Every morning this week I've gotten off work, checked my email, made a sandwich, and seen you saying the same retarded shit. Shit like "drunk people can't consent because contracts."
Not even sure why I'm doing this, but lmgtfy:
In short, "I was drunk" is not an immediate out of any contract. Stop using this as a crutch.
So you're saying that the "1/3 of rapes are caused by women" statistic is based on a bullshit standard. Promoted by feminism, perhaps? Are the feminist gals saying "We want to be rapists, too!"? I guess those rapes must have been reported by the female rapists themselves, right? "No, really! I totally raped that guy! I mean, he was fine with it the next day but he doesn't get it. I totally raped him, so you'd better count it!"
Why aren't you addressing the issue? Why the hand-waving about which group's statistics are bullshit? You could just actually address the core issue.
I know you're not responsible, Taroomba; you must have had a bran^H^H^H wine cooler.
Every post of yours shows how little real interactions you have had with women and it is very clear that you do in fact loath women, or at least see them as nothing more than a receptacle for your penis. Yet people pile on Tanoomba and not your idiocy, sad.
No. I've humored you enough. I couldn't care less if you understand the difference between drunk driving and being raped. If you were hoping for a better reaction, you won't get it. If you have something relevant to add (which I highly doubt) I'll acknowledge it, otherwise consider your trolling ignored.
How do you figure?
Like Caddington, you're basically making my case for me. I never said being drunk means rape. I said knowingly taking advantage of a drunk person to fuck them is rape. I'm looking exclusively at whether or not the other party knew that the person in question was in a vulnerable state ("lacking mental capacity") and took advantage of that. Basically, the exact same circumstances under which a contract can be voided.
You are presenting a situation as if it must be A or B, when in fact the answer is neither A or B. That's called a false dichotomy. Keep trying chimp.
Drunk is drunk. Why are there two different standards about when someone can be held responsible and when they can't be?
Yes, taking sexual advantage of a person who can't say no is textbook rape. Is that what you want to hear? I wasn't trying to disprove that. It also wasn't what you asked. You said that a drunk person can't form a contract; I showed you that yes, they can.
As both Lithose, Cad, and everyone with a brain has said, you are incorrect. Again, it saddens me that you are a teacher. My daughter starts school in the fall and I can just see myself having a conversation with some dumb fuck teacher like you and it makes me sad for America.
intoxicate:
Core issue? Nobody here wants to talk about the core issue and you know it. Don't pretend that I'm swaying the discussion with stuff that doesn't matter. Therewas no discussionbefore I decided to push the "defensive douchebag" button and whip you goons up into a frenzy. Obviously, you guys love it too or you wouldn't keep posting here. I provide you with windmills to swing your swords at, you provide me with an opportunity to school several internet alpha males with one blow. it's mutually beneficial.
