rape jokes

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a drunk girl that passes out in a room of friends is not negligent and is not liable for harm that comes to her beyond the natural consequences of drunkenness and/or sleep

Implying they were her friends (they weren't, it was a party not a slumber party).

You're an idiot and your entire argument is laughable.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

getting in an accident while driving drunk is a natural consequence of driving drunk

getting raped is not a natural consequence of getting too drunk; it requires intervening criminal action by a separate party

your argument implies that a rape victim is responsible for resisting his or her own rape, and upon forfeiting the ability to resist, the victim is liable for any and all trespasses against his or her well being

Also if we're going to be arguing semantics:
Getting into an accident while driving drunk is a possible consequence of driving drunk but not a natural one, people drive drunk home without issues all the time but only alcoholics will argue such and are rightly ridiculed.

Getting raped is indeed a natural consequence of getting too drunk. People are animals and do much more horrible premeditated things to sober people. Getting shitfaced in general public without someone to watch your back absolutely invites a crime of opportunity.

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

there is no basis in ethics or law for a requirement of resistance

Where did anyone state or even imply that the perpetrate did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be punished?
If some dumbass leaves the window on a ground floor home open and their child gets kidnapped, does the kidnapper suddenly get off the hook because the parent was negligent? No. Why do you imply it's different in the case of rape? Fucker should be castrated, doesn't make the drunk any less of a dumb shit.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Getting raped is indeed a natural consequence of getting too drunk. People are animals and do much more horrible premeditated things to sober people. Getting shitfaced in general public without someone to watch your back absolutely invites a crime of opportunity.

You are an awful human being and I hope one day you attain full awareness of your point of view, which is, by far, the worst thing I can wish upon you.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are an awful human being and I hope one day you attain full awareness of your point of view, which is, by far, the worst thing I can wish upon you.

That I recognize that people are bad and do bad things? I'm sorry I'm not enlightened (I mean blind to everything going on in the world) like you are.

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That I recognize that people are bad and do bad things?

No.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also if we're going to be arguing semantics:
Getting into an accident while driving drunk is a possible consequence of driving drunk but not a natural one, people drive drunk home without issues all the time but only alcoholics will argue such and are rightly ridiculed.

Getting raped is indeed a natural consequence of getting too drunk. People are animals and do much more horrible premeditated things to sober people. Getting shitfaced in general public without someone to watch your back absolutely invites a crime of opportunity.


Where did anyone state or even imply that the perpetrate did nothing wrong and didn't deserve to be punished?
If some dumbass leaves the window on a ground floor home open and their child gets kidnapped, does the kidnapper suddenly get off the hook because the parent was negligent? No. Why do you imply it's different in the case of rape? Fucker should be castrated, doesn't make the drunk any less of a dumb shit.

your conception of a natural consequence is flawed. driving drunk impairs driving ability. impaired driving ability increases the likelihood of accident. impairment via drunkenness directly increases the likelihood of accident to the extent that it can be judged by a reasonable person that an accident is in fact a natural, if not inevitable, consequence of drunk driving. this is independent of the actions of any other party

there is no such direct correlation between drunkenness and rape. a reasonable mind could not judge rape as a natural consequence of drunkenness. in most instances, drunkenness has little or no demonstrable impact on the likelihood of rape. further, any such rape is entirely contingent upon the actions of a separate party. there must be an intervening party that commits criminal action in order for such a rape to occur. as this intervention would be decidedly unnatural, it must be judged that rape is not a natural consequence of drunkenness

you're basically arguing a bastardized version of "danger invites rescue" wherein drunkenness invites rape. the problem is that it doesn't.

also, i have no idea what you're talking about with criminals "getting off the hook". you're raising a question of liability. in the case of the drunk driver, the drunk assumes liability because his actions directly contribute to an accident. in the case of the drunk rape victim, the victim assumes no liability because getting drunk and falling asleep does not directly contribute to rape less you attempt to argue that the victim has an obligation to resist. in the case of the kidnapped child, the parent assumes no liability because having a child kidnapped is not a natural consequence of leaving a window open

[Hasbinbad]

Kabotog I seriously base my opinions on what you consider valid.

[Kagatob]

ITT: People who don't understand the concept of crimes of opportunity
Also the perpetuation of the alcohol defending culture of Amurika.

Luckily for everyone (including yourselves) your interaction with the real world is minimum.

[Daldolma]

what does a crime of opportunity have to do with anything? if you leave your front door unlocked and get hatcheted to death, you are not liable. and yet, the crime may never have happened if you had locked your door.

you're throwing around legal jargon you don't understand and drawing ridiculous parallels where they don't exist

passing out drunk and getting raped is not in any way comparable to driving drunk, aside from the obvious connection to alcohol

[Kagatob]

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.