Blood Alcohol level to determine ability to consent? MOD Note in Post #1

Very Bored

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Exactly the problem...women are automatically going be assumed to be innocent victims no matter what the circumstances.

And how do you actually put a figure on capacity to consent where alcohol is concerned anyway....it affects everyone differently. Where two or three drinks is enough make me very tipsy indeed another woman might take twice or three times that to feel any affects.

It's just too hard to quantify.

This is something that makes me wonder too. OK, don't give me a lecture, I know its bad for my health blah blah blah but I admit it, I'm quite a heavy drinker. My friend, on the other hand, is a very mild drinker. So I could go out, drink ten or eleven pints of Guinness easily and it would have little effect on me other than making me happy. I might sing an odd song but no more. If he drank that quantity he'd be comotose. But surely the alcohol-blood ratio (is this what BAC is?) of the two of us would be the same?

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You're obsessed with using that expression. No goalposts were moved. You obviously don't even understand what it means as all did was point out the only possible way having sex with a person who has not been given informed consent would not mean automatically being guilty of rape. How in the name of God can that be shifting of the goalposts.

That wasn't the 'shifting the goalposts' I was referring to. It was the rest of your post was attempting to shift the goalposts when you talked about conditional consent and a man having sex with a woman while knowing that consent was not present, attempting to pass that off as reasonable belief.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

LOL. Yeah, of course he does and no court will want him to support his contention that he thought a woman was sober. He shall have 'reasonable belief'. He'll be grand...

Of course he will have to produce evidence to support his plea ffs. Are you saying the first thing that comes into your head or what.

I can't state with any certainty that he actually will be grand (I've told you time and again it depends upon the circumstances in each case), but in the investigation stages, an attempt is made by police to establish whether or not he reasonably believed the complainant had given consent, and then at the trial stage, it will be the jury who will have to be convinced he had that same reasonable belief, and it will then be up to the prosecution to argue that he could not have had a reasonable belief the complainant consented, and when left to the jury, well, given that the jury is made up of ordinary members of the public, their understanding of the legal definition of consent is about the same standard as some posters here - poor.

In order to establish whether such attitudes actually infuence juror decision-making, several studies have examined the effect of complainant intoxication on rape juries. Early research from the United States found that ‘[rape] jurors were influenced by a victim’s ‘‘character’’. They were less likely to believe in a defendant’s guilt when the victim had reportedly ... drank or used drugs ...’

It was also found that jurors were likely to take into account a bewildering array of complainant character traits, ‘carelessness’ and the extent to which her ‘gender role behavior’ departed from that expected of a woman. In a ground breaking recent study, Finch and Munro examined how mock jury members interpreted the consent provision within the Sexual O¡ences Act 2003 when deliberating on a verdict following a rape trial reconstruction in which the complainant was intoxicated. This research is highly signicant because it is the first time in this country that an attempt has been made to see how mock jurors interpret and apply the rape provision in the 2003 Act. In their pilot study, Finch and Munro found that for some participants the ingestion of alcohol by a woman was ‘sufficient to absolve the defendant of all responsibility to the victim.’

In their subsequent study of 168 mock jurors, they found that participants differed significantly in their interpretation of the meaning of consent, freedom and capacity contained in section 74. For example, it was noted from juror discussions that the reference to ‘capacity’ in the Act ‘creates a malleable and unpredictable legal test’, because the legislation does not define what it means. Some jurors argued that the ‘complainant had a responsibility to express her dissent’ and some thought that a woman had capacity to consent so long as she was conscious, however intoxicated. Finchand Munro also note that:

the introduction of the requirement that the complainant agree by choice in circumstances of capacity and freedom, while predicted to promote a more proactive and communicative understanding of sexuality, did little to prevent some jurors from continuing to presume consent in the absence of positive dissent.

They also discovered that some jurors relied on ‘social conventions which indicate that women who drink or flirt with men, or who take steps to initiate some intimacy, cannot complain when men take this behavior to imply a willingness to engage in intercourse thereafter.’

One of the other interesting findings is that some jurors examined the case facts in light of their own definitions of rape. For example, one mock juror claimed:‘a woman’s got to cooperate with a man to be able to do it, to have intercourse, unless he thumps her or what, and he didn’t - there was no bruising on her body anywhere... she more or less consented.’

These findings suggest that the consent provision in the 2003 Act requires further statutory explanation. However, while this may address the definitional confusion evident in Finch and Munro’s study, one must also take into account the fact that legislation cannot fully address many of the problems evident in the treatment of rape cases by the criminal justice system.

Those include evidential weaknesses and the problem of societal attitudes that mitigate men’s behavior and undermine women’s claims of non-consent. In other words, further legislation is not a ‘cure all’. Rather, it would provide some further clarity and assistance, but much work would still need to be done. Indeed, when commenting on the definition of rape in the Home Office’s ‘stock take’ of the workings of the 2003 Act, one prosecutor stated: ‘legal changes need to be combined with public education on the sociological stereotypes and myths surrounding rape before the legal changes will have their full impact.’ It is with this proviso in place that the next section will examine the approach of the court in Bree to further legal reform, and one possible avenue for statutory change.

Source: Intoxicated Consent in Rape: Bree and Juror Decision-Making

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Again with this strawman and moving goal post sh1te. The tabloid story was relevant. It was about as far away from a strawman or moving of goalposts as you can get. A woman who had been drinking and having sex with a man got p1ssed off with him after he took off and decided to falsely accuse him of rape. Quite obviously, were this to have occurred and there been a BAC consent law in place, no doubt she would have exploited that in order to have the chap charged. He witnessed her drinking and so would have known she was unable to consent and so all three points of the rape law criteria would have been well and truly M'Lord.

Again with the 'false accusations of rape' strawman and goalpost moving when it's a completely separate issue to the issue of determining consent in cases where a complainant has not made a false claim of rape.

NachoBusiness wrote: »

So you're not going to answer the question then. No bother.

I answered the question. You just don't like the answer you were given.

Overheal

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Be interested to hear how others feel about this and if you would support such a law in this country..

A new report in the UK is calling for a blood alcohol level to be set in order to able to determine if a woman had the ability to consent to sex or not.



Source.

This seems a ludicrous suggestion to me for many reasons, not least of which is how could they even be sure when the alcohol was consumed, before or after the sex had taken place. Crazy proposal. Hope it's seen as such.

I also see no mention from the barrister how she feels about a woman having sex with a drunk male and whether she would feel that this too should automatically qualify as rape. Not surprising though.



MOD NOTE - It should go without saying, but no rape jokes. Zero tolerence on this.

College campuses in the US, if it isn't just part of law, already have the policy that any BAC level implies non-consent: you and your date have a beer each, get under the sheets and bam, you've comitted statutory rape

One eyed Jack

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Excellently summed up by Professor Jonathan Turley.

Is it my turn to say -

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Are you serious? Quoting a blog that has many people below it pointing out errors.

The current law allows the jury to decide such questions in the specific context of the case. They use their common sense and their view of the credibility of the witnesses. However, Dame Elish, a former Lord Advocate in Scotland, wants woman’s incapacity to consent to be a codified exception “embedded in legislation.”

The recommendation itself doesn't specifically refer to the sex of the complainant with regard to their incapacity to consent, and if you look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the pronoun used is 'he', not 'she' -

Proving that the complainant did not consent and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant consented, is the key issue in many rape cases. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 states, ‘a person consents if he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.’ Today, many cases investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service involve a complainant who is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs. The legislation, unlike the corresponding legislation in Scotland, does not address the issue of self-induced intoxication and it has been left to the Court of Appeal in the case of Bree to clarify the situation. Following this review it is recommended that consideration is given to amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to incorporate the principles set out in Bree so that the impact of severe intoxication from substances including alcohol is embedded in the legislation and that a powerful social message is established.

Source: Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London

Once police determine that a woman is intoxicated, they would consider any sex as unconsented and thus rape. Conversely, the new rule could effectively gut the ability of the accused to argue consent. The new effort is heralded by Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders who said that with the sweeping change rape victims would no longer be “blamed” by society if they are too drunk to consent or if they simply freeze in terror.

This is not what was recommended in the report. It is effectively arguing against a zero tolerance policy, when the report suggests an as yet unconfirmed level of blood alcohol content before consent can be determined.

The problem is that it could foreclose the key defense in such cases and denies jurors the ability to make this determination in the context of the case. In 2007, a court ruled that a woman could consent to sex even if drunk which is the standard approach in such cases. Intoxication can lead to a determination of incapacity and often does. However, there are different levels of intoxication and cases have different facts of when and how consent was given. Moreover, the level of legal intoxication is falling in many countries with the crackdown on drunk driving. It is not clear what level of intoxication would be viewed as per se foreclosing consent defenses. There is also the question of whether the same standard should be applied to the men if both parties are intoxicated — negating intent to rape.

I've already demonstrated why determinations regarding consent should not be left to be determined by ordinary members of the public. If he knows about the Bree case in 2007, he knows that it was the catalyst for the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 which introduced a new standard by which consent was defined. The rest of that paragraph is simply distraction and scaremongering. It is only the complainant who would be required to undergo a BAC to determine their capacity to consent. The accused is not the complainant, and therefore wouldn't be subject to a BAC test. Intent of the accused is established separately from the complainants capacity to consent.

Dame Elish admits that the various changes would required a “radical change” in the way they treat victims, but it could be equally radical in terms of the due process accorded such cases. I think that she is clearly correct in getting police to document the level of intoxication after a report by the victim is an important step and should be a regular practice. She is also clearly correct that at some level of intoxication there cannot be consent. However, the rule presents a far more sweeping rule and could clearly limit the core defense in such cases.

He tanks his own assertion he made in the first paragraph with that one sentence. He doesn't explain how this proposal could clearly limit the core defense in such cases, unless what he's referring to is his earlier scaremongering. The proposal doesn't present any more far a sweeping rule than determining consent using a standard metric before the case may even proceed to trial.

You also mentioned the possibility of back calculation by expert witnesses, well that's nothing that doesn't happen already -

In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.

Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.

Source: Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3: Consent

I am very sympathetic to the overall report which identifies some clear problems in staffing, resources, and handling of cases. She is also right that there appears to be no clear rule established for handling cases involving alcohol consumption. The problem is drawing a codified line in such cases that would be both consistent and clear and fair. There may be a good reason why intoxication is recognized as a critical factual determination but not codified in this sense. It is the type of contextual element that touches on some many elements of credibility and facts both preceding and during the sexual encounter. That does not mean that some codification could not be done but it is fraught with dangers if it is meant to curtail the defense of consent in my view.

That's exactly what a BAC test does - it is exactly consistent, clear, and fair as it is simply used as a means to establish the complainants capacity to consent. It does not curtail the defense of consent in any way, shape, or form... in my view, of course. He isn't very specific about these dangers either, preferring to insinuate and scaremonger and feed paranoia.


No surprise there really from a flip-floppy fcuknut an academic with a socially liberal agenda -

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda.

Source: A liberal's lament: The NRA might be right after all

Very Bored

Overheal wrote: »

College campuses in the US, if it isn't just part of law, already have the policy that any BAC level implies non-consent: you and your date have a beer each, get under the sheets and bam, you've comitted statutory rape

Seriously? That's insane. But how can college campuses make any judgment call on that? Sexual assault is an (very serious) illegal offence but colleges are not legal jurisdictions, they are only part of them. Surely its the cops that have to decide.

dr.fuzzenstein

Very Bored wrote: »

Seriously? That's insane. But how can college campuses make any judgment call on that? Sexual assault is an (very serious) illegal offence but colleges are not legal jurisdictions, they are only part of them. Surely its the cops that have to decide.

Maybe we could just argue that any sexual act (including, but not confined to penetrative sex) by a man upon a woman could be classed as rape retrospectively, if a woman changes he mind at any later point for whatever reason. There, saves us years of arguing and that's the end result some action groups are aiming for anyway.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You talk about "crazy 3rd wave feminists" and tell people to have a look at Reddit MRA's as if they're actually not some bunch of quite frankly sad and pathetic bastards that have no respect for women and promote their own funky notions like women's only purpose in life is to fcuk 'men' (I use the term loosely in reference to these MRA fcukwits) over.

I'm not familiar with Reddit MRAs,

But I find it bizarre that you seem to be implying that there's no difference between "a woman's only purpose in life is to fcuk men" and "why do you want to call drunken sex rape?"

Because it sounds to me like you are talking about two completely different attitudes. Because the former (as and where it occurs) is inexcusible misogyny, the latter is (I would have thought) sanity. Granted, both seem to be equally abhorrent to certain flavours of feminism, but I'm wondering if there's not a better reason for drawing such similarites.

Very Bored

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Maybe we could just argue that any sexual act (including, but not confined to penetrative sex) by a man upon a woman could be classed as rape retrospectively, if a woman changes he mind at any later point for whatever reason. There, saves us years of arguing and that's the end result some action groups are aiming for anyway.

Yep. And isn't it always evident in their behaviour that they believe violence the other way is to be tolerated/isn't as bad.

I am friends with a woman who has been through an episode of domestic abuse. Now, I absolutely deplore anyone who abuses another human being, I want to make that very clear. And I am trying to support her in any way I can. However, she has been through something called The Freedom Programme. I can see its merits and I can understand exactly why it exists and fully believe it should do. However, I had a look myself and whilst the vast majority of it was eminently sensible it contained the following advice: (paraphrasing) a man who claims to have been abused by his ex-wife or girlfriend and claims to have had no fault in it is probably an abuser himself. Now, imagine if a man had written that about women who are abused by their ex-husbands/boyfriends. I showed it to my wife, a far more sensible person than I, and even she said it was ridiculous. All we could think about was that some poor sod who has been knocked about by his wife is being given the evil eye because he doesn't think he was to blame for some psycho punching him about. My belief would be if you are unfortunate enough to have been with some scumbag who knocks you about, whether you are male or female, the issue was with the scumbag, absolutely not you. But you can't tell one sex its not their fault at all and another that it partially is. That's essentially what this proposed law is about.

I think anyone who preys on someone, male or female, because they are drunk, non-cognisant and not able to defend themselves should be locked away for a very, very long time, but equally if sex happens in the normal run of affairs between two drunk people (or even one of them is drunk, though I must admit even I find the idea of a sober person and a drunk person somewhat seedy unless they are in a serious relationship and know one another) and one of them wakes up and regrets it then that in no way, shape or form makes one of them guilty of rape. All I can do is thank God that I'm out of the dating game and that I have a loving, warm, eminently sensible wife. I don't envy my son in a few years time though.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not familiar with Reddit MRAs,

But I find it bizarre that you seem to be implying that there's no difference between "a woman's only purpose in life is to fcuk men" and "why do you want to call drunken sex rape?"

Because it sounds to me like you are talking about two completely different attitudes. Because the former (as and where it occurs) is inexcusible misogyny, the latter is (I would have thought) sanity.

I'm not really sure what you're asking me there tbh, but you missed the word after the brackets, "a woman's only purpose in life is to fcuk men over", as in the whole "feminist conspiracy theory" nonsense that's spouted by MRA's on Reddit. It was Eugene who asserted that I wanted to call drunken sex rape, but I don't know where he got that from and I answered him here -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=95794544


I'd never say Eugene is a misogynist though. In fairness that'd be just as silly as him accusing me of conflating drunken sex with rape. Misguided opinion is one thing, misogyny is something else entirely.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't state with any certainty that he actually will be grand (I've told you time and again it depends upon the circumstances in each case), but in the investigation stages, an attempt is made by police to establish whether or not he reasonably believed the complainant had given consent, and then at the trial stage, it will be the jury who will have to be convinced he had that same reasonable belief, and it will then be up to the prosecution to argue that he could not have had a reasonable belief the complainant consented, and when left to the jury, well, given that the jury is made up of ordinary members of the public, their understanding of the legal definition of consent is about the same standard as some posters here - poor.

You lost your argument a few posts ago, you are trying to waffle around the current law and procedure and have demonstrated a complete lack of potential implications to the proposed law. This idea that it would just be once piece of evidence among other evidence shows a complete failure to comprehend that the minute we legislate around a BAC number where consent cannot be given then the judge and or jury will have no other option but to follow the law.
I feel you have backed yourself into a corner and really now are grasping at thin air!

Alcohol already can be used as evidence the law already states that consent is not assumed and that if someone is drunk or drugged any attempted at sexual activity with them is considered rape and rightly so.

This law is aimed at people who either consented but felt they did not have the capacity to consent based on their state or people who cannot remember, either cases places too much doubt for legislation.

One eyed Jack

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You lost your argument a few posts ago, you are trying to waffle around the current law and procedure and have demonstrated a complete lack of potential implications to the proposed law. This idea that it would just be once piece of evidence among other evidence shows a complete failure to comprehend that the minute we legislate around a BAC number where consent cannot be given then the judge and or jury will have no other option but to follow the law.
I feel you have backed yourself into a corner and really now are grasping at thin air!

Alcohol already can be used as evidence the law already states that consent is not assumed and that if someone is drunk or drugged any attempted at sexual activity with them is considered rape and rightly so.

This law is aimed at people who either consented but felt they did not have the capacity to consent based on their state or people who cannot remember, either cases places too much doubt for legislation.

ShowMeTheCash, I'm going to try and be as nice as possible when I say this, and you've probably thought you've backed me into a corner when I haven't replied to your posts and others on numerous occasions now. The reason why I haven't bothered addressing your posts is because your understanding of the legal system and the justice system is so poor, that there's really not much point in responding when it's already evident that you are so entrenched in your misinformed and misguided opinions, that it's simply not worth me taking the time or effort required to respond to each ill informed, misguided assertion, individually. I actually do have stuff to be doing rather than sitting around all day trying to discuss something with individuals who have no interest in discussion, and have no interest in informing and arming themselves with the facts.

That's fine, I can deal with that sort of ignorance in children and young people, but when it comes to adults, I have to contend that it is willful ignorance at this point, where like our good friend the American Nutty Professor, they inform themselves by thumbing through the Daily Mail, which is rather amusing given that the Daily Mail is as right wing as it gets -

The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan and so on), is a reactionary tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.

The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner in order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

The Mail is usually considered the furthest right of all UK newspapers/tabloids; it competes for this spot with the Daily Express. Although some of the red-top tabloids might throw about more extreme rhetoric, their laddish attitude often means they're not taken too seriously - the Mail, however is entirely Serious Business. Their primary editorial stances are:

Anti-immigration
Anti-welfare and poor people in general
Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
Anti–government
Anti-LGBT
Anti-Europe
Anti-human rights because human rights only protect the obviously guilty and/or paedophiles or darkies.
Anti-politics because the Mail's views are not politics, but just common sense.
Anti-internet and other modern technology ('Facebook kills our children')
Anti-taxes (mainly for those who can afford to pay them)
Anti-intellectualism ('what do they know?) including academics, experts (including doctors); indeed anyone with an "-ology."
Anti-lawyers, especially those who defend the enemies of the Daily Mail State.
Anti-liberal (not realising that the opposite of liberalism - (with a small 'l') is not Conservatism but totalitarianism/fascism)
Pro-objectification of women
Declinism about UK life, the economy, etc.
Pro-complaining about anything and everything
Claiming that political changes were because of their campaigns

And yet here we have a person who considers themselves socially liberal, practically copy an article word for word from it on his blog -

Source: Daily Mail

Source: (At the foot of the blog post)


Awkward, isn't it?

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash, I'm going to try and be as nice as possible when I say this, and you've probably thought you've backed me into a corner when I haven't replied to your posts and others on numerous occasions now. The reason why I haven't bothered addressing your posts is because your understanding of the legal system and the justice system is so poor, that there's really not much point in responding when it's already evident that you are so entrenched in your misinformed and misguided opinions, that it's simply not worth me taking the time or effort required to respond to each ill informed, misguided assertion, individually. I actually do have stuff to be doing rather than sitting around all day trying to discuss something with individuals who have no interest in discussion, and have no interest in informing and arming themselves with the facts.

Well said, you have been destroyed multiple times on this thread least by me! Even though you look kind of silly and come across uneducated I need to give you some kudos you refuse to bow out gracefully swinging to the end!

Reminds me of the time Obama destroyed Mitt Romney and Fox news tried to report how it was an even debate!

At very least you have made me chuckle :pac:

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well said, you have been destroyed multiple times on this thread least by me! Even though you look kind of silly and come across uneducated I need to give you some kudos you refuse to bow out gracefully swinging to the end!

Reminds me of the time Obama destroyed Mitt Romney and Fox news tried to report how it was an even debate!

At very least you have made me chuckle :pac:

Haha. So your are congratulating yourself on a victory that never happened?

One Eyed Jack has made plenty of good points that you have avoided addressing.

You are shown up to be so ill-informed and so misguided but here you are strutting around bleating about how you "destroyed" your opposition.

Embarrassing.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

Haha. So your are congratulating yourself on a victory that never happened?

One Eyed Jack has made plenty of good points that you have avoided addressing.

You are shown up to be so ill-informed and so misguided but here you are strutting around bleating about how you "destroyed" your opposition.

Embarrassing.

LOL - You two should get a room, but if you like, take a look at how many likes One eyed Jack has revived from other members vrs likes others have got arguing against his points.

It has an interesting trend.

One eyed jack is Mitt and you are Fox news! Let it go :P

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - You two should get a room, but if you like, take a look at how many likes One eyed Jack has revived from other members vrs likes others have got arguing against his points.

It has an interesting trend.

One eyed jack is Mitt and you are Fox news! Let it go :P

Yeah, that's like looking at a recent Madrid vs Barcelona match in Madrid and saying "check out how many fans Madrid have compared to Barcelona!". One Eyed Jack is the "away team" on the thread. Less likes is understandable.

I am not interested in who has more likes.

I am interested in who is making good points.

Your points are rubbish.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, that's like looking at a recent Madrid vs Barcelona match in Madrid and saying "check out how many fans Madrid have compared to Barcelona!". One Eyed Jack is the "away team" on the thread. Less likes is understandable.

I am not interested in who has more likes.

I am interested in who is making good points.

Your points are rubbish.

Well done!
You have really shown me alright!

At least One Eyed Jack had my respect the above post is just embarrassing

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well done!
You have really shown me alright!

At least One Eyed Jack had my respect the above post is just embarrassing

What are you talking about? This is clearly way, way off topic now.

Congratulations on your victory.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

What are you talking about? This is clearly way, way off topic now.

Congratulations on your victory.

If you read my comment you will see that I said his argument was destroyed least by me, I may have contributed a little but others made much better arguments.
A victory I think for common sense but the victory is not mine.

One eyed Jack

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

LOL - You two should get a room, but if you like, take a look at how many likes One eyed Jack has revived from other members vrs likes others have got arguing against his points.

It has an interesting trend.

One eyed jack is Mitt and you are Fox news! Let it go :P

I'd hardly call it interesting. In fact it's not even surprising that the most popular opinions have little grounding in reality, and this has been evidenced time and time again by numerous studies and research -


Public opinion is one thing, facts are another

Poll shows views held by the public about Irish life have little grounding in reality

The public has some profoundly mistaken beliefs about the key economic and social facts of Irish life, according to a poll conducted by Ipsos MRBI for The Irish Times.

The poll shows most voters have little understanding of the where the bulk of taxpayers’ money is spent and about who in society pays most of the tax. In particular voters are ill informed about the cost of the political system by comparison with the cost of welfare or public service pay.
There are also mistaken beliefs about issues like trends in the crime rate or the health service and the number of foreign nationals in the country.

Asked how much a person must earn a year to be in the top 10 per cent of income earners the average response was €150,000 when the correct answer according to the Revenue Commissioners is €75,000.

Probably the most startling result was that when people were asked which group receives most from the public purse in terms of direct payments almost half said politicians with the other half equally divided between welfare recipients and public servants.

The fact is that welfare payments will account for over €20 billion of state spending this year while the cost of running the Oireachtas is €102 million.
On the question of who gets most from the welfare system there is also a serious level of misinformation with the vast majority saying the unemployed. In fact pensioners account for the biggest share of the welfare budget taking 32 per cent of it with the unemployed getting 27 per cent and children 11 per cent.

People overestimated the number of foreign nationals in the country at an average of 25 per cent when the actual figure is 12 per cent.

You may also want to inform yourself about 'confirmation bias' -

Confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Basically - you believe what you want to believe, but it doesn't mean you can use that belief to argue against facts, popular and all as your misguided belief is, and unpopular and all as the facts are.


You may also want to look up the term 'groupthink' -

Symptoms of Groupthink

Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.

When the above symptoms exist in a group that is trying to make a decision, there is a reasonable chance that groupthink will happen, although it is not necessarily so. Groupthink occurs when groups are highly cohesive and when they are under considerable pressure to make a quality decision. When pressures for unanimity seem overwhelming, members are less motivated to realistically appraise the alternative courses of action available to them. These group pressures lead to carelessness and irrational thinking since groups experiencing groupthink fail to consider all alternatives and seek to maintain unanimity. Decisions shaped by groupthink have low probability of achieving successful outcomes.

This is why I pay no particular attention to how many 'likes' a person gets for their opinion, because only an idiot would value popular opinion over facts and believe popular opinion must be factual instead of actually investigating the facts for themselves and employing critical thought and logical reasoning to determine their own conclusions for themselves.

You don't even have to be intelligent to employ critical thinking, logic and reasoning, and it doesn't bear any significance on the intelligence of a person who employs critical thinking -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now I was never the sharpest pencil in the box, but I can still bloody tell when someone is drunk, or has had too much to drink, and I can choose to avoid putting myself in a situation which has the potential to go badly wrong.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Had it not been for my mothers persistence, I wouldn't be able to read or write as I am now if she had listened to every expert who told her that because of my below average IQ I would probably fare better in a special school.

And if I can do it, then anyone else can sure as hell do it too! It just requires that you exercise your lazy intellect instead of believing something simply because everyone around you believes it too and so it must be reasonable, but it sure as hell still doesn't overcome the facts. I guess you've never read the story of the Emperor's New Clothes -


The Emperor's New Clothes

A vain Emperor who cares about nothing except wearing and displaying clothes hires two swindlers who promise him the finest, best suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid". The Emperor's ministers cannot see the clothing themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions and the Emperor does the same. Finally the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him and the Emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspects the assertion is true, but continues the procession.

orubiru

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If you read my comment you will see that I said his argument was destroyed least by me, I may have contributed a little but others made much better arguments.
A victory I think for common sense but the victory is not mine.

The truth is though that I believe that a law that essentially says "if she's had a beer then you are a rapist" is of course an absurd law.

However, we clearly do live in a society where "getting her a bit drunk" has been a part of the culture for some time and is only just recently being questioned.

I am pretty sure that most guys know that bringing an extremely drunk woman home and having your way while she is almost completely passed out is not on. Yet, we see many cases like this being brought to the police year after year.

I have watched lads who I would have considered to be normal, civil, good people do some questionable things on nights out when they have had a drink. It's generally frowned upon but you have to wonder how far people might push things if they think they can get away with it. This applies to both women and men. I am sure we have all seem some seemingly cool ladies go WAY over the line once there are a few drinks involved.

We can see that when alcohol is introduced to the situation the behavior of people can change. People will take risks or behave in reckless ways.

I think it's fair enough that someone, at some point, is going to suggest that if she is drunk then she can't give consent and so you shouldn't bang her. I don't necessarily agree with it (and think things need to be looked at on a case by case basis) but I don't think we can just ignore it either. If people believe that there is a connection between alcohol and rape allegations then they are naturally going to look in to that.

Yes, I know that there are false accusations. Yes, I know that people try to abuse the system because they are bitter or vindictive or might be a sociopath or whatever.

It doesn't change the fact that we do need to take steps to protect people from sexual predators. We also need to take steps to make people realize that they ARE responsible, to a reasonable extent, for their own safety and protection. On top of that we need to put the brakes on the idea of "buying her a few drinks to get things going" because it can lead to people overstepping the boundaries of what is acceptable.

It still doesn't change the fact that One Eyed Jack is making valid and constructive contribution to the discussion while you are busy gloating about "destroying" and "victory".

munchkin_utd

its an insane idea.
It means that I am committing a crime automatically with the wife should she have a few glasses of wine too many.

Automatic marital rape unless the wife is sober. Thats just bonkers.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd hardly call it interesting. In fact it's not even surprising that the most popular opinions have little grounding in reality, and this has been evidenced time and time again by numerous studies and research -


Public opinion is one thing, facts are another




You may also want to inform yourself about 'confirmation bias' -





Basically - you believe what you want to believe, but it doesn't mean you can use that belief to argue against facts, popular and all as your misguided belief is, and unpopular and all as the facts are.


You may also want to look up the term 'groupthink' -





This is why I pay no particular attention to how many 'likes' a person gets for their opinion, because only an idiot would value popular opinion over facts and believe popular opinion must be factual instead of actually investigating the facts for themselves and employing critical thought and logical reasoning to determine their own conclusions for themselves.

You don't even have to be intelligent to employ critical thinking, logic and reasoning, and it doesn't bear any significance on the intelligence of a person who employs critical thinking -







And if I can do it, then anyone else can sure as hell do it too! It just requires that you exercise your lazy intellect instead of believing something simply because everyone around you believes it too and so it must be reasonable, but it sure as hell still doesn't overcome the facts. I guess you've never read the story of the Emperor's New Clothes -


The Emperor's New Clothes

You can go off on as many tangents as you like.
The premise to your point of view is wrong, it's not even an opinion it is just incorrect.

You keep saying things like "facts" but provide nothing and I mean literally nothing to support your view.

You talk like a child, you make a statement like the grass is purple then go about showing how the sky is blue... You are unable to stay on point, when you are met with logic you cannot argue with you ignore then start talking about how the sand is yellow.

The concern around this law is:

"Once police determine that a woman is intoxicated, they would consider any sex as unconsented and thus rape. Conversely, the new rule could effectively gut the ability of the accused to argue consent."

You have been arguing that this could not happen for the majority of this thread.

You have backed yourself into corner and the new tactic is to talk about confirmation bias and I dunno anything but what we are talked about on the thread.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

I am pretty sure that most guys know that bringing an extremely drunk woman home and having your way while she is almost completely passed out is not on. Yet, we see many cases like this being brought to the police year after year.

I have watched lads who I would have considered to be normal, civil, good people do some questionable things on nights out when they have had a drink. It's generally frowned upon but you have to wonder how far people might push things if they think they can get away with it. This applies to both women and men. I am sure we have all seem some seemingly cool ladies go WAY over the line once there are a few drinks involved.

We can see that when alcohol is introduced to the situation the behavior of people can change. People will take risks or behave in reckless ways.

I think it's fair enough that someone, at some point, is going to suggest that if she is drunk then she can't give consent and so you shouldn't bang her. I don't necessarily agree with it (and think things need to be looked at on a case by case basis) but I don't think we can just ignore it either. If people believe that there is a connection between alcohol and rape allegations then they are naturally going to look in to that.

Yes, I know that there are false accusations. Yes, I know that people try to abuse the system because they are bitter or vindictive or might be a sociopath or whatever.

It doesn't change the fact that we do need to take steps to protect people from sexual predators. We also need to take steps to make people realize that they ARE responsible, to a reasonable extent, for their own safety and protection. On top of that we need to put the brakes on the idea of "buying her a few drinks to get things going" because it can lead to people overstepping the boundaries of what is acceptable.

It still doesn't change the fact that One Eyed Jack is making valid and constructive contribution to the discussion while you are busy gloating about "destroying" and "victory".

One Eyed Jack is being dealt with in kind. Also it is a little bit of banter on a fairly dark subject so lighten up!
Just out of curiosity as your views seem to differ from OEJ what point specifically do you think one eyed jack made that is valid?

The law is primarily there to protect the innocent not convict the guilty.

orubiru

munchkin_utd wrote: »

its an insane idea.
It means that I am committing a crime automatically with the wife should she have a few glasses of wine too many.

Automatic marital rape unless the wife is sober. Thats just bonkers.

Of course you are correct. The idea that "she had some wine so you are a rapist" could be used to convict someone is absurd.

Which is why such a law will not be implemented in that way.

We still have to look at the facts though. There is a trend where people who have had a few drinks are being raped and they are reporting this to the police.

The situation often seems to be that they were too drunk to "put up a fight" and are were not consenting to what happened to them. Clearly, some of these situations are serious enough that the authorities are notified. It's not like the situation doesn't exist.

Would we deny that "drunk girls" are seen as an "easy target" by A FEW lads on nights out?

Now, you and I both know that it's easy to say "well, just don't get blind drunk then!" We'd be right in a sense but it's not a satisfactory solution to the problem. It's a part of the solution, I think, but there is still a lot of discussion to be had.

We can't just sit around and do nothing or just look the other way. So, people are looking into what we can do within the law and our culture to either make people stop and think about their actions or change the perception of "drunk chicks" as "easy targets".

If you read the article it is proposing using blood alcohol level to help determine whether or not a woman was able to consent. This would be combined with other evidence. It wouldn't just be a standalone "was she drinking? Yes? Well thats rape then". Clearly there would have to be proof that anything physically happened and other questions surrounding the circumstances of the accusation.

I think we have also established that guys have a genuine fear of being falsely accused of rape. This is something that the law and society itself should also be looking at.

It's not a black and white situation.

munchkin_utd

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Technically (I could be wrong on this)the law does not legislate for a woman raping a man, so you and you alone would be the criminal.

when it comes to 2 underage people having sex, the male automatically gets done for statutory rape and entry on sex offenders register, the female is ALWAYS the victim regardless of any facts or consent

crazy, but its there "to protect the female" so is seen as a good deterent.

One eyed Jack

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You can go off on as many tangents as you like.
The premise to your point of view is wrong, it's not even an opinion it is just incorrect.

Excuse yourself? You've been waving your e-penis about in this thread for some time now and quite frankly you're coming up short every time, as it is not I who have been going off on any tangents -

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Well said, you have been destroyed multiple times on this thread least by me! Even though you look kind of silly and come across uneducated I need to give you some kudos you refuse to bow out gracefully swinging to the end!

Reminds me of the time Obama destroyed Mitt Romney and Fox news tried to report how it was an even debate!

At very least you have made me chuckle :pac:

What the fcuk has that got to do with anything? You say the premise of my point is wrong, you say it's incorrect, but you have yet to demonstrate how anything I've said in relation to the proposal in the report is incorrect. I have been able to demonstrate on numerous occasions now where other posters assumptions and biases and even a legal commentators opinion has been incorrect (though I suspect that he was purposely omitting and ignoring facts, wouldn't be the first time he's done it in order to promote his agenda).

You keep saying things like "facts" but provide nothing and I mean literally nothing to support your view.

You're just taking the piss now surely? You're choosing to ignore evidence rather than refute it. I think I've provided plenty of evidence that supports every point I've put forward in this discussion. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your strawman claims about a rise in women making false allegations of rape if this proposal is introduced. Women can do as much already even if this proposal was never in place, within the current legal framework as it is now, never mind any future proposals. This proposal will make no difference to that fact one way or the other, but if you have evidence to back up your claims to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

You talk like a child, you make a statement like the grass is purple then go about showing how the sky is blue... You are unable to stay on point, when you are met with logic you cannot argue with you ignore then start talking about how the sand is yellow.

Self-awareness obviously isn't your strong suit.

The concern around this law is:

"Once police determine that a woman is intoxicated, they would consider any sex as unconsented and thus rape. Conversely, the new rule could effectively gut the ability of the accused to argue consent."

You have been arguing that this could not happen for the majority of this thread.

I've already refuted that -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The recommendation itself doesn't specifically refer to the sex of the complainant with regard to their incapacity to consent, and if you look at the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the pronoun used is 'he', not 'she' -

Source: Report of the Independent Review into The Investigation and Prosecution of Rape in London

...

This is not what was recommended in the report. It is effectively arguing against a zero tolerance policy, when the report suggests an as yet unconfirmed level of blood alcohol content before consent can be determined.

You have yet to present any evidence which backs up your claims, and I don't want to hear from a magic 8 ball either.

You have backed yourself into corner and the new tactic is to talk about confirmation bias and I dunno anything but what we are talked about on the thread.

I'm not backed into any corner just because you say so, and it was yourself who introduced the ad hominem tactic, not I. In the interests of helping you out, it may help your argument if you familiarise yourself with rhetorical and logical fallacies -

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/


Never let it be said I didn't at least try to help you, even when you didn't want to believe I had your best interests in mind.

ShowMeTheCash

orubiru wrote: »

The situation often seems to be that they were too drunk to "put up a fight" and are were not consenting to what happened to them. Clearly, some of these situations are serious enough that the authorities are notified. It's not like the situation doesn't exist.

The law as it stands says "Consent is not assumed" so two people need to agree to sex before it happens, if a guy landed in court and says "Well she did not say no or push me off" then as the law stands this in itself could result in a rape conviction..

orubiru wrote: »

Would we deny that "drunk girls" are seen as an "easy target" by A FEW lads on nights out?

Now, you and I both know that it's easy to say "well, just don't get blind drunk then!" We'd be right in a sense but it's not a satisfactory solution to the problem. It's a part of the solution, I think, but there is still a lot of discussion to be had.

Look I dunno what lads you hang around with but there is a huge difference from someone getting hammered and hooking up with someone they otherwise would not give the time of day too and predators who actively seek out women when vulnerable to take advantage of them.

orubiru wrote: »

We can't just sit around and do nothing or just look the other way. So, people are looking into what we can do within the law and our culture to either make people stop and think about their actions or change the perception of "drunk chicks" as "easy targets".

Look as idealistic as you are life is simply not this simple, it is complex sometimes for the better some times for the former. We do not have a crystal ball, we cannot always know exactly what happened, whether it be a woman waking up next to the guy of her dreams after toe curling sex and a smile from ear to ear or something very sinister and life destroying.

orubiru wrote: »

If you read the article it is proposing using blood alcohol level to help determine whether or not a woman was able to consent. This would be combined with other evidence. It wouldn't just be a standalone "was she drinking? Yes? Well thats rape then". Clearly there would have to be proof that anything physically happened and other questions surrounding the circumstances of the accusation.

The law is already in place for this, what we are talking about is defining a level to when consent can no longer be given.

orubiru wrote: »

I think we have also established that guys have a genuine fear of being falsely accused of rape. This is something that the law and society itself should also be looking at.

Because the proposed law could fine someone innocent guilty of rape, that's a little scary!

orubiru wrote: »

It's not a black and white situation.

Agree'd but a conviction needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt!

NachoBusiness

orubiru wrote: »

One Eyed Jack is the "away team" on the thread.

:pac:

orubiru wrote: »

One Eyed Jack has made plenty of good points that you have avoided addressing.

Oh really, you mean like this one:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The message it sends is that men shouldn't stick their dick in drunk girls.

Or this one..

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I look at it differently - the person who chooses to engage in a sexual act with someone who is drunk, is actually the person who is at fault. Rather simple solution - don't have sex with drunk people.

Yeah, excellent points which really show an understanding of the problems which the proposed law could potentially create.

Look, nobody has avoided addressing points which OEJ has made, they have just given up repeating themselves, as all that happens is he will reply with a rake of information that has little or nothing to do with the point he is attempting to retort and then top it off with an accusation of 'goal post shifting'. At one point I was actually going to recommend that he take up NASCAR, so impressed was I with his swerving skills.

orubiru wrote: »

Embarrassing.

Now you're hardly in a position to talk about embarrassing posts after suggesting that it wasn't "plausible" that a sane woman would cry rape after having sex with a man she had never met before. There's naivety and then there's willful ignorance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again with the 'false accusations of rape' strawman and goalpost moving...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iIBAmGudac

The odd thing about OEJ's argument is that earlier in the thread he said the following:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a person makes a report to the authorities that they were raped, and their BAC is above a certain threshold, then they were legally incapable of consent, and so the person who had sex with them without legal consent can indeed be charged with rape as the sex was legally non-consensual.

That is just another risk that person chooses to take when they choose to have sex with someone who is intoxicated.

..but yet when someone makes the point that the proposed law would mean what he himself has said it will mean, he argues with them.

Of course, no doubt he will say in reply to this point that he was just saying they could be charged, but sure they can be charged with less information than that now and so it makes no sense to highlight that information, unless that is you are suggesting that it makes them guilty.. which of course he was.

hatrickpatrick

orubiru wrote: »

Of course you are correct. The idea that "she had some wine so you are a rapist" could be used to convict someone is absurd.

Which is why such a law will not be implemented in that way.

We still have to look at the facts though. There is a trend where people who have had a few drinks are being raped and they are reporting this to the police.

The situation often seems to be that they were too drunk to "put up a fight" and are were not consenting to what happened to them. Clearly, some of these situations are serious enough that the authorities are notified. It's not like the situation doesn't exist.

Would we deny that "drunk girls" are seen as an "easy target" by A FEW lads on nights out?

Now, you and I both know that it's easy to say "well, just don't get blind drunk then!" We'd be right in a sense but it's not a satisfactory solution to the problem. It's a part of the solution, I think, but there is still a lot of discussion to be had.

We can't just sit around and do nothing or just look the other way. So, people are looking into what we can do within the law and our culture to either make people stop and think about their actions or change the perception of "drunk chicks" as "easy targets".

If you read the article it is proposing using blood alcohol level to help determine whether or not a woman was able to consent. This would be combined with other evidence. It wouldn't just be a standalone "was she drinking? Yes? Well thats rape then". Clearly there would have to be proof that anything physically happened and other questions surrounding the circumstances of the accusation.

I think we have also established that guys have a genuine fear of being falsely accused of rape. This is something that the law and society itself should also be looking at.

It's not a black and white situation.

I agree with a lot of that, but I still say that a free yes means yes, just as no means no. Yes doesn't become no just because someone's judgment is impaired - any decisions I make when I've impaired my own judgment through my actions (taking pills, booze, whatever) are still my decisions and I bear 100% responsibility for them. I don't accept and never will accept the paradigm that someone who initiates a sexual encounter can still be a victim if it later transpires that they were off their face and had regrets - all that does is turn what is already a social minefield into an even worse one.

I've been having a great week and this subject really gets me down which is why I haven't responded to arguments, will get back to everyone who's quoted me next week once the good weather has once again been replaced by sky-pissing.

ShowMeTheCash

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Excuse yourself? You've been waving your e-penis about in this thread for some time now and quite frankly you're coming up short every time, as it is not I who have been going off on any tangents -





What the fcuk has that got to do with anything? You say the premise of my point is wrong, you say it's incorrect, but you have yet to demonstrate how anything I've said in relation to the proposal in the report is incorrect. I have been able to demonstrate on numerous occasions now where other posters assumptions and biases and even a legal commentators opinion has been incorrect (though I suspect that he was purposely omitting and ignoring facts, wouldn't be the first time he's done it in order to promote his agenda).





You're just taking the piss now surely? You're choosing to ignore evidence rather than refute it. I think I've provided plenty of evidence that supports every point I've put forward in this discussion. You have yet to provide any evidence to support your strawman claims about a rise in women making false allegations of rape if this proposal is introduced. Women can do as much already even if this proposal was never in place, within the current legal framework as it is now, never mind any future proposals. This proposal will make no difference to that fact one way or the other, but if you have evidence to back up your claims to the contrary, I'd like to see it.





Self-awareness obviously isn't your strong suit.





I've already refuted that -






You have yet to present any evidence which backs up your claims, and I don't want to hear from a magic 8 ball either.





I'm not backed into any corner just because you say so, and it was yourself who introduced the ad hominem tactic, not I. In the interests of helping you out, it may help your argument if you familiarise yourself with rhetorical and logical fallacies -

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/


Never let it be said I didn't at least try to help you, even when you didn't want to believe I had your best interests in mind.

Someone is a little angry!
Penis jokes original
It's not like anyone has agreed with my portrayal of how you make your points or argue.... Oh wait they did!

Blah blah strawman, blah blah no point, blah blah...

As for me claims, what is my claim?

Let me guess I should go familiarise myself with something?

You have not refuted anything.
You have tried to site parts of the document that clearly do not support your statement... I am beginning to wonder if you can comprehend basic English?