Actually it was a pretty accurate representation of what you said, you just said some things that were plain dumb to say.
Good to see you’re not letting maturity get in the way of discourse.
I’m actually beginning to think you’re the only troll here. Are you really so dense that you don’t know that crimes are prosecuted that are not specifically defined as criminal acts to the letter of the law all the time? That so long as they can be justified under the blanket of some type of crime is all that’s relevant? So, again, contrary to your insistence, there need be no such specific definition under the rape statutes in order for it to be prosecuted as rape, so your request is superfluous. Do you understand that now? Are you even going to make an attempt?
I know you’re trying to save face after a dumbass post. Quit making it so hard on yourself.
So because the boys (or someone else) didn’t file a counter-complaint for rape it’s irrelevant? I’d say you need to re-read Baxter’s post, because clearly you don’t understand the point he was trying to make. But given your continued (and unjustified) belligerence, I’m guessing that won’t be forthcoming.
No, you clearly misrepresented my post, even cutting and pasting in order to misrepresent. Dishonest through and through.
Did you want to debate whether the meanings of words are objective or intersubjective? People use the phrase “the sniffles” to refer to a specific thing. I have never heard “the sniffles” refer to a fever. At least I backed up my claim of what “the sniffles” referred to.
You did no such thing.
Again with the trolling. Baxter said: “Apparently the law says touching someone who is “impaired” is rape.” I responded: “I would also like a source that says that touching someone while either of you are impaired is rape.” What the law says is absolutely relevant to the conversation. Furthermore, you have yet to point to which statutes are being used to justify “touching someone who is ‘impaired’ is rape”. It doesn’t have to be word for word, and I doubt it is. But seriously, if Baxter or you are going to claim that this is what the law says or if prosecutors are “interpretting” the law in this manner, then please cite either examples of such a case or the actual law being used.
Otherwise, quit trolling. You wrote a bad post, and now you are trying to weasel out of it.
lol k bud.
For a crime to exist, there has to be both a malefactor and a victim. If these boys, or even anyone on their behalf (rightly or wrongly), do not claim that there was a crime against them, then there was no crime. Of course, perhaps you are not a libertarian and you believe in victimless crimes, or in this case, perhaps you believe that someone can consent to rape.
To me, the “sniffles” means a runny nose. It might be accompanied by a fever or virus. But a runny nose in itself will be a distraction that will impair cognitive functioning.
Also, rape traditionally means an aggressor employing their genitals:
“genital contact, especially the insertion of the (censored)…”
I think the word “rape” is inflammatory and a red herring here. It sounds like most of the alleged assaults do not carry an STD or pregnancy risk like a rape would.
Finally, here is the Ohio law:
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907 “Rape… The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.”
What is substantially impaired? 1 beer? 10? 20? In my opinion, an otherwise competent person who drinks alcohol can give consent provided they are concious. I didn’t see all the evidence like the judge did (and apparently there was no jury?), but if the girl was unconcious at the times she was molested then I agree a crime has been committed. Also, I have never seen a drunk person be continuously unresponsive for 6 hours; I would assume there would be an extreme risk of coma or death at that point.
Distractions are not the same as cognitive impairment. Regardless, the sniffles are not a fever. If you want to talk about a fever causing delirium or whatever that might lead to cognitive impairment, that is fine by me. But a runny nose in and of itself does not effect the brain.
Note the word “especially”. Unless “especially” is dictionary-speak for “only”, then you are incorrect.
Perhaps it would be better. Perhaps not. Rape refers to a category of actions, though it is a smaller category than sexual assault.
Thank you for sourcing your claim. Unfortunately, your original claim was this:
This particular law says “substantially impaired”, which is considered different from your original claim under the law. I highly doubt you will find a law that is as broad as “impaired”, but perhaps you will find one.
Well you have pointed out a major flaw in centrally planned law. Obviously, under current law, you can be impaired to a great degree and still consent to various transactions, ranging from buying burgers to buying more beer to having sex. Apparently in Ohio, the state draws the line at substantially impaired as far as consenting to sex goes. I would not be surprised if this were standard throughout the USA.
We don’t know for sure what a free market in law would look like. In the case of a woman regretting having sex and accusing a man of raping her, she would be the one to take him to court, not the state. Obviously both parties know what happened (she has to know, because otherwise how could she regret it if she didn’t remember consenting?), so the matter could quite possibly just end there. If she wants to convince others that it was actually rape, then she needs to provide proof. Obviously there would be people who will believe her even without evidence, but there will also most likely be people supporting the man as well. So the matter would most likely end unless she can provide evidence that she was forced. Claiming that she was impaired would probably not fly in a free market in law, but we don’t know for sure.