GRcade

[iup=3595082]Photek[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595078]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:To be honest mate if you can't tell not to strawberry float girls who look like they can't form memories then I'd suggest operating your nights out on some kind of buddy system.

'mate'

Anyway, I can tell but my point is that a girl can consent to sex and then not remember. She got in a taxi, and didnt remember, she got a pizza, and didnt remember, she walked to hotel room, forgot pizza and went back and got it and didnt remember but of course she can't obviously have sex with someone and then not remember, cos thats mentalism.

...Except the issue isn't that she can't remember having sex. The issue is that if she was so mentally impaired that she can't form memories then any consent she may or may not have given is invalid. This is why most reputable tattoo places won't draw on someone who is paralytic, or why banks won't arrange loans for people who can't understand the terms and conditions. 'Saying yes' and actually understanding the consequences of your actions and therefore being able to give meaningful consent are two different things and we, rightly, don't hold people accountable for 'consent' they were in no fit state to give. If people take advantage of meaningless consent then they are in the wrong.

[iup=3595085]<]:^D[/iup] wrote:I think picking up pizza is a bit different to being penetrated by two strangers

well when she was going into hotel room of her own free will I dont think she was going to watch the telly and talk about life now was it. I'm not defending the two creeps involved just stating a point.

To me, it's the same morally as statutory rape. An underage girl might give you her consent, but she can't actually give you consent because (the law at least) says she isn't capable. Morally, it's the same with someone who is heavily intoxicated. They might say "yes", or not object to having a dick in them, but their mind is altered with substances to the point where that consent isn't valid.

[iup=3595089]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595082]Photek[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595078]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:To be honest mate if you can't tell not to strawberry float girls who look like they can't form memories then I'd suggest operating your nights out on some kind of buddy system.

'mate'

Anyway, I can tell but my point is that a girl can consent to sex and then not remember. She got in a taxi, and didnt remember, she got a pizza, and didnt remember, she walked to hotel room, forgot pizza and went back and got it and didnt remember but of course she can't obviously have sex with someone and then not remember, cos thats mentalism.

...Except the issue isn't that she can't remember having sex. The issue is that if she was so mentally impaired that she can't form memories then any consent she may or may not have given is invalid. This is why most reputable tattoo places won't draw on someone who is paralytic, or why banks won't arrange loans for people who can't understand the terms and conditions. 'Saying yes' and actually understanding the consequences of your actions and therefore being able to give meaningful consent are two different things and we, rightly, don't hold people accountable for 'consent' they were in no fit state to give. If people take advantage of meaningless consent then they are in the wrong.

Your entire point and argument is based in nothing other than conjecture and bias. I could pick apart your whole post but I really can't be arsed as you'll never change your mind.

D:

[iup=3595094]Photek[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595089]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595082]Photek[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595078]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:To be honest mate if you can't tell not to strawberry float girls who look like they can't form memories then I'd suggest operating your nights out on some kind of buddy system.

'mate'

Anyway, I can tell but my point is that a girl can consent to sex and then not remember. She got in a taxi, and didnt remember, she got a pizza, and didnt remember, she walked to hotel room, forgot pizza and went back and got it and didnt remember but of course she can't obviously have sex with someone and then not remember, cos thats mentalism.

...Except the issue isn't that she can't remember having sex. The issue is that if she was so mentally impaired that she can't form memories then any consent she may or may not have given is invalid. This is why most reputable tattoo places won't draw on someone who is paralytic, or why banks won't arrange loans for people who can't understand the terms and conditions. 'Saying yes' and actually understanding the consequences of your actions and therefore being able to give meaningful consent are two different things and we, rightly, don't hold people accountable for 'consent' they were in no fit state to give. If people take advantage of meaningless consent then they are in the wrong.

You're entire point and argument is based in nothing other than conjecture and bias. I could pick apart your whole post but I really can't be arsed as you'll never change your mind.

Yea, alright.

[iup=3595090]Photek[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595085]<]:^D[/iup] wrote:I think picking up pizza is a bit different to being penetrated by two strangers

well when she was going into hotel room of her own free will I dont think she was going to watch the telly and talk about life now was it. I'm not defending the two creeps involved just stating a point.

Yes, but like I said...if she had been drinking loads and was not of a clear mind and was all "yeah ok" that doesn't mean she know what she's talking about. The guys were clearly of a more stable mind than her and potentially took advantage of that. To suggest because she could carry a pizza, she was in a clear mind is hilarious.

Alcohol and sex can be a dangerous combo, especially when the guy isn't as hammered as the girl and knows more what they are doing than the girl does.

She probably deserved it though. I bet she was wearing a short skirt, innit?

Saying the guys where clearly more stable frame of mind is conjecture, again. You wrongly suggested she was dragged half unconscious into the hotel room but now thats been disproven you've changed tack. Well done.

Hey, remember when it went to court and a jury heard both sides and agreed with her that she wasn't capable of giving consent and then sent the guy to prison for a crime with one of the lowest conviction rates around?

Because that happened.

[iup=3595101]Photek[/iup] wrote:Saying the guys where clearly more stable frame of mind is conjecture, again. You wrongly suggested she was dragged half unconscious into the hotel room but now thats been disproven you've changed tack. Well done.

It's not conjecture. The story that they've presented in defence (!) of Ched Evans suggests they knew exactly what they were doing and what was going on.

oh Skarjo.

Why did one of them get off then?

In the future...

"dad...something happened the other night. I went out drinking and had a lot. I don't really remember much, but I woke up and some guy I met had sex with me that night. I can't remember anything though, or even how I got there. I just have a vague recollection of carrying a pizza somewhere".

Photek: Did you say yes?

"I don't know, I don't know what happened"

Photek: Hmmm....ya probably said yes. Night sweetie x

I really have no idea why people are mentioning my 4 year old girl in this. It has no place in here so kindly strawberry float off Sandy.

[iup=3595104]Photek[/iup] wrote:oh Skarjo.

Why did one of them get off then?

Because there wasn't enough evidence against him?

Which surely proves that there was enough evidence to prove a case against the other guy beyond 'I can't remember'.

[iup=3595104]Photek[/iup] wrote:oh Skarjo.

Why did one of them get off then?

You understand she agreed to go back with the first guy earlier in the night and Ched Evans just turned up, let himself into the room and joined in much later?

[iup=3595106]Photek[/iup] wrote:I really have no idea why people are mentioning my 4 year old girl in this. It has no place in here so kindly strawberry float off Sandy.

Because I'm trying to understand whether you would actually care if this situation happened to a loved one. I just can't understand your thinking at all, sorry. It's quite scary. It's a horrible attitude to have and a an attitude that has allowed God knows how many men over the years to get away with gooseberry fool like this.

[iup=3595109]Tomous[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595104]Photek[/iup] wrote:oh Skarjo.

Why did one of them get off then?

You understand she agreed to go back with the first guy earlier in the night and Ched Evans just turned up, let himself into the room and joined in much later?

Yep, I do understand, but she cant remember having sex with either, so other lad is equally culpable according to Skarjo's agruments is he not?

Anyway, im out of here, twice my 4 year old girl has been referenced in a rape thread, well played guys, well played GR.

Extraordinary

[iup=3595105]SandyCoin[/iup] wrote:In the future...

"dad...something happened the other night. I went out drinking and had a lot. I don't really remember much, but I woke up and some guy I met had sex with me that night. I can't remember anything though, or even how I got there. I just have a vague recollection of carrying a pizza somewhere".

Photek: Did you say yes?

"I don't know, I don't know what happened"

Photek: Hmmm....ya probably said yes. Night sweetie x

I don't claim to have any extensive knowledge on the Ched Evans case, I've read in the media what everyone else has - but as soon as you try and use the personal example, you're making it a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective view at the facts. A case of this kind is obviously going to bring out subjective opinions and emotional responses - but the law's job is to look at the facts objectively to try and come to a conclusion. Choosing one side or the other because of subjective experiences/opinions is not the answer.

[iup=3595114]Mini E[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3595105]SandyCoin[/iup] wrote:In the future...

"dad...something happened the other night. I went out drinking and had a lot. I don't really remember much, but I woke up and some guy I met had sex with me that night. I can't remember anything though, or even how I got there. I just have a vague recollection of carrying a pizza somewhere".

Photek: Did you say yes?

"I don't know, I don't know what happened"

Photek: Hmmm....ya probably said yes. Night sweetie x

I don't claim to have any extensive knowledge on the Ched Evans case, I've read in the media what everyone else has - but as soon as you try and use the personal example, you're making it a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective view at the facts. A case of this kind is obviously going to bring out subjective opinions and emotional responses - but the law's job is to look at the facts objectively to try and come to a conclusion. Choosing one side or the other because of subjective experiences/opinions is not the answer.

I was more referring to him saying that memory and cosent are unrelated. I'll remove my post though. I was just trying to understand whether he'd actually care if what he said that was more or less fine, if it had happened to someone he loved would he feel the same.

(oops or someone else can)