Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Phazael_sl said:
Araysar is Russian. I assure you he has zero problems drinking alone.

But the whole "made her drink shit" is bullshit, anyhow. If you engage in any recreational activity with risk involved (this included men drinking too) without some degree of precautions, you have to take a measure of responsibility when shit goes wrong. And I still do not buy into this whole "I got her drunk so its rape" crap. People make choices and being voluntarily intoxicated does not absolve you of the consequences of them, no matter what your gender or orientation happens to be. But Tanoomba cannot seem to grasp this concept for some reason. Probably all the gleam from his white knight armor blinding him.
Click to expand...
I grasp that concept perfectly fine, thank you very much. Also, like I've previously stated, even if "getting someone drunk" was a bullshit concept (despite Quaid's testimony), that does absolutely nothing to change the core of what I'm saying: That taking advantage of someone who's unable to make rational decisions to get them to fuck you counts as rape. That's true EVEN IF said person got himself/herself completely smashed of his/her own volition.

Yes, people have to take responsibility for actions undertaken while drunk. No, that doesn't mean it's OK to rape somebody because they chose to compromise their ability to make rational decisions. You steal an unattended bicycle that wasn't locked up, you're still a thief who broke the law (even if the bike owner CHOSE to leave his bike unlocked). You exploit someone who doesn't want to fuck you's inability to make rational decisions to get them to fuck you, you're still a rapist who broke the law. You don't have to "get that person drunk" for this to be true. But by all means, keep repeating misinterpretations of what I've said that I've already addressed multiple times. I understand that some people need to hear things a few times before they understand them. Everyone learns differently.

NEXT!
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Fedor_sl said:
VrZfITQ.gif
Click to expand...
If you see this and think "Bingo! Here's my lay for the night!", don't be surprised if you get a well-earned rape accusation the next day.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
Wrong
Click to expand...
Alright, let's look at it legally, shall we?

From thelegal definition of "rape":

The legal definition of rape_sl said:
Lack of consent is a necessary element in every rape. But this qualifier does not mean that a person may make sexual contact with a minor or incapacitated person who actually consented. Lack of consent may result from either forcible compulsion by the perpetrator or anincapacity to consent on the part of the victim.
Click to expand...
From thelegal definition of "consent":

The legal definition of consent_sl said:
Consent is an act ofreason and deliberation. A person who possesses and exercisessufficient mental capacity to make an intelligent decisiondemonstrates consent by performing an act recommended by another. Consent assumes a physical power to act and a reflective, determined, and unencumbered exertion of these powers.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added by me.)
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
Now go look at case law where courts have applied your dictionary definition of consent to cases where the victim was intoxicated and claimed they could not consent.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...
Well, here's aprosecutor's guide that shows how to do just that.
(From the National District Attorney's Association, not from Jezebel)

Here are a few highlights (spoilered for length):

To begin, the prosecutor should determine which theory of sexual assault to allege.Three potential charging theories exist for proving sexual assault of a voluntarily intoxicated victim. First, sexual assault can be proven in the traditional way by demonstrating that the defendant had intercourse with a victim without consent by using force or the threat of force. In these cases, the victim is intoxicated but proof of the level of intoxication is not an element of the crime. Intoxication is only relevant to the victim?s credibility and vulnerability. Second, sexual assault can be proven by showing that the victim was unconscious at the time of the rape and therefore could not consent. Third,sexual assault can occur when the victim was too intoxicated to consent. Regarding the latter cases, the victim?s level of intoxication must be proven; however,?rape law essentially dispenses with the force requirement by finding that the force necessary for penetration is sufficient.?
Thus,the issue at trial will generally be whether the victim was incapacitated to the point of not being able to consent.
Click to expand...
When deciding whether to charge based on the theory that it was rape because the victim was too intoxicated to consent, it is crucial to analyze
the elements of the crime being alleged. As in all cases, prosecutors must ensure that they are proceeding under a valid legal theory.Although intercourse with someone who is too intoxicated to consent always constitutes moral rape, it is only a crime if it meets the legal definition of rape.In the United States, jurisdictions define this crime in various ways, which include the following:

- Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. In these states, the victim?s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby showing that the sexual act occurred without consent.

- Rape occurs when the defendant has sexual intercourse with a person who is ?mentally incapacitated,? which is generally defined as being renderedtemporarily incapable of appraising his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other substance. In these jurisdictions, the prosecution generally must show that the victim was ?mentally incapacitated? or ?mentally incapable of resisting due to drugs, alcohol, or an anesthetic.?
Click to expand...
How drunk was the victim?
The more intoxicated the victim was, the less likely it is that she was capable of consenting.The following factors can aid in this determination:
? Was she conscious or unconscious? Did she regain consciousness during the rape? Did she pass out during the rape? If so,what did the accused do?
? Did she black out?
? Did she vomit?
? Could she speak? Was she slurring? Was she able to communicate coherently?
? Was she able to walk or did someone (in particular, the defendant) have to carry her? Did she have to lean on someone?
? Was she able to dress/undress herself?
? Were her clothes disheveled?
? Was she responsive or in a nonresponsive state?
? Was she able to perform physical tasks or was her coordination impacted? For example, did she light the wrong end of a cigarette or spill things?
? Did she urinate or defecate on herself?
? What was her level of mental alertness?
? Did she do anything else to indicate whether she was capable of cognitive functioning? For example, did she use her credit card? Did she use her cell phone or e-mail?

? Is there a motive to lie?
If not, why is the victim?s veracity being questioned?
Click to expand...
There's way, way more, of course. Incidentally, the scenarios described in this document FOCUS on the rape victim having consumed alcoholvoluntarily, so (like I mentioned several times) "getting someone drunk" is not a prerequisite!

Would you look at that? It's almost as if the law acknowledges EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. And wowzers! The legal system still demands that the crime of rape be proven before finding someone guilty! Who would have thought? Isn't that KA-RAZY?

Shitty lawyer is shitty.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,442
So now we are rating women in Fedor .gifs as being too drunk to fuck yes/no.

The thread has reached a new low.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Arbitrary_sl said:
So now we are rating women in Fedor .gifs as being too drunk to fuck yes/no.

The thread has reached a new low.
Click to expand...
Yeah, dude. That girl is no contest WAY too drunk to fuck. She exhibits several of the criteria THE LAW uses to determine whether someone is capable of giving consent. I'm sorry if this offends you somehow.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Tanoomba_sl said:
Well, here's aprosecutor's guide that shows how to do just that.
(From the National District Attorney's Association, not from Jezebel)

Here are a few highlights (spoilered for length):

There's way, way more, of course. Incidentally, the scenarios described in this document FOCUS on the rape victim having consumed alcoholvoluntarily, so (like I mentioned several times) "getting someone drunk" is not a prerequisite!

Would you look at that? It's almost as if the law acknowledges EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING. And wowzers! The legal system still demands that the crime of rape be proven before finding someone guilty! Who would have thought? Isn't that KA-RAZY?

Shitty lawyer is shitty.
Click to expand...
No fucking shit dumbass, your little "guide" doesn't say anything about the actual issue, which is "how intoxicated do you have to be to be unable to consent?" Thats the whole point. And "Prosecutor's Guides" don't equate to case law, even if DA's wish they did.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,442
Tanoomba_sl said:
Yeah, dude. That girl is no contest WAY too drunk to fuck. She exhibits several of the criteria THE LAW uses to determine whether someone is capable of giving consent. I'm sorry if this offends you somehow.
Click to expand...
It's disgusting that you would try and move the discussion to a bunch of men sitting around rating intoxicated women on a would fuck/would not fuck scale.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
No fucking shit dumbass, your little "guide" doesn't say anything about the actual issue, which is "how intoxicated do you have to be to be unable to consent?" Thats the whole point.
Click to expand...
Yes, it actually does.

Generally, there is not a bright-line test for showing that the victim was too intoxicated to consent, thereby distinguishing sexual assault from drunken sex. In drunk driving cases, the prosecution can show that the driver had a certain BAC; therefore, the driver is guilty. Sexual assault cases involving alcohol are not as clear cut.There is not a universal BAC at which the law or the experts agree that people are no longer capable of consenting to intercourse. Instead, the equation involves an analysis of the totality of the circumstances and numerous factors.The factors discussed herein are divided into two parts: (1) general factors and (2) predatory behavior on the part of the defendant. By analyzing these factors and considering the totality of the circumstances, the prosecutor can determine whether the case is sexual assault or not.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as a litmus test (I never implied it was), but through the magic of logic and reason we are able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was too drunk to consent and was therefore raped.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Arbitrary_sl said:
It's disgusting that you would try and move the discussion to a bunch of men sitting around rating intoxicated women on a would fuck/would not fuck scale.
Click to expand...
A: I didn't "shift" the conversation anywhere. That image fit in very nicely with what I've been saying.
B: Nobody's "rating" intoxicated "women". There was one woman, and she illustrates what the law means when it says "too intoxicated to give consent".
C: It has nothing to do with "would fuck/would not fuck". It has everything to do with "can legally fuck/can't legally fuck".

So take your ridiculously misguided righteous indignation elsewhere... perhaps to a remedial English class that can help you with your reading comprehension.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, it actually does.



It's not as simple as a litmus test (I never implied it was), but through the magic of logic and reason we are able to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was too drunk to consent and was therefore raped.
Click to expand...
You do realize that judges decide these things, not prosecutors right? What, you afraid of looking at the case law?
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,442
Tanoomba, you've been arguing for weeks that intoxication automatically negates consent (and it doesn't) because something something contracts. You don't get to now act like you've always been arguing about degrees of intoxication. This is literally the first hour of the first day of you taking a nuanced position.

Yes, you shouldn't fuck someone that can't respond. Good thing no one was saying the opposite?
 
Mario Speedwagon

Mario Speedwagon

Gold Recognition
<Prior Amod>
19,525
72,214
Tanoomba_sl said:
A: I didn't "shift" the conversation anywhere. That image fit in very nicely with what I've been saying.
B: Nobody's "rating" intoxicated "women". There was one woman, and she illustrates what the law means when it says "too intoxicated to give consent".
C: It has nothing to do with "would fuck/would not fuck". It has everything to do with "can legally fuck/can't legally fuck".

So take your ridiculously misguided righteous indignation elsewhere... perhaps to a remedial English class that can help you with your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
So if I'm sitting there minding my own business, completely sober, and that chick comes up to me and pulls my pants down and starts sucking me off am I raping her? I mean being sober and seeing clearly that she is hammered drunk am I taking advantage of her to the point of rape by not pulling my cock out of her mouth?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
You do realize that judges decide these things, not prosecutors right? What, you afraid of looking at the case law?
Click to expand...
Wait a second, is your point that it's difficult to prove and rarely is? Is that your point? Because you've constantly been telling me that I'm wrong when I say that taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions to fuck them counts as rape. Apparently, according to the law, I'm not wrong at all. It's absolutely rape and it's absolutely illegal. If you're saying "sure, but a judge has to find someone guilty and that rarely happens in such cases", then you're shifting goalposts.

Yeah, you're right, it's the form of rape that's the easiest to get away with due to the inherent difficulties associated with proving level of intoxication and predatory behavior. So fucking what? Doesn't make it any less of a crime. What, you think "if it can't be proven, it's not illegal"? You're disgusting, Cad, and the fact that you've been bending over backwards to deny the law AS A FUCKING LAWYER to defend the actions of rapists is beyond despicable. You should be deeply, deeply ashamed.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,442
Dr. Mario Speedwagon_sl said:
So if I'm sitting there minding my own business, completely sober, and that chick comes up to me and pulls my pants down and starts sucking me off am I raping her? I mean being sober and seeing clearly that she is hammered drunk am I taking advantage of her to the point of rape by not pulling my cock out of her mouth?
Click to expand...
That would have been Tanoomba's position yesterday and since the thread started, yes. Mist's position would be that you would deserve whatever charges she felt like filing in the morning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.