Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally, I think Greta's response of linking to Dress for Success was pretty classy.

Since that organization is woman-speicifc and it would never occur to these bigots that men also need similar help, I'll also link to Career Gear. Both seem to be pretty worthwhile charities.
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?
Click to expand...

I take it that you didn't see her response to the question "what happens if you're both drunk"?

Do you bother to actually read the posts you're responding to?
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?

That statement is logically, morally and (pretty much everywhere) legally sound.
Click to expand...

i would agree.

now read the link again, properly. do you still think that is all she is saying?

batty!

lxxx
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?

That statement is logically, morally and (pretty much everywhere) legally sound.
Click to expand...

So it seems I've been raped.
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?

That statement is logically, morally and (pretty much everywhere) legally sound.
Click to expand...

I suspect that the threshold of "too drunk to consent" differs between RW and the median attitude in society. It's quite a delicate balancing act to protect the rights of people not to have sex forced upon them when absolutely unable to consent while not prosecuting people who had consensual sex which caused regret in the morning.
 
brodski said:
by what standard is it "batty" to say that if a person is too drunk to consent to sex then that sex is non-consensual and therefore rape?

That statement is logically, morally and (pretty much everywhere) legally sound.
Click to expand...

How drunk is too drunk? If two people are black out drunk and have sex who goes to prison?

The problem is that it is hard to say this person in too drunk. Sure you have clear cases of being passed out or non functional but when you are an active willing participant when is drunk too drunk to be held accountable for your decisions while drunk?
 
AvalonXQ said:
I take it that you didn't see her response to the question "what happens if you're both drunk"?

Do you bother to actually read the posts you're responding to?
Click to expand...

I have read the article. And I read the post. Which specific response to "what if you're both drunk" do you take objection to?
 
ponderingturtle said:
How drunk is too drunk? If two people are black out drunk and have sex who goes to prison?
Click to expand...
that would depend on the specific circumstances as determined by the criminal justice system.

The problem is that it is hard to say this person in too drunk. Sure you have clear cases of being passed out or non functional but when you are an active willing participant when is drunk too drunk to be held accountable for your decisions while drunk?
Click to expand...

It's not about being held accountable for your decisions, it's about meaningful consent.
 
s_pepys said:
doesnt apply to men, sorry.

see link

lxxx
Click to expand...

You mean the link where Rebecca says that it is the morally and legally choice for her to refuse sex with "sexy strangers who are drunk", because it violates consent? Is Rebbecca clamming to be a man? Or is "sexy stranger" now a gendered term?
 
Been reading through that thread, and I have neither enough faces nor enough palms.

ceepolk has just explicitly told Mr. Samsa that he must avoid using big words and that he must be very clear in defining his terms, so that everybody knows exactly what he means by everything. Earlier in the thread, she told him off for being patronising when he explained a term he used that he thought others might not know the meaning of.

And, seriously, how is he not being incredibly clear in what he's saying? How on Earth can someone saying "I am deaf and the current medical model is wrong in how it treats deaf people" elicit the response "so you're prejudiced against deaf people, then!", let alone "so you're such a big fan of the current medical model that you think mentally ill people should be silenced and operated on by force?"? Words honestly fail me.

It really reminds me of nothing so much as the most extreme members of a Christian forum that I've been posting on recently. And there the vast majority of members are reasonable. Everybody on the Atheism+ board seems to be insane.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Been reading through that thread, and I have neither enough faces nor enough palms.

ceepolk has just explicitly told Mr. Samsa that he must avoid using big words and that he must be very clear in defining his terms, so that everybody knows exactly what he means by everything. Earlier in the thread, she told him off for being patronising when he explained a term he used that he thought others might not know the meaning of.

It really reminds me of nothing so much as the most extreme members of a Christian forum that I've been posting on recently. And there the vast majority of members are reasonable. Everyboyd on the Atheism+ board seems to be insane.
Click to expand...
When I was involved on the truther forums that was exactly how it was. I was told I used big words and that I was patronizing. Never mind I was walking on egg shells and being as polite as humanly possible. Not conducive to a productive discussion.
 
I think the problem is asubtle one of wording. The law usually talks about being too drunk to have the capacity for consent. My interpretation of this (which seems to fit with legal cases I have read about) is that the person has to be pretty far gone, and not quite know what is going on around them. It doesn't seem to apply when the person has only drunk enough to have lowered inhibitions and maybe poorer judgment than if they were in a sober state.

Now in both situations, the the person could be described as "drunk". So when someone says "if they are drunk, they can't consent..." it is ambiguous whether they are referring to only the first situation, or to the second situation also. People have differing definitions of "drunk", so I always use the phrase "too drunk to consent" to prevent miscommunication.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom