stax Van Helsing

I think he was sexually harassing jerikson40, too.

Robs don't care so neither should you. It was the accident and the insurance money can still help your friend's car. Besides, how did you not get whiplash? If you were both in the correct seats and your friend didn't have a suspended license, you still would have gotten one third of what your getting regardless.

And the "stuff" you say in posts to members is NOT harassment Dougster? Can't have it both ways, no matter how much gobbledygook you say in a reply.

Alutard: the subject is whether it is okay to make harassing PMs public or not. Posts, including harrsssing ones, are already public. Please try and keep up, hard as this may be on your little pea-brain.

Esta, that's also a valid point. I guess I just got lucky with the whiplash thing.

Alucard, in response the multiple PM's you just sent me:

I still don't want you or anyone else to get caught.

If you have an issue with deogel, T.dice, & Dougster (he said he wishes Yoda were miderator here so he could ban us), you should balls up and address them directly. Yoda can't save you here. Maybe you should follow his lead and take your pink to the pink site.

I'm not gonna put you on ignore. I'm not gonna put anyone on ignore. I just find it funny that you've had me on ignore for a month but you've sent me 12 PM's and counting.

Stax just thank about karma.......golden rule playa.......thank about it

@stax: I believe that Che was alluding to alutard when he made he mentioned "meglamaniacal" above. I, OTOH, don't believe that alutard has ever said that legal and ethical are equivalent. I don't think he would either, because it's so obvious that since he does illegal things, he would be calling himself unethical. And it's his greatest fear that people see through his act, and realize just what an unethical person he is.

Now, I will say this. alutard is so blind to his own faults, that Che could very well be right if he was alluding to alutard as "meglamanical". Blatant hypocrisy has never bothered alutard before when he is judging others before. He is simply blind to his own fault to the point that seeing something in someone else, or even just imagining he sees it, means it couldn't possibly exist in him as well. That would certainly make him "meglamanical". I'm just not sure the logic to get there is airtight, unless alutard did say that "legal" and "ethical" are synonyms.

I doubt you are 100% legal Dougster. I'm constantly laughing at all your wild and ridiculous claims about me. Talk about judging, you sure do a lot of that, so what label should be pinned on you? What you are calling me is appropriate - megalomaniacal.

A definition:
1. A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
Fits you to a "T".

And learn how to spell big words too Dougster. it is megalomaniacal, NOT meglamanical!

I don't try to cast myself as a hero like you do alutard. Yes, I'm the bad guy. I have and will continue to fully admit it.

Now I'll ask you this, who is the hypocrite? Is it

a) The guy who tries to cast himself as hero (and most others who do the same as the villain) when he pays hookers for sex, because he claims he is one of the few who truly respects them, that they actually enjoy having sex for money with him and that respect him. (These are your claims)

Or is it

b) The guy who admits that, at the end of day, people who pay hookers for sex do not ultimately respect them? These people would not want their own daughters to be doing that, and would have no problem seeing then that those paying them for sex do not respect them. The respecters would not pay them at all. This person claims our actions show that none of us are good guys here as demonstrated by our actual actions rather than my our words or what we want others to think about ourselves. (These are my beliefs.)

I think people will pretty obviously see it's a) as the hypocrite in this situation. If a person "good when I do it, bad when you do" that is hypocrisy. If a person says "bad for both of us", that is just being down to earth.

Now as for the accuracy of my observations about you, I think they hit pretty close to the mark. I also think you are starting to realize how much they do, and finally starting to see that your act is not fooling anyone here. That is why you are lashing out at me here and calling me "meglamanical".

I guess in your mind anyone claiming to be able to see through your oh so, elaborate act but think he has accomplished so some of grand feat, right? Hardly.

Most everyone sees through you now. It's no "grand feat". It's actually something very easy to do. I just don't mind expressing what others (now most people) do see through you as.

Stax I've been thanking...look dude Fuck karma and that goddamn golden rule Shit and take that money and club your fu kin ass off.....juice crew !!!!

If you can't lie like a pro forget about the cash.

TUSCL is infiltrating my dreams!

Had a dream I got into a car accident last night. Turn off the freeway, and I am going down this long windy road to toward the ocean. There's this slow truck in front of me which I think finally speeds away. So I speed up, but hit a turn fast, and off the road I go. Think I am going to end up in the ocean, but there is this sand dune apparently constructed to catch people who take that turn too fast.

Anyone (alutard?) care to interpret that dream?

@staxwell,

Irrespective of whether or not you or your friend benefits from the accident over and above the cost of his vehicle repair, if *you* are represented in official paperwork as the driver of the vehicle when you were not in fact driving, that *will* be construed as fraud by the insurance company, if they ever find out. It will likely then result in denial of the claim, even though that company's client is undeniably at fault, and criminal prosecution.

The insurance company won't *care* that he and you are not claiming anything more than would be your due if you hadn't switched, and likely neither will a court if it every comes to that. You lied, and that gives them legal grounds to deny the claim. Period.

Any other supposition is wishful thinking.

Well stated George.

This whole conversation begins and ENDS with the fact you mis-represented yourself as the driver. Now it's best to let sleeping dogs lie.

Some seem to be saying switching seats doesn't matter because it's still negligence on the part if the bus driver.

Ok, let's assume that's true. The fact remains no one was injured. Sure, the damages to the car will be paid, but do you think the insurance company is just going to write you a fat check because a "whip lash center" said you sufferered an injury?

You don't think they will need an independent second opinion? The insurance adjusters just didn't fall off of the turnip truck - I think they've seen this a time or two.

Juice! Juice! Juice!

Alright guys, it's done. I told the lawyer I want to pass on it. I don't wanna get in any deeper. I'm out.

Karma, juice. Besides, I would've felt too guilty about it. I'm an honest guy for the most part.

Thanks for all the comments, guys. I'm always learning something from you guys.

And remember:

"Everything written on this site should be considered a work of fiction."

@MH when I said it wasn't fraud I meant just the seat switching.

@OP you can't be totally sure you don't actually have whiplash. Head rests are required in cars to stop your head from snapping back on a rear impact. Did your head snap forward when the bus hit you all? I don't know if the symptoms from whiplash always show up immediately or if they can (really) show up later.

ilbbaicnl, Just a little bit. More of a jerk than a snap.

One more question:

So the seat switching was wrong, right? What if you guys were in a situation where your life long friend (who has been there for you in the past) needed you to lie to a cop for him/her? Would you do it? <---(If it's not hurting anyone else of course.)

Hell yes in a heart beat....you did right Stax you did right

Yes. Sometimes lying is the most ethical thing to do. You aced the situation ethically IMO. Go out a fuck a stripper to celebrate!

Take the money and give it to your friend so he could catch up on his child support payments.

I'm actually a bit surprised that some of the people that are ethically or morally opposed to taking the money don't have a problem with engaging in prostitution, cheating on their wives, or taking advantage of girls in less than ideal situations for their own sexual goals.

Thanks, Juice.

Dougster, I'm getting ready to do that right now. lol

mas0n, welcome to TUSCL.

That's because, mas0n, some of us don't see anything *ethically* wrong with prostitution, aren't cheating on our wives, and aren't taking any more "advantage" of anybody than any customer takes advantage of a service provider.

Prostitution itself, while illegal, isn't any more immoral or unethical than any other human interaction that occurs between consenting adults.

My wife knows what I'm doing, and I never promised not to do it anyway, and doesn't object.

The girls I deal with are all adults, and as far as I can tell, able to decide what and what not to do for themselves. I'm not going to claim the none of them have ever been coerced, but *I* have never been the one doing it, and when I've been able to detect it, have terminated my involvement with that person.

Check your premises, assumptions and preconceptions at the door, my friend.

Gmd: "aren't taking any more 'advantage' of anybody than any customer takes advantage of a service provider."

Riiiight... And if it was your own daughter doing it you won't think guys were taking any more advantage of her than if they paying her to place stock trades for them. Got it!

I'm single so I'm not cheating on anyone.

While prostitution may be illegal, isn't it a so-called "victimless" crime. Insurance fraud, esp against a public school district, has countless victims. Poor argument, I know, but just sayin.

Dougster: In *my* daughter's case, that would be exactly correct. *She* would be the one taking advantage, not the customer. She's a shark, having taken certain other, less savory than me, family members' love of PT Barnum's catchphrase as a life goal.

If she decided to take up prostitution, I would expect her to own every politician in town before too long.

Well assuming your not "romaticizing" things as a father here, seems more like the exception than the rule. Even if they are the one's who end up taking more advantage than being taken advantage if, I don't think a job that gives them a supply of their own victims is good for them either.

She may be. I know her older sister wouldn't be able to handle it as well.

Bear in mind that it's not like I don't have plenty of qualms about prostitution as a profession. However, *ethics* is not one of them. The potential for victimization *is* high, no denying it. I can say with a high degree of confidence that *I* have not victimized anyone, and it's certain that I've never *knowingly* done so. Bargaining from a position of advantage is *not* victimization. That was the point of my comment.

The "some of us" part of my comment was intended to point out that there are some who are not victimizers, and that mas0n's attempt to characterize some of us as hypocrites wasn't necessarily valid in all cases. That's not to say that some posting here aren't such, of course, just that I ain't, and there are likely others who are not.

I haven’t read all the comments so I may be repeating someone else’s 2 cents.

The fact that you switched seats and gave a false report means you are already playing w/ fire – they say the cover-up, instead of the initial crime, is where many get caught . Also, many get caught when they get too greedy.

As others have said, the amount of $$$ is not worth the potential consequences. And the fact you got it ($$$) so easy; probably means you’ll blow it in the wink of an eye and not have much to show for it IMO.

BTW – you have balls posting illegal activity on here – I would not take the chance – that too is how many often get caught – i.e. talking about it.

And to address your "romaticizing[sic]" comment, not a bit of it. If it weren't for the DNA evidence (done for reasons completely unrelated to doubts about paternity), I'd swear she was actually not mine, but someone else's, considering how uncannily she is like him, physically *and* personality wise.

I agree, Papi.

100+ posts again...

@gmd: going to boil down to your definition of ethical. How do you personally go about determining what is ethical and what is not? Got an explicit rule for it?

Stax.....juice crew aproved

You get juices big balls awards

Dougster, I may be a little late but he can't fuxk a stripper for celebration because its not respectful of the dancer to do so for cash. Its all in thw white knight handbook I use so diligantly. Only those who truly come from a long list of supposed white knight lineage can ethically pay a stripper for sex and still be and give respect

Ok, ok. I see what I was missing. If you are a member of the "alutard crew" it is completely possible to pay hookers and still claim you respect them. Seems the keys are forming "emotional connections" with these hookers before you pay them $60 to cum in their mouths. Got it! How could I have missed that part all along? LMFAO!

@Dougster: "Got an explicit rule for it?"

As a matter of fact, I do. :) And it does, depend on my definition of ethical, which for me is a virtual synonym for "moral", with the addition that "ethics" carries with it a connotation of agreement about morality within a certain context, e.g. medical ethics. Unethical behaviour may not be immoral in a pure sense, but becomes so based on one's agreement or promise to keep certain rules. Make sense?

Morality boils down to a pretty simple principle for me, namely that *initiation* of force against another human being is immoral. Note the "initiation" part; applying force in response to force is perfectly moral. The wrongdoer is the one who initiated it.

That leads to some conclusions that many people find objectionable, such as:

Declining to give food to a starving child is *not* immoral. It may be douchebaggery, and might be unethical if one has made promises to do something like that, but it's not immoral in and of itself.

Stealing food from a rich, fat pig to feed your own starving child *is* immoral. Forget any nonsense about where the fat pig got the food too. Unless he stole it from *you*, thereby *initiating* the use of force, you're shit out of luck from a moral perspective. The fact that he might have stolen it from someone else does not give *you* a free pass.

Fraud falls more under the "ethics" umbrella. If we've agreed to so business, then there is the implied or express promise to tell the truth with regard to those things pertaining to our business. If one party lies about something material to the transaction, then that person can be considered to have initiated the use of force against the other by breaking that promise.

I'm sure I'll get a load of shit about this, along with reams of "what if" scenarios tha tcan be resolved with a few minutes thought by someone intellectually honest enough to apply a sime principle, but that's it in a nutshell.

Oh dougster my good man. We have much to teach you. But first shall we get you a some white armor to show your appreciation for the arts?

@George I think your outlook would make a lot of sense if there were no governments and people were nomadic and lived off the land. In that situation, everyone has equal chance at resources. Relatively speaking, US society does the best of keeping to the principle that everyone should have an equal chance. But we still miss that goal by a lot. Even if people didn't try so hard to game the system in so many ways, it still would be hard to really give everybody an equal chance. I think there are some people who end up not being able to feed their kids properly, who would have been able to had they had a fair chance. So if they stole in that case, I'd have to say I can't condemn that.

@gmd: Sounds very Randian, although, IIRC, she didn't differentiate between "moral" and "ethical" like you do.

My main question about this is how do you know that "no initiating violence" defines exactly what is moral, i.e. how do you know you got exactly the right set of rules. There are three possibilities:

a) maybe there are some rules which you missed. e.g. by what criteria would you rule out "strong young men should generally help little old ladies who are having trouble opening the door"
b) at the other extreme, by what criteria do you know that "don't initiate violence" should be a rule at all?
c) the three possibility, which could actually be an application of a) and b) is by what criteria do you know your rule is the right and that it isn't something completely different, e.g. maybe the only moral rule should be "nobody but the Byzantine emperor gets to wear the imperial purple, but as long as you don't do that anything else goes"?

There's got to be some meta-rule to get to your rule, no?

Estafador: Maybe I should create a multiple alias, and practice trolling as a white knight to get some warm up?

Stealing is unlawful. If you get caught and convicted, you suffer the consequences. It is considered a crime no matter how much you try to involve ethics &/or morality.

@Dougster: "Sounds very Randian"

Yep. She and I disagree (OK, well, "disagreed") about a fair few specifics, but I think she got that part right.

@Dougster: "My main question about this is how do you know that "no initiating violence" defines exactly what is moral, i.e. how do you know you got exactly the right set of rules."

Yeah, first principles are a bitch, aren't they? :)

For me, it hinges on the principle that the Founding Fathers put so well (note, they never claimed to have *created* it, they just put it into words so well) in the Declaration: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

For me, that means that my life is my own, belonging to no one else, and everyone else's life is *their* own, belonging to no one else. I and I alone have the right to determine it's course, and the same is true for everyone else. I have no right to another person's life, and they have no right to mine.

The rights I have are mine because I am a human being, not because the government gave them to me, not because I happen to live in the United States, and not because everybody is being nice and letting me have them. They were granted by no human agency (irrespective of what form "Creator" takes for any given individual, whether it be God, Yahweh, Allah, Chronos, Pan, Gaea, or the random firing of quantum events), and can't be revoked by any human agency. They can certainly be violated, but not taken away.

From there, initiating the use of force becomes immoral because it's an attempt to take over or direct the life of another person, a life to which the person initiating the force, by definition, since it's not his own, has no right.

Long winded philosophical discussions on a strip club website. Who'd'a thunk it?

@che: I think what you are saying is very close to true, but I would modify it for explaining "is" anyway to "my DNA first". ("Ought" is probably something that doesn't ultimately make sense anyway. Just like "free will" doesn't. But we still have to write and enforce laws for society and talk as if they do. :-) )

@gmd: still seems like an arbitrary choice to me. Also, it explains why you consider it immoral to initiate force against others, but it doesn't explain why there are any restrictions on yourself. They might consider it immoral, but so what? Some also consider prostitution immoral. They might say you are a hypocrite but so what? Why should your set of morals have to be the same as everyone else's?

@Dougster, "Also, it explains why you consider it immoral to initiate force against others, but it doesn't explain why there are any restrictions on yourself."

The restrictions are self-imposed, based on what I believe to be the moral thing to do. *All* behavior is ultimately self-imposed, after all. Some people just do any imposition.

I want others to think like I do. The best way to do that is to show them why I think it's the right thing to do.

It pretty much all boils down to whether or not you accept that my life is my own. If you don't, then you and I are never going to be able to come to terms. I personally believe this simple fact to be true, and I can find no compelling evidence that it is not.

@Dougster: "Some also consider prostitution immoral. They might say you are a hypocrite but so what?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that someone else's opinion negates mine?