Your interpretation is based on a single sentence out of Ted's mail, "Now, actually, the way the law works is that not only does the being raped be not able to give consent, but that the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent.". While this could be interpreted to imply absurd consequences, nowhere in the mail does Ted himself actually make such claims based on it. And the sentence occurs within the explanation of the symmetric "thought experiment" with Alice and Bob, so there's every reason to believe he did not mean the consequences such interpretation would have for other cases.
Your "everything you're then saying follows from that" is false. Obviously I've said a lot not related to this particular claim at all. And about this particular sentence, even if it was considered plausible to interpret it literally, that still would not justify Valerie Aurora's "rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough"; that's not an accurate representation of the sentence.
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 11:24 pm (UTC)Your "everything you're then saying follows from that" is false. Obviously I've said a lot not related to this particular claim at all. And about this particular sentence, even if it was considered plausible to interpret it literally, that still would not justify Valerie Aurora's "rape was impossible if both people were drunk enough"; that's not an accurate representation of the sentence.