"You're saying that Ted meant something other than what he wrote"
I'm saying that specifically his "the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent" is too vague, and it's very unlikely he meant that the inability to understand consent would automatically exclude someone from all responsibility. Note that the literal interpretation would not justify Valerie Aurora's description either.
"and you're justifying this via various suppositions that don't obviously follow from what he did write"
My view is justified by a lot more than just "various suppositions", including: - That a drunk enough person could freely rape anyone without legal consequences is ridiculous enough that it's unlikely he'd really mean to say that. - Interpreting it that way would make the logical structure of his post inconsistent. If he meant such a general principle, why would he only apply it to a case with both drunk? And other similar issues. - Interpreting it that way would conflict with his other views on alcohol use. Given his other views, it does not look plausible he'd say something like "you were drunk at the time, so it's not your fault".
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: 2012-11-09 02:27 am (UTC)I'm saying that specifically his "the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent" is too vague, and it's very unlikely he meant that the inability to understand consent would automatically exclude someone from all responsibility. Note that the literal interpretation would not justify Valerie Aurora's description either.
"and you're justifying this via various suppositions that don't obviously follow from what he did write"
My view is justified by a lot more than just "various suppositions", including:
- That a drunk enough person could freely rape anyone without legal consequences is ridiculous enough that it's unlikely he'd really mean to say that.
- Interpreting it that way would make the logical structure of his post inconsistent. If he meant such a general principle, why would he only apply it to a case with both drunk? And other similar issues.
- Interpreting it that way would conflict with his other views on alcohol use. Given his other views, it does not look plausible he'd say something like "you were drunk at the time, so it's not your fault".