Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagatob
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
They both involve a choice and the one throwing legal jargon around is you.
You don't choose to drink and drive, you choose to get drunk and impair your judgement and while judgement is impaired you decide to drive. Legality or not, it's stupid and the situation was allowed to happen because of the choice to get drunk and have their judgement impared. The person drinking is responsible for what happened because of their negligence. This we agree upon.
You don't choose to get drunk and get raped, you choose to get drunk and impair your ability to resist someone taking advantage of you. Legality or not it's stupid and the situation was allowed to happen because of the choice to get drunk and have their ability to resist impared. Because there is another person involved the other person is 100% to blame and you don't see any negligence whatsoever on the drinker. This is the point of contention and you are ignoring many obvious parallels.
|
so we're circling back to the point i made in one of my initial posts
you were implying and are now directly asserting that a rape victim has an obligation to resist, and by forfeiting the ability to resist, is in fact being negligent to the extent that he or she is partly or wholly liable for the rape
i do not agree. the ability to resist is largely beside the point. plenty of rape victims, both sober and drunk, fail to meaningfully resist their attackers for a variety of reasons. this is why we have adopted a standard of consent.
your argument is fluctuating between negligence and liability. is a person who drinks in excess and passes out generally negligent? yes. is that negligence liable for a rape? most certainly not