Confusion continues surrounding drunken consent

[Bodakane]

You should really take your pills, it might help. Because you are seeing things that are not there again, i have not claimed that consent while intoxicated is guaranteed, it is ludicrous and nothing more then one of your thinly veiled strawmans.

Wow. You really don't give two shits about lying.

You have said numerous times that giving consent, no matter how intoxicated means no rape happened. It is literally what you've been arguing.

[Mistame]

All criminal charges for general-intent crimes are handled individually. That's common legal knowledge. There are very few crimes that look at groups of people and they're all well outside general-intent.

Two drunk people having sex does not inherently fall under a "general intent crime". In fact, it doesn't even fall under that category if ones drunk and the other isn't. For it to be a (general intent) crime, one or the other has to be intoxicated to the point of substantial impairment, which literally means they're unable to respond or react to the encounter (at which point, as I mentioned, they're unable to walk or carry on a conversation), and the other has know they are in this state.

Had he been sober then he'd have been able to reasonably know.

No, he wouldn't have. As, again, the point of black-out drunk has no correlation to substantial impairment. You're entire argument is based on the belief that she was substantially impaired from intoxication, which has been demonstrated to be false, and that he acted knowing she was in such a state, which is also false, as demonstrated by the fact she wasn't actually at that point.

[Deleted]

Wow. You really don't give two shits about lying.

You have said numerous times that giving consent, no matter how intoxicated means no rape happened. It is literally what you've been arguing.

Yes, and that is true (well not passed out drunk, but then they could not consent to it now could they..), if you are drunk and you consent to have drunken sex that means that you consented to drunken sex. That doesn't, however, imply that people that are intoxicated always consent or that consent is somehow given because they are intoxicated. It means that if you are drinking and you consent to have sex with someone that this isn't someone else their fault if you feel bad about it the next day.

That someone has to believe that the other party consented is no more then logical?? If they didn't think that then it would be rape for sure, so yea, if they think reasonably that consent was given then consent was given.

- - - Updated - - -

Two drunk people having sex does not inherently fall under a "general intent crime". In fact, it doesn't even fall under that category if ones drunk and the other isn't. For it to be a (general intent) crime, one or the other has to be intoxicated to the point of substantial impairment, which literally means they're unable to respond or react to the encounter (at which point, as I mentioned, they're unable to walk or carry on a conversation), and the other has know they are in this state.



No, he wouldn't have. As, again, the point of black-out drunk has no correlation to substantial impairment. You're entire argument is based on the belief that she was substantially impaired from intoxication, which has been demonstrated to be false, and that he acted knowing she was in such a state, which is also false, as demonstrated by the fact she wasn't actually at that point.

This has been pointed out numerous times now, but he will just ignore it as if it hasn't been brought up yet.

[Bodakane]

Yes, and that is true, if you are drunk and you consent to have drunken sex that means that you consented to drunken sex. That doesn't, however, imply that people that are intoxicated always consent or that consent is somehow given because they are intoxicated. It means that if you are drinking and you consent to have sex with someone that this isn't someone else their fault if you feel bad about it the next day.

That someone has to believe that the other party consented is no more then logical?? If they didn't think that then it would be rape for sure, so yea, if they think reasonably that consent was given then consent was given.

Sigh, you have real problems with the truth or understanding words and concepts or both:

Consent while intoxicated is absolutely not guaranteed and you're acting as if it is, when your own link explains it's not.

i have not claimed that consent while intoxicated is guaranteed

Now read the bold.

I mean seriously?

[Unholyground]

Stop having sex while under the influence. Problem solved.

[Deleted]

Sigh, you have real problems with the truth or understanding words and concepts or both:





Now read the bold.

I mean seriously?

Yes, you have a serious reading problem...

The thing that you said implies that someone gives guaranteed consent while intoxicated.
What i said is that if you consent while drunk then you have given consent.

These are different things, but i suspect that you can't even understand this.

[Chrysia]

Sigh, you have real problems with the truth or understanding words and concepts or both:





Now read the bold.

I mean seriously?

Drunk != intoxicated. Intoxicated is a legal term that is defined differently depending on circumstances. Legally intoxicated for driving has a very low bar, legally intoxicated to not be capable of first degree murder has a much higher bar.

[Bodakane]

Yes, you have a serious reading problem...

The thing that you said implies that someone gives guaranteed consent while intoxicated.
What i said is that if you consent while drunk then you have given consent.

These are different things, but i suspect that you can't even understand this.

WTF are you talking about?

You believe if a person gives consent while intoxicated they gave consent period. That means you think drunken consent is guaranteed to be consent in Canadian courts. It is literally what you've been arguing for a day or two now.

Just stop with your bullshit. You've been wrong and to be a liar numerous times now. it should be embarrassing for you.

- - - Updated - - -

Drunk != intoxicated. Intoxicated is a legal term that is defined differently depending on circumstances. Legally intoxicated for driving has a very low bar, legally intoxicated to not be capable of first degree murder has a much higher bar.

And the person I'm arguing with has repeatedly said it doesn't matter how drunk a person is, consent is consent, so as long as they give consent, its their own fault.

[Chrysia]

And the person I'm arguing with has repeatedly said it doesn't matter how drunk a person is, consent is consent, so as long as they give consent, its their own fault.

No, he hasn't. He has stated that as long as you appear lucid to outside observers they can reasonably consider your assent valid.

[Flurryfang]

So drunk people can no longer have sex? And if 1 guy and 1 girl have sex while drunk, the guy is in danger of getting charged for rape? What if they were both black-out drunk?

[arel00]

Rape is a crime where "innocent until proven guilty" has become "blaming the victim". You can't say "he didn't do it, prove he did" like in every other crime, because that's the evil rape culture speaking and you disbelieving the girl.

How fucked up is that.

Oh, I almost forgot: "Bad Arel, bad! You're a misogynist rapist that gets girls drunk to have sex". Might as well just tell myself before the replies.

On topic, for the Nth time: after the mishandling of the case, the whole thing was investigated, and the police officers were sanctioned. Went on to news etc etc.. and the guy still hasn't been charged with anything. Let me say that again: after the investigation on the whole case, still no charges. Kinda makes you think, no?


On second thought, to generalize something which has already been said, but w/e: memory blackouts do not equate unconsciousness. Consciousness and memory are two completely different and separate things. You can experience memory loss even regarding periods of time when you were not under any influence and were perfectly lucid and functional the whole time. Hitting your head may cause that. A shock may cause that. It doesn't automatically makes you unconscious.

[Vyuvarax]

Two drunk people having sex does not inherently fall under a "general intent crime". In fact, it doesn't even fall under that category if ones drunk and the other isn't. For it to be a (general intent) crime, one or the other has to be intoxicated to the point of substantial impairment, which literally means they're unable to respond or react to the encounter (at which point, as I mentioned, they're unable to walk or carry on a conversation), and the other has know they are in this state.



No, he wouldn't have. As, again, the point of black-out drunk has no correlation to substantial impairment. You're entire argument is based on the belief that she was substantially impaired from intoxication, which has been demonstrated to be false, and that he acted knowing she was in such a state, which is also false, as demonstrated by the fact she wasn't actually at that point.

Lol no, rape is ALWAYS a general-intent crime regardless of intoxication. Your argument that someone who blacks out from alcohol isn't substantially impaired is ridiculous. No court of law uses your standard.

[Chrysia]

Lol no, rape is ALWAYS a general-intent crime regardless of intoxication. Your argument that someone who blacks out from alcohol isn't substantially impaired is ridiculous. No court of law uses your standard.

You cannot externally tell if someone is blacked out.

[Deleted]

Don't get drunk, problem solved.

[Mistame]

Lol no, rape is ALWAYS a general-intent crime regardless of intoxication.

You're missing the fucking point. Sex while intoxicated is not inherently RAPE. If neither are substantially intoxicated (unable to respond/react) and consent is given, it is not rape. Period. End of.

Your argument that someone who blacks out from alcohol isn't substantially impaired is ridiculous. No court of law uses your standard.

What's ridiculous is your inability to understand simple concepts. Again, black-out drunk is NOT unconscious. How many fucking times does it have to be pointed out that black-out drunk only affects memory and has no correlation whatsoever to one's ability to function normally. It can occur anywhere from a single drink to borderline passed out. Black-out drunk is not the same as passed out. She was not passed out.

[Deleted]

Again the medical definition of black out, is also applied to loss of consciouness. Which again is what the article is clearly speaking about. Thats why the girl herself mentions WAKING UP.

Bullshit, loss of memory when drunk happens all the time...it's an easy escape for a mutual mistake. When 2 drunk people consent to having sex and than 1 or both are so drunk to loose parts of their memory of the event they can't jump to rape.

[Vyuvarax]

You're missing the fucking point. Sex while intoxicated is not inherently RAPE. If neither are substantially intoxicated (unable to respond/react) and consent is given, it is not rape. Period. End of.



What's ridiculous is your inability to understand simple concepts. Again, black-out drunk is NOT unconscious. How many fucking times does it have to be pointed out that black-out drunk only affects memory and has no correlation whatsoever to one's ability to function normally. It can occur anywhere from a single drink to borderline passed out. Black-out drunk is not the same as passed out. She was not passed out.

Courts don't view substantially impaired as requiring someone being unconscious. Get real and read any legal briefing on the subject. You're making a fool of yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot externally tell if someone is blacked out.

Good thing that being impaired is not the same as blacked out, then.

- - - Updated - - -

Rape is a crime where "innocent until proven guilty" has become "blaming the victim". You can't say "he didn't do it, prove he did" like in every other crime, because that's the evil rape culture speaking and you disbelieving the girl.

How fucked up is that.

Oh, I almost forgot: "Bad Arel, bad! You're a misogynist rapist that gets girls drunk to have sex". Might as well just tell myself before the replies.

On topic, for the Nth time: after the mishandling of the case, the whole thing was investigated, and the police officers were sanctioned. Went on to news etc etc.. and the guy still hasn't been charged with anything. Let me say that again: after the investigation on the whole case, still no charges. Kinda makes you think, no?


On second thought, to generalize something which has already been said, but w/e: memory blackouts do not equate unconsciousness. Consciousness and memory are two completely different and separate things. You can experience memory loss even regarding periods of time when you were not under any influence and were perfectly lucid and functional the whole time. Hitting your head may cause that. A shock may cause that. It doesn't automatically makes you unconscious.

Actually it doesn't make reasonable, informed individuals to find it noteworthy, no. Botched cases with solid evidence are dropped all the time in the court system.

[Mistame]

Courts don't view substantially impaired as requiring someone being unconscious. Get real and read any legal briefing on the subject. You're making a fool of yourself.

Or perhaps you could actually learn to read rather just making shit up about what other people say. I never said that "substantially impaired" requires being unconscious (though being unconscious is technically substantially impaired). I pointed out that, according to legal texts, "substantially impaired" as it pertains to intoxication refers to the point in which cognitive function is compromised and one is unable to respond or react to a given situation. This includes slurred speech, the inability to walk on one's own, etc. If you're able to walk to your car, have a conversation or verbally consent to or ask for sex, you are not "substantially impaired". This has no correlation to being black-out drunk and your insistence that black-out drunk is indicative of being "substantially impaired" is stupid and fallacious.

[Chrysia]

Good thing that being impaired is not the same as blacked out, then.

You just fucking said that the court would consider the fact she blacked out as evidence she was substantially impaired, when there is no way to externally observe that she has blacked out.

[Bodakane]

No, he hasn't. He has stated that as long as you appear lucid to outside observers they can reasonably consider your assent valid.

Yeah no he hasn't.