|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28558 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 08:03 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong? Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other. Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude. The less prudish you are, the more important absolutism regarding consent gets.
Maybe if you realized that the rest of us are talking about pretty vanilla sex it'd be easier for you to relate. I get that the drunken girl who flirted with you and started making out with you and decided to go home with you and jumped on top of your erect penis didn't consent to you tying her up, choking her and punching her in the face. That would actually fit into my definition rape too. 
|
Uber concealed a massive global breach of the personal information of 57 million customers and drivers in October 2016, failing to notify the individuals and regulators, the company acknowledged on Tuesday.
According to Bloomberg, which first reported on the breach, Uber paid the hackers responsible $100,000 to delete the data and keep the breach quiet.
“None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it,” Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi said in a statement acknowledging the breach and cover-up. “While I can’t erase the past, I can commit on behalf of every Uber employee that we will learn from our mistakes.”
Hackers stole personal data including names, email addresses and phone numbers, as well as the names and driver’s license numbers of about 600,000 drivers in the United States. The company said more sensitive information, such as location data, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, and birth dates, had not been compromised.
In his statement, Khosrowshahi said the company had “obtained assurances that the downloaded data had been destroyed” and improved its security, but that the company’s “failure to notify affected individuals or regulators” had prompted him to take several steps, including the departure of two of the employees responsible for the company’s 2016 response.
Uber chief security officer Joe Sullivan was one of the two employees who left the company, Bloomberg reported.
The hack and subsequent concealment is just the latest in a string of scandals and crises that Khosrowshahi inherited from his predecessor, Travis Kalanick, who was forced out of the $68bn startup in June.
The year started out with the trend-setting #DeleteUber viral boycott campaign, which arose after the company was accused of exploiting a New York taxi drivers’ work stoppage to protest Trump’s travel ban.
Then in February, former employee Susan Fowler published a blog post alleging a pervasive culture of gender discrimination and sexual harassment at the company.
The next month saw a New York Times report that for years Uber had been running a secret program to systematically deceive law enforcement officials in cities where its service violated regulations. Officials attempting to hail an Uber during a sting operation were “greyballed”; they might see icons of cars within the app navigating nearby, but no one would come pick them up.
Fowler’s blog post prompted Uber to commission an investigation of its workplace culture, and led to a public airing of the startup’s considerable dirty laundry. The company had skyrocketed to its position as the highest-value startup and dominant ride-hail app by defying rules and regulations, but the post-Fowler reckoning saw at least 20 employees fired and the company acknowledge that it needed to change. It also led to the eventual ousting of Kalanick himself.
Khosrowshahi displayed the new conciliatory style in September when Transport for London decided not to renew its license to operate in London. “We’ve got things wrong along the way,” the CEO said at the time. “On behalf of everyone at Uber globally, I apologise for the mistakes we’ve made.”
Source
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 08:03 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong? Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other. Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. Completely fair, but 'shit' is not 'rapist'. And I think you don't understand just how common this very scenario is.
You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent.
|
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass.
|
On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk?
I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people.
Basically your scenario is (kinda) invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged.
(Kwark below has a more relevant response though)
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk?
The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state.
|
On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass.
Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it.
On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged.
I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk.
But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right?
On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state.
That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct?
|
On November 22 2017 09:42 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. + Show Spoiler + Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent.
And how is being drunk equal to being in a position of power where the other person is in subspace? KwarK, come on man, both parties are in subspace, stop saying they're not.
|
On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct?
Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:54 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:42 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. + Show Spoiler + Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent. And how is being drunk equal to being in a position of power where the other person is in subspace? KwarK, come on man, both parties are in subspace, stop saying they're not.
You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct? Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex.
Because there is an economic motive to void drunken financial transactions.
|
On November 22 2017 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:54 Uldridge wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. + Show Spoiler + Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent. And how is being drunk equal to being in a position of power where the other person is in subspace? KwarK, come on man, both parties are in subspace, stop saying they're not. You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person.
I agree with the basis of what you're saying. Responsibility all around, certainly. I just don't think two drunk people drunkenly deciding to have sex with each other makes them both "rapists" or "shit". That's a ridiculous conclusion to what you're saying. That's you passing off your own moral judgments on others in an area where I do not think you should be intervening. It's their responsibility, after all, not yours. Responsibility that starts with the first drink. And if you think it should be codified in law as rape, then you're just being needlessly authoritative. Much in the same way that some people want to prevent gay marriage to prevent a "decline into degeneracy".
|
On November 22 2017 10:08 KwarK wrote:
You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person.
Then you don't know how being drunk works. If you can't consent you also don't feel the plight.
|
On November 22 2017 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct? Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex. Because there is an economic motive to void drunken financial transactions.
Surely you're not suggesting there can't be an economic motive for voiding drunken sexual transactions?
But for those wondering, this is part of what confuses a lot of people. Coercive/manipulative consent is a foundational aspect of capitalism. It's hard for people to understand why sexual activity is outside of that.
In cases where there is clearly no financial incentive the difference may be more clear, but when there are large economic/political implications the difference is less pronounced.
|
On November 22 2017 10:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct? Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex. Because there is an economic motive to void drunken financial transactions.
But there is also a (very strong) economic motive to sell crap to drunk people..
If a drunk person stumbles up to a food truck and orders a fish and chips (even though that person would never eat such gross and unhealthy food while sober, perhaps they even have a cholesterol problem) and the the owner of the truck takes their money and gives them their food anyways, I would not consider him "shit".
People get drunk and buy groceries, people get drunk and have sex. It seems hard for me to classify these behaviors as unacceptable in a society that allows alcohol.
|
KwarK slowly comes to the conclusion we're all shit. Or rapists, whatever is preferred.
|
On November 22 2017 10:17 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:08 KwarK wrote:
You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person. Then you don't know how being drunk works. If you can't consent you also don't feel the plight.
Reading you it occurs to me that maybe I don't. You seem to have a way of getting drunk that is quite brutal. I can only speak for me and my friends but that's not how it works for us.
That being said, your argument also works for crimes, doesn't it? It seems convenient that the guy is unaware enough that he can't possibly question whether the situation is problematic, but at the same time aware enough that he can still be blamed for the situations that you agree are wrong. She's barely conscious, but hey, can he tell? He's drunk.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 10:16 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:08 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:54 Uldridge wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. + Show Spoiler + Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent. And how is being drunk equal to being in a position of power where the other person is in subspace? KwarK, come on man, both parties are in subspace, stop saying they're not. You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person. I agree with the basis of what you're saying. Responsibility all around, certainly. I just don't think two drunk people drunkenly deciding to have sex with each other makes them both "rapists" or "shit". That's a ridiculous conclusion to what you're saying. That's you passing off your own moral judgments on others in an area where I do not think you should be intervening. It's their responsibility, after all, not yours. Responsibility that starts with the first drink. And if you think it should be codified in law as rape, then you're just being needlessly authoritative. Much in the same way that some people want to prevent gay marriage to prevent a "decline into degeneracy".
The entire subject comes down to people's own arbitrary moral judgements. Mine are no more or less arbitrary than the beliefs of the people who ended marital rape.
I've stated my beliefs and I'll defend them. Saying they're just my moral beliefs is redundant, of course that's what they are.
|
On November 22 2017 10:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 09:54 Uldridge wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You were struggling with different definitions so I switched to shit. I believe individuals have a positive responsibility to not engage in sex they don't believe to be consensual that goes beyond getting legally in the clear. I've been in situations where the girl has begged me to do something that was not previously negotiated and I've declined because they're tied up and in subspace and I want whatever it is we do to be a good experience that they won't subsequently regret. + Show Spoiler + Sure, it means playing it safe, but then you communicate before the next scene and if they're down with that then that's cool. Subspace is a fair approximation of drunk horny in terms of being unable to make sober decisions.
The other person can't absolve you of the responsibility you have to yourself to not harm them. They can be as reckless as they want but you're still accountable to your own personal sense of morality. If the other person is trashed and you don't know what they're like sober, you ought to play it safe. And if you don't I'm going to extrapolate that you clearly don't care all that much about consent. And how is being drunk equal to being in a position of power where the other person is in subspace? KwarK, come on man, both parties are in subspace, stop saying they're not. You're misunderstanding my argument if you think I think that's relevant. A drunk person still has the same obligation not to take advantage as a sober person.
and people as drunk as someone else who doesn't understand what he or she is saying yes to probably is as much unable to correctly judge just that.
I get that you don't want to let being drunk be a get-out-of-jail card beause otherwise people will just do that on purpose. That already exists and is horrible. People trying to get other people drunk on purpose to have Sex etc.
But if you're both kinda smashed it's hard to call both of the people involved rapists for having ignored the other ones current state when quite clearly they're not capable to make that call.
Hence people saying there are no clear lines.
People wanting to get drunk to have a one night stand because they're not confident themselves, shy or whatever else is a thing. They're never going to see the other guy/girl again and they have no idea if they'd normall agree to this or not if sober because they only know each other drunk.
I feel like if you want people to do exactly as you say you are in fact saying we should get rid of the praxis that is people having one-night-stands, like Drone already said (in like... 99% of the cases). Some people like them~
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 10:21 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:09 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct? Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex. Because there is an economic motive to void drunken financial transactions. But there is also a (very strong) economic motive to sell crap to drunk people.. If a drunk person stumbles up to a food truck and orders a fish and chips (even though that person would never eat such gross and unhealthy food while sober, perhaps they even have a cholesterol problem) and the the owner of the truck takes their money and gives them their food anyways, I would not consider him "shit". People get drunk and buy groceries, people get drunk and have sex. It seems hard for me to classify these behaviors as unacceptable in a society that allows alcohol.
I'm judging the guy taking advantage of the drunk by selling him shit too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
