Rape?

[Magic Man]

You can't give consent when you're drunk.

What EVERY GUY Must Know About Date Rape - A Date Rape Fact Sheet for Guys

Then why are you responsible for driving drunk or committing a crime drunk? We've already established that at least in most places drunken consent isn't valid. We're arguing about whether or not it should be. I think it's inconsistent to say that your consent while drunk is invalid (since apparently you're not responsible for your actions in that case), but driving a car and causing an accident while drunk is completely your responsibility. It's one or the other.

 

[Watchmen]

Then why are you responsible for driving drunk or committing a crime drunk? We've already established that at least in most places drunken consent isn't valid. We're arguing about whether or not it should be. I think it's inconsistent to say that your consent while drunk is invalid (since apparently you're not responsible for your actions in that case), but driving a car and causing an accident while drunk is completely your responsibility. It's one or the other.

Life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it.

 

[Magic Man]

Life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it.

Thanks for that, genius. We're talking about laws and their applications. I sure hope this isn't what they teach you in your law school.

"But, sir, that law is inconsistent with this one."

"Son, life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it."

So, anyway, there is no good reason for you to be held responsible for your actions while drunk in some cases but not in others.

 

[Nerthus]

Life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean that we should sit back and not question why.

The law has been known to get it wrong a few times after all.

 

[Watchmen]

Thanks for that, genius. We're talking about laws and their applications. I sure hope this isn't what they teach you in your law school.

"But, sir, that law is inconsistent with this one."

"Son, life is full of inconsistencies. Deal with it."

So, anyway, there is no good reason for you to be held responsible for your actions while drunk in some cases but not in others.

It's funny you now claim we're talking about laws and their applications. When I first introduced the concept of applying legal definitions to this thread you were easily offended and went the ad hominem route. I guess we've come full circle.

The laws are different because the laws are designed to protect people. In the case of the drunk driver, the law protects the victims of the driver's dangerous behavior. In the case of rape, the law protects those unable to give consent (which is the same for contracts, which I brought up earlier, but you were too high and mighty to discuss).

 

[TashaN]

White Judge: Hey Negro, how dare you have sex with this pure girl, just like her color, white. You have make her dirty with your devil intent derived from your skin color. You should be punished for that. (old times huh?) Well, not that old ...

Replace Black & Negro with the word Arab, and White with Jewish. So deal with it, it's a Jewish state. Did they say it was a democratic state? :sarcastic

 

[Caladan]

White Judge: Hey Negro, how dare you have sex with this pure girl, just like her color, white. You have make her dirty with your devil intent derived from your skin color. You should be punished for that. (old times huh?) Well, not that old ...

Replace Black & Negro with the word Arab, and White with Jewish. So deal with it, it's a Jewish state. Did they say it was a democratic state? :sarcastic

I love it how everyone ignored my initial post.
tell me Tashan, is that judge really a racist, or is it possible that he performs different than others, for example are you just as mad at him for setnencing a girl to 2 years in prison for drawing a caricature of Muhammad?
About the caricature and its use he said: "revolting, degenerate act which offended the feelings of Moslems in Israel and the entire world."

Judge Zvi Segal compared Susskin's drawings to those made of Jews in Nazi Germany. Susskin's lawyer, Shmuel Caspar, called the judge's remarks "outrageous."

Source: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0398/9803038.html

Tzvi Segal is a known hard liner as a judge against everyone, Jews, Arabs, and everyone in between, he also made some cases that were harshly criticized and were controversial, like this one, and another one a few months ago.

 

[Magic Man]

It's funny you now claim we're talking about laws and their applications. When I first introduced the concept of applying legal definitions to this thread you were easily offended and went the ad hominem route. I guess we've come full circle.

You can make all the accusations you want, but that stuff only happened in your mind. Regardless, even if that happened, the whole point of the being drunk sidebar here was that it was a law in many places, and it shouldn't be.

The laws are different because the laws are designed to protect people. In the case of the drunk driver, the law protects the victims of the driver's dangerous behavior. In the case of rape, the law protects those unable to give consent (which is the same for contracts, which I brought up earlier, but you were too high and mighty to discuss).

Yes, clearly I was too high and mighty to discuss. Clearly it wasn't you who just wanted to do some drive-bies and pretend that you're suddenly better than everyone else here because you're in law school.

Anyway, here's the deal. If you're responsible for your actions while drunk in some instances, you're responsible for them in all instances. The other option is that you're never responsible for your actions while drunk. It can't be some of each.

 

[Watchmen]

Anyway, here's the deal. If you're responsible for your actions while drunk in some instances, you're responsible for them in all instances. The other option is that you're never responsible for your actions while drunk. It can't be some of each.

Here's the deal. You're wrong. Again - deal with it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Anyway, here's the deal. If you're responsible for your actions while drunk in some instances, you're responsible for them in all instances.

For someone who has otherwise argued that laws can and should view different situations revolving around the same concept in their own light, you are arguing mighty hard for strict consistency here...

I'll give you that one is responsible for all actions when drunk when you give me all consent based on deceit is invalid.

 

[Mr.Lost]

Ok ok I'm studying law and my religion at the moment is morals therefore I have to say something on this one. As much as I would like to argue in faver of sentencing him to jail I really cant find it in me to do such a thing. I thought we came further than that in this day and age. Religion and sex/marriage have nothing to each other. If that what breaks you apart then it was not meant to be in the first place. As for as the law we know that in the past it just came to troubling circumstances there not to be mixed im sorry but I feel really sorry that the people still have not evolved due to not morals but religion.

I would also like to share another tid bit of my self for anyone who thinks he should be sentenced. The other day I meet the most wonderful chick. I thought I would get to know her a bit better and me being terrible with making friends guy and girl friends I procrastinated how to call for like a month. When I called a sixteen year old girl's house I found my self in shock when she said she was twelve years old. I hung up and nearly barfed. See the thing about this is its easier to tell some ones age then religion so why crewsifiy them? As a sided not so you don't think I'm some kind of pedifail. I'm staying away from her acting as I always do and most likely off making any kind of a friend for a year or two. If I was a prayer I would ask over and over for forgiveness so umm ya if any of you have some time to pray for some useless. Ask whoever to forgive me.

 

[Mr.Lost]

For someone who has otherwise argued that laws can and should view different situations revolving around the same concept in their own light, you are arguing mighty hard for strict consistency here...

I'll give you that one is responsible for all actions when drunk when you give me all consent based on deceit is invalid.

Say what And your a christen or.. are you one of those christens who don't read the bible. ''There shall not be any other god before me'' ''thou shall not judge'' O they repeat it so many times and I know like 50 people are going flood me twisting the words. This is why I ran way from that. :thud:Bind faith drives me crazy

 

[Magic Man]

Here's the deal. You're wrong. Again - deal with it.

Here's the deal. You have been wrong all along, and you can't deal with it, so you try to cover it up with nonsense like this. Nice try, but the only person you're fooling is yourself.

 

[Magic Man]

For someone who has otherwise argued that laws can and should view different situations revolving around the same concept in their own light, you are arguing mighty hard for strict consistency here...

I'll give you that one is responsible for all actions when drunk when you give me all consent based on deceit is invalid.

Apparently you still don't understand the situations. Please give it some thought, and come on back.

 

[Mr.Lost]

In the laws point of view there is no situations where it is ok.

 

[Mister Emu]

Say what And your a christen or.. are you one of those christens who don't read the bible. ''There shall not be any other god before me'' ''thou shall not judge'' O they repeat it so many times and I know like 50 people are going flood me twisting the words.

What are you talking about?

In answer to your questions though, yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not a Christian who refuses to read the Bible.

Apparently you still don't understand the situations. Please give it some thought, and come on back.

No, I understand the situation quite well... However, I do not agree with you analyses.

 

[Magic Man]

No, I understand the situation quite well... However, I do not agree with you analyses.

If you understood the situations, you'd understand where consistency fits in, and the fact that there is consistency in the one instance but not in the other (the drunk one).

 

[Mr.Lost]

What are you talking about?

In answer to your questions though, yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not a Christian who refuses to read the Bible.


No, I understand the situation quite well... However, I do not agree with you analyses.

I thought the legal system judges people. I mean that's what the call a judge right???

 

[TashaN]

I love it how everyone ignored my initial post.
tell me Tashan, is that judge really a racist, or is it possible that he performs different than others, for example are you just as mad at him for setnencing a girl to 2 years in prison for drawing a caricature of Muhammad?
About the caricature and its use he said: "revolting, degenerate act which offended the feelings of Moslems in Israel and the entire world."


Source: Issues in the News: ARABIAN PENINSULA

Tzvi Segal is a known hard liner as a judge against everyone, Jews, Arabs, and everyone in between, he also made some cases that were harshly criticized and were controversial, like this one, and another one a few months ago.

Wow, then i guess the man should thank the judge for that while serving his 18 months in jail for this ridiculous charge!!! :cover: Sheesh.

 

[Caladan]

Wow, then i guess the man should thank the judge for that while serving his 18 months in jail for this ridiculous charge!!! :cover: Sheesh.

Is that a change of version?