Rape?

[Magic Man]

So you truly believe the law says if you're drunk you're responsible for all actions?

Yes, if you're voluntarily drunk, you're responsible for all of your actions. However, there is another option - you could be responsible for none of your actions. It's one or the other, though. You can't be responsible for your actions while drunk in some instances, but not responsible for them while drunk in other instances.

Again - why do we have date rape laws?

I don't know. What are the laws exactly?

Again - you're wrong.

Sorry, but you'll have to do better than this.

Again - I'll await your personal attack.

Says the guy who posts nonsense like "Life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it." in response to a legitimate argument. You can pretend you're not doing anything wrong, but the fact is you're making clear you're not here for a real debate or discussion, so don't be surprised when people react negatively to you.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, if you're voluntarily drunk, you're responsible for all of your actions. However, there is another option - you could be responsible for none of your actions. It's one or the other, though. You can't be responsible for your actions while drunk in some instances, but not responsible for them while drunk in other instances.

OK - if that's what you truly think the law is then there's no point in continuing. I've already given two examples of where the law protects a drunk person (date rape and contracts), but you refuse to accept this.

Also, your answer is an either/or fallacy.

 

[Mr.Lost]

Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of what you just said.

I cant think of a better way to explain it or I would. I guess what it boils down to is just be the best person you can be. I cant see how a god would fault you for that.

 

[TashaN]

Well, with all due respect Tashan.

this was your post:



The 'Jewish state', also found a Jewish man to be guilty of rape by deception in 2008, and the same judge in the case we discuss here has obviously delt harsh sentences to Jews for insulting Muslims. did any European judge sentence a European cartoonist for 2 years of prison for drawing a caricature of Muhammad and thus offending Muslims feelings?
well this Israeli judge did. the same judge who is now being accused to represent the racism inherit in the Israeli system.
perhaps, its just possible that this judge is already known to be a hardliner and to hold provocative sentences, regardless of the ethnic identity of the accused.

You know well that i was talking about the Jewish *state*, not about Jews.

You know, i really find it hard to believe that the judge was acting like that out of the blue. You yourself said that the law exist in Israel, and you gave further examples of such a law in several American states, but the problem we have is not the name of this law, but how this law was practiced. This law in Israel was very specific on how it dealt with this case, and have this law been practiced the same way or meant to have the same types of rulings in the US, it would cause so much noise. That's why i'm criticizing how Israel is using this law against the Palestinians just because they are not Jews.

The same when the same law was being applied to everybody in the US during the slavery period, when both, a white and black men were charged of the same crime, and the white man would walk free or pay some fine, and the black man would be sentenced to death or be locked in prison forever.

 

[Magic Man]

OK - if that's what you truly think the law is then there's no point in continuing. I've already given two examples of where the law protects a drunk person (date rape and contracts), but you refuse to accept this.

Also, your answer is an either/or fallacy.

I don't refuse to accept anything. It's very simple. Either you're responsible for your actions when your drunk or you're not. There's no reason for you to be responsible sometimes because of drunkenness but not others.

It's not a false dichotomy, but nice try. I do like how you give a line or two to actual discussion over the course of several posts, and then act like you're tried really hard to get a point across, but since I refuse to accept it, there's no point in continuing. What you should do first is to actually address my point. Why should it be that in some instances drunkenness is an acceptable cause of lack of responsibility, while in many others it is not? You have yet to answer that. All you've done is say "We have date-rape laws", which doesn't respond to anything, especially since I'm not denying we have certain laws. I'm saying certain laws are inconsistent with others.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't refuse to accept anything. It's very simple. Either you're responsible for your actions when your drunk or you're not. There's no reason for you to be responsible sometimes because of drunkenness but not others.

It's not a false dichotomy, but nice try. I do like how you give a line or two to actual discussion over the course of several posts, and then act like you're tried really hard to get a point across, but since I refuse to accept it, there's no point in continuing. What you should do first is to actually address my point. Why should it be that in some instances drunkenness is an acceptable cause of lack of responsibility, while in many others it is not? You have yet to answer that. All you've done is say "We have date-rape laws", which doesn't respond to anything, especially since I'm not denying we have certain laws. I'm saying certain laws are inconsistent with others.

I asked: "So you truly believe the law says if you're drunk you're responsible for all actions?"

You answered: "Yes."

So, you did deny that we have inconsistent laws. Now you're saying you don't deny. Either there was a misunderstanding or you're backtracking and changing your argument because you know your answer to my question was wrong.

 

[Caladan]

The same when the same law was being applied to everybody in the US during the slavery period, when both, a white and black men were charged of the same crime, and the white man would walk free or pay some fine, and the black man would be sentenced to death or be locked in prison forever.

However, as I said earlier, a Jewish man was also found guilty of Rape by deception in 2008.

 

[Magic Man]

I asked: "So you truly believe the law says if you're drunk you're responsible for all actions?"

You answered: "Yes."

Ah, I'm sorry. That's my fault. I guess I just assumed you were asking a relevant question. I scanned the question too quickly apparently, and thought you were asking whether I believe that according to the law one should be responsible for all your actions while drunk.

I didn't realize you would ask such a silly question as whether or not I believe that's what the law actually says. The whole point here is that the law says something I believe it shouldn't. So, we're well past the part where you ask me what I believe the law says.

So, you did deny that we have inconsistent laws. Now you're saying you don't deny. Either there was a misunderstanding or you're backtracking and changing your argument because you know your answer to my question was wrong.

Yes, it was a misunderstanding based on my assumption that you were actually following the debate.

And you've still not answered my real question: Why should we be responsible for our actions that are caused by drunkenness sometimes but not others?

 

[TashaN]

However, as I said earlier, a Jewish man was also found guilty of Rape by deception in 2008.

Source?

And by the way, what did he lie about? And what was his punishment?

 

[Watchmen]

Ah, I'm sorry. That's my fault. I guess I just assumed you were asking a relevant question. I scanned the question too quickly apparently, and thought you were asking whether I believe that according to the law one should be responsible for all your actions while drunk.

I didn't realize you would ask such a silly question as whether or not I believe that's what the law actually says. The whole point here is that the law says something I believe it shouldn't. So, we're well past the part where you ask me what I believe the law says.



Yes, it was a misunderstanding based on my assumption that you were actually following the debate.

And you've still not answered my real question: Why should we be responsible for our actions that are caused by drunkenness sometimes but not others?

You're criticizing me while admitting you "scanned the question too quickly" and made assumptions? You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

To answer your question: We should be responsible for our actions caused by drunkenness sometimes but not others because laws are designed to protect victims. In the case of rape, the victim is the drunk. In the case of contracts, the victim is the drunk. In the case of a car accident, the victim is the one who is not drunk. So why should the responsibility shift? Because the focus is not on the drinking per se, but on the answer to the question of who is the victim.

 

[Magic Man]

You're criticizing me while admitting you "scanned the question too quickly" and made assumptions? You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Yes, I made a mistake. The mistake I made was to assume that you wouldn't ask an irrelevant question like the one you did.

To answer your question: We should be responsible for our actions caused by drunkenness sometimes but not others because laws are designed to protect victims. In the case of rape, the victim is the drunk. In the case of contracts, the victim is the drunk. In the case of a car accident, the victim is the one who is not drunk. So why should the responsibility shift? Because the focus is not on the drinking per se, but on the answer to the question of who is the victim.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. The problem I have with that is who's to say the drunk girl (or guy) who has sex is a victim? On the other hand, you don't have to have an accident while drunk to get your license taken away or go to jail. There could be no victim in that scenario, and you still go to jail. I understand wanting to protect the victim, but there are victims in a lot of situations where no one is punished. The question should always be "who's responsible?", not "who's the victim?", and if drunkenness doesn't take away someone's responsibility in most cases, it shouldn't in others.

 

[Caladan]

Source?

And by the way, what did he lie about? And what was his punishment?

"Rape by deception is a crime in Israel. In 2008 an Israeli Jew, Zvi Sleiman, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for pretending to be a senior official from the Ministry of Housing, in order to lure women into bed."

Source: Palestinian sentenced for 'rape by deception' of Israeli to appeal | Earth Times News

 

[Magic Man]

"Rape by deception is a crime in Israel. In 2008 an Israeli Jew, Zvi Sleiman, was sentenced to 10 years in jail for pretending to be a senior official from the Ministry of Housing, in order to lure women into bed."

Source: Palestinian sentenced for 'rape by deception' of Israeli to appeal | Earth Times News

See, now that one would be much better conversation I think. That's a bit different than claiming to be Jewish. I still probably disagree with the sentence, but at least it's more reasonable than the OP's charge.

 

[TashaN]

See, now that one would be much better conversation I think. That's a bit different than claiming to be Jewish. I still probably disagree with the sentence, but at least it's more reasonable than the OP's charge.

Indeed. Claiming to be a senior official is different than claiming to be a Jewish. If it was the same case, he wouldn't be sentenced to only 18 months and the one who pretended to be a senior official for 10 years.