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

[Ulyses]

6 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

give a FULL quote of said ad hominem argument. 

 

From Dear Muslima:

 

Quote

Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .

I could probably find others, as personal as this. Do we really need more confirmation? I think not: the man is clearly in the wrong here.

[Ulyses]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

because the argument was also for DocM who argues that you can't drink at all without being drunk.

And because the legal advice is precisely that.

 

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.’

 

It's safe to assume you could replace driving with sex and the legal advice would remain the same.

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

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

 

 

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

 

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. 

 

So first you're deciding that no woman can handle more than 3 drinks without being drunk ? you know it's not up to her? seems misogynist. but also like those 3rd wave feminists.  Also no matter what the drink is... 

 

and yes the law in many places DO distinguish. and more importantly, the jury and judges and before that, the cops ABSOLUTELY do. 

 

I'm also anti rape. but that doesn't mean I think people can't make decision for themselves but have to be ruled over by those who think they are their betters. 

[DocM]

5 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

because the argument was also for DocM who argues that you can't drink at all without being drunk.  .

No, I go by the legal definition which is .08 BAC in most locales, which is likely to be lowered, and for which for the average woman is 2-3 drinks - unless she can't hold it and showed effects sooner.

 

And to be strictly legal, drugs (including some over the counters), weed and an other intoxicant or depressant.  

[compl3x]

11 minutes ago, Alera said:

 

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

They might be confusing regret with consent.

 

12 minutes ago, Alera said:

 

 

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?

 

 

Take it one step further: if the man doesn't bring the woman to climax but he does climax he is a rapist!

[HawkMan]

2 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

And because the legal advice is precisely that.

 

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

 

It's safe to assume you could replace driving with sex and the legal advice would remain the same.

Except making decision and losing fine motor control and reaction time is NOT the effin same thing. you don't lose the ability to think and make choices just form a few drinks. 

[DocM]

1 minute ago, HawkMan said:

you don't lose the ability to think and make choices just form a few drinks. 

Yes, you do. You just aren't aware your decision-making sucks.

[HawkMan]

8 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

 

From Dear Muslima:

 

I could probably find others, as personal as this. Do we really need more confirmation? I think not: the man is clearly in the wrong here.

that's not an ad hominem...

[HawkMan]

Just now, DocM said:

Yes, you do. You just aren't aware your decision-making sucks.

I'm sorry I murdered that man, but I had just had a beer.

 

sorry but B effin S. 

 

sure people use that excuse, but anyone who's actually been drinking can tell you that's not remotely true.  yes if you drink, and get right and proper drunk you can more easily do stupid decisions, but you are aware they're stupid. and in fact MOST people are smart enough to decide NOT to make that stupid decision because even though they're drunk they know it's stupid, those who make it, are those that would probably do it anyway, because.. well they're idiots basically. 

[compl3x]

14 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

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. 

 

8 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

 

I'm also anti rape. 

 

I think we can all safely agree that we are all anti-rape.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

Yes, you do. You just aren't aware your decision-making sucks.

Maybe 45 years ago you were drinking moonshine, because 3 bottles of beer aren't going to make a dent in a Scotsman.

[DocM]

Just now, Audioboxer said:

Maybe 45 years ago you were drinking moonshine,

 

Nope.

 

Just now, Audioboxer said:

because 3 bottles of beer aren't going to make a dent in a Scotsman.

Because you're alcoholics and think you're immune?

 

3 5% beers = 3 shots of 80 proof.

 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

10 minutes ago, DocM said:

Nope.

 

Because you're alcoholics and think you're immune?

 

3 5% beers = 3 shots of 80 proof.

 

No because I can drink 3 beers and be absolutely fine mentally to make composed decisions. Sure I'm not going to drive, but I can assure you I do not rape after 3 beers /s

 

I applauded you for being alcohol free, but on the same hand I would scold you for suggesting something that is incorrect for myself given I know my limits and have lots of experience of what I am capable of thinking after 3 beers.

[FloatingFatMan]

31 minutes ago, Ulyses said:

I could probably find others, as personal as this. Do we really need more confirmation? I think not: the man is clearly in the wrong here.

Why is the man in the wrong, just for asking a woman out? Last time I checked, that wasn't a crime. If it IS a crime, the human species will be extinct in a generation.

 

[DocM]

36 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

 

So first you're deciding that no woman can handle more than 3 drinks without being drunk ? you know it's not up to her? seems misogynist.

 

No, its blood chemistry 101. Very basically,  X volume of alcohol per Y volume of blood gives a blood level Z. Women generally have a lower total blood volume, which means it takes less X to reach level Z.

 

Quote

 

and yes the law in many places DO distinguish. and more importantly, the jury and judges and before that, the cops ABSOLUTELY do. 

 

The jurisdictions which distinguish are in the minority and disappearing fast, especially in the US.  

 

Quote

 

I'm also anti rape. but that doesn't mean I think people can't make decision for themselves but have to be ruled over by those who think they are their betters. 

It's not a matter of betters, it's a matter of law and biology.

[Memphis]

4 minutes ago, DocM said:

 

No, its blood chemistry 101. Very basically,  X volume of alcohol per Y volume of blood gives a blood level Z. Women generally have a lower total blood volume, which means it takes less X to reach level Z.

 

 

The jurisdictions which distinguish are in the minority and disappearing fast, especially in the US.  

 

It's not a matter of betters, it's a matter of law and biology.

Well if we want to talk about biology I suggest you look into how tolerance is formed before making assumptions. That said, no one here is saying that an unconscious blacked out women can give consent. Again why can I commit a crime with 1.1 BAC and not get leniency if I am not in control of my decisions well enough to grasp what I am doing. By your definition I should be able to claim temporary insanity.

[DocM]

12 minutes ago, sidroc said:

Well if we want to talk about biology I suggest you look into how tolerance is formed before making assumptions. That said, no one here is saying that an unconscious blacked out women can give consent. Again why can I commit a crime with 1.1 BAC and not get leniency if I am not in control of my decisions well enough to grasp what I am doing. By your definition I should be able to claim temporary insanity.

You're confusing decisions you make (DUI etc.) with acts imposed on you by others (rape etc.)  Big difference.

[Athernar]

I love how this thread has a loony ultra-right Christian conservative parroting loony ultra-left SJW talking points. Even citing SJW darlings too.

 

One has to wonder if it's merely an excuse to pile-on because of the targets being prominent Atheists, or merely just further proof that horseshoe-theory is true.

 

[Ulyses]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

that's not an ad hominem...

No? OK.

[DocM]

13 minutes ago, Athernar said:

I love how this thread has a loony ultra-right Christian conservative parroting loony ultra-left SJW talking points. Even citing SJW darlings too.

 

One has to wonder if it's merely an excuse to pile-on because of the targets being prominent Atheists, or merely just further proof that horseshoe-theory is true.

 

Just describing the legal aspects of alcohol and other intoxicants vs the ability to give sexual consent.  The UK law was posted upthread, and the law is very similar if not identical in most US states.  That some people, including Dawkins, choose to blame the victim is another matter. I find it repugnant.

[Ulyses]

38 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Why is the man in the wrong, just for asking a woman out? Last time I checked, that wasn't a crime. If it IS a crime, the human species will be extinct in a generation.

 

The man, Dawkins. In the wrong, rightfully dis-invited. Follow the thread man, don't jump ahead randomly whenever you see Ulyses

[Ulyses]

16 minutes ago, Athernar said:

I love how this thread has a loony ultra-right Christian conservative parroting loony ultra-left SJW talking points. Even citing SJW darlings too.

 

One has to wonder if it's merely an excuse to pile-on because of the targets being prominent Atheists, or merely just further proof that horseshoe-theory is true.

 

Yeah, let's keep telling this story: it's not that Dawkins is a bozo, it's because he's a atheist bozo. Straw men. And, you should feel less inclined to ultra-right ultra-left ultra-anything, you're just proving to be a ultra-crap spreader.

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, Ulyses said:

The man, Dawkins. In the wrong, rightfully dis-invited. Follow the thread man, don't jump ahead randomly whenever you see Ulyses

Maybe you should be clearer when you're quoting one thing and commenting about someone else right under it.

 

[Ulyses]

2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Maybe you should be clearer when you're quoting one thing and commenting about someone else right under it.

 

Sorry, close captions still not included Nice spin though! It's a pleasure to watch you work.

 

[Athernar]

14 minutes ago, DocM said:

Just describing the legal aspects of alcohol and other intoxicants vs the ability to give sexual consent.  The UK law was posted upthread, and the law is very similar if not identical in most US states.  That some people, including Dawkins, choose to blame the victim is another matter. I find it repugnant.

Bwahaha, I guess that goes to prove it. The Christian right are really no different to the SJW left, you may differ on reasoning and motive, but the end result is the same. Moralising authoritarianism and infantilisation.