Jesus Christ, go look at your face in a mirror. about 2/3rds of the way up there are these two things looking at you, they're your eyes. use them to read what the fuck i'm saying.
I haven't said that, and I don't believe it. Sometimes women DO lie about rape. OK? Yes, it happens. Has everybody got that?
good now that you agreed, i'll explain why it's important to my argument(again) since you don't seem to have the mental capacity to figure it out yourself.
consider if our roles were reversed, and i was going to go to the police and claim that every women i have ever slept with raped me, because they never asked for consent
No, Legion, because you know you were a willing partner, therefore if you reported rape, you'd be lying
(this is the part that you use your eyes to READ) what part of "how would the law make the distinction." do you not understand? since your peanut sized brain doesn't seem to comprehend this I'll spell it out for you. how would a policeman taking my details down know that i am lying and act accordingly, understand?. there is no difference in the law's eye's between actually feeling raped and and claiming to have been raped because nobody could possibly know the difference except the accuser. This is why lying has to be taken in to account when making LAW.
I am NOT advocating that the law be changed to the extent that the mere report is enough to get a man sentenced for rape
you write the words here, but then everything in your other post begs to differ, the fact of the matter is if you truly believe this we wouldn't be arguing because i am only interested in how the LAW sees and deals with rape cases, and how your views on rape, if applied to the LAW, would result in unfair trials.
if you truly don't want to impose your views(which i highly doubt) then we have no need to argue.
but since i have my doubts about this i'll continue as if this isn't your position.
My argument still is that what you call a man's 'reasonable' perception of consent can be WRONG
Again your absolute lack of reading baffles me. "a man's 'reasonable' perception"? again WHERE did i ever write that. i believe i said and i quote "a third party impartial observer would"?. do i have to explain what a third party impartial observer is? or can your simple little mind still not grasp it?. a third party impartial observer is a PERSON(notice the lack of sex attributed) that can look at the events with an unbiased view. this includes Judges(who can be male or female) and a jury(who is made up of males and females). if we took your view of rape(as evidenced by your posts) you give the women the role of Judge, jury and executioner, the very thing i'm trying to avoid.
if a woman wrongly interprets a man's actions as consent, it's less likely to end in rape or sexual assault
this i a problem i see with your argument because you are a feminist you are turning this into a MAN Vs. WOMEN discussion. This is not a man vs women problem this is a ACCUSER Vs ACCUSED issue. sex plays no part in this, i am simply weighing the accused right to not be put in jail if he did nothing wrong, with the accusers right for justice.
This isn't about what happens in court, it's about preventing rape in the first place.
LISTEN TO ME, i am not defining rape in general, i am defining rape under the LAW. understand the difference? if there was no law, and therefore no chance that an innocent person could go to jail, THEN I WOULDN'T BE HERE ARGUING. it is irrelevant to argue what the word "rape" means outside of the law, for that is just arguing semantics and has no effect on anyone's life(before you use this as a sound bite let me explain what i mean, if people aren't getting punished for rape, then rape would be of no consequence, it would just be a word used to describe a women's "feelings of abuse".) read that blurb carefully because i am NOT saying women don't have a right to feel abused, or that rape doesn't happen, or that rape doesn't matter.
it's less likely to end in rape or sexual assault, because women usually aren't as strong. (And spare me whifflings about exceptions
now considering what i said above there is a reason i gave those exceptions, OK. the reason is that under law you can't put the responsibility for rape only on one sex. Why? because of the exceptions. it would be unfair because a stronger women could and does exist. if the responsibility falls solely on the male to gain consent it opens up a huge loop-hole for women to rape guys. do you now understand why under the LAW complete equality is important to be fair and just.
shit happens in the throes of passion
And there you have it. Because of the 'throes of passion' neither party can be held responsible for what happens in the bedroom. (Or the back seats of cars, or wherever.) Either of them can do whatever the hell they like without any effort to check in advance that their partner's OK with it, and as long as they can say they were in the 'throes of passion' it's never rape or sexual assault.
the problem is that your looking at a rape case in a perfect view, where the accuser made very clear and distinct signs of refusal. i am not arguing against this. but what about cases where the details are not clear, where either parties gave "explicit" consent. what you have here is a problem in law. now we can talk about what both parties should of done, but if it's already in court it doesn't matter. this is where my definition comes in "what would a reasonable person construe as yes". since it has already been established that either party gave consent, the courts must now establish who "gave" implicit consent. Understand?
my point here is what happens in 'REALITY' needs to be take into account now in a perfect world where both parties give consent verbally for every action, then yes rape would be easily established. but let me describe what such a world would be like to show the ridiculousness of the concept.
man: can i kiss you?
Women: yes (man kisses her)
Man (stops) while i'm kissing you can i put my tongue in your mouth?
Women: yes (man puts tongue in women's mouth)
Women: (stops kissing) can i also put my tongue in your mouth
Man: yes you can (start kissing again)
man (stops kissing) can i put my hand on your thigh
women: yes (man does so), can i put my hand on your shoulder?
man: yes
etc etc
this is not realistic, nobody in the real world would do this. in the real world all the consent is implied. do slip ups happen, yes, but the parties aren't mute they can express there distaste for what's going on. and even if they are mute a slap of the hand would do, or some other implied refusal.
as long as they can say they were in the 'throes of passion' it's never rape or sexual assault
can a person reasonably use 'throes of passion' to clearly rape somebody?, no, clearly not. therefore it doesn't not meet my "what would a reasonable person construe as yes" definition.
Example: a man nibbles on a girls ear during sex, the girls hates this, so pushes him away and tells him to stop it. he does so
does this meet my definition?. yes, because it is not reasonable to expect verbal consent for every action carried out during sex. the important thing here is that he stops, if after he continues to do it without her consent, then by all means cry rape.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your latest screed of non sequiturs and reductios ad absurdum, because you're addressing the caricature, not my arguments.
don't use terms that you don't understand because it only weakens your argument. firstly reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy of logic, it is an argument that your position leads to a logical contradiction. read a book on formal logic before you start throwing around terms you may of heard somewhere around the place. secondly addressing your caricature is not a non-sequitur at best it is a straw man fallacy, but only if i misrepresent your position, which i don't think i am doing, though it is your position so if it is different to what i can deduced from your postings, point it out specifically.
now since you don't seem to have the capacity to understand what is required for logical flow, i will perfectly structure my arguments for you tiny brain to be able to comprehend.
Argument 1
Premise 1: women can lie about being raped
Premise 2: the definition of rape is that if a women claims rape it always is rape
Inference 1: therefore a women can claim rape when it did not happen
Inference 2: therefore it is possible for an otherwise innocent man to be labelled a rapist
Conclusion: Innocent men go to jail
Argument 2
Premise 1: women can wilfully get drunk or take drugs
Premise 2: wilful substance abuse is the sole responsibility of the person taking them
Premise 3: decisions made under the influence of certain substances can be influenced by those substances
Premise 4: the definition of rape is that if a women claims rape it always is rape
Inference 1: therefore it is possible that a women under the influence of a substance can make a decision that they normally wouldn't
Inference 2: therefore women can give consent when they normally wouldn't
Inference 3: therefore women can claim rape even though they gave consent
Inference 4: therefore a men can be guilty of rape even though he gained consent and was otherwise innocent.
Conclusion: innocent men go to jail.
Argument 3
Premise 1: consent can be implied
Premise 2: through the course of time, a person can change there mind.
Premise 3: refusal can be felt, but not communicated
Premise 4: the definition of rape is that if a women claims or feels raped it always is rape.
Inference 1: therefore consent can be given, either implied or explicit, then after a period of time withdraw it, but not communicate the refusal(or withdrawal).
Inference 2: therefore a women can feel raped without the male being able to possibly of known that consent was withdrawn.
Inference 3: a man can be guilty of rape, when in fact he was innocent
Conclusion: innocent males go to jail.
the example i give for Inference 1 is this scenario:
a man gains full consent, by a women explicitly and verbally giving it. ie "i want to have sex with you right now, put your dick in my vagina right now" then during the course of sex she changes her mind without any outward signs of doing so. no verbal "no", or resistance at all.
now argument 3 is an reductio ad absurdum because i am attacking your position that a women can't feel raped without the man being guilty. therefore using Logical progression i proved that in fact a women can feel raped while the man was completely innocent. look it up before you use it in an argument.
these are my three main arguments for using a legal definition of "what would a reasonable person construe as yes"
also these arguments are irrespective of sex, if you like replace women with 'Person A' and man with 'Person B' the outcome would be the same
i never said that, point out exactly where i did and i'll recant my statement, otherwise shutup, it's not important to the discussion since i already explained what was meant by it
Oh, get off your fucking cross. I pasted your words right next to my interpretation of them, and I've already accepted that you didn't mean them that way. Go work on your written English instead of telling me to 'shut up' because I had the audacity to suggest you actually meant what it looked like you said.
since your so interested in logical fallacies why don't you look up what a 'Red herring' fallacy is because i can no longer count the number of times you have introduced irrelevant points to try and undermine my arguments on both my hands.
