|
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. |
On November 22 2017 10:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:17 Uldridge wrote: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.
I like this line very much. If you are sober enough to get punished for a crime, you are sober enough to consent. That fits a lot better with what I personally consider "common sense".
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 10:27 Toadesstern 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. 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~
That argument comes down to "we have to give drunk people a pass for not caring about whether their partner really wanted to consent because they're drunk and we can't expect them to think rationally about these things". I don't accept that, if our starting premise is that drunk people can't tell right from wrong then they shouldn't have gotten drunk in the first place. I hold them to the same standard of morality as anyone else. You wouldn't excuse a drunk for deciding to drive drunk, I won't excuse a drunk for fucking a trashed stranger.
|
If you read my previous posts, you'll notice that I covered the more nuanced bits of both parties being drunk and still being able to be prayed upon by someone less drunk.
In case you didn't know, the more drunk you become, the more cognitive impaired you become. The correlation is literally one to one. If you keep going you only have basic motor skills left and after that you get coma and death.
At what stage of inebriation your moral compass starts to falter, I can't say. For me personally, I need to become quite drunk, that's for sure; not so drunk to black out, but surely drunk enough to have difficulty remembering lyrics that are melted into my brain, singing and walking straight, blurred vision and slower thinking capability. And that happens all the time to many people every single day. Some people have a lower threshold, some will have a higher one, but the threshold is there. And even then, this is a situation in a vacuum, where the sexual attraction and your brain saying "SEX SEX SEX" bringing the physiological changes into the equation. It's all much more complex than this silly discussion actually entails.
People get drunk, have sex, don't remember anything the night before. They both raped each other? They still had a moral compass? But what did they actually do? Ultimately, discussing this is, in a sense, completely redundant because it's a case by case situation and you can't put blanket statements on any of it.
There only exists one clear case for me, which is: two strangers with good intentions of having a good night out, not being afraid of casual sex, becoming drunk insofar that their moral judgement and consent status falter still have sex are not shit or have raped each other. Almost everything else is a hot pile of nuanced garbage I'd rather stay away of unless I want to write a thesis on the subject.
|
On November 22 2017 10:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:27 Toadesstern wrote: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. 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~ That argument comes down to "we have to give drunk people a pass for not caring about whether their partner really wanted to consent because they're drunk and we can't expect them to think rationally about these things". I don't accept that, if our starting premise is that drunk people can't tell right from wrong then they shouldn't have gotten drunk in the first place. I hold them to the same standard of morality as anyone else. You wouldn't excuse a drunk for deciding to drive drunk, I won't excuse a drunk for fucking a trashed stranger.
but what do you do about the people who just like doing that? Going out, getting tipsy/drunk, get in a bar and come out with a one-night-stand? Because they're otherwise too socially awkward to talk up girls, too shy to talk up guys or whatever else. Not talking drunk as in can't walk anymore but drunk enough so that you can notice both are tipsy/drunk.
With your argument that means both parties involved would go home solo because they don't know for sure that the other person would have agreed sober.
Hence people saying you're basicly saying 99% of one-night-stands shouldn't happen when quite clearly there are a lot of people out there who do want that.
|
On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer 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. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape.
Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones.
|
this grows very wearisome; especially as people keep jumping around between various related facets (legality, ethics, justiciability, and a few others) which makes it all the more confusing and makes people argue past each other half hte time due to looking at different facets.
is there another topic we could move to? or just drop this one?
PS It feels like some of the discussion is also getting rather far afield from its us politics relevance.
|
On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo 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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones.
Yeah, he's basically like that Republican who worked hard to ban gay marriage and so forth and then got caught having men sucking his dick. Lol. Hypocritical authoritarian douchebags everywhere.
|
The truth is that consuming alcohol should probably be the crime.
But really, it's been a weird journey. At one point in our history being drunk was a legitimate excuse for being in a car accident. If we allow the sale of alcohol then both sides have to be "shit/rapists". But that also means the makers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol are also shit/rape enablers.
People make an incredible amount of shitty decisions while drunk the one where the drunk is the victim (for many) is if it's a woman and she had a sexual encounter.
If a guy gets drunk and some horny woman takes advantage of him, it doesn't usually end with his wife going with him to the police station to press rape charges against the horny woman, or society shaming the woman for leaving her cheating husband who was actually raped because he was drunk and couldn't consent.
I can understand why some people think this consent stuff should be simple for others to understand, but I think it's a bit more complicated than we like to pretend.
|
On November 22 2017 10:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. Yeah, he's basically like that Republican who worked hard to ban gay marriage and so forth and then got caught having men sucking his dick. Lol. Hypocritical authoritarian douchebags everywhere.
Pathetic.
|
zlefin, this is the circle of the US megathread. Racism, consent and Trump with a longing American politics on the side.
Also @KwarK: I absolutely despise drunk driving and I don't condone it, but you're using drunk decision making as your crux, without social context. I firmly believe this adds a lot of weight into the equation.
The drunk driver has one objective: getting home. And he simply needs to find his keys, open the door, start the car and drive. Pretty simple tasks for which a lot of muscle memory exists.
Getting riled up on sex hormones in a place where everyone looks pretty in pink light and grinding with the girl that's been eyeballing you all night only to keep getting more and more attracted to each other until you end up in bed together (or somewhere else) is something that overrides you dude. You're along for the journey, you're not rationalizing it. And why would you? Your biological task is getting fulfilled.
On November 22 2017 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
The truth is that consuming alcohol should probably be the crime.
The truth is alcohol is a hard drug that should be categorized in the same way as the other downers. The fact that it's socially accepted while others aren't completely disgusts me. We need better drug use awareness and more legal drugs. It's long overdue. Also: nicotine is around 10x more potent than cocaine, yet we like to put that shit in our cigarettes. It should be super illegal.
|
On November 22 2017 10:42 zlefin wrote:
this grows very wearisome; especially as people keep jumping around between various related facets (legality, ethics, justiciability, and a few others) which makes it all the more confusing and makes people argue past each other half hte time due to looking at different facets.
is there another topic we could move to? or just drop this one?
PS It feels like some of the discussion is also getting rather far afield from its us politics relevance.
I read a nice blog post on wages recently. Had a nifty graph:
![[image loading]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o8HdK4K4bYM/Wg2o_p4WsPI/AAAAAAAAIhs/ukS7d5q1RcYWcBSdMtI2G1QBBUZko3BJACLcBGAs/s1600/wage%2B2.jpg)
For me, one surprising insight from the report is that real wage growth--that is, wage growth adjusted for inflation--has actually not been particularly slow during the most recent upswing. The upper panel of this figure shows real wage growth since the early 1980s. The horizontal lines show the growth of wages after each recession. The real wage growth in the last few years is actually higher. The bottom panel shows nominal wage growth, with inflation included. By that measure, wage growth in recent years is lower than after the last few recessions. Thus, I suspect that one reason behind the perception of slow wage growth is that many people are focused on nominal rather than on real wages.
conversableeconomist.blogspot.com
Edit: Oh, to add my own $0.02 (can't remember if it mentions)... the nominal can be important too, particularly when dealing with a lot of fixed debt (cough mortgages cough).
On November 22 2017 10:56 Zambrah wrote:
I like that the root of every nuance in this discussion revolves around alcohol.
Happy Holidays!
|
I like that the root of every nuance in this discussion revolves around alcohol.
|
On November 22 2017 10:56 Zambrah wrote:
I like that the root of every nuance in this discussion revolves around alcohol.
Rather if the woman wants to have sex or not.
|
United States41984 Posts
On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo 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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones.
I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it.
|
On November 22 2017 10:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:42 zlefin wrote:
this grows very wearisome; especially as people keep jumping around between various related facets (legality, ethics, justiciability, and a few others) which makes it all the more confusing and makes people argue past each other half hte time due to looking at different facets.
is there another topic we could move to? or just drop this one?
PS It feels like some of the discussion is also getting rather far afield from its us politics relevance. I read a nice blog post on wages recently. Had a nifty graph: Show nested quote +For me, one surprising insight from the report is that real wage growth--that is, wage growth adjusted for inflation--has actually not been particularly slow during the most recent upswing. The upper panel of this figure shows real wage growth since the early 1980s. The horizontal lines show the growth of wages after each recession. The real wage growth in the last few years is actually higher. The bottom panel shows nominal wage growth, with inflation included. By that measure, wage growth in recent years is lower than after the last few recessions. Thus, I suspect that one reason behind the perception of slow wage growth is that many people are focused on nominal rather than on real wages. conversableeconomist.blogspot.comEdit: Oh, to add my own $0.02 (can't remember if it mentions)... the nominal can be important too, particularly when dealing with a lot of fixed debt (cough mortgages cough). Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:56 Zambrah wrote:
I like that the root of every nuance in this discussion revolves around alcohol. Happy Holidays!
This is confusing to me. I remember reading in the financial times recently how the inflation adjusted wages in the us just caught up to 2008 peak this year. (Meaning that real wages for the past decade has been lower than they were previous decade) I'll see if I can find article. I wonder why data is different
|
On November 22 2017 10:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:50 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. Yeah, he's basically like that Republican who worked hard to ban gay marriage and so forth and then got caught having men sucking his dick. Lol. Hypocritical authoritarian douchebags everywhere. Pathetic.
This seems to be a running theme among a large degree of the GOP. They don't care about anything they proclaim to care about, because they get caught being hypocritical a minute later. They only care about using their voting base to grab power for their own gains. And, obviously, Trump is the prime example of this. It's absolutely disgusting.
|
On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it.
You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot.
|
On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot.
Drunk people can't consent. The fictional, totally made up example given neither party gave consent. Don't be an asshole.
|
Alabama has some real shit pastors.
|
On November 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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 trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot. Drunk people can't consent. The fictional, totally made up example given neither party gave consent. Don't be an asshole.
I can be drunk and consent to sex, and I won't let your words or laws take that away from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
