Current Events > Ex Vice-President Joe Biden calls men who don't stop sexual assaults 'cowards'

(+) Yeah! (+)

What if both the man and the woman are drunk?
---

I mean, he says bystanders in general should hold some responsibility
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."

What a condescending sexist fuck head. Fuck anyone who agrees with this pig too.

OpheliaAdenade posted...

Don't bother with Donkey. He's an awful person and a pervert. He has no respect for women because they don't want him.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, this might be the best post in the thread.
---

*shrugs*

You could always just not be a frat boy.
---

Good 'ol Joe.

-Gavirulax- posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You do realize millions of people have sex while drunk every day?

Nothing to do with what I posted - I also realize my dog is losing her hair - pointless statements don't make you smarter.

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."
-Gavirulax- posted...

He's not wrong.

jenningsnash313 posted...

He's not wrong. The only people I say protest this are the type of people that have a complex and need to be perceived as tough. Any secure man would step in.

---

Annihilated posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."

What a condescending sexist fuck head. Fuck anyone who agrees with this pig too.

"But but women are equal to despite all of the special quotas to keep them safe from the people are equal to."

This shit is garbage, it is straight up women supremacy and it is hilarious. If I was out of it and female wanted to feel on my johnson and I told to stop I cannot consent. Watch how quickly comical to her it would be. Women just want to be in control of everything while being shielded.

This is some Richard Pryor shit right here, CE.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You do realize millions of people have sex while drunk every day?

Nothing to do with what I posted - I also realize my dog is losing her hair - pointless statements don't make you smarter.

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."
-Gavirulax- posted...

He's not wrong.

jenningsnash313 posted...

He's not wrong. The only people I say protest this are the type of people that have a complex and need to be perceived as tough. Any secure man would step in.

Is your point that Biden wasn't exact enough in his statement about drunk sex?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."

He's not wrong. The only people I say protest this are the type of people that have a complex and need to be perceived as tough. Any secure man would step in.

Yw.

You do realize millions of people have sex while drunk every day?
---

So to you, all those millions of people are rapists?
---

That's such a lazy, wishy washy circuar argument though

"If you have sex with a drunk person then it's rape."

"I agree"

"So millions of people are rapists because they have sex when drunk?"

"I dunno, only if they can't consent."


So you agree with Biden and disagree with Biden.

How political of you. Saying absolutely nothing at all.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

There is a difference between buzzed/tipsy or even just drunk, and nearly-passed-out-cannot-consent-drunk.

and you'd be lying if you said you never saw some 120lb girl go from "buzzed" to falling over everything drunk in like 10 minutes.

so what is the line here? are men supposed to make girls blow into a machine before they can consent?

and just because people like me and you can make discretion, we're supposed to expect some really dumb motherfucker to be able to also?

I mean like I said it never has happened to me, but it is kinda concerning when the bar slut goes home with the fat guy and then after she gets shitted on for it was like "I was raped".

I mean if I get drunk and someone pissed me off and I go get a pistol and shoot someone, I'm still gonna get charged with murder. No one is gonna say I was too drunk to consent to murdering someone. So why are drunk people who fuck accountable for their own actions? And if they aren't, where exactly on the line of "drunk" is it? Driving limit?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

I don't give a fuck,

Clearly you do, you're just shit at arguing and have no real thoughts of you own

yem69420 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

There is a difference between buzzed/tipsy or even just drunk, and nearly-passed-out-cannot-consent-drunk.

and you'd be lying if you said you never saw some 120lb girl go from "buzzed" to falling over everything drunk in like 10 minutes.

so what is the line here? are men supposed to make girls blow into a machine before they can consent?

and just because people like me and you can make discretion, we're supposed to expect some really dumb motherfucker to be able to also?

I mean like I said it never has happened to me, but it is kinda concerning when the bar slut goes home with the fat guy and then after she gets shitted on for it was like "I was raped".

I mean if I get drunk and someone pissed me off and I go get a pistol and shoot someone, I'm still gonna get charged with murder. No one is gonna say I was too drunk to consent to murdering someone. So why are drunk people who fuck accountable for their own actions? And if they aren't, where exactly on the line of "drunk" is it? Driving limit?

I think the difference is sex takes 2 or more people. Driving and shooting is a one person action.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

That's such a lazy, wishy washy circuar argument though

it's not wishy washy or circular reasoning to recognize contextually that the statements "it's clear what the subtext is" and "it's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent" take more meaningful precedent over you expressly holding Biden to the more literal semantic argument of "if a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent" when obviously stages of drunkness, prior relationship experience, etc. are factors that would effect what was a purposefully simplified political statement in order to create discourse, and taking a literalness there on 'millions of people' only intentionally stifles that discourse for forum win points

he gave an example of a woman being "taken" upstairs rather than going of her volition in order to establish that context being willfully ignored here

yem69420 posted...

I mean if I get drunk and someone pissed me off and I go get a pistol and shoot someone, I'm still gonna get charged with murder. No one is gonna say I was too drunk to consent to murdering someone. So why are drunk people who fuck accountable for their own actions? And if they aren't, where exactly on the line of "drunk" is it? Driving limit?

the difference in this poorly drawn comparison is that the drunk person in this case would be the aggressor and obviously in control of their autonomy (to the point of thoughtfully and accurately shooting someone even), whereas the argument against sexually assualting an unconsented drunk person is that they lacked that autonomy altogether, they cannot be held accountable for an action if they did not perform it, the aware party did

also the obvious factor of that they didn't do something that is a crime regardless, such as murder, or really anything of negative consequence to the actually active party
---

prettyprincess posted...

it's not wishy washy or circular reasoning to recognize contextually that the statements "it's clear what the subtext is" and "it's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent" take more meaningful precedent over you expressly holding Biden to the more literal semantic argument of "if a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent"

Again this is wishy washy
"I agree with Biden"
"So you agree with Biden then?"
"Eh maybe in some certain cirucmstances but on the other hand maybe."

That's not having a stance at all.

"I agree that having sex is fine but rape is bad." is a non-statement when the dicussion is about consent

prettyprincess posted...

the difference in this poorly drawn comparison is that the drunk person in this case would be the aggressor and obviously in control of their autonomy (to the point of thoughtfully and accurately shooting someone even), whereas the argument against sexually assualting an unconsented drunk person is that they lacked that autonomy altogether, they cannot be held accountable for an action if they did not perform it, the aware party did

What if both (or more) participants are drunk? Which is often the case.

If you got drunk and woke up the next morning with another man with alcohol on his breath, "You were the aware party!" seems like an odd argument.
---

emblem boy posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

You do realize millions of people have sex while drunk every day?

Nothing to do with what I posted - I also realize my dog is losing her hair - pointless statements don't make you smarter.

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."
-Gavirulax- posted...

He's not wrong.

jenningsnash313 posted...

He's not wrong. The only people I say protest this are the type of people that have a complex and need to be perceived as tough. Any secure man would step in.

Is your point that Biden wasn't exact enough in his statement about drunk sex?

---

-Gavirulax- posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I agree that having sex is fine but rape is bad." is a non-statement when the dicussion is about consent

The "discussion" became a little too advanced for you since you seem to believe all these cases are exactly the same.

I haven't said what I believe. Which makes your post hilariously hypocritical.

The person you said you agreed with until I diciplined you said that. And you wishy-washy agreed then backedway from agreeing with him. Mitt Romney style.
---

DiesMortis posted...

jenningsnash313 posted...

He's not wrong. The only people I say protest this are the type of people that have a complex and need to be perceived as tough. Any secure man would step in.

For fucking real. Biden is absolutely correct.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

"Eh maybe in some certain cirucmstances but on the other hand maybe."

That's not having a stance at all.

no, it's developing an individual stance, rather than representing your own views through the strict black and white literalness of Biden's words only
that's the benefit of him saying what he did and a discourse spiraling out, that you can take the contextual meaning of his statements and begin to apply them to cases based on their own context and how closely they fit

not having a stance is ignoring the root issue to fight a semantic contradiction in a purposefully broad statement meant to raise awareness and spurn action

What if both (or more) participants are drunk? Which is often the case.

context exists, should be factored in, and controls response to these situations
this is why actual cases are investigated rather than immediately judged and why sweeping condemnation of hypotheticals isn't the basis of our legal system
---

silly stories like that just diminish efforts that could actually otherwise prove to help people in dangerous circumstances, and there's no reasonable thought process that would make you want that to happen

Biden's own gendering notwithstanding, the ultimate point is that if you see someone to the point of drunkenness that they are being assisted somewhere else, especially somewhere unknown, you should as a compassionate human also step in, offer assistance, and ensure their safety
are you obligated? no. should people control their intake so as not to sap away your own enjoyable time at a party or bar or wherever? yes. but these beliefs all lie beyond that this was largely just meant as a call to generate more consideration for others

the argument that in some situations your actions might be negligible, misplaced, or meaningless shouldn't dissuade you from being perceptive and caring

so why seek to be angry at a simply statement instead of taking the goal for what it is
---

Easy to say for a rich man that can afford to pay off the law to get out of trouble.
---

prettyprincess posted...

no, it's developing an individual stance, rather than representing your own views through the strict black and white literalness of Biden's words only

Which is a fancy way of saying "I disagree with Biden" yet you also claim to agree with Biden and can't square that circle

Wishy washy

Asherlee10 posted...

I'm with Princess. I don't understand why so many people in the topic want to twist up the basic message of what's being conveyed.

No one is twisting anything. People are stating opinions and then being questioned about them.

"I agree with Paul on 1 Corinthians 14:34/35"

"So you're pro silencing women in religion?"

"OMG why are you like listening to what I am saying and questioning instead of assuming I mean something else entirely."

"
"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."

"I agree with that."

Only really has one form of interpretation.


fenderbender321 posted...

What does Biden want me to do, specifically? I guess what I don't like is that it would be really shitty if people started getting all up in each other's faces because we're assuming they're going to rape somebody. That's what Biden wants us to do. But hey, he's old and stupid, so whatever.

Because it's something society can help fix but police boots on the ground and politicians cannot
---

I was wondering why everyone was arguing then I realized it's an unfair topic


And admirals posting random Islam bullshit.


Worst of the worst.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Which is a fancy way of saying "I disagree with Biden" yet you also claim to agree with Biden and can't square that circle

but I did by elaborating on the sentiment behind the semantics and giving my own view of these generalized situations, which in some places falls in line, and in other places, like the distinct gendering of it, doesn't
I also did this by breaking up his statement into the portions I did, words are not a singular grouping, agree/disagree is not a binary here, multiple things were expressed

you brevity doesn't obscure your hardline adherence to his first literal phrasing or the avoidance of the context I have drawn since then, which won't necessarily grant you the 'greatest understanding' victory

if something is wrong then at some point you'll have to expound on that to denounce my actual beliefs, rather than hope I'll fall back to the simplified statements

or will you give an easier "I disagree"?
---

Asherlee10 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

No one is twisting anything.

Except, they are. People like to act coy in order to argue. A simplistic example:

Person A: Please go take the garbage out

Person B: *takes garbage and leaves it outside of the door and doesn't put it in the trash bin*

Person A: Why didn't you put it in the bin when I asked you to take the garbage out?

Person B: You didn't say to specifically put it in the bin

But no one is saying "Go take out the garbage."

Someone is saying "People should always put the garbage in the trash bin. I hate people who don't put trash in trash bin, it's very important and we should always put trash in the trash bin!"

Followed by "I agree with that guy!" then being questioned when the put the trash outside the door and going "WELL context! I mean obviously it's fine when I don't use the trash bin even though I agree with the guy"

This isn't a zero sum game, people are saying they agree with the statement then getting angry when people assume they agree with the statement... That's utterly nutterly butterly
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Don't be coy. We all know what is being conveyed and that is when someone has drank so much they cannot properly consent.

the verbaige 'drunk' rather than 'incapacitated' is so off that the title IX director had to weigh in on the subject and noted that boards were creating gender discrimination by treating any intoxicated person as incapable of consenting

https://atixa.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ATIXA-Tip-of-the-Week-04_24_141.pdf

so we honestly don't know what's being conveyed a lot of the time, since the people in charge of enforcing the rules don't know what's being conveyed.

in the clearer case of 'incapacitated person' i of course agree with biden. the bystander effect is a terrible thing that enables a lot of criminals.

to go back to the garbage bin analogy, some people got expelled from university for putting the garbage in the wrong place because the panels don't know how to interpret the rules
---

Darkman124 posted...

in the clearer case of 'incapacitated person' i of course agree with biden.

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."


I disagree with you and Ash and James and the other guy that there is "room for interpretation and context" here

There's only really has one form of interpretation of that statement.

I feel you're using religious logic to defend a daffy statement because you like the guy/his "side" more than just being honest and saying you disagree with him and risking lending credance to a worldview you dislike.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Darkman124 posted...

in the clearer case of 'incapacitated person' i of course agree with biden.

"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."


I disagree with you and Ash and James and the other guy that there is "room for interpretation and context" here

There's only really has one form of interpretation of that statement.

I feel you're using religious logic to defend a daffy statement because you like the guy/his "side" more than just being honest and saying you disagree with him and risking lending credance to a worldview you dislike.

what i'm saying is if he meant 'incapacitated' i agree with him

i am saying nothing else and am actually on your side otherwise

in practice assuming people will interpret him in a way that isn't destructive led to people interpreting title IX directions in a destructive way

clarity is crucial on this subject because it drives policy and in this case would drive intervention

if people were intervening every time i carried my drunk wife from a party i would have two black eyes and a broken fist
---

Darkman124 posted...

i am saying nothing else and am actually on your side otherwise

I haven't stated a side dude. That's sort of my point.

Darkman124 posted...

what i'm saying is if he meant 'incapacitated' i agree with him

What I am saying is he was pretty clear. I don't think there is room in his statements for "Well if he actually meant something else."


"If a young woman is drunk, she cannot consent," he said. "She cannot consent, and it's rape. It's rape. It's rape. It's rape. I wanted them to see because it's clear what the subtext is. It's not OK. It's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent."

Is very clear cut unamigious language and statements. He said "It's rape" 4 times in a row. going "Well when he said drunk he actually meant unconcious" smacks of "The Bible doesn't hate gays" to me.
---

Darkman124 posted...

if people were intervening every time i carried my drunk wife from a party i would have two black eyes and a broken fist

Yes and then what would the people intervening do?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't think there is room in his statements for "Well if he actually meant something else."

i think there's always room for that, because the meaning of the quoted statement is "here is what he should have said" or "here is a way for him to improve his statement into something helpful"
---

A woman drives drunk and kills 3 people-shes a criminal

A woman gets drunk and has sex with a guy-she';s a victim

Wtf kinda logic is this? If a woman is drunk I have every right to have sex with her. I'm not going to wait for her to sober.

Darkman124 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I don't think there is room in his statements for "Well if he actually meant something else."

i think there's always room for that, because the meaning of the quoted statement is "here is what he should have said" or "here is a way for him to improve his statement into something helpful"

Oh please that's religious talk
---

the first sentence provides the path for interpretation based on the fact that there are observable stages of drunkenness

I believe the most important sentence to his purpose for expressing that is "it's not OK unless she can affirmatively consent," and that takes precedent over the rest
there are stages of drunkenness where someone can affirmatively consent, there are stages where they can't, there are cases of rape at universities/elsewhere that deserve justice, there have been cases that were unfounded and unfortunately innocent parties were punished

the vitriol of the phrasing exists to draw discourse to the subject and your literal reading of it diminishes the contextual validity for the cases where it can indeed help, but unlike darkman's legitimate point about clarity on this interpretable nature of 'drunk' to help stifle abuse of systematic punishment, you appear to merely find interest in semantic entrapment and outing a mispositing of position
---