|
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 23 2017 01:09 KwarK wrote:
I feel like you still don't understand their point Mohdoo.
I feel like you didn't read the extent of the comments in the Spencer threads. There's a big difference between "you're privileged" and "we need to systematically remove all white men from government".
Edit: And the entire idea of "you need the voices of the people being suppressed to be represented in government otherwise they continue being oppressed". I understand a woman of color would bring a unique perspective and reassurance to colored people that you simply can't replace with a white person. You need to live through racism to understand racism. When I was younger and first moved to Oregon, I believed racism had such far reaching consequences for people who experience racism that it should be considered akin to murder or rape. I was really sensitive when I was younger and being the victim of racism was pretty traumatic for me growing up. There are certain components of what it feels like to be isolated and seen as an "other than" that people can never understand unless they go through it. That's why it is important for those people to be represented in government. This isn't rocket science. It is a very simple idea.
And with thoughts about "lol you're just the affirmative action hire" and similar thoughts being prevalent nowadays, it is extremely important that only highly qualified colored folks are ever elected. We would hurt the cause by trying to run someone who was less experienced.
|
On November 23 2017 00:45 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 22:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 22:45 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 21:16 Artisreal wrote:On November 22 2017 19:46 {CC}StealthBlue 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.
Most (all?) of Congress has denounced him. For so far as I know those who have not denounced him is limited to Trump (which is bad) and politicians inside Alabama.
|
On November 23 2017 01:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 00:45 Excludos wrote:On November 22 2017 22:53 Gorsameth wrote: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. Most (all?) of Congress has denounced him. For so far as I know those who have not denounced him is limited to Trump (which is bad) and politicians inside Alabama.
The state GOP supports him along with an unknown number of Trump’s base. The folks in congress know that Moore is poison and will hurt every race nationwide. The base they cultivated with the Tea Party does not.
|
On November 23 2017 01:06 Mohdoo wrote: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.
You want to look after the cultural appropriation burrito truck was forced to close, but then you just have to look away.
|
On November 23 2017 01:06 Mohdoo wrote: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.
This entire article seems to be focused around Online backslash to a local election. I have no way to knowing if it represents the local population or if it is just a bunch of people online having a Woke Off. At the end of the day, the other candidates welcomed him and people did discuss that a black person hasn’t held a seat in 25 years.
|
Something about doing thanksgiving festivities and then tweeting that someone’s an ungrateful fool is just so Trumpian it’s beyond belief.
|
If I were them I'd negotiate to see the high schooler ball family member play his ncaa year in china to get actually paid. #chinamorecapatalistthanamerica
|
I'm thankful for this blessed tweet.
|
Norway28704 Posts
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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid.
|
On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid.
Well, for what it's worth, it's perfectly acceptable to consider California and Michigan stupid:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.html
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9746971503155068023
Not just those two states either.
|
On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid.
Both can of course be accused of it but as you say if somebody is charged for it that part should have been sorted out. Though both people can be charged if it is about different occasions, seems very unlikely though.
|
Norway28704 Posts
On November 23 2017 03:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid. Well, for what it's worth, it's perfectly acceptable to consider California and Michigan stupid: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9746971503155068023Not just those two states either.
What seriously, if two people both below the age of consent have consensual sex they're both charged with statutory rape? That makes me totally wrong, although my original post would only need to add the word 'sane' before western and it'd be okay. I think.
|
On November 23 2017 03:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 03:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid. Well, for what it's worth, it's perfectly acceptable to consider California and Michigan stupid: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9746971503155068023Not just those two states either. What seriously, if two people both below the age of consent have consensual sex they're both charged with statutory rape? That makes me totally wrong, although my original post would only need to add the word 'sane' before western and it'd be okay. I think.
Well, they're only charged if someone (generally the parents) press charges. Wikipedia also cited a Utah case that went to the Supreme court where a girl was both victim and offender, the boy didn't appeal decision, so yeah, it has happened apparently. Didn't check to see what the Supreme court decided.
|
i mean they’d both be equally guilty, i can’t see why you’d think otherwise. it’d be like if two dudes got into a fist fight, they’re both equally guilty. and it’s not like self defense is on the table.
or if they both got drunk together. there are a lot of things kids aren’t allowed to do. and for better or worse, fucking is one of them.
|
On November 23 2017 03:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 03:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid. Well, for what it's worth, it's perfectly acceptable to consider California and Michigan stupid: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9746971503155068023Not just those two states either. What seriously, if two people both below the age of consent have consensual sex they're both charged with statutory rape? That makes me totally wrong, although my original post would only need to add the word 'sane' before western and it'd be okay. I think.
Even better: Teenagers are put on sex offender lists for sending nudes.
|
those problems basically amount to what I'd work on as a legislator: failing to keep laws up to date to account for changing technology/situations/corner cases.
it's an area that not enoug hwork is done on; because voters don't care about it, so running on that as a platform doesn't get much interest, despite how important it is.
|
On November 23 2017 04:07 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2017 03:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 23 2017 03:25 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 23 2017 03:18 Liquid`Drone 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:
[quote]
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 fails to address his post in two ways; firstly it's not two adults consenting, secondly the younger party is not charged with a crime. In western countries there are no situations where two people have sex and where they are both charged with raping each other, because that would just be stupid. Well, for what it's worth, it's perfectly acceptable to consider California and Michigan stupid: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.htmlhttps://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9746971503155068023Not just those two states either. What seriously, if two people both below the age of consent have consensual sex they're both charged with statutory rape? That makes me totally wrong, although my original post would only need to add the word 'sane' before western and it'd be okay. I think. Even better: Teenagers are put on sex offender lists for sending nudes.
If I remember that case correctly the flaw was in the mandatory sentencing guidelines. Dumb charges were brought and then the sentencing guidelines forced the court to apply an unjust punishment. Because mandatory sentencing guidelines are and always will be trash.
|
mandatory sentencing guidelines aren't compelte trash, they're a very imperfect solution to a very real and significant problem.
i'd gladly replace them with a superior system once we come up with one.
|
Sentencing guidelines are fine. Mandatory ones that attempt cover all possible reasons the law could be violated are travesties of justice and have lead to the mass incarcerations over minor drug charges. They are a flaws premise that the way combat human error by judges is to mandate human error by the legislature through a “system.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
