Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #681
Again, I fucking understand what the current situation is.
I am saying I disagree with it. How damn hard is it for you to understand that?
Whether or not their drunk, if a person says yes, they say yes. Or should be able to be held to that yes.
In my opinion. I understand that isn't the law. Hell, everyone in this thread understands that is the law: everyone that is speaking against it is saying it should not be this way, not that it is not this way.
If a person, who is under the influence, agrees to supply minors with alcohol, is he good to go, or is he able to be charged with providing minors in possession?
If you answer yes, I hate you.
My argument is not that it isn't this way, it is that it should not be this way.
Sorry I came back, but you seem to have misunderstood, so I needed to clarify. Maybe this time I can stay away?
-
-
You're putting words in my mouth Trogdon, like you have done to every single person you disagreed with so far. I never said "most rapes are girls throwing themselves at guys". The majority of reported rapes are legitimate, but you cannot assume that, because 9/10 cases are truly guilty, it is safe to assume guilt every time. As they say, Justice is blind.
And Trogdon, you are one of the last posters that should be lecturing people on thinking skills, let alone debating skills...
-
Morality and laws do not completely mix. If you think that your set of morals is the right one and everyone should be forced to live by your morals at risk of jail, you are an arrogant fool. I think it is immoral to verbally bully someone because they made a mistake, yet this should not be illegal. I think it is immoral to disregard the feelings of others, only think of yourself and to help yourself at the misfortune of others, though this should not be illegal. I do not believe taking advantage of someone is grounds for illegal actions, afterall, is it not taking advantage of someone if you give them a loan because they don't have the money and you charge them interest? Their judgement is being clouded by risk of many things, going bankrupt, becoming homeless, etc. Yet this isn't illegal. Is it not taking advantage to pay an employee minimum wage because you know they cannot get another job? This is taaking advantage of their situation for your own gain.
Are you suggesting that the mentally retarded should not be able to have sex? Ae you seriously so arrogant that you believe their decisions are worthless and that you know what is best for them?
"Oh you said yes? So what, your decision is worthless. You are impaired and so I must decide for you."
-
yes please do, and stop using analogies
you cannot compare these things to rape. they simply aren't the same, the same set of laws should not exist for them. rape is a gender specific crime, one pretty much every time perpetrated by men, against another. rape is not just a slip-up, it is a serious issue. it's more serious than selling alcohol to minors, than driving drunk, or any other analogies used. it's not the same thing, and no matter how much you compare them, it will not be the same. if you do not understand why this difference should exist, then you do not understand the ramifications of rape. i'll admit it's a difficult concept, but it is not at all like other crime. there is a reason why law disparity exists and why you are responsible for the analogies you have used, and not responsible for engaging in sexual intercourse with someone in a much better state of mind than you.
you mean like, use trails or something so we can find out if a rape was legitimate??
-
I agree with the second part that the majority of perpetrators of rape are men, but to suggest that it is gender specific is wrong.
-
no i think he's saying if you approached a mentally retarded person you just met and had sex with them it would be taking advantage of them. because that's what happened here, it was someone they just met. surely mentally retarded can have sex if there is an actual mutual romantic interest, he's definitely not arguing that
Edited:
it's gender specific in that it is perpetrated by men. that's what i meant.
-
Why would that make a difference? If this person used deception to get the mentally retarded person to sleep with them, then yes, it would and should be illegal, as it also is when a person is not impaired. I don't see how it is up to you to decide for the mentally retarded person "Your consent does not count unless you have gone on 5 dates with this person (or some other arbitrary number)."
-
so wait now you're supporting consent in those with mental disorders but not in those who have substance induced mental disorders? quite the double standard pal.
-
it has nothing to do with an arbitrary number, he is just saying if you use deception then it should be illegal. i'm sure he doesn't oppose mentally retarded people having sex, but th it's easier to deceive people with less mental prowess. just imagine the girl in this scenario being swapped with a mentally retarded girl, would that make your views on it different?
-
What? Where did you get that idea from?
I'm saying that consent by a mentally retarded person is consent the same, as it is when from a person impaired by alcohol. If you're talking about the deceipt bit I believe that if any deceipt is used to get someone to give consent, whether sober, mentally retarded, or impaired by a drug, it is and should be illegal.
-
Nope. if the drunken state was replaced with a mental illness it wouldn't really change anything, your point?
-
You're right, I concede. Someone who's drunk out their mind should be able to give consent, I mean after all they did it to themselves right? They deserve to be taken advantage of, it's their fault. They put themselves in the position. While they're at it, they probably should've dressed more conservatively if they didnt want anything to happen to them. They also wouldn't have acted that way if they didn't want someone to have sex with them.
That's the archaeic though process that people who wind up committing sexual assault think.
-
Again, you are right that the majority of perpetrators are men, but it is not perpetrated exclusively by men.
Where did I say that a drunken person in ANY state can give consent? As long as they have the ability to say no, or stop the sex, then it would be consensual if they agree to have sex.
Where did I also say that someone should dress more conservative to stop being raped?
-
well the majority is so vast that you can basically discount the rest, when you are looking at statistics of upwards of 90% males that kind of shows something here.
why do you think they have the ability to say nor or to stop the sex? do you think she had the ability to say no or to stop it? do you think not drunk women have the power to say no or stop sex that is currently happening?
-
But, as best I can tell, it isn't rape.
No it isn't.
Yea, men are the majority rapist. But only the majority.
I agree.
Driving drunk is debatable- it all depends on what happens before, during and after the driving episode.
And I agree, most everything is more serious than selling alcohol to minors- I would have no fun in life if people didn't do that (bit of exaggeration- less fun).
BUT this whole time we're being told to find an analogy that includes consent, and then I bring one forth and it is deterred for a whole different reason? Suddenly we're not serious enough! Back to the lack-of-consent-having analogies! (This was a bit of a jibe, I hope it doesn't degrade my credibility too much)
Nothing is the same thing. I know they are not the same.
But the important variables line up, which make them comparable.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent of one party, correct?
Assuming you answered yes: both parties had consented. You assume, we assume, we have to assume, that Evans had taken advantage in this scenario.
I don't think that is the case, but I don't really know.
I am going off the fact that there are no typical signs of rape. She wasn't, presumably, drugged.
She wasn't forced. It is said she was inviting to the act. And so, unless the footballers are lying, which, they admitted to the intercourse, so I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, it was consensual as far as Evans could see.
It's not a difficult concept. Rape is rape. Rape is traumatizing. I am sure of that.
Rape is horrible. I agree to that.
This thread's debate is not, "Should we support rape or not?"
Rather it's a simple debate between "Should people be held responsible for all they say and do?" with no true answer.
I don't doubt that there is a reason. But I think it should be taken into consideration, again, and, at least, re-written.
To what extent? I don't know.
Just desserts are not what we're arguing. It's just a fact.
I'm sorry, but if you keep telling us to use "inaccurate analogies," you need to do the same.
Edited:
The difference is, one guy acts under the impression he is allowed, where the other knows he is wrong.
-
no i just mean to keep analogies out of it, analogies really just differ the point and don't really solve much ever. and i understand that you don't see this as rape, but the jury does. they had more evidence than we did, and so according to law they have made the correct decision based upon variables that were presented to them in a trial. there's not really much more to it than that.
i think you see rape as something violent, which isn't always the case. it is taking advantage of other people, which is why one person was arrested, he took advantage of the girl.
-
Okay.
It was fun.
Now I am out.
-
This thread is still going?
-
unfortunately.
-
I agree that its generally irresponsible for men to approach women who are incredibly drunk (even if the man is also incredibly drunk) but this is really a case of "he said, she said" and there's no evidence to back up any statements.
The only clear facts here are that she got drunk and she had sex with him [/evidence]. Would a man get as much presumed innocence in the same situation? Shit like this really does nothing but reinforce cultural conceptions about gender competence. If she decided to get really drunk she must have been aware that getting drunk clouds your judgement.
Both parties made mistakes here, but these are not the sort of mistakes that should be punishable by a prisoner sentence for just one party.
Edited:
Holy shit, didn't realize how old this was.
-
Except there is other evidence.
-
okay, let's say there's a drunk guy. he got wasted completely of his own accord - he's stumbling around and his friends have lost him.
a stranger comes up to him and hassles him for his wallet. "give me your wallet, man," he says. giving in to the stranger's persuasive argument, the guy says "okay" and hands the stranger his wallet, promptly before throwing up.
let's also say a police officer saw this happen. does s/he step in and stop this stranger from taking the guy's wallet?
the answer is, of course he or she fucking does. now please try to relate what I just said to this case.
-
What about the hundreds of thousands of teenagers and young adults that visit clubbing and drinking resorts like in Ibiza and Maguluf (a.k.a Shaguluf, there should be a clue there) every year?
The normal thing people do when they go to these places is fill themselves up with cheap booze and have drunken sex, so is Ibiza basically a huge rape-fest where nearly everyone returns home either a rapist or a rape victim?
In fact some of my friends have slept with girls after parties or whatever while both they and the girl were drunk, they're not rapists are they?
It's just what young people do these days, and usually no one bats an eyelid. It's what drinking culture is like in the UK and in other countries (remember the phrase "Beer: helping ugly people get laid"?)
Do you think the majority of brits are misoginistic rapists?
I can't even watch post-watershed sitcoms without seeing at least one scene of people having sex while drunk, if that was actually rape I don't think they would be making such a joke about it...
I'm sure the government are well aware of all of this, yet they still say that drunken sex always implies rape. It doesn't make sense.
Whether deliberately taking advantage of a very drunk girl for sex when you're perfectly aware of what state she's in is rape is debatable, and spiking someone's drink in order to have sex with them is certainly rape,
but I can't get my mind around why so many people seem to think sex with a drunk person is always rape. It just seems naive and out of touch to think that imo
And to think that only men are capable of taking advantage of people's drunkness in order to have sex with them is patronising and nonsensical
Also why do some people assume someone (who might be slightly drunk themselves) having sex with a drunk always involves them taking advantage of the other person's drunkness and pressuring/forcing them into sex?
-
Again, in case you haven't read the thread there is a thing called reasonable belief. It basically means that if someone has significant reason to believe that the consent was valid than it is not considered rape. A couple examples of this would be if you had sex with someone who was drunk, but that person happened to be a regular sexual partner with you, or if you reasonably did not know that the person was drunk. Something that isn't an example of this is being sober and scoping out random strangers to find a drunk one to take advantage of.
Also nobody is charged with anything if both parties are drunk, which is very likely why the first man in this article was acquitted.
-
Further back in this thread there were people giving the impression that they believed sex with a drunk person is always rape since they cannot consent, the post I made was aimed more at them
-
Another person as well as them also got arrested for tweeting her name, which breaks the law that rape victims are allowed to be left anonymous indefinitely.
I guess theres obviously more to this case than we know, though, for example the CCTV footage they pulled up, eyewitness accounts and the video footage pulled off the guys phone at the window. If the judge came back guilty then they must have had good reason to think she was telling the truth.
What sucks here, though, is that there is probably a chance that they weren't necessarily acting out of maliciousness and were just trying to have a good time, and genuinely did not realise that she was considered too drunk to consent. What they did may be have been wrong, but do they deserve to be locked in prison for 5 years and lose their career over it? I'd say you would have to be pretty cold hearted to wish that on someone who isn't really a horrible person.
Maybe we ought to clear up the laws on alcohol and rape somehow to prevent things like this happening. I mean, she may have been considered 'too drunk to consent', but was she 'too drunk to resist'? The way I see it if she wasnt in a complete stupor and would have been able to try and stop them if she had wanted at the time then it shouldnt really be considered rape, more so if the other parties were under the influence too.
-
However, it's word against word, and since she can't remember anything she can't really make a statement that can be considered any sort of evidence.
-
But the camera footage and witnesses can be considered evidence.
Dumb x 2
Funny x 1
Disagree x 2
Winner x 1
Agree x 1
Friendly x 1
Informative x 1
