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

[Ulyses]

10 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Heck half of our parents probably conceived us during drunk unprotected sex 

 

Yeah, no. This is the type of argument that has no place in a matter of such gravity. You can't laugh it off. I mean, you can, and you obviously are, but, it's deflecting, it's ignoring, it's ignorant.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

9 minutes ago, DocM said:

Drunk is a state of blood chemistry, and under UK law where Dawkins lives even a lack of sleep can induce a state where consent cannot be given.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/

 

Sexual Offences Act 1956

The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

• The complainant's assertion of force or threats;
• Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent; or
• Evidence that the complainant was deceived as to the identity of the person with whom (s)he had intercourse.

Yes there is a difference between consent and submission, I'm merely suggesting consent can be given when drunk. I hardly see that as a radical point of view, but more one of common sense. Very little is "as simple as", unless you are at extreme ends where it's without a doubt obvious, provable and there is evidence someone was so inebriated that consent was simply not possible. That can be scientifically tested with blood results, witness testimonials, questioning the accused, examining the claimant physically, and so forth.

 

9 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

 

Well, guess what? You are deflecting. The pressing real world issue of women rape is "worrying" you the wrong way. It's not the new wave feminists, there were always women lying about being raped. You just use hype words to imply there is no actual rape as a problem, but women remorse is the issue.

 

But what you don't imply is the numbers: how many rapes go unreported. Too many. Because it's still more shameful for the victims. Yes, victims, women are not the only ones being raped. But you somehow try to frame rape only into drunk women with regrets. Because it gives you a new angle: feminists. Think again.

I've not even given any opinion on that, simply discussed alcohol in a rather limited context. Of course I fully accept all of that, and agree with it. Tons of rapes go unreported and it has nothing to do with feminism but the points you said.

 

So really you're thinking completely incorrectly of me throwing terms like "frame rape" in my direction. I'm simply not afraid to discuss what certainly are issues in the grand scheme of things without trying to have debate shutdown because others do not like considering all angles.

 

This topic however veered into feminism in the first place due to what was originally reported in the OP, and what members went onto talk about. I've not exactly came out of nowhere with discussing 3rd wave feminism and some of the issues worthy of discussion.

[DocM]

3 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Yes there is a difference between consent and submission, I'm merely suggesting consent can be given when drunk. 

And you would be wrong in that assumption. And not just by a little.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

Yeah, no. This is the type of argument that has no place in a matter of such gravity. You can't laugh it off. I mean, you can, and you obviously are, but, it's deflecting, it's ignoring, it's ignorant.

That is called a joke. Trigger warning much?

[Ulyses]

6 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

I've not even given any opinion on that, simply discussed alcohol. Of course I fully accept all of that, and agree with it. Tons of rapes go unreported.

 

OK. The way I see it, there's two sides, each needing much consideration. A victim of a rape and a victim of a false rape accusation. The law covers both. I don't see why the need to stress out "drunken sex" and "feminists" in order to make the victim of a false rape accusation appear undefended. It could "very well" be balanced out by "man's needs" in "a man's world" argument. It goes nowhere.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

And you would be wrong in that assumption. And not just by a little.

Seriously? 

 

I've had drunken sex, so are you saying I was unable to consent? 

 

3 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

OK. The way I see it, there's two sides, each needing much consideration. A victim of a rape and a victim of a false rape accusation. The law covers both. I don't see why the need to stress out "drunken sex" and "feminists" in order to make the victim of a false rape accusation appear undefended.

Exactly the point. There is nothing wrong with having debates on either side. The law does cover both, but why cannot we not discuss things for what they are? I never once said anyone was undefended.

[Ulyses]

5 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

That is called a joke. Trigger warning much?

A joke is not immune to causing harm. You and me could probably take that joke. A rape victim left with a child? I'm not so sure. Things we have to consider.

[Ulyses]

6 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Seriously? 

 

I've had drunken sex, so are you saying I was unable to consent? 

 

Ever heard of get her drunk to _________ ? Why do you think it's needed, why is it a thing even? Because otherwise, there's no way she consents. Or he. So simple.

 

 

Quote

Exactly the point. There is nothing wrong with having debates on either side. The law does cover both, but why cannot we not discuss things for what they are? I never once said anyone was undefended.

 

Well, you did make it sound like one side was less defended than the other.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just now, Ulyses said:

A joke is not immune to cause harm. You and me could probably take that joke. A rape victim left with a child? I'm not so sure. Things we have to consider.

No it's not, but offence isn't a reason to completely nullify humour. I think given the context that I was laying out genuinely written arguments shows I'm not just joining in a debate on Neowin with a one liner. Even if I were it's a forum based on free speech. If I had quoted a member who openly admitted they were a rape victim, maybe mods would step in and decide I was unjustly targeting someone, but this is not the case. If anything it's blindingly obvious I'm poking fun at what seems to be DocM's rebuttals at me that we cannot consent when drunk, and I'm sure he has a thick enough skin to take a joke from me.

 

 

[DocM]

10 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Seriously? 

 

I've had drunken sex, so are you saying I was unable to consent? 

Yes, the law is gender neutral. Time to grow up and realize that just because you want to do things you often cannot legally.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

3 minutes ago, DocM said:

Yes. Time to grow up. 

I do not know what happens in Michigan Doc, but ironically it's you that needs to grow up and realize adults around the rest of the world can happily consume alcohol, know their limits and have fun.

 

I can assure you I wasn't raped, and more than certainly happily gave consent.

[Ulyses]

11 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

No it's not, but offence isn't a reason to completely nullify humour. I think given the context that I was laying out genuinely written arguments shows I'm not just joining in a debate on Neowin with a one liner.

Like you said, when talking about drunkenness, there are various degrees of humour. Referring to half of us being conceived by drunk, irresponsible parents may not sound so romanticized at all to some of us.

 

 

Quote

Even if I were it's a forum based on free speech. 

Does it work in reverse? I mean, can I quote your joke and argue the context in which the joke is written?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

5 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

Like you said, when talking about drunkenness, there are various degrees of humour. Referring to half of us being conceived by drunk, irresponsible parents may not sound so romanticized at all to some of us.

 

 

Does is work in reverse? I mean, can I quote your joke and argue the context in which the joke is written?

Yeah if you have some jokes to fire at me, I'll laugh if they are funny. When there is no malice behind a joke, and it is seemingly coming from a well rounded and respectful person, I can happily have a laugh. Notice how I used the term "our parents" to include myself  Maybe I should just have said 50% of Scots are conceived during drunk sex as jokes about the Scottish and alcohol can be laughed at and it would mean we do now not need to go on a parade to find targeted individuals and feel upset.

 

If anything I've just proven how crazy the SJW parade can be if they can find a scrap to home in on and totally blow something out of proportion. For everyone else on NW they can read the last few pages and come to their own opinion on whether or not sex is possible when drunk, quite fun sex at that, or if Doc is right and no one can consent to having some fun when drunk.

[bluesman86]

On 1/29/2016 at 10:51 PM, _Alexander said:

Rest of article with pictures and YouTube Video,
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/01/28/atheist-civil-war-angry-feminists-get-richard-dawkins-disinvited-from-skeptics-conference/

 

For those that break out in hives when BreitBart is used as source,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html

 

Big fan of Dawkins.

 

These "feminists" are retarded basement dwellers. It's a shame they have a voice now through social media where they're protected from the public ridicule they deserve. Useless and unemployable people.

[Ulyses]

12 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

If anything I've just proven how crazy the SJW parade can be if they can find a scrap to home in on and totally blow something out of proportion.

 

I mean, yeah, you were quoted and argued, but I don't think you can honestly say "crazy parade" can you? It's simply that others may not feel same, others possibly don't have the best sex while drunk, others possibly don't enjoy a drunk sex partner either.

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

For everyone else on NW they can read the last few pages and come to their own opinion on whether or not sex is possible when drunk, quite fun sex at that, or if Doc is right and no one can consent to having some fun when drunk.

 

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

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

I mean, yeah, you were quoted and argued, but I don't think you can honestly say "crazy parade" can you? It's simply that others may not feel same, others possibly don't have the best sex while drunk, others possibly don't enjoy a drunk sex partner either.

 

 

 

 

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

Have some of you never been drunk? It's absolutely insane to think you cannot make a decision of your own accord just because of alcohol. That in itself is a worrying thought. The excuse of "I was drunk so I didn't know any better/couldn't make a sensible decision" is what actually causes issues in the legal system. People trying to shrug responsibility for their own actions.

[Ulyses]

12 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Have some of you never been drunk? It's absolutely insane to think you cannot make a decision of your own accord just because of alcohol.

 

Driving around drunk is the obvious counter here. Operating machinery. Babysitting. Drunk parents having their kids removed. All cases where the sane thing to do is to assume you can not make a correct legal decision of your own accord because of alcohol. And "I was drunk" does not help with the case, quite the opposite.

 

 

Quote

That in itself is a worrying thought. The excuse of "I was drunk so I didn't know any better/couldn't make a sensible decision" is what actually causes issues in the legal system.

 

You just dotted the "i". Getting someone that drunk in the first place may be an act of premeditation. It's actually insane from you to assume you can take for good a drunk person's words or actions. It's even more insane to be surprised a drunk person will not have the same attitude when they sober up.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

People trying to shrug responsibility for their own actions.

 

Aren't you trying exactly that? You slept with a drunk person. Drunk yourself or not, you took a gamble. There are risks, and now, more than ever, you've been warned.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ulyses

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

10 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

Driving around drunk is the obvious counter here. Operating machinery. Babysitting. Drunk parents having their kids removed. All cases where the sane thing to do is to assume you can not make a correct legal decision of your own accord because of alcohol. And "I was drunk" does not help with the case, quite the opposite.

 

 

 

You just dotted the "i". Getting someone that drunk in the first place may be an act of premeditation. It's actually insane from you to assume you can take for good a drunk person's words or actions. It's even more insane to be surprised a drunk person will not have the same attitude when they sober up.

We were never talking driving/operating machinery, but consenting to sex. As far as I'm aware nowhere lists a unit requirement to be below for consent, because obviously different people can drink different amounts before they hit blackout drunk.

 

I'm the one arguing for consideration of all possibilities, you and Doc seem to be hellbent on cornering the discussion into simple can/cannot when there is a large scale of how drunk you can be and still be able to consent willingly to sex. The difference with driving for example is you can consent, but the law dictates regardless of you consenting if you are above a certain unit consumption it is not legal to drive. As I said that does not exist legally for sex, and shouldn't. Our law is currently fine for examining rape cases on an individual basis and examining the science behind whether or not said individuals were capable of consenting, if there's evidence they did (witnesses) and whether or not forced entry or physical violence is examinable.

[Emn1ty]

3 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

You just dotted the "i". Getting someone that drunk in the first place may be an act of premeditation. It's actually insane from you to assume you can take for good a drunk person's words or actions. It's even more insane to be surprised a drunk person will not have the same attitude when they sober up.

This is the wrong kind of thinking, it implies motive without reason to. Just because someone gets plastered and then has sex does not mean someone got them plastered to have sex with them. It's not about trusting a "drunk person", but recognizing that when you get drunk you willingly put yourself in that situation and any resulting actions are still your responsibility.

If you take bath salts and murder someone, it's still your fault. Sure, the drug may have caused you to murder but you still chose to take the drug willingly. Just like anyone who gets severely intoxicated did that to themselves.

Moral of the story, don't want to have impaired judgement then don't get drunk.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

6 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

This is the wrong kind of thinking, it implies motive without reason to. Just because someone gets plastered and then has sex does not mean someone got them plastered to have sex with them. It's not about trusting a "drunk person", but recognizing that when you get drunk you willingly put yourself in that situation and any resulting actions are still your responsibility.

If you take bath salts and murder someone, it's still your fault. Sure, the drug may have caused you to murder but you still chose to take the drug willingly. Just like anyone who gets severely intoxicated did that to themselves.

Moral of the story, don't want to have impaired judgement then don't get drunk.

Thanks for wording that more eloquently than myself.

[Ulyses]

12 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

We were never talking driving/operating machinery, but consenting to sex. As far as I'm aware nowhere lists a unit requirement to be below for consent, because obviously different people can drink different amounts before they hit blackout drunk.

You are wrong, you questioned the decision making whilst drunk. Legally, being drunk is always worse and it never serves as an excuse. The victim, yes, can blame the person taking advantage. You don't "borrow" money from drunk people, do you? Do you follow the "consenting" path on this case also? In doesn't helps much with the law either.

 

And, well, they do give out advice to whomever chooses to listen.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php

Quote

So, practically, if you’re wondering how many drinks you can have before driving, the best answer is ‘None.’

See, it's not a sex thing, it's being drunk and thus not being able to make the right choices. Don't hope it has made the right one, it's almost always not the right one.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Just now, Ulyses said:

You are wrong, you questioned the decision making whilst drunk. Legally, being drunk is always worse and it never serves as an excuse. The victim, yes, can blame the person taking advantage. You don't "borrow" money from drunk people, do you?

 

And, well, they do give out advice to whomever chooses to listen.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php

 

 

You can't just start throwing the kitchen sink at my arguments when I'm specifically talking about consent for sex. That is entirely dishonest.

 

I haven't been debating or even discussing drunk driving or any of the other things you've now brought up. The law isn't a flat line for alcohol, and rightfully not. We take things on a case by case basis, and while alcohol is a legal drug years of debate, evidence and genuine discussion has set individual laws for certain things (such as driving).

 

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.

[HawkMan]

4 hours ago, Ulyses said:

 

I'm pretty sure his arguments are beyond the civility limits imposed by this forum, so, yeah (by Dawkins standards also), I'm not insulting nor attacking the him.

 

He is not without flaw, and he blatantly shows it, I thought it sanitary to be aware of that, but you keep reversing his bad attitude on the responses it generates. Of course, the responses are way more civilised then his attitude, so, what's your angle? Why do you keep defending this side of him though?

I'm not saying he is without fault. but yeah, insulting and attacking him is exactly what you're doing. you're going after the person instead of the arguments. tha's how you lose the argument, by not even being part of the argument. 

[compl3x]

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 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?

[Ulyses]

4 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

I'm not saying he is without fault. but yeah, insulting and attacking him is exactly what you're doing. you're going after the person instead of the arguments. tha's how you lose the argument, by not even being part of the argument. 

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