Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Every once in awhile...

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Every once in awhile, I think to myself, " I really should have stayed in college". And I wonder, "What was it about the school I attended that made it a crappy place?"

And then things like this come up:

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu...

"...[N]othing is done about sexual assault, short of blaming the "attacker," a guy who was likely as drunk as his "victim.""

And I think, "Oh, right. That's what."
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 12:37:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do find it ironic that people blame the man for raping a women who is too drunk to consent, when the man himself may be too drunk for consent.

How does that work, exactly? Legally, I mean.

Personally, I don't believe alcohol is an excuse for anything, and people cite it all the time. "I was drunk, I didn't mean to say that"
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 1:36:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:37:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I do find it ironic that people blame the man for raping a women who is too drunk to consent, when the man himself may be too drunk for consent.

How does that work, exactly? Legally, I mean.

Personally, I don't believe alcohol is an excuse for anything, and people cite it all the time. "I was drunk, I didn't mean to say that"

The question is usually whether consent was actually given at all--"too drunk to consent" usually meaning "too drunk to actually consent" as opposed to "too drunk to have their consent be allowed".

In general, I believe that it's been found that predators know who to pick, and that them claiming "Oh, I was drunk too" is really just an excuse for them molesting someone who's not conscious.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 3:56:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 1:36:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 12:37:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I do find it ironic that people blame the man for raping a women who is too drunk to consent, when the man himself may be too drunk for consent.

How does that work, exactly? Legally, I mean.

Personally, I don't believe alcohol is an excuse for anything, and people cite it all the time. "I was drunk, I didn't mean to say that"

The question is usually whether consent was actually given at all--"too drunk to consent" usually meaning "too drunk to actually consent" as opposed to "too drunk to have their consent be allowed".
This is true, as most women don't see beforehand "we're having sex tonight".

But, if a woman did, then gets drunk and passes out, is it rape?
She never withdrew her consent.
It's sleazy to have sex with a passed out girl, but that's not the issue I'm looking at.
Perhaps I should start a different thread....

In general, I believe that it's been found that predators know who to pick, and that them claiming "Oh, I was drunk too" is really just an excuse for them molesting someone who's not conscious.

I get that, and it is a convienent excuse.
But, legally, if you are too intoxicated, you cannot form the intent required to commit most definitions of rape. Kind of like drinking and driving isn't murder due to criminal negligence.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 7:47:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 3:56:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 1:36:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 12:37:31 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I do find it ironic that people blame the man for raping a women who is too drunk to consent, when the man himself may be too drunk for consent.

How does that work, exactly? Legally, I mean.

Personally, I don't believe alcohol is an excuse for anything, and people cite it all the time. "I was drunk, I didn't mean to say that"

The question is usually whether consent was actually given at all--"too drunk to consent" usually meaning "too drunk to actually consent" as opposed to "too drunk to have their consent be allowed".
This is true, as most women don't see beforehand "we're having sex tonight".

But, if a woman did, then gets drunk and passes out, is it rape?
She never withdrew her consent.
It's sleazy to have sex with a passed out girl, but that's not the issue I'm looking at.
Perhaps I should start a different thread....

I doubt any woman has ever explicilty given consent, then passed out, then said she was raped. That is not the situation that generally happens. In fact, explicit consent rarely happens--the situation in this video just doesn't happen:

Instead, it's usually an ongoing consent thing, which means that consent isn't given until it happens.

In general, I believe that it's been found that predators know who to pick, and that them claiming "Oh, I was drunk too" is really just an excuse for them molesting someone who's not conscious.

I get that, and it is a convienent excuse.
But, legally, if you are too intoxicated, you cannot form the intent required to commit most definitions of rape. Kind of like drinking and driving isn't murder due to criminal negligence.

Well, 1, I beg to differ that you can't form the intent required. For 2, Vehicular homicide laws are different, and it's a negligence offence rather than one of intent because, though they knew or should have known it was a possible consequence, their intent was NOT that they wanted to kill someone...if it could be shown that they did try to hit the pedestrian or whathaveyou, they would likely be charged with murder. 3, I wager it would be considered to some extent strict liability, for the same reason statutory rape is, though I'm not a lawyer and this sort of quibbling on rape is somewhat bothersome.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:16:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 12:29:47 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Every once in awhile, I think to myself, " I really should have stayed in college". And I wonder, "What was it about the school I attended that made it a crappy place?"

And then things like this come up:

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu...


"...[N]othing is done about sexual assault, short of blaming the "attacker," a guy who was likely as drunk as his "victim.""

And I think, "Oh, right. That's what."

Heh. The comments section can make one wonder whether or not the people commenting are all from Debate.org.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's the greatest solution for dudes: don't have sex on college campuses because if you do, in the aftermath she will accuse you of rape, and you'll go to jail for something you didn't do, being forever branded a rapist. Meanwhile, she'll throw herself a pity party, receive lots of hugs and and nice cards from the people in her life, and then move on to hook up with another dude.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:30:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:21:30 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Here's the greatest solution for dudes: don't have sex on college campuses because if you do, in the aftermath she will accuse you of rape, and you'll go to jail for something you didn't do, being forever branded a rapist. Meanwhile, she'll throw herself a pity party, receive lots of hugs and and nice cards from the people in her life, and then move on to hook up with another dude.

Do you really think that most accusations of rape are false?

If so, does this affect your opinion any:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...

?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 8:40:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:30:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 8:21:30 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
Here's the greatest solution for dudes: don't have sex on college campuses because if you do, in the aftermath she will accuse you of rape, and you'll go to jail for something you didn't do, being forever branded a rapist. Meanwhile, she'll throw herself a pity party, receive lots of hugs and and nice cards from the people in her life, and then move on to hook up with another dude.

Do you really think that most accusations of rape are false?

If so, does this affect your opinion any:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com...

?

I think I see your point, but at the same time any girl who has had sexual intercourse with a dude can later claim that she was raped, by claiming that she didn't really consent when you knew at the time that she did. I mean, if she is slightly uneasy about it while she's doing it (but overall she's enjoying the experience), can she say that she didn't consent?
It's better just to not have sex. That way you don't run the risk of this happening.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2014 9:03:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:40:08 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:

I think I see your point, but at the same time any girl who has had sexual intercourse with a dude can later claim that she was raped, by claiming that she didn't really consent when you knew at the time that she did. I mean, if she is slightly uneasy about it while she's doing it (but overall she's enjoying the experience), can she say that she didn't consent?
It's better just to not have sex. That way you don't run the risk of this happening.

All interpersonal interaction carries a degree of risk that the other person is a bad person. But bearing in mind that the odds of someone making a false accusation are vanishingly small, I think you're going a bit far--but I suppose everyone gets to set their own level of acceptable risk.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 8:33:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 7:47:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 3:56:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I doubt any woman has ever explicilty given consent, then passed out, then said she was raped. That is not the situation that generally happens. In fact, explicit consent rarely happens--the situation in this video just doesn't happen:

I'm not sure if it happens or not, I'm under the impression that colleges advise men to ask before sex (or at least used to). Honestly, I don't know.
Keep in mind I've been informally accused of raping someone, so I approach this issue with more scrutiny.


Instead, it's usually an ongoing consent thing, which means that consent isn't given until it happens.
The problem with that, though, is that if it is ongoing, it can also be withdrawn at any point.
In other words, at any moment, I could be raping her with zero warning.

In general, I believe that it's been found that predators know who to pick, and that them claiming "Oh, I was drunk too" is really just an excuse for them molesting someone who's not conscious.

I get that, and it is a convienent excuse.
But, legally, if you are too intoxicated, you cannot form the intent required to commit most definitions of rape. Kind of like drinking and driving isn't murder due to criminal negligence.

Well, 1, I beg to differ that you can't form the intent required.
I disagree.
Why can a girl be too drunk to consent? Because she is too drunk to form intent. It should work both ways, IMO, but, like rape, is hard to prove as an affirmative defense. I doubt you would ever convince a jury by saying "I was drunk, and didn't know what I was doing". This is only applicable where no force is involved.

For 2, Vehicular homicide laws are different, and it's a negligence offence rather than one of intent because, though they knew or should have known it was a possible consequence, their intent was NOT that they wanted to kill someone...if it could be shown that they did try to hit the pedestrian or whathaveyou, they would likely be charged with murder.
Man 1: https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
Specifically states "a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance."
Reenforcing the notion that intoxicated hinders intent.

Man 2: https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
Notice this is negligence.

You want strict liability, that is vehicular manslaughter, which carries the same term, but is a different crime.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...

Notice the difference.
Gross negligence vs. Culpable negligence

3, I wager it would be considered to some extent strict liability, for the same reason statutory rape is, though I'm not a lawyer and this sort of quibbling on rape is somewhat bothersome.
It appears in my state, intent is still required.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 12:57:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 8:33:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/6/2014 7:47:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/6/2014 3:56:17 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

I doubt any woman has ever explicilty given consent, then passed out, then said she was raped. That is not the situation that generally happens. In fact, explicit consent rarely happens--the situation in this video just doesn't happen:

I'm not sure if it happens or not, I'm under the impression that colleges advise men to ask before sex (or at least used to). Honestly, I don't know.
Keep in mind I've been informally accused of raping someone, so I approach this issue with more scrutiny.


Instead, it's usually an ongoing consent thing, which means that consent isn't given until it happens.
The problem with that, though, is that if it is ongoing, it can also be withdrawn at any point.
In other words, at any moment, I could be raping her with zero warning.

Only if the consent is withdrawn and you ignore that, Khaos.

If you're having sex, and your partner tells you to stop you stop.

In general, I believe that it's been found that predators know who to pick, and that them claiming "Oh, I was drunk too" is really just an excuse for them molesting someone who's not conscious.

I get that, and it is a convienent excuse.
But, legally, if you are too intoxicated, you cannot form the intent required to commit most definitions of rape. Kind of like drinking and driving isn't murder due to criminal negligence.

Well, 1, I beg to differ that you can't form the intent required.
I disagree.
Why can a girl be too drunk to consent? Because she is too drunk to form intent.

I expressly noted that that's not what we're usually talking about, Khaos:

"The question is usually whether consent was actually given at all--"too drunk to consent" usually meaning "too drunk to actually consent" as opposed to "too drunk to have their consent be allowed"."

It should work both ways, IMO, but, like rape, is hard to prove as an affirmative defense. I doubt you would ever convince a jury by saying "I was drunk, and didn't know what I was doing". This is only applicable where no force is involved.

Being drunk does not relieve you of the consequences of your actions. At most it can turn something that would otherwise clearly imply intent into possibly negligence.

For 2, Vehicular homicide laws are different, and it's a negligence offence rather than one of intent because, though they knew or should have known it was a possible consequence, their intent was NOT that they wanted to kill someone...if it could be shown that they did try to hit the pedestrian or whathaveyou, they would likely be charged with murder.
Man 1: https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
Specifically states "a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance."
Reenforcing the notion that intoxicated hinders intent.

Not at all. Seriously, Manslaughter is, again, a crime not indicating a purposeful intent to kill. Nobody suspects that most drunk drivers intended to kill anyone, and nobody advocates Murder 1 for it.

Man 2: https://www.revisor.mn.gov...
Notice this is negligence.

You want strict liability, that is vehicular manslaughter, which carries the same term, but is a different crime.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov...

Notice the difference.
Gross negligence vs. Culpable negligence

All of your links are "Forbidden", so...I can't notice the difference. I recognize that certain decisions are made legislatively, though--due to a specific need to address specific issues. There's a difference between what's philosophically the case, and what is the case in the law as a result of situations.

If there was a huge William Tell problem, William Telling would probably have a special place in the law...

3, I wager it would be considered to some extent strict liability, for the same reason statutory rape is, though I'm not a lawyer and this sort of quibbling on rape is somewhat bothersome.
It appears in my state, intent is still required.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov...

Again: Links are broken.

And I challenge you to find a case where a person has done an action, and gotten a court to find they were unable to form the intent required because they were drunk. If you can do so, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to beg to differ.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In a case of having sex with an unconscious person, or a person who is specifically denying their consent, I do not believe you could ever make the case on intent alone--unless, at best, you argued that the accused didn't realize the person was passed out--which is an entirely different argument.

There is no such thing as "I was too drunk to realize I shouldn't be raping". There could arguably be "I was too drunk to understand the situation", but, again, that's a different issue, it's an issue of comprehension, not intent.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 1:56:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/6/2014 8:40:08 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
It's better just to not have sex. That way you don't run the risk of this happening.

^^ this ^^
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 3:10:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.

I can tell you are getting angry, so I'll stop talking now. And, maybe I am confusing the two. And, if I hadn't, I am aware that most rapes are not an issue of consent, and probably 70% of date rapes aren't either.

And, those links are pissing me off for being broken/forbidden. They are broken on my FB page too, for an related matter.
They are links to the MN office of the revisor (i.e. the current statutes as written). It is a government website....
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2014 11:08:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 3:10:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.

I can tell you are getting angry, so I'll stop talking now.

Wait, what? I'm not angry...if I'm coming across angry, I apologize. Short, perhaps, was part of my intent, but not by any means angry. If I may expound for a moment, I have found your opinion on things to be sometimes...privileged, but never dishonest or innately terrible. I'm never mad at you.

Except in mafia.

Then I'm mad at you all the time.

And, maybe I am confusing the two. And, if I hadn't, I am aware that most rapes are not an issue of consent, and probably 70% of date rapes aren't either.

And, those links are pissing me off for being broken/forbidden. They are broken on my FB page too, for an related matter.
They are links to the MN office of the revisor (i.e. the current statutes as written). It is a government website....

I wonder if it's some kind of IP thing? I tried just googlin', and it didn't work (I at least try to find solutions if I'm gonna nitpick).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.

The links work, for now.
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:31:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.

The links work, for now.

I'm still not sure where I'm seeing the intent requirement:

"Subdivision 1.Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree:

(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact;



I don't really see the specific intent requirement that I think you were saying?

There's the general intent requirement--that is the touching has to be intentional (as opposed to "whoops, I fell over", which we can all agree I think is generally ludicrous as a claim)--but not that the intention has to be anything more than that.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also thanks for letting me know the links work--primary sources FTW
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:52:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:31:13 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:21:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/7/2014 1:00:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Just don't confuse general intent with specific intent.

The links work, for now.

I'm still not sure where I'm seeing the intent requirement:

"Subdivision 1.Crime defined. A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree:

(1) if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact;



I don't really see the specific intent requirement that I think you were saying?

There's the general intent requirement--that is the touching has to be intentional (as opposed to "whoops, I fell over", which we can all agree I think is generally ludicrous as a claim)--but not that the intention has to be anything more than that.

Hmmmmm, I think the law may have changed.
That might be why the page was down.

I'll look into it.
You can see at the top, there is a yellow banner that said the law was affected by 2014 session. They may have changed the wording.
My work here is, finally, done.