"If you believe that the number of false rape claims is larger than the actual number of false rape claims then you are saying that some of those actual victims are lying."
By this logic, if you believe that the number of false claims is smaller than the actual number of false rape claims then you are saying that some innocent people are lying and calling them rapists. So unless you get the number exactly correct you're being horribly offensive. This logic is obviously bullshit. And all the other reasons from my earlier post why your statement was dishonest still apply.
"He says that if you're too drunk to know that the other party can't provide consent, it can't be rape"
In the part you're referring to now, he's saying that's how the real law resolves the "two equally drunk people having sex, while too drunk to give informed consent" issue. In other words, that's answering the question "why does real law not define both as rapists, like the proposed flawed definition of rape would?". If you take the "rapist has to know" part out of context and apply it to other cases, you could interpret it as saying that you can do whatever you want without legal consequences as long as you're drunk enough, but it should be obvious that's not what he meant (especially given his attitude towards alcohol elsewhere in the mail). Nor does that interpretation match what Valerie Aurora claimed.
"ie, yes, Ted places blame on the victim"
Yes, in the sense that Ted is willing to criticize someone even if that someone is a victim. If you think fact alone is hugely significant I think it's your attitude that is ridiculous.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: My overall take on the discussion
Date: 2012-11-07 12:08 am (UTC)By this logic, if you believe that the number of false claims is smaller than the actual number of false rape claims then you are saying that some innocent people are lying and calling them rapists. So unless you get the number exactly correct you're being horribly offensive. This logic is obviously bullshit. And all the other reasons from my earlier post why your statement was dishonest still apply.
"He says that if you're too drunk to know that the other party can't provide consent, it can't be rape"
In the part you're referring to now, he's saying that's how the real law resolves the "two equally drunk people having sex, while too drunk to give informed consent" issue. In other words, that's answering the question "why does real law not define both as rapists, like the proposed flawed definition of rape would?". If you take the "rapist has to know" part out of context and apply it to other cases, you could interpret it as saying that you can do whatever you want without legal consequences as long as you're drunk enough, but it should be obvious that's not what he meant (especially given his attitude towards alcohol elsewhere in the mail). Nor does that interpretation match what Valerie Aurora claimed.
"ie, yes, Ted places blame on the victim"
Yes, in the sense that Ted is willing to criticize someone even if that someone is a victim. If you think fact alone is hugely significant I think it's your attitude that is ridiculous.