(PG- 13) Steubenville, Round IV: NAP vs Personal Repsonsibility

[presence]

lol. Out of context quote was out of context. Nice try.

In context, I said even in MMA, the fighter has the opportunity to remove consent. If you do not have the opportunity to remove consent, the act cannot be deemed consensual. In this case, her ability to deny her consent was incredibly compromised.

I suppose there was nothing they could do to this girl that you would deem inappropriate. What if they bit her? "All part of the act, she didn't complain". What if they inserted electrical probes into her? "hey, we thought she'd be ok with it, she didn't tell us not to!" Your position gives these creeps free rein to whatever they feel like doing to her after she can no longer deny her consent. Like I said previously, just because she may have considered consenting to sex with them earlier in the night, there's no way a reasonable person could assume she was in a position to consent to what they actually did to her.

Next time, if you're going to cherry pick quotes, you may want to keep them in context.

Even if she didn't consent that doesn't imply that the mens rea of the accused was criminal intent. Just because she was a "victim of circumstance" and "her own folly" does not imply that she was "victim of a crime" perpetrated by another party.

You are entering a realm of false logic whereby you assume because there is in injured party there must be an injuring party. Simply not true.


"Because I got hurt, somebody hurt me."

Birds normally can fly.
Tweety the Penguin is a bird.
Therefore, Tweety can fly.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/accident.html


My position gives "these creeps" (thanks for removing yourself from the the context of the OP) the authority to do whatever sexual act they personally deem appropriate when they believe they have implied consent up until the first action which proves consent is denied or she is no longer conscious. "flick-on-the-face" "kiss on the lips" or "electrical probe to the ass".

Now if you "flick the face" and establish unconsciouness... then proceed to TAKE ADVANTAGE of an UNCONSCIOUS, unresponsive, limp body... that's, in my eyes, criminal. My understanding is one man attempted to finger her while another attempted to get a blow job after she had implied interest in a threesome. When they were both met without conscious response, they left her alone.

 

[dannno]

Can you sign a contract while dunk? If not then their can be no consent while drunk. Now if someone has sex while drunk then wakes up the next morning and fully realizes what happened and then decided not to press charges then that is on the individual. Just like it is illegal for someone to hit me (assault) but may not lead to legal charges if I decide to not charge them or file a report.


That is why if ANY girl is tipsie you DO NOT have sex with them. You cover your ass and make sure you do not violate their rights.

This is bologna. Sometimes you can't even tell a girl is drunk, sometimes alcohol literally just makes them really passionate. But sometimes women are like that without alcohol. It's not my job to give a woman a breathalyzer, especially if I'm also really drunk. That's what doesn't make ANY sense about your post. If both parties are "blotto" and both parties consent, hell, *Begin Rated R* she even gets on top and fucks me, then if the woman cries rape later why can't I then decide she raped me too? I'm sorry, this is just completely illogical.

It is a woman (and man's!) job to make sure they remain in control of their faculties, any decisions they make drunk they are responsible for EXCEPT in the case where they sign a contract for a future obligation.. but that is not what sex is, especially when we are talking about fingers here and condoms, oral sex, etc.. the other exception is if they go to sleep, but then what happens is generally not consented to.

If I split a cab with a guy home and we're both drunk, we have a conversation in the cab and he says "hey man... I got the cab ride, don't worry about it!!" and drops me off, can he then sue me in a court of law because he made that transaction while he was drunk? Can a drunk person sue a bartender for buying a drink while they were drunk? No, because you are responsible for the transactions you make when you're drunk, you just aren't responsible for contracts that have future obligations.

 

[MelissaWV]

I am not reading 9 more pages about this case. I thought the other threads actually resolved most of the issues. Instead I find that new threads are made with the same assertions. Oh well.

What I do find funny, though, is an OP by a poster saying that it's a shame the other threads devolved into name-calling... since the OP's previous contributions were largely peppered with the phrase "teeny whore."

 

[presence]

I am not reading 9 more pages about this case. I thought the other threads actually resolved most of the issues. Instead I find that new threads are made with the same assertions. Oh well.

The Anecdotal Fallacy occurs when a recent memory, an unusual event, or a striking anecdote leads one to overestimate the probability of events of that type occurring

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/volvofal.html

What I do find funny, though, is an OP by a poster saying that it's a shame the other threads devolved into name-calling... since the OP's previous contributions were largely peppered with the phrase "teeny whore."

I am as guilty as the next, and for that I apologize.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Care to make a positive contribution?

 

[jmdrake]

That is not quite right. If you build on my land and I allow it but periodically reassert my dominion, no adverse possession exists. You occupy that land in that house by dint of my good humor and nothing more. If you build on my house and I am unaware, you could be there 100 years and no adverse possession would be in effect. The conditions for adverse possession are that you are on my land, that I am aware of it, and that I assert no claim to that land for 7 years, or 20 in the case of NJ. If every 6.5 years I mail you a certified letter reasserting my ownership, you have bupkis.

That is correct. Thank you for clearing up the legal analysis.

Agreed. The perspectives are very screwed up. I have met hundreds of women who, despite being very "hot" were ultimately painfully unattractive precisely because of their world views. At this point things are so screwed upside down that it really behooves men to take the greatest caution in the liaisons in which they choose to involve themselves. The so-called "feminist" movement went off the rails 30 years ago and the current environment of institutionalized PC has made things very risky for men.

Yeah. I think a lot of bad law starts off with good intentions. Who likes the idea of a poor defenseless drunk woman being taken advantage of? But once you factor in that the guy might be drunk as well and that either party could be just as guilty of "raping" the other because he/she had sex with someone without "proper consent", the whole thing becomes silly, cheapens the definition of rape, and actually puts women in a worse position as perpetual victims. There are cases where clearly there's no consent (she was passed out), but he/she was over some limit but still conscious and able to talk and respond isn't one of them.

 

[presence]

Must See Video: Best Billy Corgan Interview Ever With Alex Jones