|
|
|
You can have sex without outright consent and not have it be rape if both sides explicitly consented to it. If one side retracted consent but the other side was unaware consent was retracted, it becomes more legally troublesome but consent was retracted and if one side believed that at the time then it's rape.
It doesn't matter what happens after the sexual contact concludes if consent was fully given on both sides. Just because you regretted it doesn't mean it becomes illegal.
If you are drunk you are deemed legally both unable to give consent and unable to fully comprehend the consequences of your actions. Varies on a scale of drunkenness, they will look into drinking habits. People have gotten lesser sentences because their blood alcohol levels were beyond that which could kill a normal person.
Rape is a general-intent crime (vs. specific intent) so the only proof required is recklessness or negligence, which means you can be negligent in determining whether the other party gave consent. The law is almost extremely clear about what the rules are, but the laws also vary from state to state and country to country. There are various definitions of drunkenness and unconsciousness and lots of jurisprudence to pull up to refer to on a case by case basis.
For an example, an Oklahoma judge ruled that oral sex is not rape if the victim is unconscious because there's no forceful component. State-by-state law with consciousness and force components that was correct reading of the law but out-of-date with what society considers rape.
In reality, rape cases are generally straightforward to judge according to the law and the majority of variation comes from the sentencing.
But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit.
If you retract consent during the act it is considered rape if it continues. If you are too intoxicated you expose yourself because the other person may have in good faith or not assumed you already previously gave consent, in which case this comes down to a case-by-case state-by-state basis. If you are blackout drunk you are legally unable to give consent thus it is rape. Where you believe blackout drunk lies on the spectrum is up to you. If you're an obviously heavy drinker and drank 1 pint before consenting, there is no reasonable rape defense. If you've never drank before and drank 4 pints before consenting, then there's a reasonable doubt as to whether that would constitute consent.
|
On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions.
You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk.
My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument.
|
|
|
Should hard drugs (such as cocaine and MDMA) be legalised and sold over the counter?
The reason I ask is that people who want them are still going to get them, and counter-selling would cut heavily into the illegal market. It's much safer for consumption (you know what you're getting because it'll be heavily regulated) and if it's tied to your medical record a doctor or pharmacist can identify possible problems or potential addictions as well. It can also be taxed, which would mean more money to the government which otherwise would have gone to a cartel or dealer.
|
On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality.
I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator.
Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction.
I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk.
You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent.
|
On December 17 2016 08:18 Dark_Chill wrote:
Should hard drugs (such as cocaine and MDMA) be legalised and sold over the counter?
The reason I ask is that people who want them are still going to get them, and counter-selling would cut heavily into the illegal market. It's much safer for consumption (you know what you're getting because it'll be heavily regulated) and if it's tied to your medical record a doctor or pharmacist can identify possible problems or potential addictions as well. It can also be taxed, which would mean more money to the government which otherwise would have gone to a cartel or dealer.
I am personally cool with high regulation low illegality solutions to problems.
|
|
|
Yes, but there should be restrictions. Hard drugs, like alcohol, cocaine, MDMA, whatever, should have tight regulations to them and only specialized stores should sell them. Softer shit like caffeine, nicotine (although nicotine is a very potent stimulant and I'm thinking of actually putting them in the hard drugs category, but it's so ingrained in society it's impossible to get rid of it) and cannabis should be able to sold with less regulations, but at least an ID should be shown for every sale (at least 18).
The tighter regulations come with mental checks, higher age (after bain fully developed), education about the drug you're interested in buying etc.
People are so indoctrinated by the "big bad pills and powders" however that they're too blind to see how they can actually enhance your life, if you take them responsibly, have clearance to take them and sporadically. Big pharma can sell pills that completely fuck you up though, and people just don't seem to see that bullshit. Oh, the doctor prescribed me some kind of dissociative so I could get better nightrest or to get through my pain, better gobble that shit up before informing myself or even try to understand what the molecule actually does to me (or even look at the fucking side effects note that comes with it).
|
On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent.
Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment?
EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue?
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 08:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Yes you picked two examples of the legal system failing to further your narrative I am aware. But you act as though that is the common punishment for those crimes across the western world and it is not. And you continue to flip between how it is vs should be in half answers. You are as deft as a politician at saying lots of flowery words and avoiding the meat of a question.
I literally showed you a link to an example of two people getting vastly different punishments to show the range of how we punish in our legal system. 1 Day for one, 1500 years for the other. Which shows that the punishment is variant based not on the act of rape, but on what the court deems the proper punishment for the perpetrator.
Being that we do not have a standardized punishment for rape, why wouldn't we have a non-standardized punishments for nonconsensual sex? Its not a narrative I am pushing--it is literal reality with links to specific cases.
|
On December 17 2016 08:18 Dark_Chill wrote:
Should hard drugs (such as cocaine and MDMA) be legalised and sold over the counter?
The reason I ask is that people who want them are still going to get them, and counter-selling would cut heavily into the illegal market. It's much safer for consumption (you know what you're getting because it'll be heavily regulated) and if it's tied to your medical record a doctor or pharmacist can identify possible problems or potential addictions as well. It can also be taxed, which would mean more money to the government which otherwise would have gone to a cartel or dealer.
You don't think there is a large demographic that'd get them if available legally, but isn't getting them now because of fear of getting into trouble? I'd guess a lot of kids would try it out when they reach the age where they start going out clubbing and doing that kind of things. The same way they try smoking cigarettes, try overdosing alcohol and so on. Which I personally wouldn't think is a good thing.
I'm not sure exactly how addictive these things are though. Not an expert at all.
|
But what about the sober person not wanting to have sex (but can be persuaded) and the super drunk person (or to put it in Thieving's words: the person of not sound mind) wants it like suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuper hard. Can you then talk about rape or whatever when sexual interaction has been had. Also, I think it's time to wrap this discussion up, I'm kind of not in the mood for this anymore, so don't rape me by continuing to talk about this (please take it to pm).
On December 17 2016 08:33 Cascade wrote:
You don't think there is a large demographic that'd get them if available legally, but isn't getting them now because of fear of getting into trouble? I'd guess a lot of kids would try it out when they reach the age where they start going out clubbing and doing that kind of things. The same way they try smoking cigarettes, try overdosing alcohol and so on. Which I personally wouldn't think is a good thing.
I'm not sure exactly how addictive these things are though. Not an expert at all.
Hmm, I think you're grossly underestimating the amount of people taking drugs.
Also, MDMA for example, is very non addicting. Have a look at these charts:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u6TCgGR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gX2I4WE.png)
Wiki on drug harmfulness
Wiki on substance abuse
Alcohol, as a legal substance, is consistently in the higher quadrants of these type of charts, and rightfully so. It's a fun, but absolutely disgusting drug to be honest.
The imperative here is education and making people aware of the potential dangers. Heroin can be done safely and it's always seen as the most harmful and addicting substance probably ever, yet you can have a functional (recreational/infrequent) heroin user. It's all about social setting, eduction, licensing, ...
The true challenge in legalization imo is when people start hording inane amounts of substances (both in variety and concentration) which makes it a potential lifethreatening situation again.. But hey, you can buy a bottle of Vodka in the supermarket and down it in less than an hour too, right?
|
On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue?
That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time.
Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them.
Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier.
|
On December 17 2016 08:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:18 Dark_Chill wrote:
Should hard drugs (such as cocaine and MDMA) be legalised and sold over the counter?
The reason I ask is that people who want them are still going to get them, and counter-selling would cut heavily into the illegal market. It's much safer for consumption (you know what you're getting because it'll be heavily regulated) and if it's tied to your medical record a doctor or pharmacist can identify possible problems or potential addictions as well. It can also be taxed, which would mean more money to the government which otherwise would have gone to a cartel or dealer. You don't think there is a large demographic that'd get them if available legally, but isn't getting them now because of fear of getting into trouble? I'd guess a lot of kids would try it out when they reach the age where they start going out clubbing and doing that kind of things. The same way they try smoking cigarettes, try overdosing alcohol and so on. Which I personally wouldn't think is a good thing. I'm not sure exactly how addictive these things are though. Not an expert at all.
I'd assume that we would just do it through IDs. Need to be ___ age to get ___ ID to get ____ things.
|
On December 17 2016 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time. Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them. Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier.
You misunderstood the question. I'm well aware of the rules and practice in the field being a MD myself who have forcible admitted and forcible treated psychotic patients (all within the legal framework of the Danish law obviously). The question is of philosophic nature. Do you think a patient of sound mind can ever give truly informed consent?
|
On December 17 2016 08:39 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time. Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them. Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier. You misunderstood the question. I'm well aware of the rules and practice in the field being a MD myself who have forcible admitted and forcible treated psychotic patients (all within the legal framework of the Danish law obviously). The question is of philosophic nature. Do you think a patient of sound mind can ever give truly informed consent?
Like I said, that's a very very difficult question to answer with repercussions that affects a wider range of things than the scope of the either the rape or medicine angle.
|
On December 17 2016 08:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:39 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time. Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them. Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier. You misunderstood the question. I'm well aware of the rules and practice in the field being a MD myself who have forcible admitted and forcible treated psychotic patients (all within the legal framework of the Danish law obviously). The question is of philosophic nature. Do you think a patient of sound mind can ever give truly informed consent? Like I said, that's a very very difficult question to answer with repercussions that affects a wider range of things than the scope of the either the rape or medicine angle.
Which is exactly why I want you to answer it, because you are presenting the "rape angle" far too simplistic in my opinion.
EDIT: I'm fine with leaving the topic here as encouraged by our resident Belgian (sorry for not seeing it earlier). But suffice to say there is a ton of literature on the topic by people far smarter than any of us and consent is an incredibly murky concept which is incredibly difficult to get a handle on.
|
Hey, I'm fine by keeping it going, it just seemed like it was going to be JimmiC and Thieving Magpie bashing heads for ever which seemed a tad too tedious for this thread (sorry, love you both though), but more insight by more people is always welcomed by me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
