Example of chick logic

[manuva]

An example of chicks getting emotional and throwing logic out the window during an argument:

http://www.clubvibes.com/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=1&topic_id=389832

I (funkjedi) argued against most of her bull****. See what she comes up with now.

 

[spider_007]

I understand this chicks frustrations. Imagine getting drunk with bunch of friends and waking up with one of them trying to stick his **** up your azz. Not nice. And then they guy walks free with out consequences....

The article is very short. In cases of murders that ware done by mentaly unstable people, they got some kind of treatment for it. This case might be looked at the same. I would think that the judge ordered somekind of treatment for the guy, he wold not just let him walk (my guess).......

In case of both people something happened that they could not control. They ware both sleeping, and neather of them could prevent what is happening untill they wake up....bottom line.

The article is brief, and it wold be pointless and ignorant to theorize and jump to conclusions about why/haw it happened with out more facts.

 

[SAYNO]

I'm glad the guy got off. Stupid biitch's should learn to be more careful.

Live by the sword die by the sword!



Sayno'

 

[Nocturnal]

You can only be held responsible for consciously violating the rights of others. If you don't do it consciously, then the choice is not left up to you and it is simply a matter of unfortunate circumstances. But did he act completely unconsciously?

Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let's assume that he had this condition. He knew he had this condition, he was aware that he had done it at least four times already. He knew that it was possible for it to happen again.

If he was sleeping on the couch before the woman joined him, I would not hold him at fault, because under the circumstances he did not go to sleep knowing that there was someone next to him he could be putting at risk. But if he was aware that he was sleeping next to her, then he made the conscious choice to put another person's rights at risk.

"But he was drunk," you might say, "he was not in control of his actions." By chosing to get drunk in the first place, he chose to assume responsibility for the consequences, and he knew that a possible consequence could be repeating the things he had done in the past unconsciously.

He was at fault.

 

[Socialreject]

So the guy can never again in his life get sh1tfaced simply because he has a condition that makes him to the wild thing in his sleep?!

How was he supposed to know that the woman would go home with him afterwards? There is no way he could have known something like that. And by the time she suggested to go to his place he may have already been to sh1tfaced to think about his condition.

Now if you know that you get violent and abusive when you get drunk THEN you carry resposibility, because you know it's a surefire result of getting drunk. Hence, if you get drunk anyways, you had previous and consious knowledge of what would be the result of you getting drunk...

For all we know this guy had a fun night at the club planned, to then go home and sleep off his hangover BY HIMSELF. Somehow the chick ended up next to him...

That condition btw, is 100% a real condition and more people have it than you'd guess. A couple i know BOTH have it and frequently wake up in the middle of the night screwing eachothers brains out.

So yeah, it happens. Shame that it did but it's noones fault. You want to talk about the resposibility of getting drunk? The woman was as drunk as the guy so if it's anyones fault it's both their fault. She couldn't know about his condition, and he couldn't know she would end up at his appartment. So you tell me who is to blame here?!

So yah, i'm with manuva on this one. The only reason this heisa is caused is emotional envolvement over plain logic. OMG NO, some guy stuck his weener into a chick without asking permission first, nomatter if he was aware of it or not, let's chop his balls off, tie a knot in his **** so he'll never spread his evil again. Pfff

If the woman was wronged, so was the guy. Maybe he didn't even WANT to sleep with her.. ever think of that? Maybe he feels just as bad about it she does! Why is it that when a woman and a man have sex without either party having consiously decided upon having sex that it's always the guy who is the one who lead HER on and who raped HER?

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by Socialreject
So the guy can never again in his life get sh1tfaced simply because he has a condition that makes him to the wild thing in his sleep?!

How was he supposed to know that the woman would go home with him afterwards? There is no way he could have known something like that. And by the time she suggested to go to his place he may have already been to sh1tfaced to think about his condition.

Now if you know that you get violent and abusive when you get drunk THEN you carry resposibility, because you know it's a surefire result of getting drunk. Hence, if you get drunk anyways, you had previous and consious knowledge of what would be the result of you getting drunk...

For all we know this guy had a fun night at the club planned, to then go home and sleep off his hangover BY HIMSELF. Somehow the chick ended up next to him...

Being too drunk to make the right decision is absolutely no excuse for doing something stupid. It does not relieve you of responsibility for your actions.

When you drink, you make the conscious decision to take the risk of making stupid decisions, knowing that you will have to face the consequences if anything happens. You are just as responsible for your actions as if you had been sober.

Originally posted by Socialreject

That condition btw, is 100% a real condition and more people have it than you'd guess. A couple i know BOTH have it and frequently wake up in the middle of the night screwing eachothers brains out.

Then he should have known ahead of time that bad things might happen if he's not careful, and he is responsible for making sure they don't.

Originally posted by Socialreject
So yeah, it happens. Shame that it did but it's noones fault. You want to talk about the resposibility of getting drunk? The woman was as drunk as the guy so if it's anyones fault it's both their fault. She couldn't know about his condition, and he couldn't know she would end up at his appartment. So you tell me who is to blame here?!

The article never says that he brought her back to his place, so although that may be likely, you can't just make that assumption.

Yes she made a dumb decision, but that doesn't make her responsible for what happened. If someone pulls a gun on me and I kick him in the leg, that is a dumb decision, but he is the one that would be immoral by shooting me. If she was not clearly telling him that she wanted to have sex with him (including non-verbal cues), then he had no right to force it, even if he did so in his sleep (I have explained why already).

If he does have the disorder, then obviously neither of them consciously initiated intercourse so obviously there were no hints that she was up for it, verbal or non-verbal, meaning he was in no position to have sex with her.

Originally posted by Socialreject
If the woman was wronged, so was the guy. Maybe he didn't even WANT to sleep with her.. ever think of that? Maybe he feels just as bad about it she does! Why is it that when a woman and a man have sex without either party having consiously decided upon having sex that it's always the guy who is the one who lead HER on and who raped HER?

In this case he DID rape her. He initiated it, she did not. Maybe she led him on, but unless he knew for certain that she wanted sex, he had no right to initiate it.

 

[Socialreject]

So then according to your logic, the final ruling of the court should have been that he gets charged for being drunk...

Since that in effect was his only conscious crime. Or do you have any doubts that according to the law one can only commit a crime when fully conscious? Ever heard of temporary insanity? Maybe that's not an excuse either? Since you know, you can predict that putting yourself in an overly stressful/emotional situation 'might' just lead to you freaking out, losing control and doing something to someone in a moment of insanity... Same as getting sh1tfaced might lead you to do something out of character (like allowing a woman to sleep next to you for example).

I see your point, but to go so far as to charge the guy for rape because of that, i think, is just a bit over the edge. The point here is serving justice and not making someone, anyone, pay for the fact that a woman was raped.

BECAUSE, like i already said. That woman was also drunk, she also took responsibility for something stupid to happen when she started pouring down those drinks. So for the 'crime' of being reckless and stupid they are both guilty. For the crime of rape no one is. So to charge the guy for rape and make him go to jail is not justice but vengeance.

Your point of who the 'initiator' was is moot, since he didn't initiate, since he was not consciously aware that he initiated. If someone had put them both under hypnosis (which is a lot like sleep) and then told the guy to have sex with the woman, the initiator is not the guy, but the hypnotist. In this case the guy is not the initiator, his condition is. His condition is the aggressor and since the law has no way to apply correctional methods to a mental condition (other than mandatory treatment), he was acquitted. Twist it as you may, justice was served.

And that's exactly why the courts ruled as they did and no amount of screaming and moaning from emotionally pumped women's rights movements (lol) can chance that fact. The law is what it is, exactly for these kind of cases and i feel that in this case it has not failed in it's purpose.

 

[Socialreject]

Btw, your comparison with the gunman you kick in the leg is totally off. You're comparing apples with pears. The gunman is fully conscious and the point of provocation (you kicking him) has totally nothing to do with this case since nowhere is there any mention being made that she would have actually provoced him (sleeping over is NOT provocation). In fact she could not have provoced him since she was passed out/asleep herself and only woke up because someone was having sex with her.

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by Socialreject
So then according to your logic, the final ruling of the court should have been that he gets charged for being drunk...

No, he should be charged for rape, which his conscious choices led him to commit.

Originally posted by Socialreject
Your point of who the 'initiator' was is moot, since he didn't initiate, since he was not consciously aware that he initiated. If someone had put them both under hypnosis (which is a lot like sleep) and then told the guy to have sex with the woman, the initiator is not the guy, but the hypnotist. In this case the guy is not the initiator, his condition is. His condition is the aggressor and since the law has no way to apply correctional methods to a mental condition (other than mandatory treatment), he was acquitted.

He knew about the condition. He knew about the risks associated with putting himself in a position where the condition could lead him to violate someone else's rights. As soon as he chose to take that risk, he assumed responsibility for the consequences. Any intercourse initiated by the condition became his responsibility, because he was the person who allowed it any control over his actions.

Originally posted by Socialreject
Btw, your comparison with the gunman you kick in the leg is totally off. You're comparing apples with pears. The gunman is fully conscious and the point of provocation (you kicking him) has totally nothing to do with this case since nowhere is there any mention being made that she would have actually provoced him (sleeping over is NOT provocation). In fact she could not have provoced him since she was passed out/asleep herself and only woke up because someone was having sex with her.

My point was exactly that -- she could not have provoked him so she cannot be held responsible.