So, what would your policy stance be? (1 Viewer)

[_dhj_]

I'm alarmed at the number of free-market fundamentalists on NCAP.

 

[Valeu]

Nah,

- Privatise everything, including all utilities, health, transport, education
- End government funding of any industries that can't support themselves

Have a free market economy to the greatest extent possible

Minimise government size, revenue and spending, eg. lower income tax, privatised education and health.

Become an autonomous province of the USA, invade latin american countries and install Pinochet-esque regimes

More troops into Iraq for as long as the Republicans deem necessary

There's no such thing as society, or autonomy or sovereignty, only money & power.

That's the general gist.

ha ha, that's very funny, having the opposite of everything I had.

How about privatisation under a gift criteria (the hume highway would be sold to macquarie bank for $1 million dollars, the royal national park for a couple of million maybe to that triguboff fellow), after all, what business has the public sector in owning anything? We can buy back what we owned anyway with our new dynamic global prosperity, etc, etc

The mouth whets at the flexibility and choice after being freed from the oppression of the minimum wage and those horrible progressive tax scales. A new groundbreaking era in humanity's progression would be sure to follow. Oh the freedom of choosing to submit to wage slavery or starve.

The current govt would be replaced with a corporate junta, and the board of News Ltd, BHP and Macquarie bank could take over the plunder, I mean government, of the country. I doubt we'd notice much difference.

 

[Valeu]

I'm alarmed at the number of free-market fundamentalists on NCAP.

+1

The dominance of orthodox economic doctrine from yr11 onwards has taken its toll.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'd have said it was the dominance from 1945 onwards that was kicking communism in the pants.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

As said elsewhere I think you are in the very nasty moral territory of saying that when Jane drinks she automatically consents to any and all sexual contact thereafter. What you are essentially saying is that drunk=consenting and there is no way that I would ever agree with you on that (and I hope that no reasonable person would).

As I said before your position is fundamentally weak for several reasons:
-Firstly the implicit assumption that girlswho get drunk want to get laid is a gross generalisation that assumes away any possibility that a girl just wants to have a few drinks with her friends. Or even wants to get plastered, it doesn't matter. The point is that when a girl decides to drink she does not also decide to get laid.
-Even if we were to accept your morally reprehensible position where do we draw the line?? When is a girl too drunk even for your drunk consent? Passed out? And what about when she wakes up with no memory of how she wound up naked in bed with you?

Whilst i'm sure that your position has been formed by your experiences going out clubbing/etc and scoring (or wanting too) with girls how about you look at some perspectives other than 'horny male' (whose morals are incidently scientifically proven to be lower when arroused), put yourself in the position of the girl who went out to hang out with friends and winds up naked in bed with no memory of getting there and next to a guy she finds repulsive. Or maybe put yourself in the position of her brother, father, boyfriend.

I didn't say that drunk = consent. I said that if Jane is a promiscuous drunk, she knows this prior to drinking, and does it anyway. She willingly puts herself in a situation where she's more likely to give consent than she ordinarily would without keeping friends around to stop her, and as such I think that the consent given is perfectly legitimate.

1. A person who knows they're a violent drunk goes out to get plastered with some mates, with no intent to start a brawl. Things occur, however, that lead to him being involved in a fight at a bar where he causes another man's skull to be fractured. Should this man not be held liable for assault?
2. So long as she is conscious and has not had a drink spiked, she can still give consent, just as the person above can still be held liable for his actions no matter how drunk he gets.

I resent the implication that I go out looking for the drunkest girl in a pub/club, or that I even make a habit of picking women up in such a venue. I'm saying that for there to be consistency you must either hold everyone liable for their actions when drunk, or noone, and to suggest the latter case is just preposterous.

 

[_dhj_]

From a "moral" and policy perspective, society ought to take on some burden of responsibility for the occurrence of rapes brought about by intoxication. In theory it sounds fair to place the blame on the raped individual, but by shifting that blame to the perpetrator and third parties (such as liquor distributors) you get a better outcome. The incidence of rapes brought about by intoxication will remain the same (more are willing to intoxicate themselves, but less are willing to take advantage of intoxicated individuals), although it is more morally sound to place blame on someone who takes advantage of an intoxicated person than on the intoxicated person (because getting intoxicated per se is unambiguously not a crime). Shifting some responsibility onto the third party - a liquor distributor - is morally sound given that they profit from intoxication, and that they are in a situation to improve safety standards for alcohol consumption.

 

[loquasagacious]

I didn't say that drunk = consent. I said that if Jane is a promiscuous drunk, she knows this prior to drinking, and does it anyway.

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that drunk = consent. You are in effect saying that drunk consent is equal to consent, that no matter how plastered or suggestible someone has become they can consent. Morally this is extremely rocky terrain.

Out of interest how did Jane 'discover' she was more promiscuous when drunk? Are you saying that she was raped the first time but it wasn't rape afterwards because she still choose to go out and drink?

Furthermore your point obviously only applies to someone who is promiscuous when drunk and knows this. But how does Bill who is chatting up drunk Jane know whether she knows she is a promiscuous drunk? What you are saying is that Bill should assume that Jane knows and thus that there is nothing wrong with Bill taking advantage of Jane. I would have said it would be ethical for Bill to assume that Jane does not know.

She willingly puts herself in a situation where she's more likely to give consent than she ordinarily would without keeping friends around to stop her, and as such I think that the consent given is perfectly legitimate.

So Jane's friends can withdraw consent for Jane then? Doesn't that mean that they can also give it (passively)? It seems a short bow to draw then that Jane's friends could be legally held responsible when Jane is raped by Bill.

1. A person who knows they're a violent drunk goes out to get plastered with some mates, with no intent to start a brawl. Things occur, however, that lead to him being involved in a fight at a bar where he causes another man's skull to be fractured. Should this man not be held liable for assault?
2. So long as she is conscious and has not had a drink spiked, she can still give consent, just as the person above can still be held liable for his actions no matter how drunk he gets.

An odd comparison but one which incidently favours my argument. Firstly an offence comitted when drunk is typically treated more leniently than one when sober eg manslaughter rather than murder, in the US 'involuntary homicide' etc.

Secondly the important thing is that when our brawler (lets call him Jim) is charged with assualt his frame of mind, intent, sobrietry, history, criminal record, circumstances, etc will all be considered at his trial. And given that you suggest a history of drunken violence he will likely be found quilty of assualt.

Doesn't Jane deserve the same consideration though? Shouldn't the rape trial of Bill consider whether Jane consented, to what extent she was capable of consenting, what Bill's intent and knowledge was? Certainly Bill has not commited a crime as severe as the stereotyped aggravated rape that doesn't mean he did not commit any crime. This is why we have a legal system that allows judicial discretion and this is why mandatory sentencing is a crock.

I resent the implication that I go out looking for the drunkest girl in a pub/club, or that I even make a habit of picking women up in such a venue. I'm saying that for there to be consistency you must either hold everyone liable for their actions when drunk, or noone, and to suggest the latter case is just preposterous.

I resent that there are guys who do go out looking for the drunkest girl in the pub/club. I'm sayng that the law is already consistent in holding that there is variations and allowing a case by case judgement, I think it is preposterous to suggest that there exists one simple definition, it is as ridiculous for you to suggest that all drunk sex is ok as it would be for me to say it is all not ok - which is why I'm not. I'm saying that sometimes its ok and sometimes its not and we have to consider this on a case to case basis. Both as a society and as individuals.

As individuals we must pause and ask ourselves if Jane can consent to our advances, we must think with more than just our dicks and actually consider the morals of the situation. And as society we must punish the individuals who overstep the mark. And given the appaling low conviction rate for rape we are already failing at this, and you suggest we should declare a free-for-all.

 

[HotShot]

As individuals we must pause and ask ourselves if Jane can consent to our advances, we must think with more than just our dicks and actually consider the morals of the situation. And as society we must punish the individuals who overstep the mark. And given the appaling low conviction rate for rape we are already failing at this, and you suggest we should declare a free-for-all.

And as individuals we must think - is it a wise idea to get drunk in room full of men? who are drinking as well

Its all common sense really.

Do you walk across a broken bridge? with no safety precautions. REgardless of whose fault the broken bridge? What happens will affect you the most, your the one who will be injured or killed.

Do you walk barefoot on the road? - with broken bottles here and there is it wise?

In a similar manner - is it wise to get drunk? You maybe raped - but who gets affect the most? you do, so isnt it up to to be as safe as possible. I am not saying that rape acceptable or its not his fault etc.

Its just common sense. You can control how much you drink - noone else can.

The same can said to the raper - they know of the consequences of rape- thrown in jail - so why do it?

The way I see it is - that both should be punished, the victim for the negligence ( a lesser charge) and the raper for sexual assault.

 

[loquasagacious]

So now we should punish rape victims????

Welcome to Kazakstan, you raped - we cruush you.....

Honestly your post is about as offensive to both women and men as the 'uncovered meat' statement.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

There's a difference between people who get drunk knowing that they have a high likelyhood of violence and a woman who gets drunk knowing they may give out consent. The violent person does not require the wrongful actions of another for his forethoughts to come to fruition, the woman does.

And as individuals we must think - is it a wise idea to get drunk in room full of men? who are drinking as well

It is. As is it wise to think "Should I go down this dark alleyway?" but if you get mugged, that doesn't make it your fault.

If a man has sex with a woman while she is under the influence and it can be shown that he knew she wouldn't normally give consent (which is what alot of these situations are) then he should be found guilty of rape because that's exactly what it is.

The way I see it is - that both should be punished, the victim for the negligence ( a lesser charge) and the raper for sexual assault.

Why should victims be charged for acting in a way that is within their rights, only to be damaged by the actions of an unlawful person? Haven't they already been punished enough? Jesus christ you'd take a rape victim who took the wrong way home and punish her just after she's been raped? I can't help but think it'd be different If it was you.

 

[Capitalist Scum]

There's a difference between people who get drunk knowing that they have a high likelyhood of violence and a woman who gets drunk knowing they may give out consent. The violent person does not require the wrongful actions of another for his forethoughts to come to fruition, the woman does.

What if she hits on the dude first? More to the point, even if there's another guy verbally abusing the dude, does that mean that the assault should not be charged?

It is. As is it wise to think "Should I go down this dark alleyway?" but if you get mugged, that doesn't make it your fault.

I see a pub where a whole bunch of seasoned arguers exist. Should I walk into this pub, because there's a risk they might talk me into handing my wallet over?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

What if she hits on the dude first?

After she drank?
If he knew that she normally would not hit on him, but for her intoxication, then it's rape.

As I said:

If a man has sex with a woman while she is under the influence and it can be shown that he knew she wouldn't normally give consent (which is what alot of these situations are) then he should be found guilty of rape because that's exactly what it is.

More to the point, even if there's another guy verbally abusing the dude, does that mean that the assault should not be charged?

No but it should be a mitigating factor in the case, which it would be.

I see a pub where a whole bunch of seasoned arguers exist. Should I walk into this pub, because there's a risk they might talk me into handing my wallet over?

I don't get this question.

 

[HotShot]

There's a difference between people who get drunk knowing that they have a high likelyhood of violence and a woman who gets drunk knowing they may give out consent. The violent person does not require the wrongful actions of another for his forethoughts to come to fruition, the woman does.



It is. As is it wise to think "Should I go down this dark alleyway?" but if you get mugged, that doesn't make it your fault.

Hang on but who walked down the alley? It may not be your fault - but it is a risk. You can say a load of crap about rights, but the fact is who gets affected the most when you are mugged? The victim. The whole point of the inciting some of kind penalty towards the victim is to discourage them from taking that risk.

Its bit like these no-smoking zones. Everyone has the right to smoke wherever they want. They bring in these laws- to discourage people from smoking.
People could smoke wherever they wanted basically in the past.

If a man has sex with a woman while she is under the influence and it can be shown that he knew she wouldn't normally give consent (which is what alot of these situations are) then he should be found guilty of rape because that's exactly what it is.

Just wandering - what happens if the man did not the women was drunk? Is it still rape? After all the man did not know she was under the influence of the alcholol.

Secondly - who gave consent in the first place? the women whether she was under the influence of alcholol or not I think is irrelevant. She has the right to drink alcolhol but she doesnt have the right to give false impressions.

She controls - what she drinks - I cant tell someone else to drink alcohol. Everyone knows if you drink too much you get drunk. She puts herself in that situation and expects everything to be alrite. Its bit like 2-3 bottles of poison in a hospital and expect the doctor to save you.

Why should victims be charged for acting in a way that is within their rights, only to be damaged by the actions of an unlawful person? Haven't they already been punished enough? Jesus christ you'd take a rape victim who took the wrong way home and punish her just after she's been raped? I can't help but think it'd be different If it was you.

The purpose of penalties is to discourage people from doing certain things. I have a whole of rights - it doesnt mean I need to endanger myself and others just because I can execute those rights. Thats why there are penalities. I have every right to travel at 100km/h, but there are penalties to discourage that.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The whole point of the inciting some of kind penalty towards the victim is to discourage them from taking that risk.

Its bit like these no-smoking zones. Everyone has the right to smoke wherever they want. They bring in these laws- to discourage people from smoking.
People could smoke wherever they wanted basically in the past.[/quote]

No Hotshot, the purpose of the Non-Smoking zones is due to data on second-hand smoke.

Just wandering - what happens if the man did not the women was drunk? Is it still rape? After all the man did not know she was under the influence of the alcholol.

No, it's not rape.

Secondly - who gave consent in the first place? the women whether she was under the influence of alcholol or not I think is irrelevant. She has the right to drink alcolhol but she doesnt have the right to give false impressions.

It's not a matter of false impressions, imo it's a matter of whether the man knew that she would not have given such impressions if it were not for her intoxication.

She controls - what she drinks - I cant tell someone else to drink alcohol. Everyone knows if you drink too much you get drunk. She puts herself in that situation and expects everything to be alrite. Its bit like 2-3 bottles of poison in a hospital and expect the doctor to save you.

Yes, she does put herself in the situation, just as almost everyone who's ever been hurt in any crime has put themselves in the situation.

This whole idea that women should bare some of the responsibility if they get drunk and then someone who knows they wouldn't fuck them if not for the alcohol takes advantage of them is some of the most bizarre thinking I've encountered on these forums.

If a guy takes advantage of her, hasn't she been punished ENOUGH?
If the guy takes advantage of her, isn't he a pathetic little shit that deserves the prison time?

 

[HotShot]

Yes, she does put herself in the situation, just as almost everyone who's ever been hurt in any crime has put themselves in the situation.

This whole idea that women should bare some of the responsibility if they get drunk and then someone who knows they wouldn't fuck them if not for the alcohol takes advantage of them is some of the most bizarre thinking I've encountered on these forums.

They should bare responsiblity because they are the ones that get affected. Its their life and they need to look after it, rather than relying on external forces. I am not saying that they shouldnt drink, but they should drink responsbiliy. And if they dont they are really taking a huge risk.

The idea behind smoke-free zone - is to implement something similar to these cases. That is prevent women from getting drunk and then being raped. Just preventing bar fights etc. There is data - to suggest that alcohol plays part in rapes.


The guys get punished - no one here is questions his punishment. He should be punished no question there

 

[BlackDragon]

I certainly like this new murray darling plan by the Howard government. It is extremely important that we revive the health our most important river system. I'll work up my complete environmental policy later.