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

Cad_sl said:

<Tanoomba>
No dude, you don't understand, because <assumption that goes to the ultimate conclusion of the entire discussion>, then <bunch of other wild ass assumptions and reasoning stemming from the first assumption>.

Don't you understand? How can you not get it? Is my explanation not remedial enough?

I'll post this a few hundred more times over the next couple of days in case you didn't understand the first time. I will then claim victory over you and everyone else in this thread, and cite their lack of understanding of my simple points to conclude that they are psychopaths and/or idiots.
</Tanoomba>

Click to expand...

You forgot the part where, unable to actually reasonably debate anything I said, the opposition decided to have a sarcasm contest.

Also, to be fair, I don't think it's so much a "lack of understanding" as it is "willful ignorance". Not uncommon, really. When people's values are challenged, they tend to avoid any real exchange of ideas, preferring instead to misinterpret and exaggerate their opponents' words in order to create a cortoonish villain they can rally against. I've made it a hobby to pick inarguable, ridiculously obvious points (Zimmerman's gun probably didn't save his life, being white offers several advantages, taking advantage of a drunk girl to fuck her is rape, etc) that I know will be hot topics for you guys. I then entertain myself watching the troops work themselves up into a frenzy, desperately grasping at straws to find a way,any way, to contradict what I'm saying. This usually ends when:

a) People take my original point (the one that hasn't been intentionally and repeatedly manipulated) and say "Well, yeah, that's a given. Nobody was ever arguing that." I do so enjoy when the argument comes full circle like that.
b) People run out of bullshit to pull out of their asses, realize they're out of ammo, and just start blurting sarcastic insults until I leave due to boredom.

Sometimes I'll learn something and discover I was wrong (I think it's happened twice so far), but generally all the so-called "arguments" you guys make are as predictable and lame as the MRA forums/Fox News segments they are parroting. If only you realized how much your opinions are influenced by the MRA agenda, perhaps you'd be more capable of rational thought. Ah well. You keep setting 'em up, I'll keep knocking 'em down.

khalid_sl said:

Okay Tanoomba, I don't want to pile on here as in general I agree with many of your points, but holy shit was the jaywalking analogy bad.

In fact, it was so bad I just had to comment. It both doesn't fit, and even if I stretch it out to fit, it seems to argue against your point!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought it fit because it's an example ofnot technically OK but generally accepted as OK, but it is somewhat clumsy.

So we're going with option b) then.

chaos_sl said:

You aren't really knocking anything down, though. You keep saying things like "drunk people can't consent" with no evidence given, just a feeling of yours or something. And you never address how all this nonconsensual sex is somehow not rape, sometimes anyway, when ducks are free because it's sunny. And thar analogy... holy shit dude. When I see you knock one down at last, I will be impressed.

Click to expand...

But drunk people can't give consent, which is why contracts can be voided if someone was taking advantage of a drunk person. We don't say "The guy shouldn't have been drinking if he didn't want to be taken advantage of." He may have signed the contract, but that voluntary action doesn't count as consent because an external party was exploiting his suggestible and irrational state. Really, this whole conversation should have ended after our legal friend helpfully pointed out what contracts and sex have in common:

Lawyer McLawyerton_sl said:

...are intended to reflect the mutual assent and intents of both parties (and represent continuing obligations)

Click to expand...

If anything it's the opposition who are letting "feelings" get the better of them and cloud their judgment. It makes them uncomfortable to imagine a girl claiming to have been raped after she was out drinking, so instead of considering the circumstances they decided that drinking = being responsible for someone taking advantage of you, which is fucking retarded. You're not responsible for people taking advantage of you when you're drunk, whether it's to get you to sign a contract or to get you to fuck them.