Pickpocket spotted in action

Mxsmanic wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

I don't agree with this in principle.

In that case, you don't feel that people who drink and drive should be
held responsible for any accidents they cause?

FFS, it's not the same thing. Please try and persuade me why it would
be? Go on, I dare you.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

I don't agree with this in principle.

In that case, you don't feel that people who drink and drive should be
held responsible for any accidents they cause?


FFS, it's not the same thing.

If a woman becomes so drunk that she doesn't know what she is doing, she
really doesn't know if she has consented or not to sex, so she doesn't
really know if she was date-raped; only her alleged rapist knows for
sure. Should she be able to claim she was raped if she doesn't really
know what happened, and her alleged rapist says she said yes?

Similarly, if a person becomes so drunk that she kills someone when she
drives, should she be excused from killing the person based on the fact
that she can't remember whether she aimed at him or hit him by accident?

Ultimately, is a person not responsible for what he does in an impaired
state if he voluntarily put himself into that state?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Padraig Breathnach writes:

We have a cultural problem with alcohol.

But does culture merely track physiology in this case? Other ethnic
groups that seem to have problems with alcohol also seem to show a
possible intrinsic predisposition to alcohol intoxication and abuse.

The old prohibitions on giving alcohol to American aborigines are based
largely on this (and not necessarily on racism, as one might assume).
Europeans quickly noticed that many aborigines would drink alcohol to
excess, intoxicating themselves into a stupor at every opportunity, and
concluded that there might be some sort of predisposition to such abuse
among them, so they tried to prevent them from getting into such
situations and disturbing the peace. It now appears that there was some
solid basis for their conclusions. Even today, alcohol is still the
biggest problem on most aboriginal reservations in the U.S.

Drinking to a state of deep intoxication is apparently also routine in
Japan, although it sounds like they have social structures rigid enough
to contain it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

I don't agree with this in principle.

In that case, you don't feel that people who drink and drive should be
held responsible for any accidents they cause?


FFS, it's not the same thing.

If a woman becomes so drunk that she doesn't know what she is doing, she
really doesn't know if she has consented or not to sex, so she doesn't
really know if she was date-raped; only her alleged rapist knows for
sure. Should she be able to claim she was raped if she doesn't really
know what happened, and her alleged rapist says she said yes?

Similarly, if a person becomes so drunk that she kills someone when she
drives, should she be excused from killing the person based on the fact
that she can't remember whether she aimed at him or hit him by accident?

Ultimately, is a person not responsible for what he does in an impaired
state if he voluntarily put himself into that state?

No one is arguing that the claim of rape, when one is drunk, isn't a
difficult issue. In some cases, it wasn't rape, in others it was. If
you've ever been in a UK nightclub and seen reasonably cogent straight
men swarm around drunk women, you might get an impression of the
problem.

However, when a drunk person kills someone, they have killed someone.
_They_ have done something to someone else, and the fact they were drunk
or sober doesn't alter that. When someone is raped while drunk (and it
happens) something bad is done to _them_ while drunk. It is the other
way around. I'd hoped you would have gotten than point. Sadly, you lived
up to expectations.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Mxsmanic wrote:

If a woman becomes so drunk that she doesn't know what she is doing, she
really doesn't know if she has consented or not to sex, so she doesn't
really know if she was date-raped; only her alleged rapist knows for
sure. Should she be able to claim she was raped if she doesn't really
know what happened, and her alleged rapist says she said yes?

Similarly, if a person becomes so drunk that she kills someone when she
drives, should she be excused from killing the person based on the fact
that she can't remember whether she aimed at him or hit him by accident?

Ultimately, is a person not responsible for what he does in an impaired
state if he voluntarily put himself into that state?

Tough issues. Under Canadian law, a person who is intoxicated cannot give
consent. Considering the number of people who go to bars and clubs in order to
meet sexual partners, it makes it a little tough. For some reason the
"victim" is free to get drunk or stoned, have sex and then turn around and say
they were raped. The other party in the liaison does not have the option of
claiming they were too drunk (or stoned) to know they they were acting
improperly.

Heaven forbid that people be held accountable for their own actions. I could
go along with this if it was aimed only at involuntary intoxication, cases
where drinks were laced. But when a person goes out and gets loaded they
should be expected to bear the consequences.

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

No one is arguing that the claim of rape, when one is drunk, isn't a
difficult issue. In some cases, it wasn't rape, in others it was.

And how does one determine whether it was or it wasn't?

If you've ever been in a UK nightclub and seen reasonably cogent straight
men swarm around drunk women, you might get an impression of the
problem.

Do they rape the women in the nightclub?

However, when a drunk person kills someone, they have killed someone.
_They_ have done something to someone else, and the fact they were drunk
or sober doesn't alter that. When someone is raped while drunk (and it
happens) something bad is done to _them_ while drunk. It is the other
way around. I'd hoped you would have gotten than point. Sadly, you lived
up to expectations.

How do you know whether a person was raped when she was drunk, if she
doesn't remember whether she consented to the sex or not?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

No one is arguing that the claim of rape, when one is drunk, isn't a
difficult issue. In some cases, it wasn't rape, in others it was.

And how does one determine whether it was or it wasn't?

That isn't the issue.

If you've ever been in a UK nightclub and seen reasonably cogent straight
men swarm around drunk women, you might get an impression of the
problem.

Do they rape the women in the nightclub?

Sometimes. What difference does that make?

However, when a drunk person kills someone, they have killed someone.
_They_ have done something to someone else, and the fact they were drunk
or sober doesn't alter that. When someone is raped while drunk (and it
happens) something bad is done to _them_ while drunk. It is the other
way around. I'd hoped you would have gotten than point. Sadly, you lived
up to expectations.

How do you know whether a person was raped when she was drunk, if she
doesn't remember whether she consented to the sex or not?

I don't, but it does happen, and in a few cases it can satisfy the
courts. It's quite different from the issue of drunk-driving.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Dave Smith writes:

Tough issues. Under Canadian law, a person who is intoxicated cannot give
consent.

OK. So if a drunk person brings in his critically injured son, and the
hospital needs his consent before it can treat the son, is the son
allowed to die under Canadian law? After all, a drunk person cannot
give the necessary consent.

For some reason the "victim" is free to get drunk or stoned, have
sex and then turn around and say they were raped.

If a man gets drunk and is persuaded to have sex with a sober woman
during his state of intoxication, did she rape him?

Heaven forbid that people be held accountable for their own actions. I could
go along with this if it was aimed only at involuntary intoxication, cases
where drinks were laced. But when a person goes out and gets loaded they
should be expected to bear the consequences.

I agree. That's why I never get drunk.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Padraig Breathnach writes:

We have a cultural problem with alcohol.

But does culture merely track physiology in this case?

It's possible, but I think there is insufficient evidence for one to
take a firm position.

Other ethnic
groups that seem to have problems with alcohol also seem to show a
possible intrinsic predisposition to alcohol intoxication and abuse.

The old prohibitions on giving alcohol to American aborigines are based
largely on this (and not necessarily on racism, as one might assume).
Europeans quickly noticed that many aborigines would drink alcohol to
excess, intoxicating themselves into a stupor at every opportunity, and
concluded that there might be some sort of predisposition to such abuse
among them, so they tried to prevent them from getting into such
situations and disturbing the peace. It now appears that there was some
solid basis for their conclusions. Even today, alcohol is still the
biggest problem on most aboriginal reservations in the U.S.

I think similar views are held about Australian aboriginals. But one
may still speculate that their problem (if problem it be) is cultural.
Both American aboriginals and Australian aboriginals can be seen as
dispossessed people. Why not just get ****ed (cisatlantic usage) in
order to forget the loss of the land?

Drinking to a state of deep intoxication is apparently also routine in
Japan, although it sounds like they have social structures rigid enough
to contain it.

We have participants here who know Japan better than I do. It is my
understanding that a degree of intoxication is quite socially
acceptable in Japan, that it's not considered embarrassing to be
unable to walk straight or speak without slurring.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED

Icono Clast wrote:

Dave Smith wrote:
"J. B. Books" wrote:
if more people resisted the criminals there'd be fewer criminals.

I guess that explains why the US is Number One. Highest number of homicides and
highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world.

Wait'll you hear about Florida's new law signed by the President's
brother

You'll be able to gun people down fro giving you a dirty look.