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

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
FINE. HERE.
People v. Giardino (2000)
82 Cal. App. 4th 454 [98 Cal. Rptr. 2d 315]

This is your cue to shift the goalposts.

Not at all; you're halfway there! You're actually looking at cases now, congratulations! Now, you just need to find a case that actually supports what you're saying!

That case (and particularly the part you highlighted) just says that actual consent is invalid if the person is too incapacitated to have given that consent. It doesn't give a standard to judge the incapacitation. Certainly not the "rational decisions" standard you're throwing around. This is good though, you're looking at actual law!

Arbitrary · Jul 2, 2014

The best part about actual cases is they cite things.

[6] In deciding whether the level of the victim's intoxication deprived the victim of legal capacity, the jury shall consider all the circumstances, including the victim's age and maturity. (Cf. People v. Young (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 248, 257 [235 Cal.Rptr. 361].)It is not enough that the victim was intoxicated to some degree, or that the intoxication reduced the victim's sexual inhibitions. "Impaired mentality may exist and yet the individual may be able to exercise reasonable judgment with respect to the particular matter presented to his or her mind." (People v. Peery, supra, 26 Cal.App. at p. 145; accord, People v. Griffin, supra, 117 Cal. at p. 585.)Instead, the level of intoxication and the resulting mental impairment must have been so great [82 Cal. App. 4th 467] that the victim could no longer exercise reasonable judgment concerning that issue. fn. 6

Right, so being drunk isn't enough even if your sexual inhibitions are lowered and even if you are mentally impaired provided you are able to exercise reasonable judgement as to whether or not you want to ride dick.

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
The best part about actual cases is they cite things.

Right, so being drunk isn't enough even if your sexual inhibitions are lowered and even if you are mentally impaired provided you are able to exercise reasonable judgement as to whether or not you want to ride dick.

Its also worth noting that the appeals court decision (which this is) reversed the conviction of a guy for rape by intoxication because the trial court got the standard wrong when they explained it to the jury. And the appeals court found substantial evidence that she was NOT impaired:

In short, there is substantial evidence both that the victim actually consented and that she possessed the legal capacity to do so. There being evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the victim was not so intoxicated that she was deprived of the ability to exercise reasonable judgment, the trial court's erroneous failure to properly instruct the jury [82 Cal. App. 4th 471] concerning the elements of section 261(a)(3) cannot be deemed to have been harmless. The conviction on counts 2 through 5 must be reversed.

So, good case Tanoomba, thanks bro. Way to submarine your whole argument. Hahaha.

Charlie Delicious_sl · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes and yes.

Will she not touch you when she's been drinking?

Abefroman · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

So where are these real world examples of men being raped by women where consequences are involed due to the man not giving consent.

Lightning Lord Rule · Jul 2, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Its also worth noting that the appeals court decision (which this is) reversed the conviction of a guy for rape by intoxication because the trial court got the standard wrong when they explained it to the jury. And the appeals court found substantial evidence that she was NOT impaired:

So, good case Tanoomba, thanks bro. Way to submarine your whole argument. Hahaha.

ROFL

Cad - 9,327 | Tanoobia - 0

Arbitrary · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

Here is a quote from the 2007 paper by Koss (the Ms Magazine 1 in 4 women have been raped study person) Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Improve Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimization

?We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim. Furthermore, the data indicate that men?s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women?s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported. (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).

We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men?s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article.

No, it's a gender issue.

Tanoomba · Jul 2, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Not at all; you're halfway there! You're actually looking at cases now, congratulations! Now, you just need to find a case that actually supports what you're saying!

That case (and particularly the part you highlighted) just says that actual consent is invalid if the person is too incapacitated to have given that consent. It doesn't give a standard to judge the incapacitation. Certainly not the "rational decisions" standard you're throwing around. This is good though, you're looking at actual law!

Yup, goalposts shifted, right on cue. My claim was that taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions due to the influence of alcohol to get them to fuck you counts as rape. I found CASE LAW that makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM. Yes, because the judge made a mistake explaining to the jury the case was overturned. Yes, the victim in that case may not have actually been incapable of making rational decisions. That does NOTHING to change the fact that you can't give legal consent (even if you can give "actual consent") once you're too drunk to make rational decisions.

Now, you're acting like the "standard" to judge how drunk someone may be somehow became the issue at hand. That's shifting goalposts, my friend, and it's very disingenuous. However, because it's an interesting issue (one entirely separate from my point that has been proven many times over but that you still refuse to acknowledge), let's address it:
As far as the "standard" to judge incapacitation, from what I understand that's up to the jury. The prosecution makes a case using evidence to attempt to prove that the victim was beyond the point of "sound mind" (see my previously-linked guide for more details about how the prosecution does this) and the jury decides if that claim has merit. That's the standard. It's not a black-or-white litmus test, as has been acknowledged. We use logic and reason to observe all available evidence and decide if a rape victim was capable of giving consent or not. It may not be perfect, but it's the best our legal system can do for cases that are notoriously difficult to prove.

What tangent would you like to off on next? What new goal posts would you like to erect? What unrelated gibberish would you like to cling to like a life preserver in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging that I found case law that proves my point? Pathetic.

Tanoomba · Jul 2, 2014

Abefroman_sl said:
So where are these real world examples of men being raped by women where consequences are involed due to the man not giving consent.

Ask Trollface. He's got the goods.

Tanoomba · Jul 2, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
No, it's a gender issue.

Not according to the law. That matters more than an article from Ms Magazine, thank you very much.

Arbitrary · Jul 2, 2014

That's not an articlefromMs. Magazine you idiot. That's a scholarly research paper from Mary P. Koss, the lady who did the study where "1 in 4 women are raped" came from. You are aware that there are rape laws on the books to this day that require the victim to have been penetrated, right?

You know, since you are such a whiz when it comes to law.

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yup, goalposts shifted, right on cue. My claim was that taking advantage of someone who's incapable of making rational decisions due to the influence of alcohol to get them to fuck you counts as rape. I found CASE LAW that makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM.

No you didn't

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, because the judge made a mistake explaining to the jury the case was overturned. Yes, the victim in that case may not have actually been incapable of making rational decisions. That does NOTHING to change the fact that you can't give legal consent (even if you can give "actual consent") once you're too drunk to make rational decisions.

You're still stating "rational decisions" as if thats what the case said. The case said you have to be able to exercise "reasonable judgment" as to your actions. It doesn't mean your decision has to be rational. You just had to be reasonably capable of exercising some judgment.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Now, you're acting like the "standard" to judge how drunk someone may be somehow became the issue at hand. That's shifting goalposts, my friend, and it's very disingenuous. However, because it's an interesting issue (one entirely separate from my point that has been proven many times over but that you still refuse to acknowledge), let's address it:
As far as the "standard" to judge incapacitation, from what I understand that's up to the jury. The prosecution makes a case using evidence to attempt to prove that the victim was beyond the point of "sound mind" (see my previously-linked guide for more details about how the prosecution does this) and the jury decides if that claim has merit. That's the standard. It's not a black-or-white litmus test, as has been acknowledged. We use logic and reason to observe all available evidence and decide if a rape victim was capable of giving consent or not. It may not be perfect, but it's the best our legal system can do for cases that are notoriously difficult to prove.

It absolutely is a question for the jury, as are all fact questions. But the judge tells the jury what the law is, so that the jury can apply the facts to the law. And the judge in that case should have told the jury that if the girl was capable of exercising reasonable judgment, then no rape by intoxication.

This is exactly what everyone in this thread has been talking about, you simpleton. We've all been discussing the degree of intox. You and Mist are like "if they've been drinking, they can't consent" Obviously ones intoxicated too heavily to judge whats going on, are too intoxicated to consent. Nobody has ever said otherwise!

There should be some proof of rape and intox prior to charging people, which is also obvious. There's no goalposts being moved, you're just very selectively replying to posts, repeating the same nonsense and spouting bullshit in 27 different directions.

Tanoomba_sl said:
What tangent would you like to off on next? What new goal posts would you like to erect? What unrelated gibberish would you like to cling to like a life preserver in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging that I found case law that proves my point? Pathetic.

Your case law very soundly DISPROVES your point, sir.

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
That's not an articlefromMs. Magazine you idiot. That's a scholarly research paper from Mary P. Koss, the lady who did the study where "1 in 4 women are raped" came from. You are aware that there are rape laws on the books to this day that require the victim to have been penetrated, right?

You know, since you are such a whiz when it comes to law.

Doesn't that depend on whether their contract for sex includes penetration? Wait, contract? What?

Arbitrary · Jul 2, 2014

Can you issue a trigger warning before you use the word "contract" please? I associate it with some traumatic experiences I had on a forum once.

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Can you issue a trigger warning before you use the word "contract" please? I associate it with some traumatic experiences I had on a forum once.

Go cry on tumblr

iannis · Jul 2, 2014

I just think its great that Tanoomba goes out of his way to disprove himself and then stays all flummoxed up about it.

Keep fighting the derp fight. If you derp hard enough you might eventually herp.

Mist · Jul 2, 2014

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.

Actually, that sounds like a really fun game.

Tanoomba · Jul 2, 2014

Cad_sl said:
No you didn't

Uh, yeah I did.

Cad_sl said:
You're still stating "rational decisions" as if thats what the case said. The case said you have to be able to exercise "reasonable judgment" as to your actions. It doesn't mean your decision has to be rational. You just had to be reasonably capable of exercising some judgment.

Oh, so semantics is your new life preserver. You take issue with my use of "able to make rational decisions" because it's clearly the exact opposite of having "reasonable judgment". What a fucking tool.

Cad_sl said:
It absolutely is a question for the jury, as are all fact questions. But the judge tells the jury what the law is, so that the jury can apply the facts to the law. And the judge in that case should have told the jury that if the girl was capable of exercising reasonable judgment, then no rape by intoxication.

Yeah, so? It still acknowledges that taking advantage of someone who isn't capable of *ahem* "sound judgment" counts as rape.

Cad_sl said:
This is exactly what everyone in this thread has been talking about, you simpleton. We've all been discussing the degree of intox. You and Mist are like "if they've been drinking, they can't consent" Obviously ones intoxicated too heavily to judge whats going on, are too intoxicated to consent. Nobody has ever said otherwise!

WOW. FUCKING WOW. You're a real piece of shit, you know that? What you're now stating as "obvious" is what you've REPEATEDLY told me I was "WRONG" about. REPEATEDLY. Also, I should remind you, after I made my statement clearly several times, YOU always came back with "unconscious or physically incapacitated". This is the FIRST TIME in the entire thread that you've included "too drunk to judge what's going on." You are the scum of the scum, my friend.

Cad_sl said:
Your case law very soundly DISPROVES your point, sir.

It proves that fucking someone who's too drunk to consent counts as rape. That was my one and only point from the beginning which the lot of you fought tooth and nail against.

Attention! Attention!We have nowofficiallyreached the point where several of my opponents are now acknowledging that what I've been saying has been right all along. As has been the case every other time this has happened (and there have been several), they are pretending that nobody ever argued this point, when it has been nothing but argued until now. They are pretending that I was somehow promoting points that I've never come close to implying, let alone stating outright. They are grasping at straws to find ways to obfuscate the fact that they have no choice but to acknowledge that I am once again in the right. This WILL happen again, kids. Take note. Fuck, I evenwarnedyou the last time, AND gave you tips about how to prevent your own humiliation! And yet, the knee-jerk desire to contradict me just because I'm me has cost you all your dignity yet again. Fuck, I love Rerolled.

Cad · Jul 2, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Oh, so semantics is your new life preserver. You take issue with my use of "able to make rational decisions" because it's clearly the exact opposite of having "reasonable judgment". What a fucking tool.

Words matter. Reasonable judgment is different than a rational decision. I'm sorry you're too dumb to see it.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yeah, so? It still acknowledges that taking advantage of someone who isn't capable of *ahem* "sound judgment" counts as rape.

If they are so intoxicated they can't exercise reasonable judgment? At least in California, yes, that appears to be the standard! Congratulations!

Tanoomba_sl said:
WOW. FUCKING WOW. You're a real piece of shit, you know that? What you're now stating as "obvious" is what you've REPEATEDLY told me I was "WRONG" about. REPEATEDLY. Also, I should remind you, after I made my statement clearly several times, YOU always came back with "unconscious or physically incapacitated". This is the FIRST TIME in the entire thread that you've included "too drunk to judge what's going on." You are the scum of the scum, my friend.

They need to be so intoxicated they can't exercise reasonable judgment. If you read the case you cited, the girl was quite intoxicated, but they found substantial evidence she was capable of judgment. If you look for cases where they uphold the reasonable judgment standard and affirm a conviction, I think you'll find my characterization of the law to be largely correct.

If you can quote me disagreeing with that, try it.

Tanoomba_sl said:
It proves that fucking someone who's too drunk to consent counts as rape. That was my one and only point from the beginning which the lot of you fought tooth and nail against.

Only a brain dead fucking retard like you would think we're arguing against that. We're arguing against "drunk = rape" which is what you and Mist have been spouting from the beginning.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Attention! Attention!We have nowofficiallyreached the point where several of my opponents are now acknowledging that what I've been saying has been right all along. As has been the case every other time this has happened (and there have been several), they are pretending that nobody ever argued this point, when it has been nothing but argued until now. They are pretending that I was somehow promoting points that I've never come close to implying, let alone stating outright. They are grasping at straws to find ways to obfuscate the fact that they have no choice but to acknowledge that I am once again in the right. This WILL happen again, kids. Take note. Fuck, I evenwarnedyou the last time, AND gave you tips about how to prevent your own humiliation! And yet, the knee-jerk desire to contradict me just because I'm me has cost you all your dignity yet again. Fuck, I love Rerolled.

Since this happens often, you might want to consider the possibility (shocking, I know) that its you who are misconstruing the issue. If you're continually arguing with large groups of people who all think you're stupid, you might take a step back and wonder if your trolling/discussion method isn't causing people to misinterpret what you mean. Because you continually restate asinine things that don't relate to what anyone is arguing in an attempt to "win" an argument.

ZyyzYzzy · Jul 2, 2014

Jesus fucking christ, we can't honor our favorite monicas but this shit heap of a thread can continue to exist?

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

scientia potentia est

Tranny Chaser

scientia potentia est

shitlord

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Il_Duce Lightning Lord Rule

Lightning Fast

Tranny Chaser

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

Tranny Chaser

scientia potentia est

scientia potentia est

Tranny Chaser

scientia potentia est

Musty Nester

REEEEeyore

ジョーディーすれいやー

scientia potentia est

RIP USA