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

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
And yet, if someone took advantage of your drunken state to get you to sign a contract, it could be voided. Because the "consent" you literally signed onto paper doesn't count if it was the product of someone intentionally taking advantage of your inability to make rational decisions. And before you start repeating yourself, that consent doesn't count NOT because you were drunk, but because another party KNEW you were compromised and exploited that for his personal gain. According to THE LAW, "consent" doesn't count if it was intentionally coerced out of someone who couldn't make rational decisions.

And 15 days later we are back to contracts...
By Adolf Hitler

The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Fedor · Jul 3, 2014

He raped them all with his sitting posture.

I'm even raping all women right now while sitting here and typing this.

Araysar · Jul 3, 2014

Today I referred to one woman as a "cum dumpster" while talking to another woman. No noticeable reaction was noted.

Eomer · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
That's all I ever wanted.

Fuck you, seriously. I had this exact same fucking argument with you a month ago, and you ran off like a little pussy then, and you WERE claiming that simply being drunk and "coerced" was enough for rape.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Again (again, again), most people can drink and fuck and have no problems. But I would venture that most people who fucked while drunk didn't end up feeling like they were "taken advantage of".If a guy knows a girl has no interest in him, but keeps buying her drinks and slowly building up the pressure until something gives, he is damn well risking rape charges, and with good reason. It isnot OKto use alcohol to push someone into doing something they wouldn't do.Itis OKto use alcohol as a social lubricant to bring about a conclusion both parties desire. If you can't tell which situation you're in, for fuck's sake ABANDON SHIP, spend a little more time learning about social interaction and members of the opposite sex, and try again later.

Hell even Cad called you out on your stupid shit:

Cad_sl said:
Tanoomba, you're taking one thing out of context regarding contracts, which applies only to contracts because contracts are intended to reflect the mutual assent and intents of both parties (and represent continuing obligations), and trying to somehow apply that to consent for sexual assault, which it just doesn't.

I don't know how else to explain that to you. The cases regarding rape of an intoxicated person just don't apply contract law. I'm sure thats surprising to you. But they don't. And you applying it in that fashion is simply wrong, and not supported by any kind of legal precedent.

If you can find me a case applying contract law to rape, then lets see it.

I think I get what you're trying to say, which is "taking advantage of someone to have sex with them while they are intoxicated is wrong, and I don't like it, so I want to call it rape and have people agree with me because who would argue for rape? Make it so!" ... but, much like the zimmerman thread, you took one idea, which is "Zimmerman shouldn't have followed Martin just because he was black, I think thats wrong and therefore I'm going to decide Zimmerman was at fault" and just made a bunch of WILD UNSUPPORTED COMPLETELY FUCKING APE SHIT RETARDED arguments about law and right and wrong which simply ARE NOT LAW.

If you want to argue about Tanoomba's special thoughts about right and wrong, nobody's going to argue that with you. You can think something is wrong, and its fine. But when we're talking about whats LEGAL, words have specific LEGAL meanings. Those meanings are often determined by case law. YOUR FUCKING MADE UP DEFINITION IS WRONG. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Another gem from you:

Tanoomba_sl said:
Are you joking? Are you actually joking here? Being drunk absolutely makes you less intelligent, and certainly less capable of controlling your own thought process. Less knowing, too. Obviously. Fucking common truths disappear like they never existed. Like Cad, you're giving me better words than I could have thought of myself. I'm a teacher, not a writer.

And more!

Tanoomba_sl said:
See, what you're missing is that you can't give consent when drunk.The vast majority of the time people get away with it because they know what they're doing and both sides mutually benefit, but you can't actually give consent when drunk. This is why I keep coming back to the contract example. It's the same damned thing. If, legally, a contract can be voided because the other party knew the signing party was drunk and took advantage of that, then rape charges can be filed if someone took advantage of someone's drunken state to fuck them.

So listen you snivelling little cunt, don't even fucking TRY to go back on your own words. You previously were adamant that "you can't give consent when drunk." Who is moving the fucking goal posts here? You repeatedly claimed that. Over and over again. And never once acknowledged that you were flat out fucking wrong. You have to be severely intoxicated, not just simply drunk, to be unable to consent. As you've now gone ahead and admitted in your most recent posts.

You could have saved everyone some fucking time, just realized you're a fucking retard, and shut the fuck up.

Eomer · Jul 3, 2014

Fuck it, here's some more:

Tanoomba_sl said:
If you take advantage of a drunk person and get them to fuck you, you can get charged with rape. This is the way things are.

Tanoomba_sl said:
So who gets to decide where to draw the line? You? PEOPLE WHO ARE DRUNK ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO COERCION. That doesn't mean a drunk guy will "flay his own penis for quarters", but it DOES mean that people can take advantage of a drunk person to get what they want. As a civilized and reasonable species, we have to make sure this is not exploited to the point where it can have a serious effect on someone's health or well-being. Luckily, we ARE doing that.

I'm just telling you how it is. Right now. You're huffing and hawing and saying "It shouldn't be like this!" Guess what, fuckers: it IS. After all the flak I take for being "naive" and talking about idealistic scenarios, you guys are pretty stuck on the concept of a world where any guy can fuck any drunk girl and never have to face any consequences. Of all the fantasy versions of the world you could imagine,thisis the one you choose to champion? For shame.

Tanoomba_sl said:
When did we switch from coerce to compel? When someone is in a susceptible state (ie: drunk), it is significantly easier to convince them to do things they would normally not agree to do. Just because you are aware of this when you drink, it doesn't give the rest of the world carte blanche to take advantage of your state to, for example, get you to sign a contract or, alternatively, to fuck you.

Come on, whoever the fuck you are.

Tanoomba_sl said:
Then it could pretty easily be argued, despite your previous claim that such is not the case, that the person taking advantage of a drunk person is, in fact, "making" something happen. You know, by being the driving force behind the action that was undertaken.

Tanoomba_sl said:
So, like I said, you would "grit your teeth" and accept the consequences of your friend's actions because you willingly got drunk. That doesn't mean you weren't coerced, by the way. You just put yourself in a position where you were more susceptible to coercion. Maybe to you having your car smashed up is just an "Oops, what was I thinking?" thing, but like I also said, a line has to exist where it's no longer OK to take advantage of someone who's drunk. Luckily, we already have at least 2 reasonable situations where such is the case:
- When someone coerces you into signing a contract while drunk
- When someone coerces you into fucking them while drunk

Or are you implying that any drunk person is fair game for anyone else to exploit, abuse or take advantage of in any way simply because, while drunk, the target was a "willing" participant?

I'm getting bored, but there's pages of this shit.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

I'm going to find a case law that shows how a judge used my standard for rape on a trial. That should prove that my standard is correct. But instead I found a case where the judge who used my standard, got told by his superiors, that the standard used did not mean what he thought it meant.

Am I doing it rite?

The victim testified that she then walked into a room where the defendant and Lyles, his friend, were working on a computer. On a laptop computer they were playing a pornographic CD depicting men and women engaging in sexual acts. The defendant told the victim, "I want to see you play with yourself." Other witnesses testified that, upon seeing the activity depicted on the computer screen, the victim volunteered, "I can do that," to which the defendant responded, "Well, show me."

The victim testified that her "judgment was not there." Without objecting, she pulled down her jeans and panties to below her knees, lay on the floor, and masturbated for three minutes. Thereafter, Norliza helped the victim pull up her clothes. She did not need Norliza's help, but she was "wobbly."

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Eomer_sl said:
I'm getting bored, but there's pages of this shit.

Alright, I was willing to let all this shit go, but if you insist...

Full disclosure: I was wrong when I started off saying that consent couldn't be given when drunk. That might be campus policy, but it's not law.
Now, as early asMay 31(that's over a month ago), I clarified my point:

Tanoomba_sl said:
Your example is terrible because you explicitly state that the person in question is "still capable of making rational decisions". This is not always the case when alcohol is involved. In fact, I'm talking exclusively about cases where the person in question isNOT capable of making rational decisions.THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT TAKING ADVANTAGE.

To which I got this response:

Cad_sl said:
Taking advantage of people isn't illegal

Taking advantage of a woman's drunkenness isn't rape,absent force or her being unconscious/incapacitated.

FYI

This is wrong. our legal expert was flat-out wrong. Unconscious or incapacitated is not where the bar is set. A person can give actual consent that doesn't count as legal consent, as we have seen.

I reiterated my point:

Tanoomba_sl said:
Alcohol is a drug, by any definition of the term. Exploiting someone's drug-induced compromised state,a state where their ability to give consent is severely compromised,even if the drug was consumed willingly, is rape.

Another missed opportunity to acknowledge actual law:

Cad_sl said:
Since rape is a crime, saying what is and isn't rape is a legal question. Can you provide citations to case law in a state in the US where this would be true?

We also later had this gem:

Cad_sl said:
If she even remembers what happened, she wasn't too drunk to consent.

Again, this is legally wrong. A person can remember what happened and still have been too drunk to consent. BY LAW.

Cad_sl said:
If she has no memory of what happened, and there were no witnesses,how do you prove there was no consent?Further,what would there be to investigate?I guess if she were drugged with rohypnol or similar, that would be something. Butabsent that, what would you even do?

These questions seem particularly odd coming from someone who should already know the answers. Fuck, all I had to do was Google it, and now we ALL know how to go about proving there was no consent.

Cad_sl said:
How do I know I didn't give consent?Just because its something I can't picture myself doing doesn't mean I wouldn't do it when drunk/stoned/whatever.

Again, if it's something you would only do when you're too fucked up to know what you're doing, then you didn't give legal consent.

Let's keep going:

Tanoomba_sl said:
According to THE LAW, "consent" doesn't count if it wasintentionally coerced out of someone who couldn't make rational decisions.

Cad_sl said:
Wrong

Or show me case law or statues that support your position.

I'll save you the time:

Wrong

Once again, a feeble grasp of how the law works from our friend the lawyer.

By this point I had long-abandoned the "can't give consent when drunk" stance. Just to make sure everyone knew what I was talking about, I clarified yet again:

Tanoomba_sl said:
You act like it's impossible to take advantage of a drunk person. The law already recognizes that it is, in fact, possible to take advantage of a drunk person to get them to do what they don't want to do. This has nothing to do with "feels" and it has nothing to do with infantilizing women.It is possible to get someone to do what they don't want to do when they're incapable of making rational decisions.

Does anybody disagree? Does anybody have a problem with this?

Guess what? That already legally and officially recognized precedent (reminder: That someone can take advantage of you in a compromised state to get you to do something you don't want to do) is the core of what I'm saying. I'm not saying women shouldn't take responsibility for their actions. I never have. But there's a difference between doing something and having something done to you. A legally-recognized difference. As has been mentioned many times, including on a site I linked to, judges are not sympathetic to drunk people and their fuck-ups. But when it can be shown that said fuck-up was the result of a piece of shit who knew you were fucked and exploited it for his/her gain, that's whenthe lawcomes in and says "No, that's not OK."

Jesus fucking Christ, my first graders have better comprehension than you guys.

And again, using clear and unambiguous language:

Tanoomba_sl said:
However, none of that matters when the main point I'm trying to make is thatgetting someone who doesn't want to fuck you to fuck you by exploiting their inability to make rational decisions does count as rape.

And again:

Tanoomba_sl said:
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: Thattaking 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!

And again:

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

Cad_sl said:
Wrong

Now I finally got off my lazy ass and look into actual law, providing a legal guide to how prosecutors can charge someone with the EXACT type of rape I've been describing for over a month, but it wasn't enough:

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. And "Prosecutor's Guides" don't equate to case law, even if DA's wish they did.

Tanoomba_sl said:
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.

Now Lawyer Boy started to soften up a bit, but he still insisted that you had to be drunk "to the point of unconsciousness or incapacitated" which is patently untrue:

Cad_sl said:
No we've never said anything different than "obviously if someone isdrunk 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 ANUNCONSCIOUS OR INCAPACITATEDWOMAN IS RAPE AND NOBODY HAS EVER SAID DIFFERENTLY YOU FUCKING TWIT.

When asked to find case law that showed "my" legal standard for rape, I did so. My challenge wasn't to find a case where someone was found guilty of rape, it was to find case law that unambiguously stated that it is possible to rape someone who says "Yes" if they're drunk enough to not be in control of their mental capacities. It should have ended there, but Kid Law still saw fit to mock me and claim that what I just proved was what everybody was saying all along, which as I just showed you, is complete BULLSHIT. However, since he DID technically acknowledge that the point I had been trying to make was right, I figured we had come to a nice and tidy conclusion. I even got a fucking infraction for having the audacity to express a modicum of joy at having reached the goal I had been fighting an uphill battle over a month for.

TLDR: Yes, I was wrong about being unable to give consent while drunk. But for over a month, I've been absolutely right about not being able to give consent if you're incapable of sound judgment. Had this been acknowledged a month ago, we could all have been saved much bickering.

I can play this game too.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
I'm going to find a case law that shows how a judge used my standard for rape on a trial. That should prove that my standard is correct. But instead I found a case where the judge who used my standard, got told by his superiors, that the standard used did not mean what he thought it meant.

Am I doing it rite?

No, but thanks for showing that it isn't as easy as it looks.

My challenge was to find case law that showed that you can not give legal consent when you are incapable of making rational decisions (AKA: When you don't have sound judgment). The case I found stated such EXTREMELY CLEARLY. The judge himself stated it EXTREMELY CLEARLY to the lawyers, but then didn't state it as clearly to the jury. That was the judge's mistake. However, that doesn't change the fact that the case I found absolutely proves that you can not give legal consent when you're too far drunk, EVEN IF you say "Yes" and EVEN IF you drank all that alcohol of your own free will.

Please, please, let's stop going in circles here.

Lejina · Jul 3, 2014

If you suffer from tldr here's the cliffnotes:

Tanoomba_sl said:
Full disclosure: I was wrong

Palum · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, but thanks for showing that it isn't as easy as it looks.

My challenge was to find case law that showed that you can not give legal consent when you are incapable of making rational decisions (AKA: When you don't have sound judgment). The case I found stated such EXTREMELY CLEARLY. The judge himself stated it EXTREMELY CLEARLY to the lawyers, but then didn't state it as clearly to the jury. That was the judge's mistake. However, that doesn't change the fact that the case I found absolutely proves that you can not give legal consent when you're too far drunk, EVEN IF you say "Yes" and EVEN IF you drank all that alcohol of your own free will.

Please, please, let's stop going in circles here.

Yea, except your definition of 'too far drunk' is a shot of PBR and the legal definition of 'too far drunk' is passed out.

Arbitrary · Jul 3, 2014

Drunk or too drunk?

edit - related

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Palum_sl said:
Yea, except your definition of 'too far drunk' is a shot of PBR and the legal definition of 'too far drunk' is passed out.

Very wrong. Try to keep up. You don't have to be passed out. You can actually say "Yes" and still not have given legal consent. I have proven such by referencing legal definitions, legal documents and case law. Now get off my back.

Abefroman · Jul 3, 2014

This is like the fucking Zimmerman thread all over again.

Gavinmad · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Full disclosure: I was wrong

Finally

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Look who else was underestimated.

Arbitrary · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba, the Tanoomba of last week would have called the Tanoomba of today a rapist.

Going to go with "too drunk" on fatty here.

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Tanoomba, the Tanoomba of last week would have called the Tanoomba of today a rapist.

If you mean the Tanoomba of over a month ago, you've almost got a point. However, that means for over a month I've been right on the money, but everyone's been too caught up in shitting on me to give credit where credit was due. That's OK, though. I forgive you guys. I even forgive Cad for pretending he was a lawyer. He really pulled one over on all of us.

Arbitrary · Jul 3, 2014

Fine, new game. On a scale of 1 through 10 how much does Mist hate these bitches.

Lendarios · Jul 3, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
No, but thanks for showing that it isn't as easy as it looks.

My challenge was to find case law that showed that you can not give legal consent when you are incapable of making rational decisions (AKA: When you don't have sound judgment). The case I found stated such EXTREMELY CLEARLY. The judge himself stated it EXTREMELY CLEARLY to the lawyers, but then didn't state it as clearly to the jury. That was the judge's mistake. However, that doesn't change the fact that the case I found absolutely proves that you can not give legal consent when you're too far drunk, EVEN IF you say "Yes" and EVEN IF you drank all that alcohol of your own free will.

Please, please, let's stop going in circles here.

The us legal system and the court of appeals... how do they work???
Never double down on stupid. Here is a protip. If the judge gets reverse on appeals is because got the law wrong. Quoting that judge is as absurd as quoting the dissenting opinion of any supreme case court. It is called the dissenting opinion for a reason.... BECAUSE THEY LOST THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE MAJORITY

Tanoomba · Jul 3, 2014

lendarios_sl said:
The us legal system and the court of appeals... how do they work???
Never double down on stupid. Here is a protip. If the judge gets reverse on appeals is because got the law wrong. Quoting that judge is as absurd as quoting the dissenting opinion of any supreme case court. It is called the dissenting opinion for a reason.... BECAUSE THEY LOST THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE MAJORITY

Please stop. You're misunderstanding the case and we'd all like to move on.

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

Trump's Staff

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.

Trakanon Raider

Trakanon Raider

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー

ジョーディーすれいやー

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

what Suineg set it to

Tranny Chaser

ジョーディーすれいやー

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider

Mr. Poopybutthole

ジョーディーすれいやー

Tranny Chaser

ジョーディーすれいやー

Tranny Chaser

Trump's Staff

ジョーディーすれいやー