Total Posts:130|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If it would be rape, is it theft?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 7:35:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A woman goes out for her 26th birthday and blacks out and calls a cab from Uber.
Uber has some policy called surge pricing and was charged 9x the normal fare. A bill of $362 for a cab ride home.

http://www.twincitiesnewstalk.com...

If she were to have had sex that night, it would have been rape. So, should she be held responsible for this charge?
Can she consent in one legal contract, but not another?
My work here is, finally, done.
Nymphomaniac
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rape isn't a contracts issue.
Fill all my holes, please.

http://www.debate.org...

: At 11/17/2014 9:30:55 AM, Wylted wrote:
: I killed Nymph because her reads were incredibly good. I thought it was a result of inside knowledge.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

Why not?
Saying I can sleep with you is a verbal contract, given by a consenting adult to another.
If you cannot consent, you cannot contract. Just like minors cannot contract with custodial consent.
My work here is, finally, done.
Nymphomaniac
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2014 8:47:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rape is a criminal issue. Yes, consent is part of it. But the requirements are statutory and totally different than the laws that govern contracts.
Fill all my holes, please.

http://www.debate.org...

: At 11/17/2014 9:30:55 AM, Wylted wrote:
: I killed Nymph because her reads were incredibly good. I thought it was a result of inside knowledge.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2014 6:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:35:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
A woman goes out for her 26th birthday and blacks out and calls a cab from Uber.
Uber has some policy called surge pricing and was charged 9x the normal fare. A bill of $362 for a cab ride home.

http://www.twincitiesnewstalk.com...

If she were to have had sex that night, it would have been rape. So, should she be held responsible for this charge?
Can she consent in one legal contract, but not another?

Stop telling Uber how to run their business!
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 12:25:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A "libertarian" will never be able to comprehend this. He actually thinks that he's devised a clever rationalization for blaming the victim in some cases of rape, but all that he's really done is reveal his own crass cognitive orientation that applies law and legal reasoning that appertains to purchasing goods and services while inebriated to scenarios in which women intoxicated to the point of not being able to give consent are taken advantage of sexually. And of course he's revealed a superiority-oriented mentality that doesn't exactly identify and empathize with the vulnerable and the victimized, but instead seeks a rationalization to absolve predators. And it's so obvious that I needn't even point out that he's a sexist keen of defending his fellow penis-possessors, even when they use their penises improperly. Yep, he's really gone and outed his mentality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 1:54:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 12:25:34 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A "libertarian" will never be able to comprehend this. He actually thinks that he's devised a clever rationalization for blaming the victim in some cases of rape, but all that he's really done is reveal his own crass cognitive orientation that applies law and legal reasoning that appertains to purchasing goods and services while inebriated to scenarios in which women intoxicated to the point of not being able to give consent are taken advantage of sexually. And of course he's revealed a superiority-oriented mentality that doesn't exactly identify and empathize with the vulnerable and the victimized, but instead seeks a rationalization to absolve predators. And it's so obvious that I needn't even point out that he's a sexist keen of defending his fellow penis-possessors, even when they use their penises improperly. Yep, he's really gone and outed his mentality.

Oh, you.

So, as a man, you feel that you should be thrown in prison because a woman had one beer and asked you for sex?
If my escort gets drunk, am I raping her? It is a business transaction.
If I have a woman, while drunk, sign a contract, is it still rape?
Do you also feel it is equal that a bartender is sued for serving an intoxicated girl another drink if she drives and kills, but cannot be taken advantage of by a cab driver financially?

Because of this later example, my view on this has substantially softened; however, yes, I do feel that women who have been drinking need to take responsibility for their actions, just as anyone else does. If a women has a few drinks and becomes flirtatious, is it the man's fault for acting on it?

I tire of people saying "I was drunk" as an excuse to absolve them of their behaviors.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 1:54:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 12:25:34 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A "libertarian" will never be able to comprehend this. He actually thinks that he's devised a clever rationalization for blaming the victim in some cases of rape, but all that he's really done is reveal his own crass cognitive orientation that applies law and legal reasoning that appertains to purchasing goods and services while inebriated to scenarios in which women intoxicated to the point of not being able to give consent are taken advantage of sexually. And of course he's revealed a superiority-oriented mentality that doesn't exactly identify and empathize with the vulnerable and the victimized, but instead seeks a rationalization to absolve predators. And it's so obvious that I needn't even point out that he's a sexist keen of defending his fellow penis-possessors, even when they use their penises improperly. Yep, he's really gone and outed his mentality.

Oh, you.

So, as a man, you feel that you should be thrown in prison because a woman had one beer and asked you for sex?
If my escort gets drunk, am I raping her? It is a business transaction.
If I have a woman, while drunk, sign a contract, is it still rape?
Do you also feel it is equal that a bartender is sued for serving an intoxicated girl another drink if she drives and kills, but cannot be taken advantage of by a cab driver financially?

Because of this later example, my view on this has substantially softened; however, yes, I do feel that women who have been drinking need to take responsibility for their actions, just as anyone else does. If a women has a few drinks and becomes flirtatious, is it the man's fault for acting on it?

I tire of people saying "I was drunk" as an excuse to absolve them of their behaviors.

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

Why does a legal view have to represent a personal view?
My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment.
I don't consider it rape if a woman has one glass of wine with dinner, you apparently do. I don't think a man should be held responsible for what another does while they are drunk, you do.

This says nothing as to what I actually believe is ethical or proper behavior.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:26:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

Why does a legal view have to represent a personal view?
My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment.
I don't consider it rape if a woman has one glass of wine with dinner, you apparently do. I don't think a man should be held responsible for what another does while they are drunk, you do.

This says nothing as to what I actually believe is ethical or proper behavior.

Do you refer to women as the B-word?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2014 6:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:26:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

Why does a legal view have to represent a personal view?
My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment.
I don't consider it rape if a woman has one glass of wine with dinner, you apparently do. I don't think a man should be held responsible for what another does while they are drunk, you do.

This says nothing as to what I actually believe is ethical or proper behavior.

Do you refer to women as the B-word?

What does it matter?
What if I do? What difference does that make?
What if I don't? What does that mean?
What if I do, but also refer to men in that tone?
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 6:36:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:29:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:26:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

Why does a legal view have to represent a personal view?
My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment.
I don't consider it rape if a woman has one glass of wine with dinner, you apparently do. I don't think a man should be held responsible for what another does while they are drunk, you do.

This says nothing as to what I actually believe is ethical or proper behavior.

Do you refer to women as the B-word?

What does it matter?
What if I do? What difference does that make?
What if I don't? What does that mean?
What if I do, but also refer to men in that tone?

It goes to where you're really coming from.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 2:46:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/5/2014 6:29:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:26:59 PM, charleslb wrote:

Do you refer to women as the B-word?

What does it matter?
What if I do? What difference does that make?
What if I don't? What does that mean?
What if I do, but also refer to men in that tone?

And please answer the question (truthfully), do you use the B-word?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 3:06:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.

... so we are really just haggling over price, then. I think what seperates this example would be a shifting price tag. Sober person uses Uber in the early portion of the night, its a 50 dollar fare. Drunk person (same one) then uses literally the same Uber rep to get home, and it becomes 450. I have never seen candy change price from shelf to checkout, and some one unfamiliar with Uber, especially drunk, would never know. If a sober person would balk at a 450 dollar cab ride, there is no reason to say the same drunk person cannot give consent to such a transaction given the gravity of the amount of money dedicated to the event. There are some good parallels that could be drawn, but I don't think that goes to color some one's character.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:02:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 7:35:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

What's behind this obsession you have with rape? Did someone you know get accused and you think it was unfairly?

Contracts are voidable if one person is under diminished capacity, especially if the other party knowingly took advantage of it.

Here, a woman sold her house when drunk and it was voided on appeal.

http://law.justia.com...

So if a woman signed a contract to have sex with you while she was drunk it would probably be voidable because she was drunk. It would be void anyway because you can't pre-consent, and this has been explained to you in all kinds of way s by all kinds if people and you won't accept it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 9:29:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:02:02 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/3/2014 7:35:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

What's behind this obsession you have with rape? Did someone you know get accused and you think it was unfairly?
It's not an obsession with rape, it is in consent. I want to know what it is, and I am met with hostility by EVERYONE who are staunch defenders of victims.....and I mean hostility. Both you and kbub have accused me of raping my wife, or, at least, concerned about and/or joked about.
Have you noticed that I am not talking about sex at knife point?

Contracts are voidable if one person is under diminished capacity, especially if the other party knowingly took advantage of it.
Especially if the other party took advantage of it; however, that isn't the case in rape when both people are drunk, is it?
Further, this sounds like you agree, then, that this should have been theft, and service should have been refused.

Here, a woman sold her house when drunk and it was voided on appeal.

http://law.justia.com...

So if a woman signed a contract to have sex with you while she was drunk it would probably be voidable because she was drunk. It would be void anyway because you can't pre-consent, and this has been explained to you in all kinds of way s by all kinds if people and you won't accept it.
And you don't find a problem with this?
Not in the signing of the contract while drunk, but being drunk when the contract is executed.
Do you believe that every contract should have an escape clause if the person changes their mind at the last second, or is drunk at the time?
So, assuming prostitution were legal, I hire an escort, and it is agreed that I pay for dinner and sex. She has a glass of wine during dinner. I rape her for executing her contract? Did she steal from me for eating dinner, then?

I'm sorry if I am dense on this, but I do not see alcohol as an excuse. If you want the freedom to do things, you need to accept the responsibility as well. Don't get drunk and hit on strange men.
Further, I don't why the burden is on the man to do a field sobriety test before having sex.

I am not referring to people who are literally passed out at a party.
I am not referring to people who manipulate others.

Perhaps I see things as a man that you are unaware of, and I think the onus on the man is too great.
Did you know that a man is convicted of rape if the woman lies about her age? That is still statutory rape, even if the woman lies about her age and uses a fake ID.
So, if a woman lies and says she is not drunk, how does a man defend against that?

Again, a question you have yet to answer: how drunk is too drunk to consent? How is a man to know?
Is it your contention that one drink negates a woman's right to consent? And if so, then she loses all consent, and must be protected by her man, and trust he makes all the right decisions, up to and including if she is drunk.

Do you not see how anti-feminist this notion is?
Do you not see how this idea is not so simple, and is never defined, similar to "living wage" or "fair share"?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:18:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.

...So, it's an issue of gravity of consequence?
Should the legal system not care if the theft was a dollar? Not investing man hours is different than legal theory.

So, you are fine that women are raped, as long as they aren't too violated, right?
Charge the one's who have sex with blackouts, but not the one's that had one glass of wine.

Again, this is you using the legal system as an ethical system, and it is quite disturbing.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 1:20:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/6/2014 6:36:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:29:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:26:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:16:38 PM, charleslb wrote:

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

Why does a legal view have to represent a personal view?
My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment.
I don't consider it rape if a woman has one glass of wine with dinner, you apparently do. I don't think a man should be held responsible for what another does while they are drunk, you do.

This says nothing as to what I actually believe is ethical or proper behavior.

Do you refer to women as the B-word?

What does it matter?
What if I do? What difference does that make?
What if I don't? What does that mean?
What if I do, but also refer to men in that tone?

It goes to where you're really coming from.

Hmm, attempting to rationalize withholding empathy from and blaming the victim of rape would rather seem to indicate that you perhaps have some underlying hostility toward the female sex. One can't help but wonder, when you're out with buddies who share your attitudes do you refer to women as the B-word, or perhaps even the C-word? Well, do you dear fellow?

^ sounds like you don't care where I am coming from, since you have no problem assuming it. Thus, whatever I answer, you will cast aside.
My work here is, finally, done.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 3:56:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 1:18:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.

...So, it's an issue of gravity of consequence?

A woman being raped is a rather serious matter, ergo it does indeed make sense to apply certain theories and standards of capacity to consent and responsibility that one wouldn't apply in determining whether an individual who purchased a dollar piece of candy while under the influence is entitled to a refund.

Should the legal system not care if the theft was a dollar? Not investing man hours is different than legal theory.

Should the legal system not make intelligent distinctions? Also, I would point out, in the case of a man having intercourse with a highly intoxicated, intoxicated-beyond-having-the-ability-to-give-consent partner, that, well, as in all cases of sexual intercourse, close, intimate contact takes place, much closer and more intimate contact than what takes place between a store clerk and a customer. Therefore one is quite likely to be aware of the impaired state of a sex partner while a store clerk can more plausibly claim to be innocent of having known that he was selling merchandise to a drunk customer. Therefore different theories and standards of responsibility should and do apply. But, well, if you're so simpleminded that you'll only be satisfied with a uniform theory and standard of responsibility for everyone who deals with an inebriated individual, we should err in favor of victims and apply across the board and indiscriminately the theory and standard that currently applies in cases of rape. But although this may appease your unsophisticated sense of logic and fairness I don't suppose that it will make too many convenience store owners or others who may occasionally sell goods and services to intoxicated customers too happy. What an ironic thing, a "libertarian's" sense of logic leading to an outcome that adversely affects business owners.

So, you are fine that women are raped, as long as they aren't too violated, right?

This is rather moronic, since nothing that I said could intelligently be interpreted to imply such a view.

Charge the one's who have sex with blackouts, but not the one's that had one glass of wine.

Yes, charge the suspected perpetrator of sexual assault, not the victim.

Again, this is you using the legal system as an ethical system, and it is quite disturbing.

Nope, I simply approve of serious matters being treated more seriously.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:16:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 3:06:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.

... so we are really just haggling over price, then. I think what seperates this example would be a shifting price tag. Sober person uses Uber in the early portion of the night, its a 50 dollar fare. Drunk person (same one) then uses literally the same Uber rep to get home, and it becomes 450. I have never seen candy change price from shelf to checkout, and some one unfamiliar with Uber, especially drunk, would never know. If a sober person would balk at a 450 dollar cab ride, there is no reason to say the same drunk person cannot give consent to such a transaction given the gravity of the amount of money dedicated to the event. There are some good parallels that could be drawn, but I don't think that goes to color some one's character.

"Haggling over price" has a crass, cynical, reductionistic, delegitimating connotation. I would prefer to characterize my argument as one that's in favor of making reasonable distinctions between individual cases based on their seriousness and the extent to which an intoxicated person has been taken advantage of.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:31:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

Is the women to blame in this situation?

A women goes out partying and gets drunk. While she is drunk, she consents to sex. The next day, she feels bad about what happened and claims to be raped.

Is she to blame or is the man to blame?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:40:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:16:59 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2014 3:06:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/6/2014 6:37:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/5/2014 6:24:54 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

My question is of a legal inconsistency, upon which you failed to comment. It deals with a legal disparity, of which you failed to comment...

Well, if a suspect in a crime is interrogated and volunteers an admission of guilt under the influence of alcohol such a confession will be inadmissible in a court of law. Also, if intoxicated fiancees get married their union can certainly be annulled on the grounds of their state of inebriation at the time of getting hitched. And, likewise, if a highly intoxicated woman is involved in intercourse she is not viewed by the law as competent to give consent and can in fact be considered a rape victim.

On the other hand, if she does something trivial such as hiring a taxi or purchasing a candy bar while in the same state of impairment she probably will not be considered to have grounds to get her money back. So why is intoxication relevant in the first three scenarios, or more specifically, in the scenario of a woman having sexual relations while under the influence, but not in more trivial scenarios? The answer is of course quite simple and self-explanatory.

Quite simply, different theories and standards of competence to give consent and responsibility apply in serious matters such as giving a confession that can send one to prison for years, or someone inserting a part of his body into your body and injecting one of his bodily fluids into you. Understandibly, we very much want a person in police custody who throws away his freedom or a woman who has sex to be in a state of mind and cognizance to fully know what s/he is doing. And, given the gravity of such matters, we therefore will also hold a police detective who receives a confession or a sexual partner responsible to notice the inebriate's state and conduct himself accordingly. But in the case of a more trivial action such as purchasing a candy bar while sloshed we don't make the same issue of the inebriate's mental condition and lack of ability to give consent. Nor do we hold store clerks to a terribly high standard of responsibility to notice that a customer is liquored up before selling her candy. In short, it's simply reasonable that the nature and seriousness of the matter in question matters. The criminal justice system may present more legalistic rationales, but this is essentially what they boil down to. Is any of this really so difficult to grasp? Well, perhaps it is if one suffers from a masculinist bias.

... so we are really just haggling over price, then. I think what seperates this example would be a shifting price tag. Sober person uses Uber in the early portion of the night, its a 50 dollar fare. Drunk person (same one) then uses literally the same Uber rep to get home, and it becomes 450. I have never seen candy change price from shelf to checkout, and some one unfamiliar with Uber, especially drunk, would never know. If a sober person would balk at a 450 dollar cab ride, there is no reason to say the same drunk person cannot give consent to such a transaction given the gravity of the amount of money dedicated to the event. There are some good parallels that could be drawn, but I don't think that goes to color some one's character.

"Haggling over price" has a crass, cynical, reductionistic, delegitimating connotation. I would prefer to characterize my argument as one that's in favor of making reasonable distinctions between individual cases based on their seriousness and the extent to which an intoxicated person has been taken advantage of.

Vichyssoise or cold 'tater soup. End dollar figure is what dictates the severity of the incident, if there one, correct? That is what I am gathering from a few of the examples that are monetary in nature.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Nymphomaniac
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:55:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:31:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A women goes out partying and gets drunk. While she is drunk, she consents to sex. The next day, she feels bad about what happened and claims to be raped. Is she to blame or is the man to blame?

That's not rape. That's a woman who has been slut-shamed by our society to such a serious extent that she now "claims" she was raped, just for having consensual sex. The problem there is a sexually repressive society, not rape.
Fill all my holes, please.

http://www.debate.org...

: At 11/17/2014 9:30:55 AM, Wylted wrote:
: I killed Nymph because her reads were incredibly good. I thought it was a result of inside knowledge.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:13:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:55:29 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:31:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A women goes out partying and gets drunk. While she is drunk, she consents to sex. The next day, she feels bad about what happened and claims to be raped. Is she to blame or is the man to blame?

That's not rape. That's a woman who has been slut-shamed by our society to such a serious extent that she now "claims" she was raped, just for having consensual sex. The problem there is a sexually repressive society, not rape.

So to clarify, informed/sober consent is not needed for sex?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Nymphomaniac
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:13:55 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:55:29 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:31:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A women goes out partying and gets drunk. While she is drunk, she consents to sex. The next day, she feels bad about what happened and claims to be raped. Is she to blame or is the man to blame?

That's not rape. That's a woman who has been slut-shamed by our society to such a serious extent that she now "claims" she was raped, just for having consensual sex. The problem there is a sexually repressive society, not rape.

So to clarify, informed/sober consent is not needed for sex?

Depends on the circumstances. Having sex while drunk doesn't mean you got raped. But having sex while you're drunk, when there are elements of psychological coercion involved -- that's a different case. The specific facts matter.
Fill all my holes, please.

http://www.debate.org...

: At 11/17/2014 9:30:55 AM, Wylted wrote:
: I killed Nymph because her reads were incredibly good. I thought it was a result of inside knowledge.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:25:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:22:01 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
At 11/7/2014 5:13:55 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:55:29 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
At 11/7/2014 4:31:26 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 11/3/2014 8:24:33 PM, Nymphomaniac wrote:
Rape isn't a contracts issue.

A women goes out partying and gets drunk. While she is drunk, she consents to sex. The next day, she feels bad about what happened and claims to be raped. Is she to blame or is the man to blame?

That's not rape. That's a woman who has been slut-shamed by our society to such a serious extent that she now "claims" she was raped, just for having consensual sex. The problem there is a sexually repressive society, not rape.

So to clarify, informed/sober consent is not needed for sex?

Depends on the circumstances. Having sex while drunk doesn't mean you got raped. But having sex while you're drunk, when there are elements of psychological coercion involved -- that's a different case. The specific facts matter.

Drunk enough to say yes, when were she sober, she wouldn't. Socially lubricated enough to ignore inhibition due to intoxicating agent. Sex occurs under this circumstance. Rape or no?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 7:52:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Charles, you are saying either:
Some rape is okay, as long as the circumstances aren't too egregious.
Some theft is okay, as long as the circumstances aren't too egregious.

The fact that you say one's inebriation prohibits them from cognitive awareness means that you can take advantage of someone for being drunk and literally "steal" from them by charging them way more than you otherwise would is proving my point.

If one is a legal (or moral) outrage, then so should the other.
Either drunks should be able to make decisions or not, but let's be consistent.
My work here is, finally, done.
Nymphomaniac
Posts: 665
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 10:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:25:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Drunk enough to say yes, when were she sober, she wouldn't. Socially lubricated enough to ignore inhibition due to intoxicating agent. Sex occurs under this circumstance. Rape or no?

First off, that's a false situation. You can't determine whether a woman would have said "no" if she were sober after-the-fact. That runs into a classic hindsight bias problem. So the situation you're describing is hypothetical; it doesn't exist in reality and likewise can't be answered in reality.

Second, even if your situation were real (we could determine what the woman would have done sober), under your situation, there aren't enough facts to give you an answer. Other circumstances are almost always more important than how drunk the woman is. Things like psychological and physical coercion matter. Where was the woman when she "consented"? Was she with a guy in a secluded area? Was she in her home and invited the guy in? How much consent was there? Was the woman asked expressly if she would like to have sex? Was there an affirmative "yes" or did she just go along with it? You need to look at all the relevant circumstances, not just how drunk the woman was.
Fill all my holes, please.

http://www.debate.org...

: At 11/17/2014 9:30:55 AM, Wylted wrote:
: I killed Nymph because her reads were incredibly good. I thought it was a result of inside knowledge.