Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pyrtolin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:00:56 PM »
Can you clarify in each of those situations what harm is occurring. In each case is race A forcing Race B to hinge its survival on participating in a system designed for the success of race A? IS race A withholding resources (considering them rewards for their success) for race B, then blaming race B for poverty and starvation within it that arises from lack of resources?

Without that, the bias here seems to be in both cases that you are defining good results or  "success" in race A's terms then suggesting that there race B is less successful because htey don't conform to Race A's goals and desires.

Keep in mind, the standard is _harm_ not mere difference.

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 09, 2018, 12:26:11 PM »
Leftist legal nihilists constantly try to strip big words like rape and murder from any sort of criminal intent, and you seem to be doing that with antisemitic now...  with a pure results based test to identify antisemitism.  Remember 18 years when the butterfly ballot was deemed antisemitic?

Any system of oppression will keep on perpetuating itself unless the people that pass it on actively take responsibility for their part in perpetuating it. Effect is the only meaningful measure, because most of the values and attitudes that contribute to it are so ingrained into society that people don't even realize that they're doing harm until it's pointed out to them, and then generally act to defend their egos rather than correct their future behavior to do less harm. Anti-Semitism is no different than sexism, racism, classism, or any other self-perpetuating system of oppression in that regard.

But then "personal responsibility" is really just a code phrase used to protect privilege and create fake moral justification for forcing people to live in poverty and endure oppression, and not actually meant to be a call for people to examine the consequences of their behavior and work to change their behavior in order to minimize harm to others, isn't it?

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 08, 2018, 02:05:28 PM »
"Anti-Semitic" usefully means harmful to Jewish people of those of Jewish descent.

Doesn't matter what personal biases a given person has or doesn't have, just what they net effect of their behavior, particularly if they are making no effort made to check their own biases.

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 01, 2018, 04:20:34 PM »
All very true and I promise to tread more lightly in the face of pure ignorance. It’s just when I bring information to the table and rather than seeing it evaluated, am subjected to motive inferences of defending trump, that I start throwing food and booing.

You'll have better luck if you bring that information up in it's own discussion. It becomes whataboutism and derailment when you bring it up in a way that makes it look like you're trying to divert an existing conversation about something else to other topics.

Unless the topic is initially advanced as a comparative discussion, it's counterproductive to disrupt it by injecting other things into the mix, even those that would be good to talk about on their own, and people will resist, not because they don't find them interesting, but because it's clear that it's an attempt to divert the conversation away from the current topic.

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 01, 2018, 02:29:49 PM »
I'll come out of inactivity to be on hand to answer any questions that someone might have about local perspectives or separation of fact from fiction as best I can. (My church, only a few blocks away from the Tree of Life, has already had the pleasure of having one of our members slimed as a "crisis actor" for being picked off the street for an interview.)

(Keeping it limited to this thread, because there are already enough things that keep me from being able to focus on the paying work I should be doing instead of wading into debates, no matter how much more enjoyable that may be.)

General Comments / Re: Over the Top
« on: April 08, 2016, 02:58:02 PM »
Absolutely. But then he's the one who suggested _forcing_ treatment, not me.
You know your quote is still there?  If it's not what you meant then restate, but don't lie about it.
Absolutely. It's still here, and you still inject your own made up assertions and try to pretend I said things I didn't. You're the only one who brought up force; I didn't say one thing about forcing anyone to do anything.

General Comments / Re: Over the Top
« on: April 08, 2016, 02:55:56 PM »
The state can can treat his addiction.
Can it?  I'm not aware of any addiction treatment that can be forced on a person and be effective.  I've been involved with drug addition treatment programs linked to welfare and honestly, you're lying to yourself.  Government can't fix addition in isolation from completely fixing poverty and completely "fixing" the motivations of everyone who's a user.  The incentives to use are too high.[/quote]
Indeed, that's why making treatment available was only part of my answer, where I thin also proceeded to suggest that we remove the effects of poverty from the equation.

It can give him the educational and financial resources he needs to have better options.
Lol, so you assert.  Meanwhile, we continue in a world where that costs money that isn't available, and where millions would "qualify" for that support while only a fraction of those need to be incarcerated for their choices. 
A huge fraction of them. The money exists if we will it to exists,. We have the resources to do it, it's only spite that keeps us from employing them by intentionally restricting the supply of money such that so many people who need them can afford them (and similarly that so many people who could have jobs providing them, instead have to remain unemployed and impoverished instead)

It can give him medical treatment in the case that there's an underlying mental illness at play. It can foster community engagement programs so that he feels more connected to rather than at odds with the people around him. It can ensure that he is employed and earning an income.
We are a free people, quit trying to use government to live our lives for us.
We are a people with a huge prison population and a large portion of our public impoverished. None of them are free. I'm not proposition "living anyone's live" for them I'm proposing that we ensure that everyone has the basic resources _needed to be free_ in the first place, rather than forcing so many people to live in debt and wage slavery because we'd rather punish and control them for being poor than risk that they might choose to do things that people like you don't approve of them doing.

We, as a society/community, require people to find employment in order to support themselves. If we are going to enforce that requirement then we are obligated to ensure that there is sufficient employment for all people to be able to support themselves.

The state can actually address the circumstances of the crime and help him get to a place where he doesn't do it any more instead of punishing him by stripping away any choices by to commit further crimes to get by and then declaring him to be the problem, rather than the circumstances it forced him to live with.
The state can't do any of that, unless you're going to put a mind control chip in him.
Sure it can. I detailed how it could above.You seem to be so lost in an obsession with forcing people to live by your dictates to honestly respond to suggestions that we empower people to be able to make better choices on their own accord by providing them the resources and support needed to do so.

  He's not pursuing rational or profitable crime, I agree with you he's most likely mentally ill, he could be involuntarily committed and kept there until is proven he can rejoin society (the treatment statistics mean effectively its a life sentence).
Perhaps, if that can be proven, and he repeatedly declines treatment when he's free to obtain it. That's moot so long as we deny him access to care by not ensuring he has the resources needed to afford and use it in the first place.

Everything else is not actually its job, its things we can choose to do, but by no means an obligation.
The state exists to provide a communal decisionmaking process to help us coordinate our efforts for survival, growth, and prosperity. If it is forcing people to live in conditions that aren't well above the baseline standard that they could manage purely on their own- including failing to transmit the survival skills needed, such that they're fully dependent on society for survival, then it's failing in its most fundamental purposes, and it's little wonder that people are pushed to violate its rules to try to find their own way to improve themselves.

General Comments / Re: Over the Top
« on: April 08, 2016, 02:29:32 PM »
Seriati is correct in that no amount of help or treatment is going to cure an addict unless the person in question is fully committed to helping themselves.

Absolutely. But then he's the one who suggested _forcing_ treatment, not me. I said we should provide it for him. And we should provide him the other things that he needs to support himself and give him a reason to use it, particularly fostering community connection and support, because addiction tends to be what fills the space left behind when a person doesn't have a sense of meaning or connection.

General Comments / Re: Over the Top
« on: April 08, 2016, 10:47:09 AM »
Even on a personal level though, this young man has demonstrated that he can not or will not comply with the laws of the country.  From the other pending charges it's also possible/likely he's dealing with addiction issues that make it even more unlikely that he will be able to comply.  He's already, apparently, spent 4 years in prison.   What else can the state really do to prevent his lawlessness from impacting and harming those around him, including both his direct victims, the shopkeepers, and his indirect ones, the entire community?
The state can can treat his addiction. It can give him the educational and financial resources he needs to have better options. It can give him medical treatment in the case that there's an underlying mental illness at play. It can foster community engagement programs so that he feels more connected to rather than at odds with the people around him. It can ensure that he is employed and earning an income.

The state can actually address the circumstances of the crime and help him get to a place where he doesn't do it any more instead of punishing him by stripping away any choices by to commit further crimes to get by and then declaring him to be the problem, rather than the circumstances it forced him to live with.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: April 07, 2016, 04:48:20 PM »
I'm not sure what legal remedies there are for the Iraq war, but it's helpful that Sanders has Bill Black as one of his top economic advisors, who has been calling for prosecutions in response to the financial crisis similar to those that he helped with in the wake of the SnL crisis in the 80.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 06, 2016, 12:41:13 PM »
If Sanders is on the ticket, Trump would draw votes from both him and Cruz, which would also make the outcome a bit less certain.
That's not true at all. Sanders vs Trum and Cuz will pick up a lot of the middle that would prefer someone honest that they disagree with over the other two because of their extremism, even if trump tries to tack to center. On the other hand, there are a number of boneheaded Sanders supporters that are actually anti-Clinton voters that will absolutely go for Trump or even just let Cruz win in hopes that they'll be bad enough to set up a mid-term revolt (without any regard for others who will take damage in the meantime) The situation is even more grim for Clinton if the GOP pulls a rabbit out of its hat and squeezes Kasich or Ryan in, even with Trump spoiling.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 05, 2016, 02:25:34 PM »
I wish you'd just said that before so we could have saved some time. If what you're saying is that any breach of the law in this case should be attributed to the provider rather than the client then that makes sense, although I'm not sure how the law would accord with your preference. If the woman goes in not knowing the type of abortion she wants is illegal and the doctor performs it anyhow I can see how one would argue that she's done nothing wrong since it was the doctor who broke the law without the woman being aware of it. However if the woman intentionally goes to a shady doctor because she knows it's illegal and they do it, how do you square that with only him being guilty of breaking the law? Or are you saying they're both guilty but he should be punished while she should be reprimanded in some more lenient way?
More clear? That was the context that you initially disputed that I was responded to.

As for how the law would handle it, that's simple- you writhe the law to say "It is illegal to _provide_ an abortion" not to say "it is illegal to _get_ an abortion"

Al, it seemed to me you were agreeing with Pyr that equal treatment isn't fair or just when that treatment disproportionately harms the poor, for instance, as it does in the case of various court costs in cities.
Disproportionate harm _is_ unequal treatment. That's what "disproportionate" means.

The issue then is not to apply the law unequally in order to benefit some class of people who were suffering, but rather to change that law so it ceases to produce unequal results when applied equally. But it should still be applied equally either way, which means not deciding whether or not someone has to pay the court costs on a case by case basis depending on the mood of the bailiff that day.
That's nonsensical, because it basically asks for an impossibility. You cannot write a rule that accounts for all situations, and it would be almost impossible to understand one that attempted to do so. Instead, you set the baseline standard and intent of the rule down, then you use judgment and discernment to figure out how best to execute the intent in any given situation. that is the fundamental _puropose_ of the entire judicial system. If what you said was possible, we wouldn't need Judges at all, the police could just cross reference the rule and penalize you on the spot, rather than needing to appeal to a system of intelligent, human judgment to determine what is just in any given case.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 05, 2016, 01:41:23 PM »
In the case of someone who obtained an illegal abortion Pyr would like preferential treatment
I argue that it's perfectly sensible to say that laws that ban abortion could only penalize providers and not the people seeking abortions, while you insist that they can only be just if tehy punish abortion seekers, and that magically becomes preferential treatment?

I've not once argued for any preferential treatment of anyone, only for equitable treatment, making that assertion completely false in any context.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 05, 2016, 12:25:59 PM »
Justice quite literally means nothing more or less than even and equal treatment under the law.

Even and equal treatment requires even an equal consideration of circumstances. If you do not consider circumstances then you are treating people extremely unequally, because the same consequence can be trivial to one person and crippling to another.

The simple cost of showing up to court is higher for a poor person than the maximum allowable fine many offenses is for someone who is financially well off. To ignore such facts is to actively treat people unequally and very unjustly.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Anatole France
It's pure classist privilege to suggest that blind treatment without regard to circumstance is equal treatment; it's outright blaming those hurt by societal inequity for not being in the dominant class.

Justice is the correction of wrongs in society. Law is a _tool_ of justice, but it does not define justice.

The internet is doing that in general, it's not anything particular to quora. Though, at the same time, it's introducing the strong danger of propagating appealing ignorance at the expense of facts that play less to popular biases. It's very easy to use it to find more visible pockets of nonsense that confirm your biases and stick to those rather than making the effort to seek out those with the experience and expertise needed to be credible.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 05, 2016, 11:11:54 AM »
Now you're talking about something entirely different, which is the notion of not using punishment in general as a repercussion to an offense.
That's pure nonsense. There's a long tradition of penalties that don't go further than simply making restitution to an individual or the community as appropriate, or assigning someone to rehab or other kinds of training. It's nothing new at all to say that not every offense must be met with punitive measures; we do plenty of enforcement without punishment, that kind of enforcement is generally far, far more effective than punishment.

It's completely non-sequitur to this topic, since we're discussing whether the normal repercussion (whatever that is) should be applied to people who break this law.
There is no "normal" repercussion, because this is a theoretical law. The question at hand is what the normal repercussion should be and who it should apply to. 

Whether the actual repercussion is a punishment or something else is a different discussion and not relevant to the issue of whether to go after people who break an abortion law in one form or another.
It absolutely is, because it defines not only _who_ is breaking the law in such cases, but what "going after them" means. You're outright begging the question when you assert that such theoretical laws should be punitive to the patients, then trying to use that as evidence that the only way to uphold theoretical abortion laws would be to punish patients.

But just so we're clear, while judges do have latitude in extenuating circumstances I do not think they should be granted the authority to simply decide not to give any punishment/repercussion in the case where the person blatantly broke the law full stop.
THey absolutely should be if it's clear that punishment will do more harm than good and serve no public benefit. I mean they can't change the fact that the person has already felt repercussions from the act, so that's not really even a relevant thing to qualify. If the experience so far is sufficient to maintain the purpose of the law- which is to prevent undesirable or harmful behavior, then they should absolutely be free to dismiss additional punitive measures.

The idea that a judge will be left to decide whether or not the law as stated applies to a given person would be the very definition of injustice.
No, that's essential to justice. It's impossible for a system to be anything but unjust if it cannot ensure that the law works to benefit of all and instead applied punitive measures without regard to damage done. Justice is about restoring wholeness to those that have been harmed and working to prevent future harm. If you're doing more harm to people and society than good though blindly punishing them without regard to circumstances and ensuring that sentences actually serve to put things right, rather than just using them as a vengeful way to compound injustice by adding more damage on top of what was already done.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 04, 2016, 05:11:07 PM »
But my general point is that we don't want to encourage the mentality in any part of the enforcement/justice system sphere that they can pick and choose which laws to enforce. If something (whether that's a certain kind of abortion, or anything else) is illegal, then there should be a method of enforcing that which doesn't refer on a case-by-case basis to having compassion or understanding for someone. That compassion and understanding should be built in to the law, ideally, and if anything at least exercised by a judge who has access to all the facts.
It doesn't have to be built into any laws because it's inherent in the nature of judicial powers. Judges can choose what, if any penalties should apply, including punishment up to the limits that the legislature have but on sentences.

But a blanket notion that there should be no punishment (read: repercussion) for breaking a certain law across the board sounds very bad to me.
No one has claimed that there should be no repercussions, just that punishment shouldn't be blindly applied as a repercussion. In many cases, simple restitution and rehabilitation make for more reasonable repercussions, not inflicting further harm on people that have nothing to lose.

Keep in mind that the question here is "If abortion was illegal, _should_ the law punish women who seek it?" Saying that such laws must be punitive to the women receiving the operation isn't just saying that violations of _current_ law should have repercussions- it's arguing that theoretical laws should be punitive in the first place. It doesn't make sense to say that we can't implement legal reforms when the thing in question _is_ a legal reform.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 04, 2016, 04:20:57 PM »
Requiring lawful behavior on the part of law enforcement is part and parcel of why it's so important for the police to have body cams, and the last thing we want right now is to indicate to the law enforcement community that it's ok to pick and choose which crimes are really crimes, and which laws to enforce.
Sure, that's not contested here. You're just forgetting that law enforcement doesn't get to decide what the results of that enforcement are; it is explicitly not part of the judicial system and has to request penalties that it thinks are appropriate. It can't choose to punish people, it can only enforce the law and let the justice system sort out if some punishment that the legislature has suggested is an appropriate consequence or if other measure better serves justice and the overall intent of the law.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 04, 2016, 11:22:06 AM »
You may as well argue that it's disgusting and cruel to punish poor people who steal because they don't have money.
It absolutely is and that's why its actively unjust to punish someone in that state instead of helping them find a way to make restitution and providing them with the necessary support to not be put in that situation again.

Maybe on some humane level that's coherent, but it completely disregards the purpose of law.
No, blindly punishing people without regard for circumstances disregards the purpose of the law. The purpose is to give people public protection from theft and recourse to get restitution when it does occur instead of needing to provide such enforcement out of their personal resources. It's purpose is not, in any way, to inflict further harm on desperate people.

If not enforced a law is actually not a law at all.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that we should be blindly vindictive, just that we should seek to provide justice to both parties when the law has been violated. Restitution the the person hurt, protection to society from repeat violations here that might be likely, and, if relevant, resources to the person who violated the law so that they aren't put in a situation where they feel they have no other choice in the future.

Blindly punish people without regard to the justice a given law is supposed to provide and you encourage people to show it the same disregard that you show them. It's only when people feel taht tehy law is there to help them, not oppress and punish them that they respect it.

 If you're going to allow illegal behavior without punishment then that would indeed be a disgrace, and the law should be changed. But if you're going to keep the law then it needs to be taken seriously.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:57:59 PM »
If people are against stealing because of their faith in the Bible, that doesn't mean that outlawing theft is mandating of religion.
Only because there is non-religious justification for the laws. If they only reason they're against it is because of their religion, then their input on whether or not it should be illegal is not useful. They have to bring reasoning to the table that's not grounded in religious assumptions, or else they are simply mandating religion. There's no problem with secular law paralleling religion, but at no point can religion be the core argument for a given law.

(That's different from saying that religion can be what motivates you to find a secular justification for a given law. There's a difference between religion being why _you_ chose to do something and being what you decide to try to make others do through legal force.)

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:23:13 PM »
Where did you get this idea from? It's wrong. Freedom of religion means the state cannot make a religion mandatory, or exclude by fiat some religion. It does not mean that people of a religious conviction should not have their opinion weighed in the balance. What you're saying is that if someone's opinion comes from religion they should keep it to themselves and not try to employ it in the public sphere, and this makes the classic error of thinking that a religious belief can somehow be divorced by 'non-religious' aspects of life. There is no non-religious aspect of life for a religious person. Their belief is their belief, it doesn't matter where it came from.
Sure, but if they try to use state power to enforce it on the basis of the fact that that its their religious dictate, then they are making their religion mandatory. The state can only act when there is a compelling _non-religuos_ justification. You seem to be trying to take the argument that something should not be put into law _solely_ on religious justifications and miscasting it as people trying to say that any coincidental parallel to religion disqualifies it.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:19:39 PM »
Law is a collective agreement based on mutual understanding of what is best and what is bad.
No- law is a collective agreement on what actions have a material cost to society or do harm to others than the community needs to take action to try to protect others from or compensate people who have been affected for.

THere are plenty of good or bad things that should have nothing to do with law, but simply be a matter of personal judgment, because it's not the business of the community to formally intercede.

"It's wrong" or "it's bad" aren't justification to make something illegal. "Others are hurt by this and need to turn to the community for resource" is the baseline standard.

General Comments / Re: Trump, The Reality Show
« on: April 01, 2016, 04:12:53 PM »
That interview was gold fro Trump. He got the context for a completely outrageous comment, without regard for context that got help a surge of free media. At the same time, that quote appealed directly to his core audience, showing that he's wiling to say exactly what they're thinking, without pulling any punches. THen, once the frenzy is well and up, he backpedals with a wink to the more conventional position, forcing other pro-life advocates to have to try to talk about him a lot to try to explain how he just doesn't get it. But all the while, he's got the original technicalities of the context- what should happen _if
_ it were illegal that he can, when he needs to, point to later when he's got to grab the general electorate and suggest taht he wasn't actually advocating illegality, but rather helping point out the disastrous results of making it illegal.

Lots of outrage, lots of free media, and enough wiggle room to completely turn his position inside out when he needs to. (With tons of free media, outrage, and winks at different desired constituents all around)

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 31, 2016, 10:56:23 PM »
With an open border you don't have any say in the matter.
Just the opposite, with an open border you have _more_ say in the matter, since those people can be checked on the spot as they enter and selectively weeded out while people who represent a threat can safely pass through. It's only when you close the border that you open wide illegal avenues for them to enter, hidden among many more people that are non-threatening, such that we have no idea if they've tried to enter or where they might be.

General Comments / Re: Election Day
« on: March 30, 2016, 11:01:54 AM »
You know what I would find interesting? A single debate now between Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz, and Kasich.  As with baseball, an inter-league game (once upon a time, teams from the National League and the American League would never play each other during the regulat season; consider today's standard for political debates to be the same).
With a more normal candidate pool, that might be a good idea, with this group, it might start off interesting, but I could easily see it degenerating into a knife fight between Clinton and Trump (with Cruz "mysteriously" coming out completely maimed from "missed" swings on both sides) while Kasich and Sanders pull off to the side with the moderators and argue policy over shots, eventually promising that if one wins their primary at the other loses, they'll consider putting aside differences to create a fusion ticket that history will never forget.

This isn't to say that it's a bad idea, just to properly set expectations for just how epic to expect it to be.

When you violate someone's trust you do harm.
When someone claims, or even believes, to have had their trust violated by you, you MAY have done harm.

That distinction means everything to me and nothing at all to you.
Means nothing? I'm arguing that it matters a great deal, and that you need proof if you want to assert the latter case, rather than simply using it as a disingenuous rhetorical attack to undermine someone else's testimony in regards to themselves.

Is it really the distinction that matters to you, or the freedom to accuse others of falling on the wrong side of it in order to justify yourself without needing evidence to support your claim? I see little evidence that we disagree about the significance of the difference- our disagreement seems to be entirely on whether it's fair to accuse someone of misrepresenting themselves without evidence to back the claim.

I don't think further discussion will be helpful to anyone.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If you want to leave it here, or have the last word after this, that's fine (just so long as that last word is an expression of your opinion, and not something that miscasts my position.

In my world you do not apologize for something you did not do.  (like inflict harm)
Sure, but that's a different scenario,. When you violate someone's trust by misgauging their consent, you do harm to them. It may be completely accidental harm, particularly in situations where consent becomes difficult, if not outright impossible to accurately determine, but it's still harm. And that's why, in the latter cases, the responsible decision is to wait or at least accept that you may need to help pick up the pieces later if you make a bad call.

So the situation (in this hypothetical) is identical for both parties.  We are ignoring who is what sex or who initiated contact.  That person A is upset or feeling distress, I will concede is “harm” (or harmful).  Is there anything that justifies making person B responsible for dealing with that “harm” other than the “sexist bogeyman” that too many people are taken advantage of while intoxicated so it is best to assume anyone who is not 100% comfortable with the outcome of intoxicated sexual activity was “harmed”?  (Different from saying, “experiences harm”, which can be generated internally independent of any other party)
The fact that harm was done justifies it. It may have been accidental, but it was still harm. We all have a basic responsibility to not hurt other people by our actions, IF we fail in that responsibility then the bare minimum we can do is apologize and help make sure the person that we hurt will be all right.

Am I correct in assuming you are comfortable with the before mention standard narrowly as it applies to consent violation? 
I'm not exactly clear on what you're asking here, perhaps I addressed it above?

If two people get drunk and decide they are going to have an armature MMA fight, then the next day one decides it was assault on the part of the other and they never would have agreed if they were sober, is the standard the same?
It could be similar. It is somewhat distinct in as much as they're not, in most cases, living among people that they have to worry about future invitations to fight from. I imagine also that no one would blame thame for faking any injuries they sustained in the fight just for the sake of accusing the other person of hurting them.

Because the overall scenario is less fraught with pressure and trust issues, you're probably going to see a much higher proportion of cases of regret, rather than feeling like they were goaded into something that they didn't want to do in the first place, but, as wit sex, the nature of regret means that their reaction is almost never going to be to try to accuse the other person, because at that point they've already accepted that it was a bad choice on their part.

If two people get drunk and decide they are going to the casino, then the next day, after both having lost large amounts of money can one decide the other coerced them into going and in effect, stole their money and wasted it?  Is the standard still the same?

Was the other person using their money? Or otherwise playing on their trust? At this point you've strayed so far afield for trust relationships that it's not clear that the parallel works. They may well have a case against the Casino, on the other hand, if it was negligent in turning them away because they were too drunk for it it be legally allowing them to gamble. (Similar to the obligation of bartenders to not serve visibly intoxicated patrons)

We need a solution that protects people from predators who will attempt to get someone so drunk that they can take advantage of them and dodge suspicion of wrongdoing.  I just feel we need a solution that can accomplish this without destroying the concept of personal responsibility.
Absolutely- that's why, again, I push a concept directly rooted in personal responsibility. That's the entire point. Do no harm. Apologize and make amends if you do harm. Those are some of the most fundamental elements of taking responsibility for your actions. And less than that is shifting responsibility and blame for your actions onto others, blaming those you hurt for the harm you did to them, intentionally or not.

This answers my question.  You are comfortable with a standard which is easily exploitable because you feel it is not, nor would be, exploited with a frequency that makes it worth consideration.
I'm comfortable with this standard, because it is the only viable standard that can be applied. Anything short of it places an undue burden on those that have been harmed to prove something where the only direct evidence can be found in their memory. The fact that we do not only sell bulletproof clothing is equally easily exploitable by someone trying to shoot us, but the odds of that happening are so low as to not be requiring that all shirts be made of kevlar.

And similarly, to the degree that it might occasionally be exploited, we find it far more practical to legally bar the exploit, not punish the average person in order to prevent the rare exceptions.

That you phrase this as fact, and the alternative absurd, also explains why we've managed to exchange so many words yet understood so little about what the other was saying.
I state it as a fact because it is a fact. The entire argument is one based on an exceptionally rare case that it actively blown out of proportion and used to shame victims into silence; to justify misconduct so that that people can go on avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. And it's one that we already have pretty solid protection against, you just should need to actually prove it, not take advantage of a system that's currently rigged to encourage adding insult to injury in the way it creates and maintains this deceptive and outright sexist bogeyman. (And it actively hurts men as well, because it pretty directly supports the overriding false narrative that men are always consenting as well as that women aren't credible after the fact about whether they consented or not)

General Comments / Re: What I find disturbing about Trump...
« on: March 25, 2016, 05:20:03 PM »
OTOH, everyone keeps looking for him to jump the shark.  Calling Cruz's wife ugly does nothing for him and a lot for Cruz.  Imagine, if you can, feeling sympathy for Ted Cruz.  Trump has made the unthinkable thinkable.
Just the opposite. Attacking Cruz's wife can't hurt him, because he's already established that there are no depths to which he won't sink, but it pushes Cruz's buttons and increases the odds of him messing up in a self destructive way, as did Rubio before him. Trump can't fall any lower, but Cruz has some semblance of dignity that he can lose, and he'll lose votes right along with it.

And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation
You are.

As I mentioned earlier.  You are playing a VERY specific singular scenario in your head.  One, as far as I can tease it out, we do not disagree about.

I and others have tried to say, "Ya but what if...?"  You do grasp that right?  I mean, this is you attempting to preach a sermon about your singular scenario correct?  You haven't just failed to grasp that have you?
You asked :What if" and then proposed a specific scenario, so I'm responding to that scenario. The scenario that was put forth was one regarding sex after getting drunk at a party (in parallel to the other thread about the college party where this happened) and whether or not it was possible for someone to say yes because of their intoxication, even though, when they were sober later, they realized that it was not something that they actually properly consented to.

From there we really haven't changed the scenario, so far as I could tell, but there has been an attempt to try to recast the scenario from something resembling the average case to something that represents the "struck by a meteorite" case. Regret certainly is possible, but regret so rarely leads to accusations of consent violation that it's only relevance to the scenario is in the way it's and exceptionally common victim-blaming technique to make unfounded accusations that a given situation is really the rare one. It's only meaningful relevance in a discussion about consent violations and the harm they do is as an example of how false accusations are used to minimize and exacerbate them; it's a bogeyman that's really just used to justify not taking responsibility for harm that a person may have caused.

If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.
If this was true, I never would have interrupted your soapbox presentation.
You can only be responsible for your own actions and your own feelings, in context. You cannot control those of others. You can offer to help people that are willing to trust you sort our their demons, but trying to force them to feel how you want them to feel is going to fail miserably. And more to the pint, any dysfunction that they're suffering from does not absolve you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions.

but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of.
I see this sentiment as a breeding ground for harm.  I know I'm pretty far out there on the "personal responsibility as an ideal" end of the scale compared to your "a society where there are no threats as an ideal".  It makes it hard for me to see your point some times.
How are the two any different- they naturally follow from each other. If people take responsibility for managing their behavior, then there are no threats of anything but accidental harm or rare breakdown cases. It's only when we justify offloading responsibility for our actions on others- make it their responsibility to be on the defense rather than our responsibility to make every possible effort to not do harm, that we create a situation where people have to constantly defend themselves for others that are unwilling to act responsibly.

Being too naive, as opposed to just a positive person, is hazardous to your health.  We have a hard enough time as a society protecting people who act sensibly and responsibly.  Teaching people it is OK to be trustful of those around you and lower your inhibitions and defenses is like letting children play with firearms.
It's not "Ok", it's essential to healthy human relationships.  People need to be able to trust each other to stay mentally and emotionally healthy, never mind for society to function properly. Without trust everything eventually breaks down. And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation, you're talking about an environment that specifically markets it as one where the hosts have made an effort to see to the comfort and safety of their guests so that they can relax and relate to each other on a more direct and healthy level. That's exactly behavior in those situations that makes people feel less safe causes so much damage, particularly when people who know that alcohol lowers the defenses of others insist that they should not be responsible for making sure that they act in ways that are proportionally less dangerous.

It's about teaching kids gun safety and proper handling so that, when they grow up they know how to handle firearms without being a dangers to anyone, rather than just tossing them a gun and saying that they're not responsible if anyone fails to get out of the way when they try to use it.

Sure, but that's a completely different issue.
There are two (or more) possible scenarios.  You cannot effectively address one by ignoring the other exists.
Not talking about something that's not relevant to a given situation isn't ignoring the fact that it exists, it's just staying on topic. If you need new brake pads on your car and a new turn signal bulb and are asking questions about what kind of bulb to get for the turn signal, someone trying to interrupt with the prices of brake pads, it's not ignoring the problem with your brakes to ask them to stay on topic or wait till you're actually ready to discuss the brakes. Even more so when they start insisting that the turn signal bulb isn't really a problem and that you shouldn't be talking about it at all because your brake pads are the only thing that matters.

Both problems can exist at the same time, but it's derailment to try to turn a discussion of one problem into a discussion of the other, and it's much worse to try to deny the existence of one problem and assert that the other is really the issue in both cases.

Your solution creates another problem.  If you feel that the risk of unfair accusations or projecting one's guilt onto another for your own benefit is acceptable given the harm such a standard aims to prevent; that is at least a rational opinion.  I happen to disagree with it, but I understand it.
Someone projecting guilt on you is an accusation that you should back up with proo if you're going to make it. IF you don't actually have direct evidence that it's happening, then it's an unfair accusation to make; in fact- making that accusation without any proof is an active act of projection your own guilt onto others instead of taking responsibility for what actions you were responsible for. Personal responsibility means that you take responsibility for what you did do, regardless of what you may suspect others are doing. If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.

Now if you offer a non-confrontational apology and a good faith effort to help ensure that the situation doesn't come again, and they start trying to use the promise of forgiveness as tool to manipulate or punish you, we've moved into bad behavior on their part, but at that point you actually have evidence that they're looking for more than just an acknowledgement of the error and a path to rebuilding trust.

Refusing to accept we are talking about two things that are inseparable is not rational.
They can overlap, but they're two different things, especially in that one is direct testimony of a person's experience that should be taken at face value unless there is evidence to cast doubt on it, and the other is an accusation and speculation of motive that requires evidence to substantiate.

General Comments / Re: What I find disturbing about Trump...
« on: March 25, 2016, 11:40:11 AM »
The superdelegates make no bones about nominally being for sale at the start?

Or you can go the other way and say that while they initially appear to be free agents and can use that to manipulate perception, they ultimately line up behind the party and make sure that it looks like there's a wide margin in favor of the favorite candidate.

People have second thoughts all the time.  People change their minds.  Some things you can take back and undo, some things you can't.  Sex you can't "take back". 

I'm not saying that anyone SHOULD feel guilty about their sexual activity.  I'm saying people often DO feel guilty. 
Sure, but that's a completely different issue. And it's exceptionally harmful to accuse someone whose feeling like they didn't properly agree to it in the first place of just regretting having done it afterwards. It compounds the damage done by improper consent. People who feel guilty for their own actions react much differently than those who feel like they were violated They say "I shouldn't have done that" not "I wouldn't have done that if I'd been able to choose properly."

That act, an act which requires consensus approval or acceptance to function, is inherently irresponsible and selfish.
It can be, if they're doing it out of line with the situation that they're in; selfishness requires indulgence at the _expense_ of others, not simply sharing in a mutual enjoyable experience, but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of. It's up to the community to validate that trust by helping to mutually ensure each other's safety, and when we fail to do that, damage occurs.

You do not solve a problem as serious as date rape by telling women that, if they drank, they are raped by default; unless they decide they are cool with the sex; oh, and they can change their answer at any time.  You have over-corrected and the result is ugly.  Not as ugly as ACTUAL rape, which is the only reason I cut you any slack and continue this discussion.
It's a good thing that that's an imaginary argument that no one is making, then.

You suggest that by apologizing you are offering comfort and attempting to heal harm inflicted (even if it wasn’t intentional).  Instead, you are accepting the responsibility for a mutual act.  You aren’t mitigating harm, you are absolving the other party of guilt.
What guilt are you absolving them of? Are you suggesting that they intentionally did something wrong to you in the process such that they have something that they should be considered guilty of?

I mean, if you're saying that you also feel that you did not offer proper consent on your part and are also feeling similar harm, the it wouldn't be out of line to respond with that and mutually apologize for the damage. But otherwise it's not clear what harm to you you suggest that you're absolving them of by apologizing for your error.

(It's also absurd, in general, to suggest that apologizing for your own mistakes excuses anyone else of the mistakes they have made. That's a rationalization that people use to deflect responsibility, not earnestly taking responsibility for ones own actions.)

The idea behind restricting drunk driving is that you are a danger to more than just yourself when intoxicated.
You're confusing the reason for restricting drunk driving and the reason for legal penalties for drunk driving.

We _socailly_ restrict drunk driving to protect people themselves and others from harm. If I see you're too drunk to drive, I stop you from doing it as much for you as for anyone else on the road.

Our legal penalties are focused specifically on external damage and harm, because teh _law_ really doesn't have much business telling you what you can do to yourself (with all kinds of exceptions, many of which really shouldn't be laws, to be sure). BUt I'm not talking about law here, no matter how much people keep trying to change the subject to what should or shouldn't be _legal_. Just about proper an improper interpersonal behavior. The law only becomes a factor when you have interpersonal harm that people cannot equitably resolve between themselves on their own terms.

This is where I find fault for the whole idea.  We treat sex as an object or a goal.  One person is attempting to obtain it or “score” and the other person is attempting to retain it or “defend”.  While we on rare occasion break this out of traditional gender roles, it does not allow for the concept of sex as a mutual act that two adults can just enjoy with each other.  It seems to suggest that at best they can use each other and be OK with being used a little in return. 
Indeed- which is exactly what comes of a culture that encourages people to try to cast blame on the the victims of consent violations on the person that was hurt. Instead of being able to trust that other people are doing their best to behave responsibly and can counted on to respect and acknowledge harm if they accidentally cause it, we have to constantly be on our guard not only from harm from others, but from people who will accuse us of being at fault if we get hurt.

That attitude is part and parcel of what people are trying to fix when they talk about trying to end rape culture. To not only end the bad effects of being under threat, but also the bad effects of constantly having to be on the defense.

If someone came to me and said, “We had WAY too much to drink last night, I think you took advantage of me.”  After an “Haha <wink>… Oh *censored*!  You are being serious?” the next step is calling your lawyer.  Not sitting down having a good long conversation about how you can be more respectful to each other as individuals moving forward.
And, of the two options, do you believe that's was better? Wouldn't it be better to apologize up front, talk about where things when wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, then move on with a better understanding of where each of your boundaries lie without having to involve the legal system at all?

OK… if you don’t see chaos, I’m not sure how I could convince you.  How about extinction level event?  :P
I've heard many, many abused reactions to suggesting that people should show each other respect and take responsibility for their actions, but usually it;'s the opposite that people claim will lead to extinction. I don't get at all how responsibility and civility lead to chaos and extinction.

That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest.
For consent violation (the manslaughter version of murder when it comes to the rape scale?) You advocate guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, law or both?
Neither. I advocate respect and taking people at heir word in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such matters only become legal issues when interpersonal resolution fails.

IF it does go to court then I do absolutely support innocent until proven guilty- but that means that the person hurt needs to show that the person they say violated their consent did, in fact do that thing. (Imagine a parallel for a theft case- if person A wants to accuse person B of theft, they have to prove that person B has or at least took the thing. If person B wants to claim that they had permission to take it, it's incumbent upon person B to prove that. They cannot claim that they had permission then force person B to prove that they did not grant permission)

The claim that the person is lying about having consented is a positive claim that the other person has to prove, or else the innocent until proven guilty standard is violated, otherwise the only valid testimony as to whether it was given can come from the only person who actually knows if they gave it or not.

The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.
To make such a statement suggests our cultures are either incredibly different, or you have chosen to focus on an ideal utopia, so far down the hypothetical road that we need literal magic to bridge the gap between where we are now and where your points are relevant. 
It's only in an ideal utopia that people can understand that drinking and driving is unsafe and make the basic social standard one that recognizes that fact and actively encourages people to act with that in mind? The facts of the world disagree with that- just the opposite, once we made a point of acknowledging and educating people as to that fact, it seems to have caught on pretty well, even if people still do make mistakes. It's absurd to say that pushing for the same respect for others in regards to sexual consent can't similarly be pushed for.

Your noble attempt to reduce the amount of harm being done invites chaos and gross injustice in the hopes that it is just a brief regrettable but necessary step in reaching an ideal.
How is expecting people to behave in a responsible and respectful manner inviting chaos? Accountability is about as far from chaos as you can get.

I think that part of the problem here is that drunken, consentual, but regretted sex can be very traumatic and harmful.
There are many ways that people can get hurt, to be sure, but those aren't the kinds of harm that come from consent violations. And telling people that they're experiencing the former when they're experiencing the latter is like treating someone's left hand for a burn when when they've broken their right leg and insisting that you know better than they do what's wrong with them.

Pyr, you are discussing the proper response to consent violation.
We are discussing how to establish if consent violation occurred.

The answer cannot be (in my opinion), “It happened because one party said it happened.”  That is far too easily abused.
That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest. Put a price on abusing it if you want to prevent abuse, but anything short of that compounds the harm and legitimizes violating the consent of others.

And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.
I actually agree with this.  I just KNOW it is an extremely unorthodox position.  While I try to hold myself to this standard, I feel it borders on ridiculous to hold others to it.  As I see this as an untenable solution, I attempted to shift the discussion away from, “What is the response when it happens.”, to instead, “What is a reasonable way to improve public safety that we have a chance of achieving without attempting to institute prohibition 2.0?”
It's not unreasonable to hold others to it, or help others observe it at all, any more than it's unreasonable to hold others to the expectation that they'll use the same baseline reasoning for not driving while drunk. The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.

So why not just admit that you are against sex if a single drop of alcohol has been consumed?
Driving when it's raining is more dangerous than driving when the whether is good. If I say that you should be more careful when it's raining because you're still responsible for any accident you cause if you lose control in the rain, that's not saying that I want it to be illegal to drive in the rain. You can argue up and down that if I want to hold people responsible for causing accidents in t he rain instead of just saying that whoever got hit should be considered at fault because they also chose to be out in the rain and knew there was greater danger of someone driving irresponsibly, it doesn't make that the position that I'm taking. It just makes it seem like you want a legal blessing to drive however you want to when it's raining without having to take responsibility for any damage you may cause.

I'm not going to cop to your dishonest straw man just because it would make you feel like you were right. The law doesn't define right and wrong, or even what constitutes harm- it's a tool to give formal recourse to those that have been harmed in ways that our society has promised to protect them from.

It's not impossible to offer consent when drunk- it's impossible for another party to know for certain if consent was actually offered if someone is drunk. Familiarity and past agreements, cues, and the like can help in that situation, but only the person nominally offering knows for sure, and then only upon sober reflection on the matter.

Law is a tool to protect people who get hurt, not a tool to help justify acting in ways that hurt others, so from a legal standpoint, is should presume that someone who has been harmed by lack of consent was unable to properly communicate their lack of consent if they were drunk, not try to erase that harm by blaming them for anything that happened to them because they were drunk.

But the important thing is that the law defines the actual harmful act as illegal, not circumstances completely incidental to the harm. BEing drunk is completely incidental to whether consent was actually offered or not. IF can contribute to a confusing signal, but it's the responsibility of the person receiving that signal to sort taht out, not of the law to preemptively declare or deny that harm was done because of that confusion.

Drunken sex isn't the problem, consent violations are the problem. Being drunk isn't an excuse that magically makes a consent violation disappear, and victim blaming- trying to make the violation the fault of the person whose consent was violated, rather than the person who violated it compounds the harm.

Your attempt to specify that being drunk doesn't mean that a consent violation will happen is mere doublespeak when you are quite clear that being drunk makes you incapable of consent.
It _compromises_ one's ability to offer meaningful consent. That doesn't have a direct relationship to whether you actually consent, just whether you can properly express whether or not you consent.

You can't say it isn't because it's the issue we brought up. It is also not coherent to say that this only applies to cases where claims of rape are alleged, because if you're right that consent doesn't exist after one drop of alcohol then all cases of sex under such conditions ought to count as non-consensual sex, whether or not anyone felt violated or infringed upon afterward.
Right in a conversation about the harms of consent violations, you brought up accusations that people are being dishonest about whether their consent was violated and tried to inject justification of victim blaming into the mix by saying that some consent violations aren't really consent violations because you can effectively put aside personal responsibility to avoid hurting people if the person that gets hurt is drunk, then tried to use the fact that a given scenario can happen without a consent violation as a way to assert that consent violations can't happen under those circumstances.

Pyr, you seem to be missing the point. They took responsibility for allowing a fly to get into their water bottle, which means they apologized and offered to give him a replacement bottle free of charge.
Exactly the point. And if you accidentally violate someone's consent because they were too drunk to properly consent, you should similarly be prepared to apologize for the mistake and make restitution, not deny that you messed up and blame them for the damage.

No the argument is that while we can take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions, we cannot take responsibility for consequences outlandish and extreme totally disproportionate to the underlying event. You, for instance, had earlier been speaking to PTSD like symptoms as a consequence of tipsy sex.
No, I spoke of PTSD as a result of a _consent violation_. The fact taht being tipsy facilitated that violation is completely incidental. What you're claiming I said here directly contradicts what I've repeated my position to be many times over in response to repeated attempts to distort it.

Being drunk does not mean that a consent violation will happen. But it does not excuse a consent violation either. The problem is the consent violation, not the completely incidental state of being drunk. Following from that, if you see that someone is drunk, you should assume that their ability to properly offer consent is compromised and understand the risk that you're taking of doing harm if you go ahead anyway. And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.

The baseline should always be, "It's my responsibility to play it safe if I'm compromised" rather than "If they get hurt because they're compromised, it's their own fault" most accidental harm that currently happens can be mitigated, in the same way that  that shift in attitude about drunk driving has significantly mitigated accidents.

Note the word violence .
A consent violation is a form of mental/emotional violence for the purposes of that definition (designed to give the general gist of the term and even remotely not be fully inclusive). Accidental harm done by one person to another is still a form of violence, because it's the harm, not the intent taht causes the damage.

You don't get PTSD from having "tipsy sex" and then regretting it the next day.
No, you don't. Which is why it's disingenuous to try to inject those completely irrelevant situations into the conversation, and very hurtful accusation to slander people with who have been hurt. IF you have clear evidence that someone is being dishonest in a given case, it's fine to present that. But to categorically accuse people who have been harmed of dishonesty by making a blanket assertion that harm from consent violations amounts to "regret" is an active contributor to the harm done in such incidents. At that point you've gone past accidentally providing a bottle of water with a fly in it to attacking the person who got the bottle for putting a fly in it and trying to blame it on you.

That is not a normal or common reaction. If you get PTSD from having "tipsy sex", then that would be a bizarre, extreme reaction not typical or "in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause".
Sure, but we're not talking about tipsy sex, we're talking about a consent violation (or even a mutual violation) that happened because one or both were tipsy. If there was not violation, there's no problem, and this situation is out of context. The problem cases are those where a violation occurred, not those were neither party feels like what happened was against their will.

I do notice of course your insertion of the words "date rape" into your statement. The very thing that is at issue is whether or not "tipsy sex" could ever be characterized fairly as "date rape" in the first place. The use of the "R" word to describe sex between mutually intoxicated individuals who otherwise appear to consent (perhaps even enthusiastically) is the very matter in issue.
Non, the issue is the subset of those situations that are otherwise characterized as date rape, not those where no violation occurred. And more to the point, the issue is attempting to trivialize cases of date rape and related misconduct as just fine or the fault of the victim by giving the person who did harm a free pass because the person that was hurt happened to be intoxicated, in this case.

There's a huge difference between "I wouldn't have approved of that if I'd been capable of making decisions properly" and "I approved of that, but now I know that I probably shouldn't have". The former is a consent violation, something that causes harm, and part of what's in context here, the latter is regret and serves as a learning experience, but does not amount to a consent violation, so is completely irrelevant except in that it's very common to slander and do further harm people in the first scenario by accusing them of actually being in the second scenario but looking to hurt others because of it.

Misconduct on its own wouldn't be as big an issue if people that engage in it would own their mistake, apologize for it, and attempt to make reasonable restitution and a good faith effort to prevent future instances, as per the water company, even in cases of mutual misconduct. What drives the response though is the violence inherent in blaming those who were hurt for getting hurt and trying to duck responsibility for causing harm- that social game afterwards is what really damages and undermines trust, and compounds the issue for other people hurt in the same way based on the expectation that they will be mistreated in the same way that they've seen other injured parties be mistreated.

If the guy with the water bottle had the expectation that the water company would have tried to sue him for defamation if he reported or returned the bottle with a fly in it, and perhaps even black listed him with other stores and companies that he needed to do business with because of the fly, then his reaction to finding the fly would be pretty understandable, as his issue would not just be that he got a fly in his water, but the way his life would be destroyed by demonization for having that happen to him.

And the issue is that that's exactly what we do to peopel who've suffered from misconduct that violated their consent- what's even happened here in this thread where people have tried to recast the damage done as, as best, their own fault, if not active malice stemming from regret on their part. This is core to what the point of the more recent article that I posted was. That these violations do real damage to people- both men and women, and we need to take more responsibility for not only recognizing them and trying to avoid them, but also how our dismissive reactions to them contribute to the harm they do and encourage further acceptance of doing such harm to others.

At what point does someone's subjective reaction to an injury become so extreme, so outrageous, that a person, however guilty of the underlying cause, cannot be held responsible?
I'm not sure how it matters, because so long as the company admits that it made an error, apologizes, and takes future action to better ensure that such errors are prevented, we're already at the basically acceptable point that I'm talking about here, particularly where no legal claim has been filed. Should the issue be taken up in court, there are existing methods for figuring how just how the costs of the damage should be apportioned or if there is any criminal liability, but that's way out of context here.

The company didn't claim that he was at fault for the fly in the water because he was the one that bought the bottle. It admitted that the fly was its error, and hopefully attempted to rectify the error on reasonable terms. The arguments above amount to claiming that the man was at fault for buying a bottle of water with a fly in it, and that the shock it caused him was merely "regret" for making a poor choice of water bottles to buy.

But note, also, that we're talking about a level of damage seems like it's above and beyond what the average person might suffer given that they found a fly in a water bottle, but even that's an armchair analysis, not one informed by professional experience. On the other hand, the kind of PTSD in question from the consent related misconduct in the drunk/date rape scenario is exactly in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause, and similar damage exists in the completely sober scenarios posited in the two articles that have been referred to so far in this thread.

You will never adequately address human interaction if you remain obsessed with someone necessarily being at fault when a bad thing happens.
HEy, you can keep making completely false accusations, then step back and talk about respect too, and taht won't get us anywhere either.

We're not talking about any bad thing, we're talking about a specific bad thing, one where one person has hurt another, or two people have hurt each other, even if accidentally

There are plenty of situations where no one is at fault, but we're not talking about those situations and it's dishonest hand waving to point to those as if they were relevant.

Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.
Then stop injecting guilt into what I'm saying. If I want to talk about guilt I'll bring it up. The fact taht you may want me to be talking about guilt when I haven't brought it up doesn't mean that you should try to jam it in wherever you feel like you want to, then pretend you're addressing what I've actually said.

1.  I believe that being drunk yourself does not make one blameless for, or excuse, taking advantage of someone in a drunk state.
That is the point

2.  I believe that someone who regrets having had sex while drunk, having chosen to become drunk, is not automatically a victim.
Absolutely. That's also irrelevant because regret is not the same as the kind of trauma in question and it's dishonest to accuse someone that has suffered harm of acting badly because of regret.

3.  I believe that it is entirely plausible, possibly even most likely, that two drunk individuals engaging in sex together involves no exploitation, manipulation or act of harm.
Absolutely. Again, no one has contested this. It's also possible to drive home while drunk and not get into an accident. That might even happen the majority of times people do it. The issue at had is ths greatly increased risk over baseline that the safe scenario doesn't play out.

  In such a situation, any “harm” is likely better labeled remorse for one’s own actions.  That doesn’t make the harm any less real or serious, but it makes it exclusively the problem of the “harmed” individual.
This is where you cross over into minimizing, because remorse is not harm. Recasting remorse at harm is disrespectful of those that have been harmed, because you're actively denying their experience and, at best, inserting your own narrative in place of their own testimony of what they experienced. At words you're accusing them of duplicity and trying to do harm to the person that hurt them.

If you are suggesting all sex while under the influence should be is wrong, just say that.  I don’t agree, but your position would be clear. 
It's not necessarily wrong. It simply bears a much greater risk of doing harm, and one should both acknowledge taht risk and be prepared to react accordingly if harm is done, rather than attempting to blame the other person for the harm that they suffered. It's even possible that mutual harm can be done, in which case both parties should seek to rectify the situation rather than attempting to minimize and dismiss the hurt of the other by denying their experiences.

I would suggest we look at two people with heads down staring at their phones blundering right into each other on the side walk.  They share equal fault.
Equal fault? Sure. Equal harm? No necessarily. And it's actively disrespectful and compounds the harm to try to pretend that no harm was done just because they were equally at fault. They still did harm to each other and still should react in proportion to the harm done, not attempt to absolve themselves of their role in hurting the other person simply because the other person was also distracted.

Suddenly one shouts that the other walked into them and they are the victim.
No. Suddenly one shouts "I think I broke my arm"while the other begins to insist taht it's impossible that they have a broken arm any they're lying just to get attention and get the person not so badly injured in trouble. Despite the fact taht the more hurt person's arm is, indeed, broken. Now the person with the broken are may be okay with taking care of the injury on their own terms, but for the other person to use that as an excuse to lay the blame on the hurt person and refuse to even apologize for their role because it's possible that the injured person might have walked into a wall and suffered the same injury? That's very much what's been happening in the arguments above. "Well the victim really wasn't hurt, but if they were, then it's entirely their own fault for getting hurt" both assertions are not only wrong, but perniciously so.

  If the accused claims they were both at fault, it will reliably have little result to improve the situation for them or reduce sympathy towards the other person claiming to have been the victim. 
It's not the uncontested notion that both were at fault that's at issue, though. It's the attempt the one party to deny that harm was done and often then proceeded to put full responsibility for the harm on the other person who was hurt instead of sharing culpability and, at the bare minimum apologizing for their error.

How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case?
  Your use of “in this case” torpedoes this question before I even have a chance to answer it.  You have a VERY specific scenario in your mind.  You are asking me to apply my broad statement of one possible situation to the one in your mind.  You miss (intentionally or not) the whole point of my statement.
I though I was the one being overly broad in your complaint above? You can't have it both ways here- either take me at my word that I'm talking about a specific issue (violations of consent, specifically in regard to sexual activity) or that I'm talking in absolutes about everything. So far as I'm concerned the effect of being drunk on ones judgement is not really relevant here in as much as it's being put forward as an example of something that can affect one's ability to offer consent to sex. The fact that it might lead one to do other foolish or self-harmful things doesn't really have much bearing on the actual topic issue, and certainly doesn't obviate the harm that can arise from obtaining consent from someone in a compromised state.

If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.

how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue
The infantilizing part is assuming the harm done is caused by the other person because they are there without acknowledging the fact that the harm may be self inflicted. 
How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case? I mean there are things people can do to create self-doubt in their own capabilities, to be sure, but that's not the kind of harm hat's in question here, but rather very specifically the kind of harm that arises from others acting toward you in ways that one would not consent to if you were properly able to express it.

You seen to be suggesting taht you cannot both acknowledge taht you were responsible for being in a compromised situation and also acknowledge that someone else hurt you while you were in that situation. The two are not mutually exclusive; one does not negate the other. Making a bad call does not justify harm done to you even if you would have been better able to defend yourself if you hadn't made that call. Hurting someone is wrong regardless of whether that person has put them selves into a position where it's easy to hurt them; in fact being in that position makes it _more_ incumbent o others to be careful not to accidentally hurt them.

If you trip and fall while crossing the street, that doesn't make it okay for me to run you over;' just the opposite, it means that I need take care to stop and give you more time to get out of the way than you would have needed if you had kept your balance. If you were doing something- maybe reading FAcebook on your phone while you crossed the street, and that caused you to miss your footing and fall, that is definitely a mistake on your part, but even taht wouldn't absolve me from culpability if I did not make an effort to avoid hitting you.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9