|
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. |
What a petty bitch. The commander of the armed services picking a fight with a father that wasn’t grateful enough.
|
On November 22 2017 23:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I can't believe he'd say "poor man's don king". god damn. So many things wrong with that.
This dad is certainly weird though. Comes across as very opportunistic. I really get the feeling he is enough of a shit to raise a kid who is enough of a shit to steal sunglasses. The kid is obviously shit, Trump is obviously shit and the dad is somewhat shit.
That being said, I would handle this situation identically to the father. He is no doubt being compensated for his interviews and whatnot. I dunno what kinda career he has, but this has to be a good use of his time. Being the recent colored person in a feud with Trump is good money. I imagine there will be some kind of gofundme or some shit eventually.
|
Such gravitas the Predisent has.
|
On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well.
Two words: Bill Clinton.
|
Bill Clinton is a prime example of how these sorts of claims get turned into “attacks by the other party” and not taken seriously. He should be stripped of his super delegate roll. Though I am not sure how that process would work and if it is necessary right now. The problem for Republicans right now is they guilty of the exact this that empowered Bill. Actively with both Trump and Moore.
|
United States41983 Posts
On November 22 2017 20:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:On November 22 2017 15:54 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 13:32 Myrddraal 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:
[quote]
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. Well I think you're a shit and immoral person for saying that people are shit for having sex with each other after only knowing each other for 7 hours (of course I agree that it's probably a bad idea and has all sorts of risks), and you should apologise for implying that Drone raped someone who was literally asking for sex. You need to read it again. They didn't know each other for 7 hours. They literally just met. The 7 hours was how much drinking they did before they met. They've never seen in each in a non trashed context, their sober selves are total strangers. And, who cares that they didn't know each other before? Its just sex, its not like they are getting married, adopt a child and buy a flat together while drunk. This discussion doesn't seem to be about consent, it seems to be about (american/anglosaxon) prudery vs "others".
The drunk argument is hilarious. It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I would get raped by a prostitute i paid. Basically this. My experience of anglo saxon countries is that the prevalent idea is that sex in something that happens somewhere on the road of the highly codified and ritualized dating process, or you are a shit person. Which is totally terrifying to a frenchman: we don’t even have a word for date in french ( let alone the need for that totally boring and unimaginative way of approaching someone.) The fact that Kwak is horrified at the idea that one might want spending the night with a stranger or that some love story might start in a chaotic, drunken way is highly comical to me. Hell, one of my best friends met a guy at 3am in a bailar in Rio, they ended up spending the night together, and they are nowmarried. According to Kwark, the guy is a rapist and they are both shit people. It’s a pity this puritan heritage makes many people so horribly judgmental and narrow minded. Since you are now talking about "the dating process" etc... I am almost certain that Kwark has absolutely no problem with people who have just met having sex, as long as they are both consenting adults. The problem in question is not the time that they know each other, but the consent.
Bingo.
|
On November 22 2017 22:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 22:45 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well. I'm confused as to what exactly you want to flip here. The question is straight forward, and equal, for both parties. This has been proven by democrats immediately throwing their own accused candidates under the bus while republicans still endorse them after multiple allegations with detailed stories backed by witnesses, who's a known culprit to the police, and banned from a frikkin mall. When that question is asked to someone today they will have Moore in the back of their mind when answering. That subconsciously influences the result. If you asked the same question at a time where no sex scandal was going on I think you would find the number much lower for Republicans. You see the same when you look at popularity polls of the NBA before and after the kneeling or Republicans opinions on Russia before and after the elections.
The only reason there is a controversy with Roy Moore in the first place is exactly because the GOP refuses to denounce him. There have been allegations against democrats as well, and they immediately distance themselves from them. You can't just claim it's "because of something that is happening right now" when it's a persistent problem which seems to be always happening.
|
On November 22 2017 22:58 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 22:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:33 brian wrote:On November 22 2017 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 22:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 19:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:
The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I then technically would be raped by the prostitute I just paid. A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law. This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless. That’s really, really, really not how the law works. You don’t criminalize everything assuming that only the bad stuff will get reported. That’s bat shit crazy. It’s like saying « let’s make sex illegal because sometimes sex is rape and consensual sex will never get reported so it doesn’t exist in the eye of the law ». The law is supposed to define what is legal and what is not in a rigorous way. If you make drunk sex illegal, drunk sex is illegal, period. Whether it’s with your wife or with a stranger. I have to say this conversation in general sheds a very, very dark light on the me too and consent campaigns, that until now had all my support. If the purpose of the whole thing is to enforce anglo-saxon puritan morals into the law, I’m out of the boat. I don't know that you have demonstrated that the law doesn't work like this. The law defines some situations where the people are unable to give consent, and then when those situations occur, it's rape. It's not that dissimilar from saying "let's make sex illegal in those situations", and presumably the reason why you would make sex illegal in those situations is not very dissimilar from "sometimes sex is rape" in those situations. And yes it does help that situations that aren't a problem won't be reported. I'm 75% sure the first time I had sex was illegal. It was in France, I was 16 and she was 14. I’m quite sure the law would say that sex is illegal if the person is too intoxicated to give consent. Not that it’s a rape is the person is drunk. One is of course reasonable and it’s up to a judge to figure out if it was the case or not. The other one criminalizes everyone. If you know any law that criminalize virtually everyone but that’s totally fine because it’s not reported when it’s ok, let me know. The law describes what you can and can not do. Period. off only the top of my head? jaywalking speeding changing lanes at an intersection not stopping at a red light before turning right. expired car inspections(i’m sure this varies by state, but in NY everyone’s guilty once or twice) now that i’ve gone this way there are actually a ton of driving laws people break on the daily so maybe that’s not a good avenue to go down. littering(idk about ‘ok’ though) public intoxication over serving(though this applies only to servers, so not exactly ‘everyone’) illegal music downloading illegal movie downloading basically all copyright laws not reporting your $1 bank interest to the IRS On November 22 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:
I totally built a shed on my property that violates local zoning laws. And it doesn’t have a permit too. i always knew you were a monster. Not being caught doing illegal things does not mean they're not enforceable. You can get caught doing all of that stuff if you're unlucky enough. No one has ever been caught and jailed for "raping each other" because, legally, that's not a thing. You can't have two adults simultaneously consenting and not consenting to having sex. This is not how the law works. sorry, that’s not how i had understood the post(could easily be my mistake.) if instead you’d like me to start listing unenforceable laws, that would be even easier. you’d be surprised how many laws regarding consensual sex there are. i’ve never felt like more of a republican than i do right now. DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT. and a personal anecdote, to your point, i got a $200 red light ticket for turning right without stopping i was fucking furious. but i guess i should’ve stopped. lesson wasn’t learned either, i’m just more cautious about cameras.
It's not like all of these laws are equally sensible. Some are meant to be used to decrease danger to the public, but are often not enforceable when such isn't happening. Example of speeding or turning right on red is exactly this. 99% of the time it's completely safe and no one is bothered, and then suddenly there's an accident because of it and heads need to roll. Cops often find themselves in difficult positions as to whether they feel the need to enforce laws like this or just let people be on their way (And I'm completely ignoring the money aspect of this atm, which is a whole 'nother topic).
But that said, all laws are enforceable if they want to or feel the need to, even if they are semi or full-retarded (If I remember correctly there's a state somewhere with a law against putting ice cream into your pockets..?). But two people having sex with each other is not a law and is completely un-enforceable. Yes, there's about a million laws around this subject because there's a million different situations you can be in, but you can not have two adults both consenting and simultaneously not consenting with each other.
|
On November 22 2017 23:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 22:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:33 brian wrote:On November 22 2017 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 22:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 19:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:
The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I then technically would be raped by the prostitute I just paid. A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law. This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless. That’s really, really, really not how the law works. You don’t criminalize everything assuming that only the bad stuff will get reported. That’s bat shit crazy. It’s like saying « let’s make sex illegal because sometimes sex is rape and consensual sex will never get reported so it doesn’t exist in the eye of the law ». The law is supposed to define what is legal and what is not in a rigorous way. If you make drunk sex illegal, drunk sex is illegal, period. Whether it’s with your wife or with a stranger. I have to say this conversation in general sheds a very, very dark light on the me too and consent campaigns, that until now had all my support. If the purpose of the whole thing is to enforce anglo-saxon puritan morals into the law, I’m out of the boat. I don't know that you have demonstrated that the law doesn't work like this. The law defines some situations where the people are unable to give consent, and then when those situations occur, it's rape. It's not that dissimilar from saying "let's make sex illegal in those situations", and presumably the reason why you would make sex illegal in those situations is not very dissimilar from "sometimes sex is rape" in those situations. And yes it does help that situations that aren't a problem won't be reported. I'm 75% sure the first time I had sex was illegal. It was in France, I was 16 and she was 14. I’m quite sure the law would say that sex is illegal if the person is too intoxicated to give consent. Not that it’s a rape is the person is drunk. One is of course reasonable and it’s up to a judge to figure out if it was the case or not. The other one criminalizes everyone. If you know any law that criminalize virtually everyone but that’s totally fine because it’s not reported when it’s ok, let me know. The law describes what you can and can not do. Period. off only the top of my head? jaywalking speeding changing lanes at an intersection not stopping at a red light before turning right. expired car inspections(i’m sure this varies by state, but in NY everyone’s guilty once or twice) now that i’ve gone this way there are actually a ton of driving laws people break on the daily so maybe that’s not a good avenue to go down. littering(idk about ‘ok’ though) public intoxication over serving(though this applies only to servers, so not exactly ‘everyone’) illegal music downloading illegal movie downloading basically all copyright laws not reporting your $1 bank interest to the IRS On November 22 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:
I totally built a shed on my property that violates local zoning laws. And it doesn’t have a permit too. i always knew you were a monster. Not being caught doing illegal things does not mean they're not enforceable. You can get caught doing all of that stuff if you're unlucky enough. No one has ever been caught and jailed for "raping each other" because, legally, that's not a thing. You can't have two adults simultaneously consenting and not consenting to having sex. This is not how the law works. Statutory rape. Person gives consent, still considered rape.
Statutory rape, despite what the name may imply, is not considered rape.
|
On November 23 2017 00:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well. Two words: Bill Clinton.
You might think there's a slight difference between a potential senator sexually abusing minors, and a president cheating on his wife with another consenting adult.. That's not flipping, that's two widely different subjects.
|
On November 23 2017 00:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 23:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 22 2017 22:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:33 brian wrote:On November 22 2017 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 22:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 19:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:
The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I then technically would be raped by the prostitute I just paid. A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law. This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless. That’s really, really, really not how the law works. You don’t criminalize everything assuming that only the bad stuff will get reported. That’s bat shit crazy. It’s like saying « let’s make sex illegal because sometimes sex is rape and consensual sex will never get reported so it doesn’t exist in the eye of the law ». The law is supposed to define what is legal and what is not in a rigorous way. If you make drunk sex illegal, drunk sex is illegal, period. Whether it’s with your wife or with a stranger. I have to say this conversation in general sheds a very, very dark light on the me too and consent campaigns, that until now had all my support. If the purpose of the whole thing is to enforce anglo-saxon puritan morals into the law, I’m out of the boat. I don't know that you have demonstrated that the law doesn't work like this. The law defines some situations where the people are unable to give consent, and then when those situations occur, it's rape. It's not that dissimilar from saying "let's make sex illegal in those situations", and presumably the reason why you would make sex illegal in those situations is not very dissimilar from "sometimes sex is rape" in those situations. And yes it does help that situations that aren't a problem won't be reported. I'm 75% sure the first time I had sex was illegal. It was in France, I was 16 and she was 14. I’m quite sure the law would say that sex is illegal if the person is too intoxicated to give consent. Not that it’s a rape is the person is drunk. One is of course reasonable and it’s up to a judge to figure out if it was the case or not. The other one criminalizes everyone. If you know any law that criminalize virtually everyone but that’s totally fine because it’s not reported when it’s ok, let me know. The law describes what you can and can not do. Period. off only the top of my head? jaywalking speeding changing lanes at an intersection not stopping at a red light before turning right. expired car inspections(i’m sure this varies by state, but in NY everyone’s guilty once or twice) now that i’ve gone this way there are actually a ton of driving laws people break on the daily so maybe that’s not a good avenue to go down. littering(idk about ‘ok’ though) public intoxication over serving(though this applies only to servers, so not exactly ‘everyone’) illegal music downloading illegal movie downloading basically all copyright laws not reporting your $1 bank interest to the IRS On November 22 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:
I totally built a shed on my property that violates local zoning laws. And it doesn’t have a permit too. i always knew you were a monster. Not being caught doing illegal things does not mean they're not enforceable. You can get caught doing all of that stuff if you're unlucky enough. No one has ever been caught and jailed for "raping each other" because, legally, that's not a thing. You can't have two adults simultaneously consenting and not consenting to having sex. This is not how the law works. Statutory rape. Person gives consent, still considered rape. Statutory rape, despite what the name may imply, is not considered rape.
yes, yes it is. it is sex with a person unable to give consent.
|
On November 23 2017 00:54 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well. Two words: Bill Clinton. You might think there's a slight difference between a potential senator sexually abusing minors, and a president cheating on his wife with another consenting adult.. That's not flipping, that's two widely different subjects.
There are a number of claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and rape. It isn’t just an affair.
|
On November 23 2017 00:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:54 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2017 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well. Two words: Bill Clinton. You might think there's a slight difference between a potential senator sexually abusing minors, and a president cheating on his wife with another consenting adult.. That's not flipping, that's two widely different subjects. There are a number of claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and rape. It isn’t just an affair.
were these allegations made during his run for office?
|
On November 23 2017 00:51 Excludos wrote:
It's not like all of these laws are equally sensible. Some are meant to be used to decrease danger to the public, but are often not enforceable when such isn't happening. Example of speeding or turning right on red is exactly this. 99% of the time it's completely safe and no one is bothered, and then suddenly there's an accident because of it and heads need to roll
You're *so* close.
|
|
|
On November 23 2017 00:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 23:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 22 2017 22:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:33 brian wrote:On November 22 2017 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 22:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 19:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 16:59 Velr wrote:
The drunk argument is hilarious.
It is actually legal for me to buy Sex while i'm pretty fucking drunk and so it is in many countries, but at least now i know that I then technically would be raped by the prostitute I just paid. A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law. This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless. That’s really, really, really not how the law works. You don’t criminalize everything assuming that only the bad stuff will get reported. That’s bat shit crazy. It’s like saying « let’s make sex illegal because sometimes sex is rape and consensual sex will never get reported so it doesn’t exist in the eye of the law ». The law is supposed to define what is legal and what is not in a rigorous way. If you make drunk sex illegal, drunk sex is illegal, period. Whether it’s with your wife or with a stranger. I have to say this conversation in general sheds a very, very dark light on the me too and consent campaigns, that until now had all my support. If the purpose of the whole thing is to enforce anglo-saxon puritan morals into the law, I’m out of the boat. I don't know that you have demonstrated that the law doesn't work like this. The law defines some situations where the people are unable to give consent, and then when those situations occur, it's rape. It's not that dissimilar from saying "let's make sex illegal in those situations", and presumably the reason why you would make sex illegal in those situations is not very dissimilar from "sometimes sex is rape" in those situations. And yes it does help that situations that aren't a problem won't be reported. I'm 75% sure the first time I had sex was illegal. It was in France, I was 16 and she was 14. I’m quite sure the law would say that sex is illegal if the person is too intoxicated to give consent. Not that it’s a rape is the person is drunk. One is of course reasonable and it’s up to a judge to figure out if it was the case or not. The other one criminalizes everyone. If you know any law that criminalize virtually everyone but that’s totally fine because it’s not reported when it’s ok, let me know. The law describes what you can and can not do. Period. off only the top of my head? jaywalking speeding changing lanes at an intersection not stopping at a red light before turning right. expired car inspections(i’m sure this varies by state, but in NY everyone’s guilty once or twice) now that i’ve gone this way there are actually a ton of driving laws people break on the daily so maybe that’s not a good avenue to go down. littering(idk about ‘ok’ though) public intoxication over serving(though this applies only to servers, so not exactly ‘everyone’) illegal music downloading illegal movie downloading basically all copyright laws not reporting your $1 bank interest to the IRS On November 22 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:
I totally built a shed on my property that violates local zoning laws. And it doesn’t have a permit too. i always knew you were a monster. Not being caught doing illegal things does not mean they're not enforceable. You can get caught doing all of that stuff if you're unlucky enough. No one has ever been caught and jailed for "raping each other" because, legally, that's not a thing. You can't have two adults simultaneously consenting and not consenting to having sex. This is not how the law works. Statutory rape. Person gives consent, still considered rape. Statutory rape, despite what the name may imply, is not considered rape. yes, yes it is. it is sex with a person unable to give consent.
So I had to look this up just to be safe. The problem with statutory rape is that there are few federal laws, and the laws themselves differ widely between states. Some categorize it as a type of rape, others don't. But you should be wary about mixing statutory rape with child molestation, as the latter deals with the victim not being able to give consent, while the former deals with the victim not being allowed to give consent.
|
On November 23 2017 00:58 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:56 Plansix wrote:On November 23 2017 00:54 Excludos wrote:On November 23 2017 00:11 xDaunt wrote:On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:I'm pretty sure the numbers flip at least a tad if the parties involved do so as well. Two words: Bill Clinton. You might think there's a slight difference between a potential senator sexually abusing minors, and a president cheating on his wife with another consenting adult.. That's not flipping, that's two widely different subjects. There are a number of claims against Bill Clinton for sexual assault and rape. It isn’t just an affair. were these allegations made during his run for office?
Paula Jones dates back to 1994. He ran for re-election in 1996.
|
On November 23 2017 01:03 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:54 brian wrote:On November 23 2017 00:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 23:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 22 2017 22:52 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:33 brian wrote:On November 22 2017 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 22:10 Nebuchad wrote:On November 22 2017 19:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 22 2017 18:34 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
A lot of legal definitions for things sound ridiculous if you assume 100% enforcement. But these are situations that don't matter because you never achieve 100% enforcement, and if nobody reports it, the event effectively never happened in the eyes of the law.
This is why Drone's drunk wife hypothetical was pointless to begin with. It's not functionally meaningful to apply a legal standard to a scenario that would never be reported. The only functionally useful way to apply the legal definition of consent is in cases where an abuse is being reported. Constructing hypotheticals like this "raped by a prostitute" scenario where realistically nobody is going to the police after the fact is useless. That’s really, really, really not how the law works. You don’t criminalize everything assuming that only the bad stuff will get reported. That’s bat shit crazy. It’s like saying « let’s make sex illegal because sometimes sex is rape and consensual sex will never get reported so it doesn’t exist in the eye of the law ». The law is supposed to define what is legal and what is not in a rigorous way. If you make drunk sex illegal, drunk sex is illegal, period. Whether it’s with your wife or with a stranger. I have to say this conversation in general sheds a very, very dark light on the me too and consent campaigns, that until now had all my support. If the purpose of the whole thing is to enforce anglo-saxon puritan morals into the law, I’m out of the boat. I don't know that you have demonstrated that the law doesn't work like this. The law defines some situations where the people are unable to give consent, and then when those situations occur, it's rape. It's not that dissimilar from saying "let's make sex illegal in those situations", and presumably the reason why you would make sex illegal in those situations is not very dissimilar from "sometimes sex is rape" in those situations. And yes it does help that situations that aren't a problem won't be reported. I'm 75% sure the first time I had sex was illegal. It was in France, I was 16 and she was 14. I’m quite sure the law would say that sex is illegal if the person is too intoxicated to give consent. Not that it’s a rape is the person is drunk. One is of course reasonable and it’s up to a judge to figure out if it was the case or not. The other one criminalizes everyone. If you know any law that criminalize virtually everyone but that’s totally fine because it’s not reported when it’s ok, let me know. The law describes what you can and can not do. Period. off only the top of my head? jaywalking speeding changing lanes at an intersection not stopping at a red light before turning right. expired car inspections(i’m sure this varies by state, but in NY everyone’s guilty once or twice) now that i’ve gone this way there are actually a ton of driving laws people break on the daily so maybe that’s not a good avenue to go down. littering(idk about ‘ok’ though) public intoxication over serving(though this applies only to servers, so not exactly ‘everyone’) illegal music downloading illegal movie downloading basically all copyright laws not reporting your $1 bank interest to the IRS On November 22 2017 22:46 Plansix wrote:
I totally built a shed on my property that violates local zoning laws. And it doesn’t have a permit too. i always knew you were a monster. Not being caught doing illegal things does not mean they're not enforceable. You can get caught doing all of that stuff if you're unlucky enough. No one has ever been caught and jailed for "raping each other" because, legally, that's not a thing. You can't have two adults simultaneously consenting and not consenting to having sex. This is not how the law works. Statutory rape. Person gives consent, still considered rape. Statutory rape, despite what the name may imply, is not considered rape. yes, yes it is. it is sex with a person unable to give consent. So I had to look this up just to be safe. The problem with statutory rape is that there are few federal laws, and the laws themselves differ widely between states. Some categorize it as a type of rape, others don't. But you should be wary about mixing statutory rape with child molestation, as the latter deals with the victim not being able to give consent, while the former deals with the victim not being allowed to give consent.
i feel like i’m posting a lot so i apologize, and probably take my leave here, but then if the definition of rape is sex without consent, then it sounds like we agree that statutory rape is rape.
i understand fully the moral gray area about where to draw the line, and i won’t argue that. but the line has been drawn.
|
Update on Portland's militant activists trying to artificially cram women of color into public office:
http://www.wweek.com/news/city/2017/11/21/should-a-portland-city-council-seat-be-reserved-for-a-woman-of-color/
This Spencer guy ended up getting his own article in a local publication, lol. This is a really interesting situation and shows an increasingly common dynamic. Spencer was basically a nobody and had zero chance of winning from the beginning. His page was just like 20 of his friends liking his stupid FB page out of sympathy. But after the insane side of BLM started showing up to comment sections going completely batshit crazy on the guy, people felt compelled to defend him who otherwise would have never considered supporting him. Look at the comments in this thread and you'll see people overwhelmingly disagreeing with the idea of reserving city council seats for women of color. People are interested in who has the most experience. These otherwise very liberal people are speaking out against the fringe, crazy sub-community within BLM.
So what did these activists accomplish? People felt compelled to speak up against extreme thinking. Extreme thinkinking scares people and compels people to speak up when they otherwise would not have. By spamming stuff about how white people are inherently morally corrupt and all sorts of other stuff, otherwise totally liberal people (the publication I linked is very, very liberal leaning) are pulling back and thinking "whoa there, I don't agree with that". These activists didn't just turn people away, they inspired people to oppose their activism. They hurt the credibility of more compassionate, inclusive activists by muddying the water. Now, when people see pushes to support women of color for city council next time, people will roll their eyes and assume it is this same fringe activism.
Now, I still fully expect a woman of color to win, and rightfully so. Jo Ann Hardesty has a long history in government and is very well suited for the position. She is the clear favorite in this election. The others have a less than stellar history...most notably Spencer. But this was still an interesting example in how extremism actually isolates rather than inspires.
|
United States41983 Posts
I feel like you still don't understand their point Mohdoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
