We're having this conversation because you fail to comprehend the points and its magnitude.
Sooooo he goes to report it to the authorities and thus begins the uphill battle of who is lying and who is not. Once again, back and forth we go. Do you not see the failure even using your own point? The best you can argue is "both would have to fight to prove consent just as before the law". That's it... that's the only "supporting argument" you have for this law...
That's why I am calling this law just a gimmick. That , for me, there is no reason to be happy about this bill nor to get this worked up.
Don't really see your point here. You make a statement regarding how complex the actual issue as if it counters my statement of how myopic the law is. Just because the issue runs deep, doesn't mean the solution proposed isn't surface level.
Refer to the above.
This doesn't even make sense. You realize you're talking to a person that was stating his own reasons for not supporting the law, correct?
You realize I pointed out that this law itself is not changing anything in actual hearing of the case, correct?
This is what I mean with the above. You're pulling me into an argument I have nothing to do with. I was giving my thoughts about a particular subtopic. You can't make an argument that I'm looking at it at the wrong angles just because it's not apart of what you guys were arguing about. I didn't even read all that...
The problem was that introducing that sub topic itself was misguiding the issue of thread topic. When it's posted as the response to and in between another topic.
@Bold, yes I knew you were going to say that, but you actually managed to contradict this is in your own post. You said here:
No contradiction - see the thread title. This thread is using the bill to promote something else. Your subtopic is off topic if you want to separate it from the main argument and doesn't fit in. And that's what I had said in my first reply to you.
You acknowledge that I'm not forgetting that males can be victims as well. I covered more that one gender in my post, as you seem to have noticed.
Ira, what are you even talking about? What does this have to do with my argument?
I am saying that when you make statements like " you females" and go on implying we do not understand what's against our own interest you are just doing it wrong.
Sigh... round and round we go. He reports it. Girl denies it. What difference did the Yes means Yes law make?
Not a bit. and that's what I have been saying since the beginning. The law does little than serving the same old law in a different wording and people star jumping the gun about feminists.
I still have no idea what you're talking about. These arguments were probably meant for someone else.
See the thread title for the context.
Look at it implying what, Ira? To recognize what consent looks like or just stare at it with a dumb look? It's definitely defining consensual *** is.
Also, I see your highlighted answers. This is wasting my time because I'm having to explain elementary logic, and yes, I'm to blame for wasting my own time. You didn't even argue that those problems don't exist, your best argument was that it existed in the no means no as well. My points still stand...
Okay? I don't think you grasped my points of the yes means yes law very well.
I have nothing against your arguments. I am saying your point is off topic now as was Anorin's initially. You got in an unnecessarily detail over the issue of consent - a problem I already agreed to be controvercial.
You see... the best arguments you could possibly make for this law is "it describes what *** is in the first place". That basically shows how pointless it is, which is one of the points I addressed. It doesn't even matter if "yes" means some physically form of consent, since this law isn't going to be affecting the sure and confident, the pressured and intimidated is still likely to give consent according to those guidelines, clearing the other party of any wrongdoing. I'm sure pressured or intimidated sexual partners very often "kiss back" or some other form of sensual or sexual pleasure while still remaining unsure.
I don't know why but seeing how the administration/authorities work, their point was just to put the law in words in such a way that they seem to be doing something about increasing problem of rape on campus issue. I am not challenging your argument over consent. I am saying this is argued to death over such cases in every single case out there and only starting point of any case. They should check the validity of such claims when the case is registered.
It. Does. Not. Help. Victims.
It helps victims like the guy in that case in understanding what the hell happened and getting proper help even if he/she is confused. Better counseling to deal with such issues. The circumstances, the victims own role and actions in the process everything will be scrutinized just the same. Beyond that it's just a re-acknowledgment of the existence of the problem.
It's just a "too bad, you gave consent".
Again, you're confusing the issues with this new solution. The law is dumb and pointless if it is just going to be discarded in the countless amount of he said she said scenarios. Unless of course the law starts favoring sides
.
Nah - how can I be seeing it as a new solution when call it a gimmick and declaring it didn't change anything. I just don't see it as some big bad thing either because in my view it doesn't change it to worse either.
Question, why are you even asking me this? I just brought up points for this specific law.
Because this problem is not specific to this law and your brought this up.
Also, I thought there was mutual agreement between you and I not to discuss these kinds of topics with each other? This post contained a lot of feminism stuff that I didn't even talk about.
Whoa! I didn't think it was a feminist issue. Still don't. For me it's a law and order problem. Always will be. Define the crime - if problems arise fix it, by redefining or adding checks and balances to deal with misuse or improper handling.
I'm all too aware of the type of mentality you bring into these debates, and I know that I myself don't have the patience for such cunning and underhanded arguments.
You misunderstand me. Asking whether the law showed some adverse effect since it was signed in last September is underhanded argument? No. It means laying arising the problem bare so that one can decide whether it needs a check or not.
You realize that if the answer is yes it may support your point more strongly and may help in clarifying practical problem more clearly than assumptions we are making right now. Don't you? Anyway that was more directed at OP for putting this bill as a proof to feminist conspiracy.
It even seems you had some kind of behind-the-scene reason for quoting me. You should have started this with Anorien, who was the one that actually linked the article and even made some statements surrounding it, than the person who basically said "I agree with that article".
It made no sense to reply to me knowing our history over this topic.
You are seeing things. I pointed out to Anorin's post only initially.
jean grey said:
That article was very insightful indeed.
And yet of zero value to the ongoing argument over 'consent' and 'mens rea'. If male victims are being ignored the motion should be to educate the society about it better and train the law enforcement officers to deal with it in better way. How does ignoring "consent" and intention in a "crime" or diluting it for this specific crime or ranting at feminists help such male victims? or Is the argument that if one section of victims is not being taken seriously by some - throw all the victims in hell?
That was all my post in the context of OP's argument and Anorin's accusation of ignoring males in this case. You are taking it personally and negatively which was not my intention.
I meant to be conversational. And saying that we are arguing over it on cross purpose- just taking too many words in saying it. In the hind sight I guess you can claim lack of consent even when you returned my reply, when you could have said no and not engaged back instead of calling foul after the event. Kidding. Relax. Sorry if me replying seemed like a personal attack to you.
