14 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanEmpower women, don't remove responsibility from them!
I do however disagree with your point about sex being a balance of male and female power. Men are grossly more empowered than women and as such must take more of the responsibility and indeed blame.
A women taking advantage of a minor or a man taking advantage of a minor is exactly the same thing.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by hematicBased on your reply, I have to assume that you're pretty young. I wish I had a way to inject about 20 years of maturity into you.
He was intoxicated to! She had already commited a crime by drinking underage and doing drugs. How is she possibly an innocent victim here?
The fact that she had committed a crime by drinking and doing drugs in no way exonerates him. In fact, it makes his actions all the more reprehensible.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanOh come now.
Because she was under age and he wasn't...
He wasn't forced, against his will, he willingly took part in the action. He should be punished because he broke the law. I'll reiterate my point above; as a responsible agent (in the eyes of the law) he is held responsible by that law for infringements of the law, a law which is there to safeguard underage children.
Such black and white argumentation on this point from you?
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe one issue I have with legal consent is this, If the women isn't in control of her own actions because she is intoxicated, how can we expect the man to be in control of his own if he too is intoxicated?
Perhaps you're having difficulty with the concept of legal consent. A person who is intoxicated doesn't have their normal decision making abilities thus can't give legal consent. A person who is mentally retarded also can't give legal consent. A person who lacks proper life experience also can't give legal consent. These people need to be afforded prote ...[text shortened]... such people can and should be prosecuted. They are predators of the weak and disadvantaged.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by MerkIt doesn't seem to make sense to have laws where a defendant can claim "intoxication" as a defense. It does, however, seem to make sense to afford protection for the incapacitated. It has to do with taking advantage of someone who is defenseless or whose defenses are compromised. What would you think of someone who steals from the cup of a blind man?
The one issue I have with legal consent is this, If the women isn't in control of her own actions because she is intoxicated, how can we expect the man to be in control of his own if he too is intoxicated?
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThat is a good point, but the blind man did not choose to be blind that day.
It doesn't seem to make sense to have laws where a defendant can claim "intoxication" as a defense. It does, however, seem to make sense to afford protection for the incapacitated. It has to do with taking advantage of someone who is defenseless or whose defenses are compromised. What would you think of someone who steals from the cup of a blind man?
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by lepomisDoes it really make a difference if the incapacitation is permanent or temporary (or even of that person's volition)? It's still taking advantage of someone whose defenses are compromised.
That is a good point, but the blind man did not choose to be blind that day.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, if they stole it while they were intoxicated, we would have to give them a get out of jail free card.
It doesn't seem to make sense to have laws where a defendant can claim "intoxication" as a defense. It does, however, seem to make sense to afford protection for the incapacitated. It has to do with taking advantage of someone who is defenseless or whose defenses are compromised. What would you think of someone who steals from the cup of a blind man?
I personally have no problem saying that the victims are off the hook if they are intoxicated, but I just don't see how we can hold people to a double standard.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by MerkIt's not a "double standard". Try re-reading and understanding my previous post. In the case of the victim, it's about affording protection to someone whose defenses have been compromised. It's like saying, "We aren't going to allow taking advantage of those who are incapacitated. If you do, there are serious penalties."
Well, if they stole it while they were intoxicated, we would have to give them a get out of jail free card.
I personally have no problem saying that the victims are off the hook if they are intoxicated, but I just don't see how we can hold people to a double standard.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think people should be responsible for there actions... step one should be to not become intoxicated if no one is there to baby sit you.
Does it really make a difference if the incapacitation is permanent or temporary (or even of that person's volition)? It's still taking advantage of someone whose defenses are compromised.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by lepomisAnd if none of your "friends" care enough or are mature enough to give you protection, it's "open season"?
I think people should be responsible for there actions... step one should be to not become intoxicated if no one is there to baby sit you.
Perhaps when you've gained some maturity, you'll be able to have something other than an adolescent point of view.
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHow is holding one intoxicated party responsible, but not the other intoxicated party not a double standard?
It's not a "double standard". Try re-reading and understanding my previous post. In the case of the victim, it's about affording protection to someone whose defenses have been compromised. It's like saying, "We aren't going to allow taking advantage of those who are incapacitated. If you do, there are serious penalties."
14 Jun 07
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYou think that taking responsibility for your actions is immature? What would you do with a drunk girl who drives her car into a family walking across the street... is she not responsible for that?
And if none of your "friends" care enough or are mature enough to give you protection, it's "open season"?
Perhaps when you've gained some maturity, you'll be able to have something other than an adolescent point of view.
14 Jun 07
Are you guys twins 🙂
Listen, if you still can't see how having a law that protects the incapacitated is a good thing, I don't know that there's anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise right now. You just don't seem to have the maturity to understand it.
14 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you think that a drunk driver who kills a person should get more or less punishment than a sober driver ? I am guessing that you will say that the drunk should not be punished.
Are you guys twins 🙂
Listen, if you still can't see how having a law that protects the incapacitated is a good thing, I don't know that there's anything anyone can say to convince you otherwise right now. You just don't seem to have the maturity to understand it.