You miss the point. He is declaring that his social group is the standard for all of society.
Just like my experience does not define all of society, neither does his.
Advertisement
by Dyakovo » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:23 am
by George Kaplan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 11:28 am
by Des-Bal » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:22 pm
Dyakovo wrote:You miss the point. He is declaring that his social group is the standard for all of society.
Just like my experience does not define all of society, neither does his.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Parkus Empire » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:25 pm
George Kaplan wrote:what standards society reflects in television, music and books.
by Dyakovo » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:27 pm
Des-Bal wrote:Dyakovo wrote:You miss the point. He is declaring that his social group is the standard for all of society.
Just like my experience does not define all of society, neither does his.
No I'm declaring that my perception of society is an adequate assessment of society. I'm declaring that it is easily possible to look at the existence of clubs, bars, basically any type of social gathering and say "socializing, getting drunk, and fucking are closely intertwined." Is that an unreasonable thing to declare? Are we declaring that society and culture are impossible to judge in any capacity? That's a hell of a thing to declare.
Declare.
Des-Bal wrote:"Party" is latin for "get drunk and fuck."
by Llamalandia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:30 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:33 pm
by Llamalandia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:35 pm
by The Parkus Empire » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:49 pm
Llamalandia wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:Reality.
Ok, but what does that mean? I mean I've heard people say "perception is reality". I don't agree and I hope your not suggesting that individgual perception alone is an objective guide here.
Essentially Iguess i'd ask you kindly to elaborate on "reality".
by Llamalandia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:53 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Llamalandia wrote:
Ok, but what does that mean? I mean I've heard people say "perception is reality". I don't agree and I hope your not suggesting that individgual perception alone is an objective guide here.
Essentially Iguess i'd ask you kindly to elaborate on "reality".
Use studies and polls if you want, but not fiction and gangsta rap.
by The Parkus Empire » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:03 pm
Llamalandia wrote:The Parkus Empire wrote:Use studies and polls if you want, but not fiction and gangsta rap.
Well based on a poll (admittedly low sample size so far :
Poll Results
Question: Is it rape if a very drunk woman has sex with a sober man?
Only if she regrets it in the morning
6%
Yes, it is rape no matter what
9%
It`s not rape at all if she consented to the sex
84%
Total Votes: 32
http://www.cafemom.com/group/416/forums/read/13096925/Drunk_woman_sober_man_Is_this_rape_Poll_included
And with respect cafemom doesn't sound like a site full of rape apologists to me.
Seems that polls and fiction may not be as far apart as you think.
by The Rich Port » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:17 pm
Soldati senza confini wrote:Really, Rich Port, you HAD to bring this topic up?
Seriously, it is obvious that, as long as you are not mentally impaired by drugs, or alcohol, to give consent to have sex (either verbally or non-verbally) it doesn't constitute rape. It's almost the same standard as with contracts.
This cannot get more simple than that.
by Chishimotata » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:22 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:Really, Rich Port, you HAD to bring this topic up?
Seriously, it is obvious that, as long as you are not mentally impaired by drugs, or alcohol, to give consent to have sex (either verbally or non-verbally) it doesn't constitute rape. It's almost the same standard as with contracts.
This cannot get more simple than that.
If it were as simple as that, there wouldn't be so much serious discussion about it.
And I've checked.
Thread's pretty srs, u gaiz.
Here I thought some summertime jobber was gonna show up and get it locked.
And, frankly, you're not the whole world.
Same goes to Gravlen.
by Gravlen » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:27 pm
The Rich Port wrote:Soldati senza confini wrote:Really, Rich Port, you HAD to bring this topic up?
Seriously, it is obvious that, as long as you are not mentally impaired by drugs, or alcohol, to give consent to have sex (either verbally or non-verbally) it doesn't constitute rape. It's almost the same standard as with contracts.
This cannot get more simple than that.
If it were as simple as that, there wouldn't be so much serious discussion about it.
And I've checked.
Thread's pretty srs, u gaiz.
Here I thought some summertime jobber was gonna show up and get it locked.
And, frankly, you're not the whole world.
Same goes to Gravlen.
by Gravlen » Tue Sep 03, 2013 3:30 pm
Distruzio wrote:Electroconvulsive Glee wrote:As you are well aware, my posts can be pretty aggressive and I apologize for speculating about bad faith when there was a simple misunderstanding.
I also appreciate that you are willing to reconsider your overall view and your thoughtful rethinking of your anecdote.
We've had enough encounters over the years for you (I'd hope) to recognize that I'm far from one to take offense at correction.
When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've no shame in admitting that. I'm not on the site to be correct. I'm on the site for conversation. In order to facilitate and perpetuate conversation, one must be willing to acknowledge the breadth of knowledge and wisdom of others.
Our other exchanges on a certain topic notwithstanding, I've no reason to dismiss your commentary out of hand. Your opinions (even where you are incorrect ) are a great insight for me. So, please... you needn't fret the little things. An aggressive tone is one thing. Being a dick is another. You are hardly a dick.As to the latter, I think we have cleared up the confusion. Jury verdicts in most U.S. criminal cases are usually a "black box" into which evidence and legal instructions are put in and a verdict comes out without no one outside the jury knowing the basis for the verdict. A guilty verdict can be challenged by the defendant -- both on legal grounds and for sufficiency of the evidence -- but the latter is a deferential review of whether enough evidence was presented that a jury could have found a particular element of a crime existed. Not-guilty verdicts can almost never be challenged -- even for legal error.
I did check the relevant Georgia law (but not exhaustively) and I'll try to briefly simplify it. The actual Georgia statutes on rape, sexual assault, and sexual violence are mostly archaic (and even offensive regarding gender, etc.) in wording, but the Georgia courts have clarified and modernized the actual working law. The basic rule is that sex with someone who "is physically or mentally unable to give consent to the act" because the are intoxicated, drugged, or unconscious is rape. Thus, intoxication or being under the influence of drugs only makes sex into rape when it is severe enough to physically or mentally incapacitate a party. There is no such thing as mutual rape. Georgia's blanket rule is that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime, but evidence that a defendant was intoxicated or drugged may well raise reasonable doubt as to an element of rape. For example, a defendant is not guilty of rape if there is reasonable doubt as to whether she or he was passed out due to drinking at the time an alleged rape occurred.
Of course, the detail of the law of any jurisdiction can get complicated, the letter of the law does not always control an outcome of the criminal justice system, and public perception is often (if not usually) different than the law.
Ah... so my definition of rape (regarding the particularities of this subject) was incorrect. That raises interesting (personal) questions for me: why am I so uncomfortable with inebriated sex then? Why do I feel like I'm raping someone if I do (and I have, in the past) explore sensuality under the influence? etc etc. These are relevant to the topic of the OP but not, necessarily, the topic of our discussion.
*shrug*
I've been wrong before. It'll happen again. You, Parkus, Gravlen, and others will be there to slap me back into reality. That's not something I fear. I'll fight tooth and nail to defend my opinions (incorrect or not) but where there are contentions made, I pay attention.
Thanks.
by George Kaplan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:24 pm
by The Rich Port » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:27 pm
Gravlen wrote:The Rich Port wrote:
If it were as simple as that, there wouldn't be so much serious discussion about it.
And I've checked.
Thread's pretty srs, u gaiz.
Here I thought some summertime jobber was gonna show up and get it locked.
And, frankly, you're not the whole world.
Same goes to Gravlen.
Hmm?Gravlen wrote:Not really. I'm not. To me, it's relatively straight forward.
by Des-Bal » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:29 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Stone Press » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:32 pm
by Des-Bal » Tue Sep 03, 2013 4:33 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by The Parkus Empire » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:08 pm
by Aurora Novus » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:21 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:Des-Bal wrote:
You're saying you can't judge a culture based on it's aggregate cultural works? That is not correct, I was going to say something cutting and vaguely witty but that is just blatantly wrong.
I'm saying you can't use works of fiction for reference on how society expects you to behave.
by Cameroi » Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:31 pm
by Des-Bal » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:06 pm
The Parkus Empire wrote:I'm saying you can't use works of fiction for reference on how society expects you to behave.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Des-Bal » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:07 pm
Cameroi wrote:rape is at least potentially interesting in erotic literature. booze in not interesting in anything.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Google [Bot], ImSaLiA, The Snazzylands
Advertisement