|
>> Strawman : The two points you extrapolated from Fiona's comments are clearly of
>> your own creation. Really? And how did you interpret "We live in a unjust world and if either of
the two parties come off badly then they helped to bring the situation on
themselves". Sounded to me like Fiona was saying that the women bring it
on themselves. I don't accept that, and I think it's an appalling thing to say. >> The only disturbing morality exhibited in this whole debate
>> is that of putting purely sensual indulgences before Intelligence and then
>> bemoaning the consequences. People have a right to put sensual indulgences before intelligence. There are
risks in doing so, and people take those risks on themselves. However those
risks do not include having force initiated against them.
- Someone who goes skydiving takes an inherent risk. But if I go around and cut
their pull-strings then it's murder.
- A woman who gets drunk in a room full of strangers takes an inherent risk, but
anyone who has sex with her without her consent is a rapist.
- A man who picks up a drunken women and invites her home for sex takes an
inherent risk, but anyone who accuses him of rape is making a false accusation.
These people do not 'deserve' to face the consequences. They are victims of the
initiation of force. >> The law may be an ass but if so it seems to
>> perfectly reflect the cognitive abilities, in this regard, of those brought
>> before it. Wake Up! All the fine and pompous legislation about principles of 'informed consent' does
not mean that the outcomes of real world trials will be just. Wake up!
| 
