Can't we all just get along?

[gumboot]

It's funny that you mention "the person has not to be under drugs" because the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything at all about drugs in the quoted section. You made that exception up. So you already accept your self that the wikipedia article does not provide an exhaustive list of situations in which consent is not given, despite there being no resistance.

Your argument is getting weaker by the second.

 

[Lonewulf]

You know given that your location is given as Japan I'd almost be willing to right this off as your inability to comprehend English, but your posts don't seem to indicate this as a problem, so honestly the only thing I can believe now is that you either refuse to get it because you don't want to look foolish for being wrong for so long, or genuinely can't and never will get it, or you are simply trolling.

He's no different here than when he was questioning evolution for Ron Paul.

 

[Matteo Martini]

It's funny that you mention "the person has not to be under drugs" because the Wikipedia article doesn't mention anything at all about drugs in the quoted section. You made that exception up. So you already accept your self that the wikipedia article does not provide an exhaustive list of situations in which consent is not given, despite there being no resistance.[..]

If you think there are othre situations in which "consent is not given, despite there being no resistance", please post them here with proper link.
No, saying that in trial XYZ there is evidence of that, and leaving me the work of looking into that and find out what you mean, is not "evidence"

 

[gumboot]

First you attacked me saying that I was wrong.

You are.

Then, I quoted Wikipedia, and you said that I do not understand Wikipedia.

You don't.

Then, I showed you that I did understand Wikipedia and you said that Wikipedia is not the law, and you quoted two title of trials.

I said Wikipedia wasn't the law because you claimed it was. If you're going to make patently stupid statements expect to get called on them.

I have asked you to quote me in which passages the two trials disprove me and/or Wikipedia, and you did not.

Why should I? You're the one that has made the extraordinary claim that consent inherently exists except in special circumstances. You've failed to provide any evidence that this is true.

Now, you are saying that different jurisdictions treat rape differently.

They do.

 

[Matteo Martini]

He's no different here than when he was questioning evolution for Ron Paul.

Off-topic. You will be reported (joke!!)
You guys have really nothing else to say?

 

[gumboot]

If you think there are othre situations in which "consent is not given, despite there being no resistance", please post them here with proper link.
No, saying that in trial XYZ there is evidence of that, and leaving me the work of looking into that and find out what you mean, is not "evidence"

I'll tell you what, I will if you will, okay?

Provide evidence that if a person is on drugs, and consents to sex, it is not consensual. Please link to the law that states this. Once you've done this I'll cite the relevant aspects of the cases I have cited.

 

[Lonewulf]

Off-topic. You will be reported (joke!!)
You guys have really nothing else to say?

When exactly did I say I had nothing else to say?

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
Why should I? You're the one that has made the extraordinary claim that consent inherently exists except in special circumstances. You've failed to provide any evidence that this is true.
[..]

[..] but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.
Duress, in which the victim may be subject..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Which means that there are cases in which absence of objection does not constitute consent, and lists them.
If you believe that there are others which apply in our specific case, please, feel free to list them here.

 

[Matteo Martini]

When exactly did I say I had nothing else to say?

You are getting off-topic, and I do not want to be suspended for the third time.
Sorry, please go back to the OP.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I'll tell you what, I will if you will, okay?

Provide evidence that if a person is on drugs, and consents to sex, it is not consensual. Please link to the law that states this. Once you've done this I'll cite the relevant aspects of the cases I have cited.

Originally Posted by first-degree sexual battery
(4) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person's consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115:

(a) When the victim is physically helpless to resist.

(b) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to use force or violence likely to cause serious personal injury on the victim, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the present ability to execute the threat.

(c) When the offender coerces the victim to submit by threatening to retaliate against the victim, or any other person, and the victim reasonably believes that the offender has the ability to execute the threat in the future.

(d) When the offender, without the prior knowledge or consent of the victim, administers or has knowledge of someone else administering to the victim any narcotic, anesthetic, or other intoxicating substance which mentally or physically incapacitates the victim.

(e) When the victim is mentally defective and the offender has reason to believe this or has actual knowledge of this fact.

(f) When the victim is physically incapacitated.

(g) When the offender is a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined by s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9), who is certified under the provisions of s. 943.1395 or is an elected official exempt from such certification by virtue of s. 943.253, or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting, and such officer, official, or person is acting in such a manner as to lead the victim to reasonably believe that the offender is in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government.

 

[gumboot]

[..] but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.
Duress, in which the victim may be subject..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Which means that there are cases in which absence of objection does not constitute consent, and lists them.

No it doesn't.

And why did you bold "of itself"? What do you think the significance of those words are?

If you believe that there are others which apply in our specific case, please, feel free to list them here.

Sure.

1) Any instance in which consent is not given.

 

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by first-degree sexual battery
(4) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older without that person's consent, under any of the following circumstances, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084, or s. 794.0115:

I said:

Provide evidence that if a person is on drugs, and consents to sex, it is not consensual.

Please try again.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No it doesn't.

And why did you bold "of itself"? What do you think the significance of those words are?

That object of objection does not mean consent by itself.
You need the victim to be not under coercion, not under drugs, etc., etc.

Sure.

1) Any instance in which consent is not given.

What do you mean here?
You require the woman to say "yes, please make love to me"?
Or a signed paper?
Or what?
Evidence?

 

[Lonewulf]

I like how Matteo ignored my post where I asked him what it would take to convince him he's wrong.

 

[Matteo Martini]

I said:



Please try again.

Look at the bolded part

 

[tyr_13]

I like how Matteo ignored my post where I asked him what it would take to convince him he's wrong.

Can't imagine being wrong?

I really hope people read the first few pages of this thread, and don't get turned off by these last two pages.

Matteo, if what you hold to be true actually was, many people who are groped in train haven't been assaulted, because they didn't deny consent. For consent to be assumed, there has to be a reason.

Perhaps this will help clear things up. Consent: 1: to give assent or approval : agree <consent to being tested>.

There is no reason to assume consent had been given in Fiona's case because she never expressed it. Yes, you have to express it at some point. Actions may imply consent, but here the actions implied fear.

 

[Matteo Martini]

[..]
There is no reason to assume consent had been given in Fiona's case because she never expressed it. Yes, you have to express it at some point. [..]

Please, provide a link to the law that states that you need to express consent at some point, otherwise it will be assumed that there is lack of it

 

[PhantomWolf]

[..] but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent.
Duress, in which the victim may be subject..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

Which means that there are cases in which absence of objection does not constitute consent, and lists them.
If you believe that there are others which apply in our specific case, please, feel free to list them here.

No it doesn't. It means that there are times when lack of objection is allowed to mean consent, and it already listed them, at the begining of the sentance where it says:

Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties

You are getting

"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent."

and

"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute a lack of consent."

mixed up.

When something of itself is not enough, it means you need more. More is not the absence of something else, it's the presence of something else. No being on drugs is not a pressence of something, it's an absence of something.

If Wikipedia said:

Consent need not be express, and may be implied from the context and from the relationship of the parties, but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute a lack of consent.

Duress, in which the victim may be subject to or threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and which may result in absence of objection to intercourse, leads to the presumption of lack of consent. Duress may be actual or threatened force or violence against the victim or somebody else close to the victim. Even blackmail may constitute duress. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in its landmark 1998 judgment used a definition of rape which did not use the word consent. It defined rape as: "a physical invasion of a sexual nature committed on a person under circumstances which are coercive."[7]

Valid consent is also lacking if the victim lacks an actual capacity to give consent, as in the case of a victim with a mental impairment or developmental disability.

Consent can always be withdrawn before the actual sexual intercourse takes place, so that any further sexual activity after the withdrawal of consent constitutes rape.

The law would invalidate consent in the case of sexual intercourse with a person below the age at which they can legally consent to such relations. (See age of consent.) Such cases are sometimes called statutory rape or "unlawful sexual intercourse", regardless of whether it was consensual or not.

then you're argument might have legs, but it doesn't, so you don't.

 

[Matteo Martini]

No it doesn't. It means that there are times when lack of objection is allowed to mean consent, and it already listed them, at the begining of the sentance where it says:



You are getting

"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent."

and

"the absence of objection does not of itself constitute a lack of consent."

mixed up.

When something of itself is not enough, it means you need more. More is not the absence of something else, it's the presence of something else. No being on drugs is not a pressence of something, it's an absence of something.

Depends on how you see it.

Is being underage negative/positive, or not not being adult negative/positive?

Please, detail what you mean by "presence of something else", in detail, what this "something else" should be, and post a relevant link to back what you claim.

 

[gumboot]

That object of objection does not mean consent by itself.

This sentence makes no sense.

You need the victim to be not under coercion, not under drugs, etc., etc.

Where in the phrase

"but the absence of objection does not of itself constitute consent"

Does it mention "coercion, not under drugs, etc.,etc."?

What do you mean here?
You require the woman to say "yes, please make love to me"?

It means exactly what it says. I require the woman to consent.

Evidence?

2. Person A rapes person B if person A has sexual connection with person B, effected by the penetration of person B's genitalia by person A's penis,—

*(a) without person B's consent to the connection; and

*(b) without believing on reasonable grounds that person B consents to the connection.

Source

Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

Source

Assault

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

Source
(In Canada rape is a form of assault)