Atheist Civil War: Angry Feminists Get Richard Dawkins Disinvited from Skeptics' Conference

[DocM]

27 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Have some of you never been drunk? 

Not been drunk for over 45 years. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, DocM said:

Not been drunk for over 45 years. 

Well in one sense I applaud you, and happily agree alcohol isn't a requirement to enjoy life. On the other hand though whatever personal choice you've made to be alcohol free doesn't mean others cannot responsibly consume it and have fun.

 

Not everyone automatically turns into a douchebag or potential criminal for wanting to relax/have fun/"let their hair down".

[Ulyses]

15 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Thanks for wording that more eloquently than myself.

No matter what Emnity says, leaving sex aside, when you take advantage of a drunk person, the law doesn't absolve you. Why should sex be different, if proved so? Are you two arguing otherwise? You don't know the reality then.

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, DocM said:

Guess the supposedly brilliant Richard Dawkins never heard of a rape kit? They're all the rage in ER's and courts because the victim doesn't have to remember jack.

 

And, if she were drunk she by definition cannot give consent, so any idiot that hops on board is a rapist no matter what his opinion of the situation is.

 

On this Dawkins loses about 40 IQ points.

you are of course aware that in the VAST majority of cases a rape kit will only show that "yes, sex occurred" it doesn't have magical abilities to detect "she said no" and no not all rape gives indicators of rape, HOWEVER, in many cases regular and or "rough" consensual" sex, can lead to what was previously though of as indicators of rape. 

 

without witnesses or video or something a rape kit is essentially useless. 

''

on top of that you also ignore the fact that many rape cases never have a rape kit in the first place.  either way, the point is that in addition to the rape kit proving sex occurred, the victim needs to be able to testify that she was raped. 

 

of course, you may be one of those who think men can make consent after 10 beers and heavy liquor and women can't give consent after one beer. personally I find that offensive and sexist towards women and men alike. 

2 hours ago, DocM said:

As stated above, a woman who is drunk cannot legally give sexual consent. Period. Stop. Do not pass GO.

So when do you define her as drunk ?

 

and why can men give consent when drunk ? 

 

you sound a little sexist and misogynistic to me. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

5 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

No matter what Emnity says, when you take advantage of a drunk person, the law doesn't absolve you. Are you two arguing otherwise? You don't know the reality then.

Absolutely not. Taking advantage of someone has to be examined seriously. There are even issues there though, a claim of being taken advantage of isn't always a sureshot to rape. As we've discussed a little alcohol can impair judgement and sleeping with someone you find ugly normally, and wouldn't consent to sober cannot automatically be put down to a motive to rape because you regret bedding. I'm sure many average looking guys have successfully slept with someone arguably above their pay-grade because they've flirted with confidence while being drunk and a women has decided to go for it (and the other way around). Especially with teenagers, just look at twitter/facebook posts about "sleeping with fatties/uglies/whatever". People make sexual "mistakes", but not every sexual mistake is rape/violence.

 

This is why though rape/sexual violence claims do get examined in incredible detail and length in court. 

[Ulyses]

3 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

doesn't mean others cannot responsibly consume it and have fun.

drunk = not responsibly consume. Are we having a "what drunk means" slide around here? It's pathetic, if so.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

 

Not everyone automatically turns into a douchebag or potential criminal for wanting to relax/have fun/"let their hair down".

And not everyone wants to have sex while they let their hair down.

[Memphis]

Oh no if this definition is right my wife rapes me every other weekend. I'm the only one who drinks in the relationship, think I should press charges for this? 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just now, Ulyses said:

drunk = not responsibly consume. Are we having a "what drunk means" slide around here? It's pathetic, if so.

 

 

And not everyone wants to have sex while they let their hair down.

Duh. Where did I say otherwise?

[Ulyses]

1 minute ago, Audioboxer said:

Duh. Where did I say otherwise?

When you implied they can't have second thoughts on drunk sex: whilst drunk, you are vulnerable, beside being irresponsible, that much we've established. I think it's pretty obvious where to go from here.

[Alera]

8 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

The Suffragettes would be disgusted by the current flock of feminists.

 

Violent vandals, thugs and terrorists, haters of the lower class, believers in inequality, not to mention shamers of those who would take no part in the fighting of the era (which is ironic considering the number of women who served in WWI) would be disgusted by the current flock of feminists? I don't really think so... in fact I believe they'd fit right in with most modern feminists.

 

Suffragists are the real women of feminism, please don't be confused on the matter, they are completely different no matter what Hollywood and feminists will try to tell you.

 

And why are people quoting the Guardian as some "valid source"? I consider myself a Leftie but even the Guardian to me is a washed out SJW article writing cesspool.

 

The fact is, the video was humourous and showed that some feminists and some Muslims do share the same world views which is ironic considering they're supposed to be juxtaposed in their beliefs. The situation also shows that you should never apologise to the SJWs as they will just take it as bait to rant and rave even more.

[compl3x]

I have another question: are both parties both considered guilty of rape or sexual assault or is it simply assumed the man was the one who persuaded the women into sex?
 

Come to think of it I have had sex with a few women while drunk that I probably wouldn't have if I was sober. Am I a rape victim?

 

To be clear, I am not making light of this type of crime. Rape and sexual assault are particularly appalling crimes and perpetrators should suffer the absolute full force of the law and every resources should be afforded to the victim but this particular issue of consent not being consent in some circumstances seems strange.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

2 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

When you implied they can't have second thoughts on drunk sex: whilst drunk, you are vulnerable, beside being irresponsible, that much we've established. I think it's pretty obvious where to go from here.

Well all I will add is you are so unbelievably wrong of my character if you think I believe everyone who wants to get drunk and have fun have to end a night out with sex, or that someone can say no and not have that respected. Of course they can, and should.

 

Hey if only some of us were that lucky every night out!  (uh-oh another joke...)

[HawkMan]

49 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

Sex when drunk is possible, but really, consent when drunk? That's an oxymoron. Anything with consent and drunk is oxymoron, not just sex.

Drinking does NOT remove your ability to think clearly and make decisions. sure at some point it does, that's called a blackout. (you blackout before you pass out) .

 

Sure before this you lose coordination and reaction time, physical stuff, which is why you can't drive a car, but you still have the ability to think clear enough to know right from wrong and what you want. 

 

"I was drunk" is NEVER a valid excuse for doing bad stuff anyone who isn't blacked out and do stupid stuff while drunk, knew damn well it was stupid and/or illegal when they did it, it may have helped loosen their inhibitions to do it a little bit, but not their ability to know right from wrong. and let's face it, loosening inhibitions is the reason 95% of people drink(I'm purposely not saying get drunk here, because that's a step beyond the having a drink stage where misogynist feminists say they and their fellow women are no longer able to make decisions for themselves). 

 

basically if this is your argument, your argument should also be that alcohol and pubs and bars needs to be banned. and in England/Scotland where the pub is the first stop before going home after work, no guy could ever have sex

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, compl3x said:

If consent can't be given while drunk then does that mean a lot more people than we thought are the product rape?

 

Lots of pregnancies happen when people are intoxicated and don't use protection, so are all of those children the result of rape? Hell, my parents aren't shy around alcohol, they were probably both drinking when they conceived me. I might be the result of rape.  Additionally, because the teenage brain isn't fully developed and doesn't always evaluate the consequences of an action is all teenage sex rape?

 

Doesn't it sort of infantise people to suggest that if they do anything while drunk or any decisions made while drunk they are essentially invalid? There is no doubt that alcohol  and other drugs ruin one's ability to completely think a decision through but being convicted of rape because both parties were drunk during sex seems like a pretty dangerous idea. What is to stop someone simply regretting sleeping with someone and accusing them of rape in order to punish them?

From a legal standpoint, yes.  Therein, in fact, lies the problem.

 

Alcohol (a known depressant) has a history of being used to aid in depressing the walls that humans have separating right from wrong - the case of Lot's daughters is, unfortunately, likely the best-known example in literature (they tried to take advantage of HIS inebriated state).  Single men chasing widows ("new" widows or not) and getting them drunk can be considered a similar category/corollary - and this is something that happens a lot, and in every nation - without exception.  (Both examples involve adults - not teenagers.)  Legally, you CANNOT give consent while impaired - that especially applies to intoxication/inebriation.  Such actions DO fall into a moral gray area (and that was especially so earlier in global history when populations were a lot smaller); however, that is not the case today - for reasons of legality, not morality.  (However, if BOTH parties were drinking, then impaired judgement can - and should - cut BOTH ways; if BOTH parties are impaired, how can either be held legally liable?)

[HawkMan]

16 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

Well, his argument, in this case, which you're defending, is entirely ad hominem, how are you not seeing this?

give a FULL quote of said ad hominem argument. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just now, HawkMan said:

Drinking does NOT remove your ability to think clearly and make decisions. sure at some point it does, that's called a blackout. (you blackout before you pass out) .

 

Sure before this you lose coordination and reaction time, physical stuff, which is why you can't drive a car, but you still have the ability to think clear enough to know right from wrong and what you want. 

 

"I was drunk" is NEVER a valid excuse for doing bad stuff anyone who isn't blacked out and do stupid stuff while drunk, knew damn well it was stupid and/or illegal when they did it, it may have helped loosen their inhibitions to do it a little bit, but not their ability to know right from wrong. and let's face it, loosening inhibitions is the reason 95% of people drink(I'm purposely not saying get drunk here, because that's a step beyond the having a drink stage where misogynist feminists say they and their fellow women are no longer able to make decisions for themselves). 

 

basically if this is your argument, your argument should also be that alcohol and pubs and bars needs to be banned. and in England/Scotland where the pub is the first stop before going home after work, no guy could ever have sex

Hey! That is soo untrue... erm... okay, maybe you're onto something 

[DocM]

8 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

>

The discussion at hand surrounded one component of alcohol, and that was discussing the ability to consent to sex, and how that can be examined in a court of law when sexual violence cases are raised.

The procedure varies a bit by jurisdiction, but the victim complains, then is taken to a hospital or clinic where the rape exam is done; a physical exam, photos of injuries, skin and vaginal DNA swabs, plus oral or anal if involved, and a blood analysis is done to determine if the victim was drunk or otherwise unable to give legal consent.  Other items may also be included, such as UV photography to reveal currently invisible bruising. The resulting sealed evidence pack then goes to the medical examiners office for analysis.

[Alera]

Rape in Western Common and CIvil law is termed as penetration, it is mostly a man on woman crime according to these laws so no, if the man is drunk he wasn't raped, he was sexually assaulted which is a ridiculous double standard.

 

There are many completely insane feminists who believe that even when not drunk, you should constantly ask for reassurance during coitus to make sure that you're not raping your lover. Imagine it, are you sure you're okay with this? Should we continue? Are you sure? Are you definitely sure?

 

They also say that consent can be removed AFTER the fact, which is also completely bonkers.

[HawkMan]

9 minutes ago, sidroc said:

Oh no if this definition is right my wife rapes me every other weekend. I'm the only one who drinks in the relationship, think I should press charges for this? 

 

Didn't you know, you need a penis in order to perform rape. 

 

and yes, that is ACTUAL law in many (Western) places. so there goes DocM's idealistic view of laws. 

[Ulyses]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

Drinking does NOT remove your ability to think clearly and make decisions.

I specifically wrote: drunk. Why would you go and make a point about drinking, beats me... not: the straws are showing.

[HawkMan]

3 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Hey! That is soo untrue... erm... okay, maybe you're onto something 

We all know you guys can't operate heavy machinery before at least one pint

[compl3x]

1 minute ago, PGHammer said:

From a legal standpoint, yes.  Therein, in fact, lies the problem.

 

Alcohol (a known depressant) has a history of being used to aid in depressing the walls that humans have separating right from wrong - the case of Lot's daughters is, unfortunately, likely the best-known example in literature (they tried to take advantage of HIS inebriated state).  Single men chasing widows ("new" widows or not) and getting them drunk can be considered a similar category/corollary - and this is something that happens a lot, and in every nation - without exception.  (Both examples involve adults - not teenagers.)  Legally, you CANNOT give consent while impaired - that especially applies to intoxication/inebriation.  Such actions DO fall into a moral gray area (and that was especially so earlier in global history when populations were a lot smaller); however, that is not the case today - for reasons of legality, not morality.  (However, if BOTH parties were drinking, then impaired judgement can - and should - cut BOTH ways; if BOTH parties are impaired, how can either be held legally liable?)

 

 

So if some sleazy scumbag seduces, without alcohol involved, a women who just got divorced or broke up with her boyfriend is he now a rapist? He's no doubt a scumbag, but a rapist?

 

If a husband pesters his wife for sex, or to performs certain sex acts, and she eventually agrees is he now a rapist?

 

You see where I am going with this, right? A hell of a lot of rapists around if the answer is yes.

 

 

If I sign a loan or other contract while drunk could I get out of it by saying I couldn't consent or understand what I was agreeing to?

[PGHammer]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

Drinking does NOT remove your ability to think clearly and make decisions. sure at some point it does, that's called a blackout. (you blackout before you pass out) .

 

Sure before this you lose coordination and reaction time, physical stuff, which is why you can't drive a car, but you still have the ability to think clear enough to know right from wrong and what you want. 

 

"I was drunk" is NEVER a valid excuse for doing bad stuff anyone who isn't blacked out and do stupid stuff while drunk, knew damn well it was stupid and/or illegal when they did it, it may have helped loosen their inhibitions to do it a little bit, but not their ability to know right from wrong. and let's face it, loosening inhibitions is the reason 95% of people drink(I'm purposely not saying get drunk here, because that's a step beyond the having a drink stage where misogynist feminists say they and their fellow women are no longer able to make decisions for themselves). 

 

basically if this is your argument, your argument should also be that alcohol and pubs and bars needs to be banned. and in England/Scotland where the pub is the first stop before going home after work, no guy could ever have sex

HawkMan, the issue is "impaired judgment" - which is, in fact, a known quantity when it comes to all depressants - including alcohol.  That is also why you cannot give legal consent - to anything - when you are considered "under the influence" of any drug (including alcohol)  Excuse?  No; however, it IS a defense, and quite legal, for several reasons.  You are likely talking about misapplication of that legal defense - such as application to only one side.  If both parties to an incident were drinking, then both parties SHOULD be considered "under the influence" and the case thrown out, as neither party was in any condition to give legal consent. (Sauce for the goose.)  However, how often does THAT happen?

 

[DocM]

12 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

>

So when do you define her as drunk ?

 

When she's showing the effects, or at 2-3 drinks whichever comes first. 

 

12 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

and why can men give consent when drunk ? 

 

The law does not distinguish between the sexes, and men can be raped too. By women. And yes, there are cases.

 

12 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

you sound a little sexist and misogynistic to me. 

Because I'm aggressively anti-rape? Puhlease. You're abusing the term. This comes from decades of dealing with rape victims and having a wife and daughter. 

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

I specifically wrote: drunk. Why would you go and make a point about drinking, beats me... not: the straws are showing.

because the argument was also for DocM who argues that you can't drink at all without being drunk.  and because drunk isn't a measurable state. Blood alcohol is used for when you can drive or not. however at this point everyone even in the most liberal places, are more than capable of making sound decision for themselves. But even then if we stick to blood alcohol.  two people with the same high value aren't necessarily both drunk one can be close to blackout, the other guy can be Finnish or polish and need like 3-5% before they even walk funny....

 

So that means that the only way to see if a person is drunk is by their mental state, which is ok if one person is what I define as "drunk" and not just breezy. but if both are drunk. well then they're probably going to ###### like bunnies. or not since he probably can't get it up...