BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Son Of Barbannoy

  
  

Page: 1 ... 2829303132(33)3435363738... 42

 
 
Tsuga
22:39 / 26.03.08
Jesus, Peter- I'm sure you're a nice enough guy, and maybe not dumb, but you're apparently quite obtuse (and let me say, it takes one to know one). You say:

The problem exists because you and others have attached a significance to it way beyond proportion assigned to it in the original, and subsequent arguments I have presented.

No, the problem exists because pretty much everyone here who's had anything to say attached a significance beyond the proportion you assigned to it. Can you understand that? You are alone in reiterating the importance of an element of the law that is probably the least important. If you don't think it's important, why have you worn your fingers repeating yourself?

You keep accusing people of not listening.

I think it's apparent what you think.

You might want to rethink your priorities.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
22:57 / 26.03.08
"If, through drink - or for any other reason - the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting, and subject to questions about the defendant's state of mind, if the intercourse takes place, this would be rape.

"However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape."

"We should perhaps underline that, as a matter of practical reality, capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious."

Well I think this is an excellent law. Because it defines clearly what consent is and what intoxication is! It doesn't throw a blanket over the problem and say "Consent cannot be said to have been lawfully obtained if at the time of that consent the victim was intoxicated". Anybody who knows anyhting about the formulation of law knows that this is a bad wording.

Now!!!!!

In late 2007 the law was reviewed and a decision was made to adopt a law based on the British model which included the wording with some minor adjustments.

And you know what?

Everybody is happy. And it seems to be working. And I'm happy. Except one thing.

It still needs to go one step further.

It still allows consideration of the defendants intoxication at the time of the offence. There is work under way to rectify this.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:56 / 26.03.08
One question - where are you getting Consent cannot be said to have been lawfully obtained if at the time of that consent the victim was intoxicated from? Is that from the text of the proposed amendment?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:39 / 27.03.08
Especially since the Hon. Helen Westwood said at the time, discussing the bill:

The Bar Association claims, firstly, that the new sexual assault law will criminalise consensual sexual intercourse if the parties were drunk. The bill does not do that. The current state of sexual assault law, which has been well settled for many years, is that if someone has become so intoxicated that he or she does not have the capacity to say yes or no to sex, no consent can be given, and having sex with someone in those circumstances is rape.

That is quite different from the situation where people have something to drink, lose their inhibitions and have sex. The law recognises that just because people get drunk does not mean that they lose their capacity to make decisions and give, or refuse to give, their consent.

Further, this bill - the Crimes Amendment (Consent—Sexual Assault Offences) Bill 2007 - was passed by both houses - this being, as I understand it, the bill that the Bar Association protested in exactly the words you quoted in the Head Shop. In this bill, it was said:

The grounds on which it may be established that a person does not consent to sexual intercourse include:
(a) if the person has sexual intercourse while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug, or
(b) if the person has sexual intercourse because of intimidatory or coercive conduct, or other threat, that does not involve a threat of force, or
(c) if the person has sexual intercourse because of the abuse of
a position of authority or trust.


So, when you said The proposed bill was defeated in November 2007 but it goes to show how delicate an issue this really is.- what exactly did you mean? As far as my understanding of New South Wales law goes, which is not very far, being passed by the Council and Assembly, and assented by Parliament would mean the amendment would go through, although once the amendments it made to the Crime Act 1900 were made the act itself would be repealed -is that how it works? So, if we are talking about the same bill, I am confused, especially since in that bill the phrase "consent cannot be said to have been lawfully obtained if at the time of that consent the victim was intoxicated" does not occur.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
02:33 / 27.03.08
The proposed bill was defeated in it's initial form. As I said, the bill was amended and then passed through as law.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
02:35 / 27.03.08
I'll dig up the bits and pieces and get back to you.
 
 
HCE
07:26 / 27.03.08
Get one ignore function.
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
09:04 / 27.03.08
Can we just stop talking to this loser. He only wants to talk shit about rape with Haus anyway.
 
 
Papess
09:18 / 27.03.08
Gawd, that is annoying.

...if someone has become so intoxicated that he or she does not have the capacity to say yes or no to sex, no consent can be given, and having sex with someone in those circumstances is rape.

How does one f**king prove one was that intoxicated? Nice theory.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
07:45 / 29.03.08
Papess and brb,

Ignore away. I'd prefer not to have to respond to your simplistic rubbish anyway.

Papess,

Did you completely ignore the consent thread when I argue that intoxication should be a non-issue in rape cases?

Of course you didn't.

You'd rather come in here and throw stupid comments around.

If you actually had read the "Consent" thread you'd see that I am in support of making rape cases easier to prosecute.

ButI'd hate to get in the way of your prejudice.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
08:05 / 29.03.08
Natalia,

What is so stupid?

I'd say people who just jump on the bandwagon are pretty fucking stupid as well.

I should have known that this conversation was not one to have in Barbelith. The likes of you three losers don't actually have a level of understanding to participate or bring anything of value to the conversation. In fact, when pressed for a reason for your objection I'd guarantee you'd be unable to defne it. Other than throw around accusations of "sexism" without being able to prove those accusation with anything written.

If you're wondering why I am having conversations with certain people it is because they are actually making rational arguments.

So do me a favour. Ignore me. Clearly you don't have the mental capacity to keep pace.
 
 
Triplets
09:18 / 29.03.08
So do me a favour. Ignore me. Clearly you don't have the mental capacity to keep pace.

Troll. Ignore list.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
09:20 / 29.03.08
Fee fi fo fum.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
10:19 / 29.03.08
No, that's giants. Trolls go "fol-de-rol."
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
11:42 / 29.03.08
Sorry!

Fol-de-rol-de-bar-ba-nnoy
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:57 / 29.03.08
Sadly, that's about the most sensible thing you've said since you came aboard.
 
 
HCE
15:10 / 29.03.08
Troll kalla mik
tungl sjötrungnis,
auðsug jötuns,
élsólar böl,
vilsinn völu,
vörð náfjarðar,
hvélsvelg himins –
hvat's troll nema þat?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
19:14 / 29.03.08
No such thing as trolls?

Well, how do you explain all the DEAD UNICORNS???
 
 
Dead Megatron
20:48 / 29.03.08
Lord Voldermort?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:03 / 29.03.08
DON'T FUCKING SAY IT!!!

Jesus.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
22:42 / 29.03.08
Calm down, dude. It's not like he said "Candlejack" or someth
 
 
Liger Null
23:10 / 29.03.08
Or "The Bye-Bye Man."
 
 
Papess
05:26 / 30.03.08
Did you completely ignore the consent thread when I argue that intoxication should be a non-issue in rape cases?

But intoxication certainly is an issue with regards to consent.

Of course you didn't.
You'd rather come in here and throw stupid comments around.

Fuck you. I have been reading the Consent Thread before you added your stupid comments in there. You have a lot of nerve. This is an exceptionally personal issue for me, and the comment I made upthread has nothing at all to do with you! Exactly. It was not directed at you, not about you, it had nothing to do with you or your own opinions.

If you actually had read the "Consent" thread you'd see that I am in support of making rape cases easier to prosecute.

Good for you. You might want to consider the impact of even the suggestion of the theory: women-who-lie-about-rape, because that is just the kind of thing that a defence lawyer would use. Add alcohol to that, and a rape victim might as well just forget (pardon the pun) any hope of conviction.

Man walks into a bar. He asks a woman if he can buy her a drink. She accepts the drink, and then another, and another. She wakes up half naked in a motel room. She can't remember his name or his face but he left his shit-streaked underwear for a souvenir. She also has no money at all when she should have a couple hundred on her.

You know what runs through that woman's head? I do. She thinks that no one is going to believe her. She thinks it won't be considered rape because "she is just having an episode of the regrets" and she is trying to make herself feel better by crying rape. She wants to believe people still don't think this way, but she knows better - she reads message boards where the common opinion of women, especially drunk women and rape victims, is made perfectly clear.

Actually, prosecution is really the least of her problems, ATM. Worrying about whether she is pregnant or infected with herpes, or possibly HIV, is weighing much heavier on her mind. Oh yeah, and how is she going to get home?

There are so many reasons that society considers her not a credible witness to her own rape, that it is hardly worth the overwhelming trouble it would be to follow through and prosecute someone she cannot even name. Regrets? Yeah...I've had a few.

So, when you say I am simplistic, you have got a lot of fucking nerve to do so, Peter.

But I'd hate to get in the way of your prejudice.

Speaking of prejudice: You know what I find interesting? That you've chosen only to pick on the women who have repsonded to you.

The likes of you three losers don't actually have a level of understanding to participate or bring anything of value to the conversation.

3 women in fact.

Other than throw around accusations of "sexism" without being able to prove those accusation with anything written.

Now we definately have something. Am I pointing it out clear enough for you? If not, read on...

If you're wondering why I am having conversations with certain people it is because they are actually making rational arguments.

Oh yes! Thank goodness we have those rational men on Barbelith to make sensible arguments!

Sorry Barbelith, I really wanted to say that.
 
 
Anna de Logardiere
10:50 / 30.03.08
I should have known that this conversation was not one to have in Barbelith.

No a conversation that you can't have is not something to start here.

Peter you're the person who isn't listening, has failed to address responses to your words. You are new and the people arguing against you are happily still the status quo here. They have seen something ugly in your words, something that you can't even accept is there but that you have actually written. So until you can respond to them you take your willful ignorance and your bad attitude to anyone who isn't a caucasian male and GET THE FUCK OFF MY BARBELITH YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
11:46 / 30.03.08
yes, pete. if you're disappointed with what you've found here, then feel very free to move on.

if you, for some reason, must stay here, and can't accept that what we're saying here is valid, could you at least back way the fuck off here? I kind of don't like seeing these people get shouted at like this.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:45 / 30.03.08
Yes, fuck along now, there's a good fellow.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
13:47 / 30.03.08
But what if he's not inclined to do that, for whatever reason?

If Pete, or anyone else, decided to effectively destroy Barbelith because of perceived mistreatment, there's pretty much nothing anybody could do to stop them now.

The Father being absent, and the 'banhammer' defective.

Could we perhaps have a trial period wherein everyone measures their language a bit?

I'm proposing a couple of weeks without 'fucks', 'shits' and so on, unless they're about something particularly dreadful on telly. If you wouldn't say it in front of Mary Poppins, you shouldn't say it on Barbelith, would be the idea.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:55 / 30.03.08
If it eases your exit at all Peter, you can console yourself with the thought that you've completely turned me off the idea of organising an Australian Barbemeet when I'm out there next month.

Not because I don't want to meet Australian Barbeloids, but because of how much I don't want to meet you.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:57 / 30.03.08
I'm proposing a couple of weeks without 'fucks', 'shits' and so on, unless they're about something particularly dreadful on telly.

It's called the Torchwood Rule.
 
 
HCE
16:57 / 30.03.08
If you're wondering why I am having conversations with certain people it is because they are actually making rational arguments.

Ha! Yes, I'm sure Haus et al. are honored.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:03 / 30.03.08
Mainly, at this point, I'd like to know whether this whole argument has been about a proposed piece of legislation that never actually existed, and was never therefore defeated. Then perhaps I'd like a foot rub.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:38 / 30.03.08
Or maybe an assisted shower?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
18:13 / 30.03.08
Not because I don't want to meet Australian Barbeloids, but because of how much I don't want to meet you.

Toss a few tubes of piss onto the barbie, crack a couple of steaks and you'll be right, mate.
 
 
penitentvandal
19:58 / 30.03.08
Is it Dave Sim?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:10 / 30.03.08
Is it Dave Sim?

Dunno, but it's certainly aardvark.

Week, here, coat, TSCH!!! etc.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2829303132(33)3435363738... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply