Advertisement
by Penguton » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:18 pm
by Kiskaanak » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:34 pm
Penguton wrote:This is such a stupid debate. Some jewish slut gets angry because an Arab guy claimed to be jewish? I mean seriously, what the hell people?
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:36 pm
Hydesland wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:Only because you have arbitrarily decided that lack of freely given, informed consent in one context "counts" while lack of freely given, informed consent in another doesn't.
Firstly, you can take informed consent out of the equation, fully informed consent is incredibly rare for a one night stand, and it's very common that people say "if I had known he was such a jackass [or whatever here], I would not have had sex with him". Being fully informed about the character is completely irrelevant, the issue here is that the victim was deceived, not just that she didn't know everything about him.
Furthermore, the situations are very different. In all those situations, the act of sex itself was never consented to, regardless of the person who the victim was having sex with, this is a very significant difference.
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:37 pm
by Tokos » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:49 pm
by The Norwegian Blue » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:50 pm
Tokos wrote:An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:52 pm
by Kiskaanak » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:58 pm
Tungookska wrote:your most valid argument yet
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
by Hydesland » Tue Jul 27, 2010 12:59 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:There is a difference between "informed consent" and "knows everything." No one is claiming that the latter is necessary.
And yes, she was intentionally deceived. Hence, not informed.
In this situation, the act of sex itself was never consented to, because the "consent" that was obtained is invalidated by the method in which it was obtained.
One could drug a person to lower her inhibitions and then ask her to have sex. She may give "consent". But the fact that someone drugged her in order to obtain that consent invalidates it. This is similar.
by Hydesland » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:02 pm
The Norwegian Blue wrote:Tokos wrote:An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.
How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?
by Tahar Joblis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:02 pm
Kiskaanak wrote:Your restatement however, in no way detracts from it. I caught your point in b) .
Once more, for full understanding, my restatement is a dumbed down version.
You see...this is why it's so eye-rollingly pointless when people try to pretend they have the training to argue the law. You think you've discovered something.
As for what precedent was actually set in this case...that is up for debate.
That's beautiful I point out that your long rant about how being Jewish isn't "WHO" you are it's "WHAT" you are is completely irrelevant ...and you get confused and start talking about the definition of rape.
Actually, since most people can't even seem to wrap their heads around the idea that consent can be vitiated by fraud in ANY situation,
it's a little disingenuous to characterise the discussion in this thread as being some sort of in depth look at Israeli case law. The question still remains (unfortunately for many) in this thread, whether or not you can obtain consent via fraud. Frankly, other than for a handful of people on this forum, the discussion you're proposing is entirely over the heads of NSGers, and not one that can be approached in an educated and knowledgeable manner.
by Tokos » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:09 pm
The Norwegian Blue wrote:Tokos wrote:An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.
How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?
by The Norwegian Blue » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:26 pm
Tokos wrote:The Norwegian Blue wrote:Tokos wrote:An important question is whether the harm done justifies prison. The victim cannot in good faith say she suffered terribly because of it - except maybe in social opprobrium, which can't be a factor in these kinds of cases.
How in the hell can you know what she did or didn't suffer?
The victim is in essence claiming a form of violation because she slept with an Arab. However, if you're happy to bed down with someone very shortly after meeting them, you can't just turn round and claim to be simultaneously all concerned about your chastity etc. It would be like a bouncer claiming agoraphobia: clearly in bad faith.
by Kiskaanak » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:29 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:See prior comments by Sith Korriban. The distinction between what you said and what I said is not trivial to everyone.
Tahar Joblis wrote:
"Dumbed down versions" are quite often incorrect.
Tahar Joblis wrote:There have been several distinct standards set forth
Tahar Joblis wrote:
No, I think I've pointed out something that had at that point not occupied a sufficiently central role in the discussion. Should an Israeli judge be saying that a reasonable woman looking to bang some cute guy she just met would not sleep with an Arab?
Tahar Joblis wrote:You also missed a key component of the test as expressed by the Israeli high court, which is not the same as the test that, say, Neo Art has argued for. The high court has instead substituted "a reasonable woman" for "the deceived party." Thus, the case in question is setting the precedent for saying that a reasonable woman would not have sex with an Arab.
Tahar Joblis wrote:Total bullshit. NSG is chock full of very highly educated people and bright young lads and lasses who fully intend to obtain higher levels of education (1,2) who are accustomed to discussing the details and distinctions of rival political philosophies.
Nor is this topic something particularly arcane. A high school student not only can understand what we're talking about, it's something they should be learning about.
by Kiskaanak » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:34 pm
The Norwegian Blue wrote:
...so we're right back around to "you can't rape sluts." Sigh.
You know, there are women who work as prostitutes - women who literally approach strange men on street corners and offer to blow them in exchange for cash. These women are obviously not terribly picky about their sexual partners, not "concerned with their chastity." And yet, amazingly, they can still be raped. Not infrequently, they are raped by clients, men who paid their $50 and then decided to engage in an additional sex act that wasn't offered in that price. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that the woman in question is a slutty slutty ho-bag does not mean she suddenly loses control over her own body. The fact that she'll suck strangers' cocks for cash does not mean that she cannot feel profoundly violated when someone she didn't approach makes her suck HIS cock, or when someone she did approach decides he shouldn't have to stop there.
There are women, too, in committed relationships, who've had sex with the same man for 25 years, and who, one night, have a headache and tell him they're not in the mood. A woman like that is probably not concerned that her husband will destroy her "chastity" when he decides that he doesn't actually care that this time she said no. Physically, the act may be no different than it's been a thousand times before. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that neither the sex act in itself nor her partner in himself was offensive to her does not mean she cannot feel profoundly violated when her consent was not given.
Likewise, even if this woman's only reason for being upset is that she's a racist bitch, it does not fucking matter. Even if she's a dirty icky slut who likes casual sex with strange Jews, she has the right to only engage in casual sex with strange Jews if that's her thing, just like the hooker has a right only to blow the strangers she chooses to blow, just like the wife has a right to say to her husband, "Even though we've engaged in this act a thousand times and I quite enjoy it, tonight I'm saying no." How in the hell you can claim to read her mind and know that she did not feel legitimately violated is beyond me, and it's frankly disgusting. Honestly, how dare you people tell someone what sexual acts they are "allowed" not to consent to? How dare you tell someone that you know what she felt better than she did? How dare you insist that you, as a complete stranger, are the arbiter of what things cause her harm, and her own opinions on the subject are irrelevant?
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:41 pm
Peppersmak wrote:So he lied to get in her pants. If every man guilty of doing the same was convicted of rape then the worlds prison population would grow by a lot.
by Tahar Joblis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:05 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:Yes, there are, and many of them are pretty ridiculous. In some standards, it is impossible for a woman to be raped by her husband. In others, it is impossible for men to be raped at all.
I don't really think "There are lots of different standards!" is a good argument against requiring actual, informed and freely given consent.
Meanwhile, you didn't really address my question.
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:07 pm
In this situation, the act of sex itself was never consented to, because the "consent" that was obtained is invalidated by the method in which it was obtained.
The act was definitely consented to, it was just consented to someone else (according to your arguments), but even then this is extremely dubious because the extent that being an Arab instead of a Jew is any real difference or remotely changes your identity at all is highly questionable.
One could drug a person to lower her inhibitions and then ask her to have sex. She may give "consent". But the fact that someone drugged her in order to obtain that consent invalidates it. This is similar.
No it isn't.
I think a more apt comparison between your examples and this situation is someone buying something from someone else. In your examples, you either have someone who never agreed to buy the object, but the person managing to hack into your bank account and force you to buy it anyway, OR the seller is making the buyer so drunk that he buys the object without knowing what he was doing.
In the situation in the OP, what's happening is, just before the buyer buys, he asks the seller "hey, you're from down south right?", and the seller replies "hell yeah, partner!", then the buyer buys. Later on, it is found out that the seller is really from the north and he was lying to the buyer, and the buyer exclaims "had I known he was a lousy northerner, I would never have bought that product from him". But the fact that he was a northerner had no affect on the actual product, the buyer still WANTED the product and knew what the product was.
by Tokos » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:11 pm
The Norwegian Blue wrote:...so we're right back around to "you can't rape sluts." Sigh.
You know, there are women who work as prostitutes - women who literally approach strange men on street corners and offer to blow them in exchange for cash. These women are obviously not terribly picky about their sexual partners, not "concerned with their chastity." And yet, amazingly, they can still be raped. Not infrequently, they are raped by clients, men who paid their $50 and then decided to engage in an additional sex act that wasn't offered in that price. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that the woman in question is a slutty slutty ho-bag does not mean she suddenly loses control over her own body. The fact that she'll suck strangers' cocks for cash does not mean that she cannot feel profoundly violated when someone she didn't approach makes her suck HIS cock, or when someone she did approach decides he shouldn't have to stop there.
There are women, too, in committed relationships, who've had sex with the same man for 25 years, and who, one night, have a headache and tell him they're not in the mood. A woman like that is probably not concerned that her husband will destroy her "chastity" when he decides that he doesn't actually care that this time she said no. Physically, the act may be no different than it's been a thousand times before. THAT IS STILL RAPE. The fact that neither the sex act in itself nor her partner in himself was offensive to her does not mean she cannot feel profoundly violated when her consent was not given.
Likewise, even if this woman's only reason for being upset is that she's a racist bitch, it does not fucking matter. Even if she's a dirty icky slut who likes casual sex with strange Jews, she has the right to only engage in casual sex with strange Jews if that's her thing, just like the hooker has a right only to blow the strangers she chooses to blow, just like the wife has a right to say to her husband, "Even though we've engaged in this act a thousand times and I quite enjoy it, tonight I'm saying no." How in the hell you can claim to read her mind and know that she did not feel legitimately violated is beyond me, and it's frankly disgusting. Honestly, how dare you people tell someone what sexual acts they are "allowed" not to consent to? How dare you tell someone that you know what she felt better than she did? How dare you insist that you, as a complete stranger, are the arbiter of what things cause her harm, and her own opinions on the subject are irrelevant?
by Tahar Joblis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:33 pm
Kiskaanak wrote:I have outlined it in further detail in other posts.
No, those would be incorrect versions. Dumbed down means simplified.
Actually, no, there haven't.
You did in fact, get it wrong. You claimed that the standard as put forth by Neo Art...the same standard I have put forth...the legal standard... somehow just didn't include the reasonable person standard until this case, wow!
However, when you completely fuck up the law
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:35 pm
Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
by United Dependencies » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:46 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:53 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aperistan, Europa Undivided, Nu Elysium, Ohnoh, Page, Tesseris, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement