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!
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Tanoomba_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
No we've never said anything different than "obviously if someone is drunk to the point of unconsciousness, or drunk beyond speech, etc, they can't consent and you should stay the fuck away from them." But the legal goalposts for this are very high; they require practical incapacitation. Since I know you'll turn "incapable of making rational decisions" into "buzzed into sexy time when she wouldn't have done it sober" - which IS NOT the standard, I want you to realize what the standard actually is. OF COURSE HAVING SEX WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED WOMAN IS RAPE AND NOBODY HAS EVER SAID DIFFERENTLY YOU FUCKING TWIT.

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Its all in how you ask the questions, but as a card-carrying retard, I wouldn't expect you to know that. You asked "if you wake up with no memory of the evening and cum in your ass, were you raped?" WELL I DONT FUCKING KNOW, DO I? Absent some evidence of rape, I can't say. I might have been? And if I was, its illegal. Doesn't make it easier to prove.

If you asked me, "is it illegal to rape someone who is unconscious and won't remember it?" Of course it is. Is it morally wrong? Of course it is. What is your fucking question exactly, imbecile?
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Arbitrary_sl said:
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?
Click to expand...
I'm not acting like I've ALWAYS been arguing about degrees of intoxication, although my point has always been that getting someone who's incapable of making rational decisions to fuck you counts as rape. Did anybody say "Sure, but that's not what you said before"? Did anybody say "Well,obviously! Of course that counts as rape!" No. Even the fuckinglawyertold me I was flat-out WRONG and I had to school him on it.

"Can't respond" is wrong, by the way. She can say "yes" and still not have it count as consent. Not according to my opinion, but according to the law. This is apparently what the majority of you take issue with and refuse to acknowledge, perhaps because it terrifies you that there is some risk involved when fucking really drunk people. Guess what? The world is full of risks and you have to take responsibility for your actions. Yes, that includes fucking people who can't make rational decisions. Get the fuck over it and stop infantilizing men. They don't need your protection, they're perfectly capable of making their own decisions.
 
kegkilla

kegkilla

The Big Mod
<Banned>
11,320
14,739
why do you guys even bother with this little cum dumpster? he gets off on just having people read whatever mind numbing bullshit he has to offer.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
Since I know you'll turn "incapable of making rational decisions" into "buzzed into sexy time when she wouldn't have done it sober" - which IS NOT the standard, I want you to realize what the standard actually is. OF COURSE HAVING SEX WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS OR INCAPACITATED WOMAN IS RAPE AND NOBODY HAS EVER SAID DIFFERENTLY YOU FUCKING TWIT.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? I just showed you that,legally, if you're drunk enough to not be capable of making rational decisions, you're drunk enough to not be able to give legal consent. That is most certainly NOT restricted to "unconscious or incapacitated". Difficult to prove? Oh, hell yes. Still illegal? You'd better believe it.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,437
Tanoomba_sl said:
I'm not acting like I've ALWAYS been arguing about degrees of intoxication, although my point has always been that getting someone who's incapable of making rational decisions to fuck you counts as rape.
Click to expand...
If anyone is just tuning in now these are the kinds of things that Tanoomba considers evidence that a woman was incapacitated by booze.

Tanoomba_sl said:
There could be circumstantial evidence such as the girl having been on her period (a circumstance under which she never intends to have sex). She could have spoken with friends or even her boyfriend about going out to hang out with the girls and having zero intention of hooking up.n Maybe she was a virgin with strong beliefs that sex should only occur after marriage.
Click to expand...
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Tanoomba_sl said:
What are you even talking about? I just showed you that,legally, if you're drunk enough to not be capable of making rational decisions, you're drunk enough to not be able to give legal consent. That is most certainly NOT restricted to "unconscious or incapacitated". Difficult to prove? Oh, hell yes. Still illegal? You'd better believe it.
Click to expand...
Show me some case law or statutes that use the rational decisions standard. Since, you know, those are what we use to convict people.Legallyand all.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Trollface_sl said:
tanoob got a extra set of pms today.

huehuehueheuheuehe
Click to expand...
By the way, Trollface, you still haven't answered my question.

Do you acknowledge that taking advantage of someone who can't make rational decisions counts as rape, or is your "1/3 of rapes are committed by women" stat (that you're so proud of) complete bullshit?

I'm on your side. I think there's some truth to those stats. But they only work if taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions counts as rape. You actually wouldn't be giving up any ground by admitting that, since I've already shown that the law sees it that way anyway, and in the end the law is all that matters. Still, I would be very impressed if you stopped pretending you didn't hear the question and just fessed up.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
28,957
79,437
Cad_sl said:
Show me some case law or statutes that use the rational decisions standard. Since, you know, those are what we use to convict people.Legallyand all.
Click to expand...
You can tell already he's going to cling to the phrase "capable of making rational decisions."

Video related -



edit - holy fuck he used it again in the time it took me to find this sketch
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
it is not rational to go to a bar and buy expensive drinks.

thus, everyone at the bar are not rational and rape is imminent.
 
Araysar

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,132
160,299
I eyeraped at least 20 women today, wifes, daughters, young, middle aged. Should I not have done that?
 
Abefroman

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,594
11,937
So what I'm reading is that women want equal rights but not equal amount of responsiblity? Why is only the male held responsible for getting drunk.
 
Seananigans

Seananigans

Honorary Shit-PhD
<Gold Donor>
13,690
34,179
Lol, did he actually say that about women never intending to have sex when they're on their period? Haha.

This guy is fucking clueless. Most every woman on the planet is at an elevated level of horniness during their period, and many do indeed intend to have sex. Are some women too intellectually grossed out? Possibly. Are most women biologically horny? Probably.
 
TrollfaceDeux

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
90vcMbL.jpg
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Cad_sl said:
Show me some case law or statutes that use the rational decisions standard. Since, you know, those are what we use to convict people.Legallyand all.
Click to expand...
FINE. HERE.
People v. Giardino (2000)
82 Cal. App. 4th 454 [98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315]

1. Lack of Actual Consent Is Not an Element of Offenses Proscribing Sexual Intercourse with Persons Who Lack the Capacity to Give Legal Consent.

In the context of rape and other sexual assaults, "consent" is defined as the "positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will." [82 Cal. App. 4th 460] (? 261.6.) To give consent, a "person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved." (Ibid.; accord, CALJIC No. 1.23.1.) In short, that definition describes consent that is actually and freely given without any misapprehension of material fact. We shall refer to this as "actual consent." fn. 3

By itself, the existence of actual consent is not sufficient to establish a defense to a charge of rape.That the supposed victim actually consented to sexual intercourse disproves rape only if he or she had "sufficient capacity" to give that consent.(See People v. Mayberry (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 143, 154 [125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337]; 2 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Crimes Against Decency and Morals, ? 774, p. 873.)For example, if the victim is so unsound of mind that he or she is incapable of giving legal consent, the fact that he or she may have given actual consent does not prevent a conviction of rape.(People v. Griffin (1897) 117 Cal. 583, 585-587 [49 P. 711], overruled on others grounds by People v. Hernandez (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 529, 536 [39 Cal.Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673, 8 A.L.R.3d 1092].) Hence, the consent defense fails if the victim either did not actually consent or lacked the capacity to give legally cognizable consent.
Click to expand...

This is your cue to shift the goalposts.
 
Tanoomba

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
Abefroman_sl said:
So what I'm reading is that women want equal rights but not equal amount of responsiblity? Why is only the male held responsible for getting drunk.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Men can be (and are) raped by women who take advantage of their drunken state. This is not a gender issue, it's a consent issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.