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

Cad · May 31, 2014

Alkorin_sl said:
Never said they couldn't.

Drunk people can also say yes, even. And they can form contracts!

That was to shit-for-brains, not you.

Tanoomba · May 31, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Why isn't Tanoomba pressuring for prison system reform? After all it looks like 75% or so of rape cases occur there.

What makes you think I'm not? Why are you making wild assumptions about my views on prison reform? Why do you assume I think it's acceptable for men to get raped in prison or under any circumstances? Because of this conversation that currently has nothing to do with men being raped in prison? Are you implying that expressing "Taking advantage of a drunk person to fuck them counts as rape" somehow means "I don't give a shit about men being raped in prison"?

Cad_sl said:
Drunk people can say no.

They can say no to contracts too. Why allow for contracts to be voided under certain (already oft-repeated) circumstances?

You are a terrible lawyer, son.

chaos · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Stop doing this, all of you. The deciding factor is not "Were X drinks consumed?" or "Was the party in question just tipsy or blacked out?" The deciding factor is whether or not the other party knew about the first party's drunken state and took advantage of it to bring about a result that would not have occurred had that person been of sound mind.

So we're back to "taking advantage of people is illegal"?

iannis · May 31, 2014

How in the fuck is that even something that resembles a deciding factor? Holy shit, man. Lets go ahead and absolve drunk drivers while we're at it. Once the devils brew passes your lips you apparently have no responsibility for anything ever until you drink the antidote.

As to lindz being hot, I vote yes.

Edit: I do appreciate this tactic of trying to protect people by dehumanizing them. American Inventors also need masters. How could they feed themselves otherwise? They're barely even able to speak. Left to themselves they'll die out within a two generations.

rhinohelix · May 31, 2014

Taroomba_sl said:
Stop doing this, all of you. The deciding factor is not "Were X drinks consumed?" or "Was the party in question just tipsy or blacked out?" The deciding factor is whether or not the other party knew about the first party's drunken state and took advantage of it to bring about a result that would not have occurred had that person been of sound mind.

No, but seriously, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

All of that presupposes that we can A) Tell if a person who has been drinking has consumed enough to no longer be "of sound mind", which is another subjective standard in and of itself; B) if potential taker of advantage is capable of discerning if previous person is of no longer sound mind; C) Potential taker of said advantage then proceeds to take advantage.

Which, is to say, basically all subjective bullshit as a standard for determining whether or not rape was committed, and therefore not a standard at all.

Cad · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
They can say no to contracts too. Why allow for contracts to be voided under certain (already oft-repeated) circumstances?

You are a terrible lawyer, son.

Because contracts are different than sexual intercourse.

Araysar · May 31, 2014

I think we are back to "X would not have been done had alcohol not been involved" which basically brings us back around to "If you fucked up, just claim you were drunk to avoid responsibility" which in turn takes us to "being intoxicated absolves you of all responsibility"

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Iannis_sl said:
How in the fuck is that even something that resembles a deciding factor? Holy shit, man. Lets go ahead and absolve drunk drivers while we're at it. Once the devils brew passes your lips you apparently have no responsibility for anything ever until you drink the antidote.

As to lindz being hot, I vote yes.

Edit: I do appreciate this tactic of trying to protect people by dehumanizing them. American Inventors also need masters. How could they feed themselves otherwise? They're barely even able to speak. Left to themselves they'll die out within a two generations.

Modern feminism boils down to blaming white men for everything and absolving women from all responsibility for their actions.

Tardnoomba is the perfect example of a beta male swept up in this nonsense.

iannis · May 31, 2014

What is is about freedom that terrorizes you so much Tano?

Is it the Free, or the Dumb?

CAUSE IT TAKES BOTH, BY GOD. 'MURICA.

khalid · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
The deciding factor is whether or not the other party knew about the first party's drunken state and took advantage of it to bring about a result that would not have occurred had that person been of sound mind.

Doesn't this standard completely ignore the "social lubricant" reason for why many people drink?

rhinohelix · May 31, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
I think we are back to "X would not have been done had alcohol not been involved" which basically brings us back around to "If you fucked up, just claim you were drunk to avoid responsibility" which in turn takes us to "being intoxicated absolves you of all responsibility"

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Rhinohelix_sl said:
Attachment 68151

Get it together, bro.

vBulletin Message
Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Hey, guys: Elliot Rodger is our problem - Salon.com

rhinohelix · May 31, 2014

Araysar_sl said:
Get it together, bro.

vBulletin Message
Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

Your refresh speed is impressive:

Tanoomba · May 31, 2014

chaos_sl said:
So we're back to "taking advantage of people is illegal"?

To trick them into mowing your lawn? No. To fuck them? Yes.

Iannis_sl said:
How in the fuck is that even something that resembles a deciding factor? Holy shit, man. Lets go ahead and absolve drunk drivers while we're at it. Once the devils brew passes your lips you apparently have no responsibility for anything ever until you drink the antidote.

There's a difference between doing something and having something done to you. "Being taken advantage of" is not an active decision, whereas "driving" is. Also, there is no "dehumanization" in acknowledging that people can be taken advantage of.

Rhinohelix_sl said:
All of that presupposes that we can A) Tell if a person who has been drinking has consumed enough to no longer be "of sound mind", which is another subjective standard in and of itself; B) if potential taker of advantage is capable of discerning if previous person is of no longer sound mind; C) Potential taker of said advantage then proceeds to take advantage.

Which, is to say, basically all subjective bullshit as a standard for determining whether or not rape was committed, and therefore not a standard at all.

And yet, this "subjective bullshit" can be used to void contracts, the most legally secure documents that can exist. However, for your sake, I'll repeat what I've said a thousand times: If you can't understand the difference between taking advantage of someone who's drunk and enjoying alcohol in a mutually beneficial situation,don't fuck drunk girls. Better safe than sorry.

Cad_sl said:
Because contracts are different than sexual intercourse.

And yet, your explanation as to how they are different served only to highlight how remarkably similar they are.

khalid_sl said:
Doesn't this standard completely ignore the "social lubricant" reason for why many people drink?

Not at all. People can enjoy the inhibition-reducing qualities of alcohol without taking advantage of each other.

khalid · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Not at all. People can enjoy the inhibition-reducing qualities of alcohol without taking advantage of each other.

I am not so sure.

Let us say that I'm out on the town, but a little shy. I know, sober, that I might be too shy to ask abunch of girls out. So I drink some alcohol to give myself the courage and hit up the bars. I then wake up in the morning and realize I slept with someone that I never would have sober. Is that rape? Under your definition it seems to fit, yet isn't that entirely the reason why I went drinking in the first place?

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
To trick them into mowing your lawn? No. To fuck them? Yes.

Why is there a distinction between these two things? Because feminists said so?

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
"Being taken advantage of" is not an active decision, whereas "driving" is. Also, there is no "dehumanization" in acknowledging that people can be taken advantage of.

Hate to pee on your feminist parade but choosing to have sex is an active decision, just like choosing to drive a car. Unless that woman is being dragged kicking and screaming to a bed and restrained against her will, she is making an active decision of her own free will.

By your definition any woman who has had a drink and had sex is already automatically being taken advantage of. This is hilarious.

iannis · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
There's a difference between doing something and having something done to you. "Being taken advantage of" is not an active decision, whereas "driving" is. Also, there is no "dehumanization" in acknowledging that people can be taken advantage of.

But that's not what you're saying. It's not even what you mean. Usually I can understand where the assumption went wrong, and translate the failure of communication. But this one is too deep for me. What you're talking about now has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol or what you were saying just an hour ago. Are you trying to clumsily say that women CAN be raped when they're drunk? Yes, they can be. Bourbon is not the rape-antidote. Is that the point you're trying to score?

What you're actually saying is that all women always are raped when they're drunk. Or something. The more you write the less you manage to say and the less comprehensible any of it is. GOD DAMN. IT JUST MAKES NO SENSE. YOU HAVE BROKEN ME. YOU WIN.

It is entirely dehumanizing to half of the human race.

Araysar · May 31, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
And yet, this "subjective bullshit" can be used to void contracts, the most legally secure documents that can exist. However, for your sake, I'll repeat what I've said a thousand times: If you can't understand the difference between taking advantage of someone who's drunk and enjoying alcohol in a mutually beneficial situation,don't fuck drunk girls. Better safe than sorry.

I enjoyed alcohol all night with a girl in a mutually beneficial situation. We had consensual sex. She woke up the next day said good bye and went home. A day later she accused me of rape because she regretted the night (hard to believe, I know - but work with me here)

By Tardnoomba's standards I am now a rapist. Modern feminism at work. Women are no longer held to any responsibility for their actions or choices.

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

scientia potentia est

ジョーディーすれいやー

Buzzfeed Editor

Musty Nester

Dental Dammer

scientia potentia est

Loser Araysar

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

Loser Araysar

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

Musty Nester

Unelected Mod

Dental Dammer

Loser Araysar

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

Loser Araysar

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

Dental Dammer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Unelected Mod

Loser Araysar

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

Loser Araysar

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

Musty Nester

Loser Araysar

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