Thread: Only in Nevada?

I had to do a double-take at this headline:
Lance Gilman, Nevada Brothel Owner, Wins Storey County Commissioner Race
Is this the new community business model?

Fits right in with the all the other prostitutes elected to public office. Isn't screwing the tax payers what it's all about?

Well, as my father says, "the voter gets what they deserve."

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Well, as my father says, "the voter gets what they deserve."

Yea, but it's getting so bad they don't even pretend to kiss you first anymore.

Bob

Better yet is the fact that in mediaeval London, the biggest pimp of them all was the Bishop of Winchester. Most of London's sex trade was located on the south side of the Thames. And most of the land there was held from (and therefore rent was paid to) the Bishop of Winchester. For a fair chunk of the period, the good bishop controlled the bulk of the trade in London.

Anyway... back to Nevada.

Is there some issue here? He's a good honest business man and pays plenty in taxes and probably in a depressed part of the state contributes more in revenue than most.

Originally Posted by Cangooner

Better yet is the fact that in mediaeval London, the biggest pimp of them all was the Bishop of Winchester. Most of London's sex trade was located on the south side of the Thames. And most of the land there was held from (and therefore rent was paid to) the Bishop of Winchester. For a fair chunk of the period, the good bishop controlled the bulk of the trade in London.

Anyway... back to Nevada.

I don't know the specifics, but land ownership does not automatically mean culpability.

If someone owns an apartment complex in which a number of tenants run a brothel, that does not make him complicit.
Owning large pieces of estate means that there's always someone committing some crime or other on your properties. And if those properties are rented, you profit from the crime, but as I said, it des not make one a criminal.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I don't know the specifics, but land ownership does not automatically mean culpability.

If someone owns an apartment complex in which a number of tenants run a brothel, that does not make him complicit.
Owning large pieces of estate means that there's always someone committing some crime or other on your properties. And if those properties are rented, you profit from the crime, but as I said, it des not make one a criminal.

There was nothing at all criminal in that case. It is just something that tends to strike modern readers as odd. The bishops profitted directly from the brothels, but it was their right to do so. Any sense of outrage or shock about the situation is the result of us imposing our contemporary morality on past society. To contemporaries it was just how things were.