| I think that unless you can prove you were "forced to take the drug or alcohol" you should be held accountable for any actions you do while under the influence. Whether this is drinking in driving, starting a fight, or having sex. It is no secret that Alcohol and Drugs can impair one's judgement, so I don't think it is valid to claim "you didn't give consent because you were drunk and made a decision you would not have made otherwise". If laws like this continue to pass, the idea that one is "not responsible for their actions while intoxicated" will keep on being confirmed. At that point why even have a legal drinking age? The whole point of the drinking age requirement is that people should wait until they are mature enough to consume a substance like alcohol and understand the consequences that come with doing so. So this idea that you can escape the consequences of the choice you made (getting drunk or intoxicated through other means than alcohol) contradicts any rationale behind not allowing 10 year olds to drink alcohol. If people are so immature that they get wasted and don't want to take responsibility for their own actions while intoxicated (as pointed out, even a 5 year old will know that alcohol will impair your judgement), and have the law makers back them up, I begin to question the drinking age requirement in the first place. |
 |
| Also, about alcohol again, how come driving while inebriated is illegal and it is the fault of the inebriated that he was driving? Here it seems the one that is inebriated is the one that is at fault, but his judgement is impaired right? Shouldn't it be the same with this case then? It's not the drivers fault if we follow the drunk rape logic. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: One could draw a closer anology to buying things while intoxicated. It is true that you gave consent to pay for something but shouldn't they have to prove you weren't drunk? Is it fair to charge you for a $20 meal after a night of drinking at bars? You only consented to paying it because you were inebriated, there are plenty of things I wouldn't have bought if I was sober. I mean who goes to a sit down restaurant at 2:00 AM? If I wasn't out drinking I would have been asleep, and obviously not bought that meal. I do feel that if one is okay, then the other should be okay too, since it uses the same reasoning, certainly one could argue not on the same scale, but . . . I really want all that money I waste while drunk back.Also, about alcohol again, how come driving while inebriated is illegal and it is the fault of the inebriated that he was driving? Here it seems the one that is inebriated is the one that is at fault, but his judgement is impaired right? Shouldn't it be the same with this case then? It's not the drivers fault if we follow the drunk rape logic. |
|
Blackout0219 said: Now if she ripped your clothes and told you "fuck me" - That's consent Unless she has no memory of it in the morning, then its rape? ¯(°_o)/¯ |
 |
you drank and you drove, that's illegal you drank and you had sex, that's your fault, the same with how the driver is at fault.you just can't have sex with someone who is so drunk they can't even get up from the floor and talk. It was their choice to drink and to say "yes".What is your point here? Are you trying to prove that all women who claim rape after being drunk are lying bitches? Most of them are, yes.Read the last study I linked you about repeated rapists who intoxicate victims Did they force the alcohol down their throats? Also, you do know I've already showed you proof on how "date rape" drugs are bullshit, it's in the video I sent. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Blackout0219 said: According to the UK's stupid laws apparently yes. But the rest of the world doesn't have the same law. Not yet anyhow. The reason im pointing out the holes in such a thing is because rape laws are hard to get right because what happens between two people alone is literally going to come down to flimsy surrounding testimonies of people before they disappeared together and both parties word against the other. The problem with introducing laws like this is that it swings the benefit towards the woman without giving the man any kind of chance and also noted how it didn't even mention gender neutrality its directly linked towards a male rapist and a female victim. Now the his word against hers is going to be stacked in a woman's favor. This was meant to help more women come forward and increase sentences but its not legal or shouldn't be because it works on no evidence. Its accepting hear say as proof. In short, its all fucked up. |
|
Blackout0219 said: The only reason people oppose laws is because it makes them disadvantaged. No. |
|
| I dont understand why schools dont explain the law in greater detail especially for things like this, because unless you know a lawyer the chances of you understanding the way to avoid doing "rape" is extremely low. |
| I've been here way too long... |
satanswife said: JonyJC said: Please sign this consent form before I shove my dick in there must be the biggest turn of ever. Hahahahah I also make girls wear a seatbelt. |
Except that if you don't consent it's rape. Implying I didn't imply the person in question consented while drunk.Lol, if you think having sex with someone who can barely react and doesn't know what's happening is ok, then pity you, it's your problem. I take it the reason you are so upset about rape drunk laws is because it's the only method for you to have sex - The only reason people oppose laws is because it makes them disadvantaged. I'm against Uganda's killing homosexuals laws, I might be homosexual. Durrrrrr. I'm against the death penalty because I'm going to get the death penalty. Durrrrr. Oh, and who's at fault for not being able to react? Also, how do you know when someone is so drunk to not be able to "react"? How will you explain that to the police, with what proof? BTW, saying yes while not being aware of what's happening is not really a yes - You don't have to be genius to see someone is clearly not aware of his/her surroundings, you don't have to be a doctor to know someone is so drunk that they don't even know who's holding their shoulder. You are basically saying that we should be entitled to do anything to drunk people as long as they say "yes". I'm saying they have the responsibility to not drink until dead. Nobody forced them and nobody forced them to say "yes" either. No, but some get the person drunk on purpose just so they can rape them. How can you get someone drunk on purpose? They pick the drink up, nobody is forcing them to drink it. Also, that's not the same thing, one is aware that the alcohol can inebriate them. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| To Blackout0219: You bring up Christians and the rich again. your opinions are skewered by your hate for the conservative/republicans aren't they. So you throw me some examples and then assume the reason people are against it is because they personally have something to lose then state it as if its fact but then you have already declared opinion pieces by conservatives as not facts but its ok for you to claim facts on peoples opinions without any real knowle- what.... Also: I hate slavery, im going to make sure the government makes it illegal. Didn't personally effect the white person who would say this, they just knew when something wasn't right and wanted to fix it by going against the current laws or demanding them changed. So no people do not oppose laws just because it affects them. People oppose lots and lots of shit for many reasons that don't directly effect them. Such as you opposing the conservatives even though most of their stuff has no direct effect on you. You oppose their idea that abortion is murder, why? it doesn't effect you I imagine. |
|
Blackout0219 said: Consent is a free of coercion yes If thats the case then nothing we do is consensual. In fact the minute someone sips a beer they are under the coercion of alcohol and should by your definition be unable to consent to anything. Again im not defending anything anyone else is saying in this thread, just pointing out again ironic points on interest. My stance on rape is already laid out, be tough but be unbiasedly fair and know of circumstances rather than the rigid definition laid out in out dated law. |
|
it doesn't mean you are responsible for what people do to you when you are too drunk to understand anything. It is your responsibility, you said "yes" and lied to the poor fuckers if you were remorseful the day after.. You are responsible for doing stupid shit while drunk, yeah; however you are not responsible if you are basically unable to physically react or understand what's happening and someone has sex with you without consent. Contradictory towards my example. Physically it's rare, but in the case of the rapist who offers drinks on purpose to rape the person after - It's rape, and the victim has no way of knowing they were going to be raped, specially if they trusted the rapist (most rapes are from someone you know and trust) I don't remember that changing that it's their choice to get the drink and sip out of it. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Doesn't change the fact having sex with someone nearly passed out is irresponsible, and you can't assume they consented. Doesn't change the fact that is contradictory and hypocritical.Yeah, you call poor fuckers to people who think it's ok to have sex with someone who can barely walk. That's not a poor fucker - There's a legal word for it - It's called... Wait for it.... Rapist! If you are dumb to understand someone who is too drunk cannot consent to sex no matter how many times they say yes, then go study law, and maybe some biology to learn how people are when they are too drunk I want you to take out every drunk driver out of the prison now.It doesn't matter - Why are you so worried about their choice to drink? people can drink anything, it's perfectly legal to drink how much you wish, that doesn't justify someone raping you when you can't give valid legal consent. I don't understand, it doesn't matter who chose to drink, being drunk doesn't make you guilty of being raped But you didn't get raped, you consented. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
(otherwise you can't even turn the ignition) This is what you base your argument on. Weak.If you are too drunk the law says you can't consent. If you are too drunk, you are impaired as a driver, so you shouldn't be accountable for driving. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Someone who can walk up to his/hers vehicle, turn the ignition and drive is not overly drunk. Those people can consent. You cannot compare that to someone who cannot get up from the floor. Where's the limit? So you have to be in an alcohol coma? Oh, that's fine then, minorities are always fun but not usable in an argument considering they're mostly irrelevant. Completely different - in the case of driving it's about committing a crime, in the case of rape it's about you being the victim. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, which isn't abnormal considering I've argued with you before and you're acting the same way.You've agreed with yourself that you'll be driving, with yourself because you don't have to consent to anyone else that you're driving, inebriated as fuck. By your logic, it is not your fault, because your judgement is impaired. It's the same thing as saying that he or she agreed to have sex while inebriated. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Someone who can walk up to his/hers vehicle, turn the ignition and drive is not overly drunk. Those people can consent. You cannot compare that to someone who cannot get up from the floor. Where's the limit? So you have to be in an alcohol coma? Oh, that's fine then, minorities are always fun but not usable in an argument considering they're mostly irrelevant. Completely different - in the case of driving it's about committing a crime, in the case of rape it's about you being the victim. I don't think you understand what I'm saying, which isn't abnormal considering I've argued with you before and you're acting the same way.You've agreed with yourself that you'll be driving, with yourself because you don't have to consent to anyone else that you're driving, inebriated as fuck. By your logic, it is not your fault, because your judgement is impaired. It's the same thing as saying that he or she agreed to have sex while inebriated. Someone who can drive is not impaired enough to not know what is happening. I'm talking about people who literally don't even know who's around them, who don't know what's happening and can barely walk. Have you been in such a state? If you did, you know you can't even turn the car on, let alone consent to sex. Someone who's drugged or drunk can't consent the same way a mentally retarded person can't (but a mentally retarded can say yes - still not consent!) - On the other hand, even if a drunk person says yes, body language clearly can tell you that they don't mean yes. Answer my question - If someone says yes but is laying on the group, can barely speak or realize what's happening, do you think they literally mean "yes" when their body shows otherwise? Do you think people who have sex with them and they can't even resist because they have no strength are doing the right thing? BTW sorry if I don't take conservatives and rape seriously when:  |
Someone who can drive is not impaired enough to not know what is happening. Says you? |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
ou still didn't answer my question. It's not the first time you on purpose don't directly answer my points. I've been saying many things that you didn't directly answer or ignored - Instead you just say it's irrelevant and hide in a corner. I still don't see how those are either a majority of the drunk rape cases OR how you are right in saying when one is not impaired enough to be able to drive.As for the rest, you're repeating yourself: Immahnoob said: You've agreed with yourself that you'll be driving, with yourself because you don't have to consent to anyone else that you're driving, inebriated as fuck. By your logic, it is not your fault, because your judgement is impaired. It's the same thing as saying that he or she agreed to have sex while inebriated. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
How can someone drive if they can't get up from the floor from lack of strength? How can someone still be alive after drinking to that level? I can make another assertion and I'll just be as fine as before.Maybe I'm repeating myself because you didn't answer my points. And you didn't provide proof that the majority of rape cases are regret, except from the video made by conservatards You didn't actually prove they're biased, so you're arguing against proof with no proof. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
hentai_eucli said: Found it!Can't find that greentext about an anon having sex with a girl after having her sign a sex consent form, and then getting rape charges because he killed the mood.  |
 |
Do you have no social life? Didn't you ever witness someone dead drunk? Obviously you don't die, you don't even get in a comma, but frequently people need to sit or stand in the ground because they are dizzy, and even when they can walk they are not conscious and only say stupid shit Must be easy to make laws against this.I don't need to prove it is biased anymore than I need to prove AnswersInGenesis.com is biased to prove creationism is true. You're capitulating this early. Meh...I really hope you are never raped when drunk, because you certainly wouldn't like people saying it was your fault because it was your choice to drink alone. Actually, my first time was when I got drugged by my "friends", don't worry, it was a female that "raped" me. I didn't hear from her since then, she actually changed schools for some reason. It's surely not the same example, I did not know they slipped something in that bottle. I felt bad for an entire day though, psychologically I didn't care much. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I didn't give my consent at all and I couldn't push her away, so for me it was rape, and it was also legally rape. But I'm just saying that experiences are really irrelevant, I wasn't "mentally scarred" and I'm still not, I was disappointed. So yeah, you either give me some valid input on how we can clearly define this law or it's bullshit and it should either be shot down or remade. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| You keep on repeating yourself like you have no idea what I'm saying. If someone says "No" while intoxicated it is "no", but saying "yes", should be "yes". If they are then forced, that's something else entirely. What do you propose to change then? Do you want to blame rape victims who are already told frequently that it's their fault, and blame them even further just because they drank? Appeal to emotion some more. Nobody cares about your so-called "victims", if they consented while drunk they are to be blamed. Where do you draw the line between consent and no consent? do you think someone who is highly drunk and impaired should be taken seriously when saying yes? I draw the line when there is either a "no" or no verbal/body/etc consent. And yes, I believe one should be taken seriously while "highly impaired", otherwise the drunk drivers that got in the car or killed someone should not be accountable for their actions. - Experiences are not irrelevant. You experienced it positively, some people might enjoy being raped, it's possible. But most people don't. Experiences are irrelevant anyway, who cares what you believe, what matters is the truth.BTW I've already posted a link that shows this news is BS. There is not going to be a shift in the burden of evidence No, you haven't. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Blackout0219 said: The problem is that most cases are not like you say they are. Rape when the victim is intoxicated is not really when she says "yes" and rips your clothes, it's when it's clear that the person is so drunk that they can't consent because their judgement is impaired - It's when you basically are unresponsive and aren't able to rationally agree to have sex Rape while intoxicated is a situation where one party is unresponsive and is therefore unable to give consent. The more realistic scenario for this type of rape is one person black out drunk lying motionless on the ground and someone having sex with that person. This is rape while intoxicated because the person who is unresponsive can obviously not give consent and even a head nod or some grunt isn't considered consent in this scenario. So, in the eyes of the law, rape while intoxicated cannot happen to both parties, because that would require both parties to be unresponsive and when you are at that stage of inebriated you aren't physically capable of having sex. Immahnoob said: Must be easy to make laws against this. Yet this still happens: "“When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”" |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
You really miss the point. This isn't about drunk drives, it's when people are so intoxicated that they realistically cant' really consent out of their will, when it's clear that they don't know what they're doing. You don't have to be smart to realize that. You have to be retarded not to understand analogies...I never said that question was smart, it's tricky. But that doesn't mean we should believe that people who are overly drunk should be taken seriously. Then drunk drivers shouldn't be accountable for their actions.Also, I doubt you understand what the 60% proves in this case either. Cognitive bias. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| You're begging the question if you're still calling it "rape". I'm assuming you no longer have a relevant response so you're relying on repeating yourself to death. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
It's rape when you are too drunk too consent. Good job, so when is it "too drunk to consent" and when is it "not drunk enough, did consent but still drunk" or "too drunk to consent but said "yes" anyway" or etc. Is there a "He/she is drunk" expert? Like Captain Drunkard or something? Who forced them to drink again and to consent? You're just talking out of your experiences like anyone cares, that's why you don't have an argument. Also, your analogy makes no sense. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |