Gung-ho cops side with the rapist, rape victim commits suicide

[Mehrunes]

Well there is a difference between what you think you said and what you actually typed. Unfortunately for you doing the most harm is how laws are legislated in priority. You'll learn that I am sure some day the hard way.

More hand waving because you don't know what hand waving is or how sentence structure works or logic or reason based on this conversation. Yeah I guess all you have left is to be insulting, defensive and ironic considering you keep making accusations about my inability to read, when you haven't been able to understand or argue straight.

And in all the time you've gone, you've also still failed to develop any self-awareness. Fascinating. But let's go over this. The sentence structure of your post in the part he replied there was simply atrocious. Your logic and reason are tainted from the get go by false premises you still hold despite having been corrected on the topic countless times in the past (and your logic stray from even that). You accused him of inability to read first, yet get triggered when he does the same (in relation to abject rambling). And you haven't been able to understand things or argue straight ever. Also, your rambling about priority of harm isn't really that rooted in reality because you keep conveniently omitting how crimes less harmful than rape still manage to be criminalized.

We aren't a nation of laws, we are a nation of citizenry which is why you probably can't grasp the main point, you can't legislate peoples opinions or behavior you can't account for such as people and what they think in society about rape accusations. Governments do try, but most are marginally successful.

Yeah, no, rule of law is one of the fundamentals of modern states. And you can't account for what people in society think about rape accusations? Fascinating. It's good then that contrary to what you said here that governments actually don't give a shit about what society things about rape accusations. What they are legislating are the accusations themselves.

You are advocating that false accusations should be punished, I am telling you they are very rare and regardless to you agreeing the HARM you are arguing are to the accused reputation, not really much comment about the victim here.

No, the law says they should be punished. @MeHMeH was advocating for better enforcement of these laws. Alas, you live in your bubble when false accusations are legal. And there are rarer crimes than false accusations. Who'd have thunk, rare acts can still be criminalized. And oh great sentence structure master, the fuck is "and regardless to you agreeing the HARM you are arguing are to the accused reputation, not really much comment about the victim here." supposed to mean?

Going out on a limb here, but if by victim you are referring to the person accusing someone of rape, then sorry, but if the accusation is false, they aren't really a victim of anything, are they? Because for the accusation to be false, the crime must have not taken place (I know, I know, your bubble world alters how these things work). The victim in false accusation IS the accused. How is that hard to grasp?

So. No I don't think you give an actual shit about anything other than what you advocate, and I don't give a shit about what you are advocating.

Projection. Stemming from blatant misunderstanding of who the victim of false accusation is, as well as everything else about false accusations.

Again very rarely happens, so it isn't going to be easy to punish. If your position is again as I said to punish the accused or protect them, well then good luck on your crusade. I sure as fuck don't support you.

In regards to the bold, all of my wat. And how does the rarity of a crime alter the ease of it being punished exactly? Also, yes, we all know you support letting criminals go free as long as they commit only crimes you don't have a clue about. No need to flaunt your total disregard for things like law and order this much.

I never said not happening as often doesn't matter, and comparing false accusations to murder? Well if that's where you want to go. Might I remind you also the matter of evidence for rape is already established yes under the law, YOU are advocating it's not or not enough and false accusations should be punished in some way they aren't

When did @MeHMeH do that again? And contrary to your illogical, semi-literate squirming here, what he's arguing is for false accusation to be punished in the way the law already says it should be punished. Complicated matter fer sure.

Perjury for instance yes is a Crime, but you have to PROVE she lied, not having enough evidence to convict is NOT the same as her being guilty even though he maybe innocent.

Who the hell said you don't need evidence to prove a false accusation or that not having enough evidence to convict equals a false accusation? Point them out by name. Because chances are, this is nothing else but you continuing to be deluded about what false accusation entails, despite being corrected over and over again in the past. So stop being so fucking ignorant. If you don't have a clue about how things you are arguing about work, don't argue about them. It's that simple.

Well great we agreed on something, Ill even agree there should be more than a slap on the wrist for defamation and libel. However I don't think you'll like that much in practice because it becomes a freedom of speech issue.

Defamation is not a freedom of speech because it's not protected by freedom of speech. That's kinda why it's against the law.

Keep in mind Libel and Defamation have to be proven.

No waiiiii.

People not taking false accusations seriously are the same people that take rape not too seriously, and we don't legislate law around the very very fucking stupid, no matter how they express themselves. UNLESS they do harm.

So you don't take rape seriously? Didn't expect that. And false accusation does harm, that's why it's already legislated against.

That's a separate issue, that is libel, that is defamation, and again is a free speech issue, but again I will agree it is a problem

False accusation is a separate law from defamation. None of these are a free speech issue.

[Doctor Amadeus]

There is a law against false accusations though.

Yes they are.

Nothing here makes sense.

Don't care about your personal problems.

What is @MeHMeH feeling entitled to again? Existing law being enforced? Because if so, then that kinda applies to you in the next paragraph.

Which law, specifically when?

That's fascinating and all, but rape and false accusation are separate crimes. What relevance does the fact that majority of rape's harm is to women in relation to false accusations? And other crimes being higher on lower on "list of harm" matters squat. Theft is less harmful than rape, it's still prosecuted. Hell, this paragraph isn't even internally consistent. First you talk about levels of harm, then you suddenly jump ship to the demographics of who's being harmed.

Yeah, you are kind of saying a lot of nothing here.

I like it how you're complaining about people not following sentence structure in logic and not reading, while putting yourself on some pedestal when your rambling here is: 1. rambling, 2. not particularly relevant to what you replied to and 3. suffering from terrible sentence structure. Never change Mall Security, never change.

Is this relevant to anything, or are you just complaining about you deciding to reply to me LOL!

Go on, "have your moment" and explain what's not logical or reasonable in enforcing existing laws.

I am going to let you go ahead and reread it.

You were gone from MMO-C for over a year and you still don't have a clue what false accusation entails and what are its consequences. I don't know why you were gone (good times though), but it's obvious you could have spent that time better.

Is this relevant either, just another insult right, ok.

Um, no, false accusation, when it happens, IS a problem. That's kinda why it's criminalized. Because it wastes police resources and makes people believe real victims less. One would think you'd be in favor of fighting such a thing, but then again you are you and you don't know what you are talking about, so you created this bubble of ignorance in your mind where criminalizing false accusations (even though they are already criminalized) would result in any and all people accusing of rape, including real victims, being instantly locked up without a fair trial with presumption of innocence just because there was not enough evidence to convict for rape.

More nonsense, Not having enough evidence for a conviction does not mean a false allegation.

How is something that's already a thing (though shittily enforced) a potential starting point? And false accusations already are not protected by freedom of speech. It's already been legislated for god's sake.

It's not a thing, remember haha you have to prove a crime, false allegations has to be proven.

Or, you know, we could use the existing criminalization of false accusation. Speaking of logic and reason. And maybe giving the victims of a crime tools to protect themselves from it. You're such a moral authority

The only thing you demonstrated is yours and Mehmeh in ability to grasp how the law or evidence work, so logic and reason, pretty much go along with it.

I can't find it where @MeHMeH argued that false accusations are not less frequent than rape. Can you?

You haven't even finished making yourself look foolish.

Except such expression is not protected by law. So you admitted to believing in things that don't exist. Then again you also admitted to thinking already existing law should not be enforced and in effect you support letting criminals go.

No you just shown you don't know that free expression is protected.

False accusations aren't within the law.

You have to prove they are false. Both Criminal and Civil.

[Deleted]

Or remember you said, or pretend that you didn't when you are trying very hard not to understand grammar and sentence structure.

Funny thing is that i do not struggle half as hard with it then you, and this is my third language

I have yet to read anything from you that you even shows you know the process of it.

Oh look, some more infantile ramblings.

Opinion not fact, learn that, and if you aren't interested in others then maybe keep your uninformed nonsense to yourself.

Look who is talking

Insult has to do with intent, You being offended is your problem.

So me being insulting is your problem too then i guess..

Well that is actually not a fact, and yes I said it,

Back paddling..

You proven jack shit, other than you don't know what the word objective means, and I have openly admitted when I am advocating and when I am not.

No need for me to prove it, you already did that.

Opinion not fact.

That is a fact

And typing something twice neither makes you smart or clever, or hides you are just as bad at math, since you also seem to not appreciate probability.

You not understanding that you made the same argument twice is kind of funny, you can not blame me for responding with the same thing again.

Well I don't have a hard time understanding when you're advocating and making an emotional argument after protesting twice about me making any.

And again you just type some words and think you make a point, you do not. I have not made any emotional arguments, that is all you. Learn to read.

No I said I am not a fucking judge or a lawyer, and neither are you, so I am not in possession of the facts as they relate to what happened in any case. NOT what the fuck I think happened or read some where that I would be doing anything other than you, giving an unqualified opinion.

The rulings here where very clear, yet you persist in blaming it on the guy who did exactly nothing wrong.

No a citation is not fucking needed, and you should probably stop saying that unless you actually know when or where to actually ask for one with that pretentious statement.

aaah, so you have no citation, not very shocking..
The rest im not even going to comment on seeing as you are not interested in a discussion and none is to be had with you. The only thing you can do is spout thinly veiled insults and uninspiring drivle.

Proven by whom, YOU? A bunch of Men's Rights dudes, who don't actually give a fuck about her or the guy accused. No I don't, and I don't at the very least know if she lied, you contend to.

This one is really funny though, apparently it is not enough for you that a court of law cleared this man of all wrongdoing.

[Doctor Amadeus]

And in all the time you've gone, you've also still failed to develop any self-awareness. Fascinating. But let's go over this. The sentence structure of your post in the part he replied there was simply atrocious. Your logic and reason are tainted from the get go by false premises you still hold despite having been corrected on the topic countless times in the past (and your logic stray from even that). You accused him of inability to read first, yet get triggered when he does the same (in relation to abject rambling). And you haven't been able to understand things or argue straight ever. Also, your rambling about priority of harm isn't really that rooted in reality because you keep conveniently omitting how crimes less harmful than rape still manage to be criminalized.




Yeah, no, rule of law is one of the fundamentals of modern states. And you can't account for what people in society think about rape accusations? Fascinating. It's good then that contrary to what you said here that governments actually don't give a shit about what society things about rape accusations. What they are legislating are the accusations themselves.




No, the law says they should be punished. @MeHMeH was advocating for better enforcement of these laws. Alas, you live in your bubble when false accusations are legal. And there are rarer crimes than false accusations. Who'd have thunk, rare acts can still be criminalized. And oh great sentence structure master, the fuck is "and regardless to you agreeing the HARM you are arguing are to the accused reputation, not really much comment about the victim here." supposed to mean?

Going out on a limb here, but if by victim you are referring to the person accusing someone of rape, then sorry, but if the accusation is false, they aren't really a victim of anything, are they? Because for the accusation to be false, the crime must have not taken place (I know, I know, your bubble world alters how these things work). The victim in false accusation IS the accused. How is that hard to grasp?




Projection. Stemming from blatant misunderstanding of who the victim of false accusation is, as well as everything else about false accusations.




In regards to the bold, all of my wat. And how does the rarity of a crime alter the ease of it being punished exactly? Also, yes, we all know you support letting criminals go free as long as they commit only crimes you don't have a clue about. No need to flaunt your total disregard for things like law and order this much.




When did @MeHMeH do that again? And contrary to your illogical, semi-literate squirming here, what he's arguing is for false accusation to be punished in the way the law already says it should be punished. Complicated matter fer sure.




Who the hell said you don't need evidence to prove a false accusation or that not having enough evidence to convict equals a false accusation? Point them out by name. Because chances are, this is nothing else but you continuing to be deluded about what false accusation entails, despite being corrected over and over again in the past. So stop being so fucking ignorant. If you don't have a clue about how things you are arguing about work, don't argue about them. It's that simple.




Defamation is not a freedom of speech because it's not protected by freedom of speech. That's kinda why it's against the law.




No waiiiii.




So you don't take rape seriously? Didn't expect that. And false accusation does harm, that's why it's already legislated against.




False accusation is a separate law from defamation. None of these are a free speech issue.

Yeah I can go ahead and ignore all this nonsense, LOL, I'll maybe just have fun watching you


Criminal and Civil law are two separate burdens. Free Speech is protected.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny thing is that i do not struggle half as hard with it then you, and this is my third language

Well see that is an opinion too. As far as your third language, I'm not going to say I see any proof.

Oh look, some more infantile ramblings.



Look who is talking






So me being insulting is your problem too then i guess..



Back paddling..



No need for me to prove it, you already did that.



That is a fact





You not understanding that you made the same argument twice is kind of funny, you can not blame me for responding with the same thing again.





And again you just type some words and think you make a point, you do not. I have not made any emotional arguments, that is all you. Learn to read.





The rulings here where very clear, yet you persist in blaming it on the guy who did exactly nothing wrong.



aaah, so you have no citation, not very shocking..
The rest im not even going to comment on seeing as you are not interested in a discussion and none is to be had with you. The only thing you can do is spout thinly veiled insults and uninspiring drivle.


This one is really funny though, apparently it is not enough for you that a court of law cleared this man of all wrongdoing.

Then apparently he can sue her, maybe you can offer him legal advice. I am sure you will be more qualified than anybody else about his options

[Deleted]

Yeah I can go ahead and ignore all this nonsense, LOL, I'll maybe just have fun watching you


Criminal and Civil law are two separate burdens. Free Speech is protected.

- - - Updated - - -

Yea that is your MO, ignore everything you do not understand...

Well see that is an opinion too. As far as your third language, I'm not going to say I see any proof.

Yea that isn't an opinion, that is a cold hard fact. As for me speaking 3 languages, where i live that is the bare minimum..

Then apparently he can sue her, maybe you can offer him legal advice. I am sure you will be more qualified than anybody else about his options

No, unlike you i do not think that i know everything, that is something that the professionals should handle.

[Mehrunes]

Yeah I can go ahead and ignore all this nonsense, LOL, I'll maybe just have fun watching you

And you talk about deflections. Pathetic. Oh, well, 'twas to be expected.

Criminal and Civil law are two separate burdens. Free Speech is protected.

I know free speech is protected. Or that criminal and civil law are separate. Quote the specific part of my post that in your fucked up perception says otherwise.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yea that is your MO, ignore everything you do not understand...
Yea that isn't an opinion, that is a cold hard fact. As for me speaking 3 languages, where i live that is the bare minimum..

No, unlike you i do not think that i know everything, that is something that the professionals should handle.

No, I am sure you could tell them all about how we could put her in prison for free speech. I have google translator too. GG

- - - Updated - - -

And you talk about deflections. Pathetic. Oh, well, 'twas to be expected.
I know free speech is protected. Or that criminal and civil law are separate. Quote the specific part of my post that in your fucked up perception says otherwise.

Honestly, I kind of expect you to talk about nothing and be ignored and wrong as per usual. But you really have nothing to contribute to the OP or mine so enjoy being wrong, trying to remember what you last posted.

[Deleted]

No, I am sure you could tell them all about how we could put her in prison for free speech. I have google translator too. GG

- - - Updated - - -



Honestly, I kind of expect you to talk about nothing and be ignored and wrong as per usual. But you really have nothing to contribute to the OP or mine so enjoy being wrong, trying to remember what you last posted.

Yea, the thing is that i do not need the translator, that is what it means to speak the languages.
And last time i checked defamation doesn't fall under free speech, not even in murica.

And the fact that you think that he is talking about nothing only shows how little you know.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yea, the thing is that i do not need the translator, that is what it means to speak the languages.
And last time i checked defamation doesn't fall under free speech, not even in murica.

And the fact that you think that he is talking about nothing only shows how little you know.

You would impress me if you could actually argue the OP, instead of rambling in whatever language you think you speak or understand. Defamation doesn't fall under free speech.

false accusations are a legal burden for a criminal proceeding, which isn't proven by there not being enough evidence to charge or rather generally convict anyone of rape.

[Mehrunes]

Getting blackout drunk is a bigger moral failing than raping someone who is blackout drunk?

He didn't even mention sex with blackout drunk people in that paragraph.

First, though these are implicitly connected, you've gone beyond "blaming the victim" and are explicitly absolving the perpetrator of their crime. Second, you are ably demonstrating the adage that when you scratch a woman-hater you will inevitably find a man-hater; in absolving the perpetrator you are implicitly characterizing every man as a sexual predator who either cannot help themselves, or who cannot be reasonably held accountable for their predation. It's as if rape is in their nature, and tokens of civilization like "law" and "morality" are as inapplicable to them as they are to wild beasts.

But, hey, every woman should expect every man they meet to be a rapist, amiright? Like a grizzly bear who will maul you if you accidentally cross into its territory while hiking. What did you think that bear would do, not maul you? It's a bear and bears maul people, and men are exactly the same. Except less mauling and more raping. And animal control won't come along and shoot the man to protect people that he might rape in the future. Or put up signs that say "DANGER: Men in the area." But in every other way men are exactly like wild bears.

Overall, I think there's some miscommunication between the two of you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty firmly focused on the case of blackout drunk people, sex with whom is rape. While @Slant jumps from blackout drunk to drunk drunk a bit.

Finally, redpillers and the feminist strawman that exists in their heads have something they can agree on.

So you've never seen a "teach men not to rape" campaign, sexual harassment orientations in college/work of the more questionable variety than the usual, or the actual feminists saying that all sex is rape and that all men are rapists?

Yes they are.

It's not a thing

Can you at least pick one narrative and stop this verbal diarrhea?

Don't care about your personal problems.

Well, it's your right to not care about my issues with pure rambling. I however am quite concerned with your abysmal sentence structure.

Which law, specifically when?

The one you two have been discussing the entire time, i.e. one against false accusations of crime?

Yeah, you are kind of saying a lot of nothing here.

Pointing out the inconsistency of your post is "nothing"? OK then. I anxiously await the next time you whine about someone deflecting your brilliant posts (even if they aren't) like the hypocrite you are.

Is this relevant to anything, or are you just complaining about you deciding to reply to me LOL!

Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

I am going to let you go ahead and reread it.

Is this because your problems with words extend even to what you write yourself, or is it more because what you write is so rambling that even you can't properly follow it?

No you are advocating that something is more of a problem than is being appreciated right now, I get that, I don't agree, and if there were any possibility of me ever agreeing it would only be if you had clarity or were honest about the problem. Which is why I don't care about what YOU specifically are advocating because you aren't logical or reasonable.

Hell maybe I am not either, I have my moments, but so far right now it's just you.

What @MeHMeH was advocating for was better enforcement of laws criminalizing false accusations. You outright said that's not logical or reasonable. So, again, do elaborate.

Is this relevant either, just another insult right, ok.

Pointing out that you don't have the basest clue on the topic, one that you are trying to bullshit about, is plenty relevant, yes.

More nonsense, Not having enough evidence for a conviction does not mean a false allegation.

I didn't say it is. I fucking corrected you about it in this very post. Hell, I reiterated it in this goddamn paragraph. This is below pathetic.

It's not a thing, remember haha you have to prove a crime, false allegations has to be proven.

I... said that numerous times in this post.

The only thing you demonstrated is yours and Mehmeh in ability to grasp how the law or evidence work, so logic and reason, pretty much go along with it.

You think that criminalizing false accusation of a crime would mean that any person accusing someone of a crime would get punished, without fair trial with presumption of innocence no less. And you're so fucking ignorant that you not only don't realize false accusations are already illegal, but that fact doesn't get to you even when it's pointed out to you. But yeah, it's other that don't grasp how the law works

If one looked a bit, it'd be possible to find a toddler with more knowledge and self-awareness on this topic than you exhibit.

You haven't even finished making yourself look foolish.

Not being able to find something that doesn't exist makes one foolish? Fascinating theory you got there.

No you just shown you don't know that free expression is protected.

I pointed out that these things aren't free expression. Because they aren't. That's why you can sue someone for libel. But go on, have another moment and spot the difference between these two sentences:
"Such expression isn't protected by law."
"Free expression isn't protected by law."

You have to prove they are false. Both Criminal and Civil.

Once again, I stated that multiple times in this post. Buy yourself one of these: http://www.themeasuredmom.com/the-50...ooks-for-kids/ You really, really need that.

Honestly, I kind of expect you to talk about nothing and be ignored and wrong as per usual. But you really have nothing to contribute to the OP or mine so enjoy being wrong, trying to remember what you last posted.

You not knowing what words do doesn't make me wrong. The idea that I didn't contribute to your post by addressing your post is the weakest deflection of your so far. And I do remember what I posted. I also see that you completely misread what I posted. Because what I said is what you said in the next post:

Defamation doesn't fall under free speech.

So are you going to admit you misread and/or misrepresented my post or are you going to admit that you yourself don't understand free speech?

false accusations are a legal burden for a criminal proceeding, which isn't proven by there not being enough evidence to charge or rather generally convict anyone of rape.

Look at all the understanding of the law here "False accusations are a legal burden for a criminal proceeding"... This is the most retarded thing I've read this year.

[Doctor Amadeus]

He didn't even mention sex with blackout drunk people in that paragraph.




Overall, I think there's some miscommunication between the two of you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem pretty firmly focused on the case of blackout drunk people, sex with whom is rape. While @Slant jumps from blackout drunk to drunk drunk a bit.




So you've never seen a "teach men not to rape" campaign, sexual harassment orientations in college/work of the more questionable variety than the usual, or the actual feminists saying that all sex is rape and that all men are rapists?





Can you at least pick one narrative and stop this verbal diarrhea?




Well, it's your right to not care about my issues with pure rambling. I however am quite concerned with your abysmal sentence structure.




The one you two have been discussing the entire time, i.e. one against false accusations of crime?




Pointing out the inconsistency of your post is "nothing"? OK then. I anxiously await the next time you whine about someone deflecting your brilliant posts (even if they aren't) like the hypocrite you are.




Just pointing out your hypocrisy.




Is this because your problems with words extend even to what you write yourself, or is it more because what you write is so rambling that even you can't properly follow it?



What @MeHMeH was advocating for was better enforcement of laws criminalizing false accusations. You outright said that's not logical or reasonable. So, again, do elaborate.




Pointing out that you don't have the basest clue on the topic, one that you are trying to bullshit about, is plenty relevant, yes.




I didn't say it is. I fucking corrected you about it in this very post. Hell, I reiterated it in this goddamn paragraph. This is below pathetic.




I... said that numerous times in this post.





You think that criminalizing false accusation of a crime would mean that any person accusing someone of a crime would get punished, without fair trial with presumption of innocence no less. And you're so fucking ignorant that you not only don't realize false accusations are already illegal, but that fact doesn't get to you even when it's pointed out to you. But yeah, it's other that don't grasp how the law works

If one looked a bit, it'd be possible to find a toddler with more knowledge and self-awareness on this topic than you exhibit.




Not being able to find something that doesn't exist makes one foolish? Fascinating theory you got there.




I pointed out that these things aren't free expression. Because they aren't. That's why you can sue someone for libel. But go on, have another moment and spot the difference between these two sentences:
"Such expression isn't protected by law."
"Free expression isn't protected by law."




Once again, I stated that multiple times in this post. Buy yourself one of these: http://www.themeasuredmom.com/the-50...ooks-for-kids/ You really, really need that.




You not knowing what words do doesn't make me wrong. The idea that I didn't contribute to your post by addressing your post is the weakest deflection of your so far. And I do remember what I posted. I also see that you completely misread what I posted. Because what I said is what you said in the next post:



So are you going to admit you misread and/or misrepresented my post or are you going to admit that you yourself don't understand free speech?




Look at all the understanding of the law here "False accusations are a legal burden for a criminal proceeding"... This is the most retarded thing I've read this year.

Yeah lol nice try. You still missed any kind of point in any of your rambling. Criminal and civil are two different burdens. We don't criminally charge anyone unless there is enough evidence to convict. Not being able to do so doesn't make the accusations a crime nor is a false accusation.

It's a civil matter.

[Deleted]

Didn't some drunk girl actually call the cops on a taxi driver and had to clear his name via tape?

yes.
They didn't want to pay the fare.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no right to be protected from your actions, but there is a right to be protected from abusing the state you are in. Unless of course it was your choice to be raped while shitfaced, there's probably a fetish for that.

you are entitled to protection once you are passed out, not when you are wasted.

[Mayhem]

you are entitled to protection once you are passed out, not when you are wasted.

You are entitled to protection at all times.

[Mistame]

Yes, it is. If you claim it to be pretty common for women to falsely accuse men of raping them when they have drunk sex then that is prejudice against women. Misogyny is prejudice against women. So, yes, that's exactly how that word works.

Misogyny is prejudice based on a hatred or contempt for women. Without demonstrating said hatred/contempt, you're just throwing the word around. It's the same kind of garbage one finds in "feminist theory".

I'm sure that you'd be pretty upset if you went out drinking with your male friends and one of them spent the night balls deep in your rectum while you were passed out, and that you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and think it was all good if he told you "Hey, I'm not responsible for my actions just because you were too shit faced to say 'no.'" as you were sauntering to the bathroom with lube and jizz leakin' out of your ass.

If you were passed out or didn't agree to the "probe", that's one thing. If you were shit-faced and agreed, however, that's another. Without witnesses, it's sadly another case of he said/she said, or in your example, he said/he said.

[Deleted]

you are entitled to protection once you are passed out, not when you are wasted.

You seem to be looking for a legal get-out to rape someone. There isn't one. Rape is rape. The fact that someone may have made poor lifestyle choices does not mean you get a free pass on rape.

[Deleted]

You are entitled to protection at all times.

being prohibited from consenting to sex while drunk would be a severe curtailment of people's civil liberties.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to be looking for a legal get-out to rape someone. There isn't one. Rape is rape. The fact that someone may have made poor lifestyle choices does not mean you get a free pass on rape.

that Someone making a choice by necessity means that it wasn't rape.

[Slant]

No you just stay reasonable, that usually helps. On the other hand, i visited women who totally wanted to have sex and i was not into them, despite coming to their homes. There's nothing that says, if you enter, you conset to sex.

I don't deny women obligation to act responsible, but i also don't act as if there were some unspoken rules about when people expect sex and others obviously consent by doing something totally random that just happens to be a sign in the eyes of some people or in a certain situation.

Also don't drink if you can't handle it doesn't mean if you can't handle it people are allowed to mistreat/abuse you/your state.

Nah, this case sounds like a chick playing around with "the rich boy" and later regretting it. If money makes her blind, that's how the cookie crumbles. No sympathy from me. Especially if she was intoxicated. I'm done treating princesses any differently than the bum lying face down on the street in his own vomit because he can't handle it.

This isn't about absolving him from guilt altogether. But seriously? A conviction? I can absolutely see how a judge or jury is going to have doubts about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure if a member of your family is raped by a rich guy who can buy his way out of justice you'll inflict this rambling incoherent manifesto for rape culture on them.

I'm sure I won't give a fuck if members of my family drink themselves into unconsciousness. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance. Sorry that I'm not the hypocrite that you need me to be for your argument to make sense.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting blackout drunk is a bigger moral failing than raping someone who is blackout drunk?

First, though these are implicitly connected, you've gone beyond "blaming the victim" and are explicitly absolving the perpetrator of their crime. Second, you are ably demonstrating the adage that when you scratch a woman-hater you will inevitably find a man-hater; in absolving the perpetrator you are implicitly characterizing every man as a sexual predator who either cannot help themselves, or who cannot be reasonably held accountable for their predation. It's as if rape is in their nature, and tokens of civilization like "law" and "morality" are as inapplicable to them as they are to wild beasts.

But, hey, every woman should expect every man they meet to be a rapist, amiright? Like a grizzly bear who will maul you if you accidentally cross into its territory while hiking. What did you think that bear would do, not maul you? It's a bear and bears maul people, and men are exactly the same. Except less mauling and more raping. And animal control won't come along and shoot the man to protect people that he might rape in the future. Or put up signs that say "DANGER: Men in the area." But in every other way men are exactly like wild bears.

Finally, redpillers and the feminist strawman that exists in their heads have something they can agree on.

You know, someone once suggested to me that vociferous defenders of rapists usually do so out of a need to ward off the potential pangs of a guilty conscience. I thought that was a bit presumptuous at first, but not anymore.

You don't understand me. I'm not absolving the perpetrator from raping. I'm saying if she's that drunk that she has no medical marks of defense, no indication of resenting and no plausible story other than "Duh, I was drunk... I didn't know what I was doing", then yes, let her live with the consequences. Or in this case, give up on life. I'm good with that. You know what's worse than people intoxicating themselves into stupidity so hard that they don't realize they're having sex? Fucking selfish assholes that kill themselves and leave a distraught family behind instead of dealing with their own actions.

So yeah, zero tolerance and zero sympathy for alcs and suiciders. Absolutely. I've seen what a suicider did to a family. It's not pretty. Fuck him, he's out of this life. But they have to live with that memory for the rest of their lives. In the case of a 6 year old boy, a very, very long life to go.

I'm not a woman hater nor a man hater. I hate alcoholics and suiciders. And rapists, incidentally. I also hate people that think I should a) draw a blood test before having sex and b) ask a woman if she still consents every 5 seconds during sex. But hey, I know... let's abolish sex. Let's taboo it into such a shameful state that nobody ever sees any dick or pussy ever. Then we'll take pills to suppress any sex drive whatsoever. Best to start injecting babies with it, so the body can get used to the massive hormone blast that's needed for that. Why? Because that's the only world in which a misunderstanding can't happen and rapes are more likely to become extinct.

- - - Updated - - -

You are entitled to protection at all times.

Well, yes. In a reasonable manner. Once you go into a dude's bedroom and take off your clothes, don't expect police cops from hovering over the bed trying to gauge whether or not you're too stupid faced to resent as you may or may not want.

[Freighter]

Misogyny is prejudice based on a hatred or contempt for women. Without demonstrating said hatred/contempt, you're just throwing the word around. It's the same kind of garbage one finds in "feminist theory".

No.

misogyny
NOUN

mass noun
Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
‘she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny’

I am most certainly using the word correctly. Prejudice against women is misogyny.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, yes. In a reasonable manner. Once you go into a dude's bedroom and take off your clothes, don't expect police cops from hovering over the bed trying to gauge whether or not you're too stupid faced to resent as you may or may not want.

Taking clothes off does not mean consent to sex.

[Moralgy]

That man is Innocent until proven guilty and it is crazy that people instantly rush to judgement, but that woman is a slut that just lied/regretted/wanted a payout.

[Slant]

Taking clothes off does not mean consent to sex.

Really? Okay. Do you often strip in front of your dates just for the fun of it?