Michigan cops may soon be barred from having sex with prostitutes while undercover.

[Darththeo]

Take it up with the dictionary.

I have ... it seems you haven't.

Seriously, nowhere does it even suggest in the dictionary that influence is anything about excluding force even generally. Again, you are using PHYSICAL force to remove ALL types. Seriously, not all force is a fucking threat "Do this or I'll harm you" or a bride "do this, and I'll reward you." If you are guiding someone to do something they are not willing to do on their one ... that's forcing them. And nothing in the dictionary fucking agrees with you. The dictionary doesn't disagree with you either as it doesn't specifically mention force outside of noun form in the definition of influence.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure I understand.

At what point is a cop required to have sex with a prostitute? Because I'm pretty damn sure the exchange of money for sex is all that is required for an arrest (if even that?).

Why was it legal to begin with?

If they are undercover, say in a drug ring, and the "boys" get him a prostitute ... he is legally allowed to have sex with them, before, in order to maintain cover.

[GreenJesus]

It's fine. Only "penetration" is banned now. Blowjobs are fine.

[Ehrenpanzer]

But oral is still ok?

Wheres Bill Clinton when you need him.....

[Mistame]

That's pretty much being pedantic. It's the "That's not the right word" argument ... even though, FYI, coerce, force, influence, etc .. are acceptable synonyms in this.

I was merely pointing out that the scope of what makes it entrapment is much more broad than what "force" covers, as most people don't use "force", "coerce" and "influence" interchangeably.

As far as being pedantic, I can do that if you want. After all, what makes influence become force or coercion is the potential for consequences.

[xGLxAnubis]

I'm not sure I understand.

At what point is a cop required to have sex with a prostitute? Because I'm pretty damn sure the exchange of money for sex is all that is required for an arrest (if even that?).

Why was it legal to begin with?

Whats to stop me from agreeing to have sex with you for money, then NOT actually have sex? (and simply leave. Scamming you.) Am I still a prostitute?

That type of situation is exactly why.

[Darththeo]

The problem here seems to be your absurdly broad view of what constitutes forcing someone. I never said all force is physical, but that doesn't mean any instance of affecting someone in some way to change how they'd be if you had never encountered them is force, which is the consequence of how you choose to (incorrectly) define it. Merely guiding someone is not forcing them.

I never said you said it, you implied it by your argument. And the dictionary agrees with my "absurdly broad view."

Seriously, show me any definition of influence that "generally" doesn't include force. If you use influence as a noun, force is a fucking synonym. It doesn't generally not excludes anything other than physical force. Seriously, you just have your preferred term and rather than accept yourself wrong, you blame me.

So where in this definition does it generally exclude force anywhere?

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/influence Tell me?

- - - Updated - - -

I was merely pointing out that the scope of what makes it entrapment is much more broad than what "force" covers, as most people don't use "force", "coerce" and "influence" interchangeably.

As far as being pedantic, I can do that if you want. After all, what makes influence become force or coercion is the potential for consequences.

That's literally admitted to being pedantic in the first place. And most people I know do ... UNLESS talking in a legal setting ... so yeah, don't do that most people shit because EVERYONE can say shit like that.

Once of the definitions of force is literally:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force?s=t

4.power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power:

You are disagreeing because I used a different acceptable definition of a word and correcting me on what you believe is more correct. The only thing you can really get me on is I should have said if they use force rather than just use the verb.

[Hiricine]

This is an atrocity. How else are men supposed to legally have sex with prostitutes in Michigan.

[stevan021]

This is actually fairly common in vice units in police departments. They buy hookers, bang them, then arrest them. Not only do they get laid, but the taxpayers foot the bill for that shit, and they arrest people. Not only is it the pinnacle of hypocrisy, but it is downright oppressive, and fiscally irresponsible.

This is exactly why prostitution, as well as all other victimless crimes, should be legal.

My money goes on prostitution going up if this law passes. They lose a strong incentive to pursue criminals (prostitutes) and it is something I am always against.

Either decriminalize prostitution (best solution imo) or just leave it as is if you're SO against it lol

[Dispraise]

Let me guess.... it was a Republican who purposed this backward bill. Yep, it was.
The party of small government really likes to have the government come and dictate what you do in your bed.

Are you... seriously arguing in favor of cops abusing their power to bang hookers on the job? While investigating them for criminal offenses, no less? This is a sign of Republican hypocrisy to you?

Dear fucking lord.

[Mistame]

That's literally admitted to being pedantic in the first place.

Um, no it's not. That's like saying something is blue when it's purple then saying that someone who corrects you is being pedantic because there is blue in purple. Intent matters and I explained mine.

And most people I know do ... UNLESS talking in a legal setting ... so yeah, don't do that most people shit because EVERYONE can say shit like that.

Actually, in the case of "coerce" and "force" you're probably correct. But again, "influence" has a much broader scope. If you're at a restaurant, the server asks if you'd like dessert and you decline but change your mind when they bring a sample out and you see or smell it, they've influenced you but they have not forced you.

Likewise, if an officer is undercover, comes up to some guy at a hotel bar bar and starts flirting, etc, uses his arousal to get him to agree to an exchange, that's entrapment but she didn't force him to comply, she merely influenced his decision.

As Nixx said, you seem to have too broad of a scope on force. While any type of force is a type of influence, not every type of influence is a type of force. In fact, to keep it simple: Force is a derivative of influence, not the other way around.

Once of the definitions of force is literally:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/force?s=t

4.power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power:

You are disagreeing because I used a different acceptable definition of a word and correcting me on what you believe is more correct. The only thing you can really get me on is I should have said if they use force rather than just use the verb.

Aside from you using (admittedly) the noun form of the word's definition, the context isn't even remotely relevant. I'm not sure why you're taking offense at a clarification to begin with. It's silly.

[Rampant Rabbit]

So, the way to test if someone in your gang is a cop will be to get a prostitute for them...

Bullshit. There are plenty of reasons to deny to fuck a prostitute, and besides, I think the court would rule a bit differently if the cop was told to do it at gunpoint.

[Darththeo]

I didn't imply it with my argument. That's a fantastic invention of your own imagination, which seems to be a common problem here.

At best you're showing that "influence" is a broader term than "force," (which isn't really at odds with what I originally said, the oddness of using it to mean "force" notwithstanding), which means he still wasn't being pedantic when he corrected you to expand the scope of it and you've been unreasonable this entire time. Frankly, your post and subsequent posts seems like an attempt on your part to hide behind equivocation.

No, it is an attempt to show you two that you are the ones mistaken in your correction of me. It is pet peeve when someone "corrects me" when they aren't right in their stance.

[Darththeo]

Um, no it's not. That's like saying something is blue when it's purple then saying that someone who corrects you is being pedantic because there is blue in purple. Intent matters and I explained mine.

Do I need to buy you a dictionary?

Actually, in the case of "coerce" and "force" you're probably correct. But again, "influence" has a much broader scope. If you're at a restaurant, the server asks if you'd like dessert and you decline but change your mind when they bring a sample out and you see or smell it, they've influenced you but they have not forced you.

Likewise, if an officer is undercover, comes up to some guy at a hotel bar bar and starts flirting, etc, uses his arousal to get him to agree to an exchange, that's entrapment but she didn't force him to comply, she merely influenced his decision.

Ask the guy's lawyer in that case if he was or wasn't forced.

As Nixx said, you seem to have too broad of a scope on force. While any type of force is a type of influence, not every type of influence is a type of force. In fact, to keep it simple: Force is a derivative of influence, not the other way around.

Still think you aren't being pedantic? This is literally the same as you above example. Do you not understand common language vs formal? Force is acceptable, yes you find it to be too broad. Who the fuck cares? Most people will not object to using the word force here unless talking in the legal sense.

Aside from you using (admittedly) the noun form of the word's definition, the context isn't even remotely relevant. I'm not sure why you're taking offense at a clarification to begin with. It's silly.

Because your clarification was 1) Unwarranted and 2) Didn't clarify shit because you are just going "I disagree with your word choice" when my word choice isn't incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

It's an exceptionally poor attempt.

Take it up with the dictionary. You still haven't

[slime]

I mean.. sure if it is just some kinda sting then there is no need for this... they should not be having sex with them lol.
I can only really see a legit reason for having sex with a prostitute as an undercover agent if you are trying to bust a whole operation and it's to get you in as a regular customer. If it's for the greater good, then I can see a use for this.

[Darththeo]

I did, thus I said you were equivocating.

Except I have not done so. But you are entitled to be wrong.

I don't think you understand that word.

[Darththeo]

I don't think you understand "force" and "influence" either, yet here we are.

I do, but you don't accept that people use those words as fucking synonyms. You don't want to understand the dictionary supports me (doesn't discount yours), but all you have is "this word would be better" not "my word is wrong." Do you not get the concept?

[Darththeo]

You either used a word that was too narrow or a word that was too broad and in a really awkward and unusual way to boot. I don't really care which, but it's really silly of you to have thrown a fit over someone being "pedantic" when the problem was your construction and word choice and the expression, as stated, was wrong in either case. I mean you started talking about physical force the moment Mistame said anything, even though it's doubtful he was talking about physical force, as opposed to coercion, and your entire argument since them has stemmed from that interpretation.

Anyway, I'm done.

And in the end, you prove me right ... good day.

[Mistame]

Do I need to buy you a dictionary?

That's not necessary. Just loan me yours when you're done with it. I realize it'll be awhile, but I can wait.

Ask the guy's lawyer in that case if he was or wasn't forced.

If the guy's lawyer in that scenario claims he was "forced", then he's using that word wrong. But it is entrapment regardless.

Still think you aren't being pedantic?

I wasn't in my original post. I am now and doing so intentionally because you're whining about a clarification.

Do you not understand common language vs formal?

Do you not understand how context works?

Force is acceptable, yes you find it to be too broad.

On the contrary, I specifically stated that "force" isn't broad enough, as it implies that it's only entrapment if the subject is coerced. Even in an informal context, the average person would take it that way, hence my clarification. So rather than getting bent out of shape over what you view as pedantry, trying actually learning how words work first.

[Darththeo]

That's not necessary. Just loan me yours when you're done with it. I realize it'll be awhile, but I can wait.

Clearly you can't.

If the guy's lawyer in that scenario claims he was "forced", then he's using that word wrong. But it is entrapment regardless.

In your world, yes. In the real world, no. Your opinion isn't fact.

I wasn't in my original post. I am now and doing so intentionally because you're whining about a clarification.

Except you were, and don't care that you were. You are literally clarifying because you prefer a different word choice.

Do you not understand how context works?

Yes, which is why I asked my question to you. This is a video game message board ... not a court. The use of the word force over influence is perfectly acceptable in this context. You disagree that's fine, but just because you disagree doesn't make you right.

On the contrary, I specifically stated that "force" isn't broad enough, as it implies that it's only entrapment if the subject is coerced. Even in an informal context, the average person would take it that way, hence my clarification. So rather than getting bent out of shape over what you view as pedantry, trying actually learning how words work first.

And influence isn't correct either because it has to be intentional influence and not passive. The cop has to be aware he is leading someone to do something they wouldn't have otherwise. I used force because get this implies an action done by the cop rather than influence that can be unintentionally. You can influence a person without your knowledge so influence isn't any more correct.

You tell me I don't know how words work, clearly that's just projection on your part. It isn't just influence, but intentional influence ... hence the use of the word force. Seriously, if you don't see how you can't see you have been pedantic this entire time. Most people would understand and you did what you did to flaunt your intelligence. You're pedantic ... and you justification of how you were is proof you were.

[Mistame]

In your world, yes. In the real world, no. Your opinion isn't fact.

In no world is "positive" influence "force". Her flirting with him, etc, to get him to acquiesce is not "force" in any context. Both "force" and "coerce" imply a factor of consequence/duress. "Influence" does not inherently imply that factor, unless it's actually escalated to coercion or force.

Except you were, and don't care that you were.

You're merely making that claim to justify your infantile panty-bunching.

The use of the word force over influence is perfectly acceptable in this context.

"Acceptable", but not accurate.

And influence isn't correct either because it has to be intentional influence and not passive. The cop has to be aware he is leading someone to do something they wouldn't have otherwise.

Obviously. This really isn't relevant to the point, though.

I used force because get this implies an action done by the cop rather than influence that can be unintentionally.

Again, "force" implies influencing someone to do something against their will, under duress. Influencing someone to choose to do something of their own free will is not force.