Sea Salt Mine - here there be chimping over the lawsuit

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Zero Day Defense said:
I found something curious on the-- urk-- "Threadnaught":

(Context: they're talking about and around Nick's discussion of consent)

View attachment 844631

For context, here's the message he's self-quoting:

View attachment 844639

and here's the Texas statute he's "citing".

It kind of looks like the guy can't read despite being a professional reader of law, and practical critical thinker...

...either that, or he tried to delude someone into believing his intentionally shoddy interpretation of law because he's the lawyer.
Click to expand...

It kind of looks like he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

From RAINN, a survey of the law: https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Texas&group=9

844665


So all his bullshit about affirmative consent is wasted. Texas does not require it.

This isn't an accident, either. The Texas legislature last considered legislation to enact such a requirement in 2017, and chose not to do so: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/...affirmative-consent-to-prevent-sexual-assault

So this moron can say whatever he likes about the "vast majority of states" (and frankly his interpretation is wonky even under the affirmative consent regime), but this case isn't in "the vast majority of states." It's in fucking Texas, idiot.

And as for his "vast majority" bullshit, he's wrong on that, too.

Affirmative Consent Laws (Yes Means Yes) State by State | Affirmative Consent / Stopping Campus Sexual Assault.

Affirmative Consent laws state by state. As state colleges and legislatures enact yes means yes and affirmative consent policy - we'll track it here.
affirmativeconsent.com affirmativeconsent.com

844695


844697


So it is not only not vast, it isn't even half-vast.

This clown is wrong specifically about Texas, where the case is being heard, and not even his general claim is true.
 
Last edited:
AnOminous said:
It kind of looks like he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

From RAINN, a survey of the law: https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Texas&group=9

View attachment 844665

So all his bullshit about affirmative consent is wasted. Texas does not require it.

This isn't an accident, either. The Texas legislature last considered legislation to enact such a requirement in 2017, and chose not to do so: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/...affirmative-consent-to-prevent-sexual-assault

So this moron can say whatever he likes about the "vast majority of states" (and frankly his interpretation is wonky even under the affirmative consent regime), but this case isn't in "the vast majority of states." It's in fucking Texas, idiot.
Click to expand...

I've been following this guy, and he managed to screw up in citing New York as an example instead, and then on top of that cited Colorado NOT as an example of his point (because he had to immediately acknowledge that the statute stipulates that the actor has to KNOW that consent was not given), but as an example of "just to play it safe...".

It's like he can't read, or something.

AnOminous said:
And as for his "vast majority" bullshit, he's wrong on that, too.

Affirmative Consent Laws (Yes Means Yes) State by State | Affirmative Consent / Stopping Campus Sexual Assault.

Affirmative Consent laws state by state. As state colleges and legislatures enact yes means yes and affirmative consent policy - we'll track it here.
affirmativeconsent.com affirmativeconsent.com

View attachment 844695

View attachment 844697

So it is not only not vast, it isn't even half-vast.

This clown is wrong specifically about Texas, where the case is being heard, and not even his general claim is true.
Click to expand...

Be careful with that one-- it highlights New York as dark green, yet...

844712

844717
 
Last edited:
this affirmative consent shit is fucking dumb. the socially inept arent going to say "uhhh, uhhhhh. can you sign this legal document or make a voice recording of you giving me affirmative consent to continue trying to get sex? dont wanna be a rapist", they are going to keep going until stopped. fucking people want equal rights for men and women, but want to take all agency away from women because they dont want to say no? its fucking stupid.

if you want to keep the heat up and do the sex thing, keep going. if you dont, say no. IF IT CONTINUES AFTER NO, THAT'S RAPE AND CLEARLY SAYING NO WASNT GONNA STOP IT EITHER WAY.
 
Zero Day Defense said:
Be careful with that one-- it highlights New York as dark green, yet...
Click to expand...

I deliberately picked a source I thought was biased in favor of the conclusion, even though, as you point out, it overstates its claims. Even this biased source doesn't support the "vast majority" bullshit. And for that matter, doesn't in fact require express consent, it requires consent be "expressly or impliedly[.]"
 
Dumpster dived waifu said:
this affirmative consent shit is fucking dumb. the socially inept arent going to say "uhhh, uhhhhh. can you sign this legal document or make a voice recording of you giving me affirmative consent to continue trying to get sex? dont wanna be a rapist", they are going to keep going until stopped. fucking people want equal rights for men and women, but want to take all agency away from women because they dont want to say no? its fucking stupid.

if you want to keep the heat up and do the sex thing, keep going. if you dont, say no. IF IT CONTINUES AFTER NO, THAT'S RAPE AND CLEARLY SAYING NO WASNT GONNA STOP IT EITHER WAY.
Click to expand...

It's also silly in that the whole concept is, at it's core, based on the idea that having sex is super serious business that can only be handled seriously. Pretty much anyone who's been in a long-term relationship has had those moments where their partner is interested and they aren't necessarily opposed, but just don't really care too much either way. Like, they wanna get it on and you're just like, "well, there isn't anything really good on TV anyway...." Obviously, if you actively don't want to do it and they make you, that's one thing, but a lot of these "affirmative consent" things tend to equate apathy with lack of consent. It's a very binary way of thinking, where the only options are 100% enthusiastically want to have sex, or it's rape.
 
I can't imagine said:
It's also silly in that the whole concept is, at it's core, based on the idea that having sex is super serious business that can only be handled seriously. Pretty much anyone who's been in a long-term relationship has had those moments where their partner is interested and they aren't necessarily opposed, but just don't really care too much either way. Like, they wanna get it on and you're just like, "well, there isn't anything really good on TV anyway...." Obviously, if you actively don't want to do it and they make you, that's one thing, but a lot of these "affirmative consent" things tend to equate apathy with lack of consent. It's a very binary way of thinking, where the only options are 100% enthusiastically want to have sex, or it's rape.
Click to expand...

And it has to be enthusiastic, too-- you can't just be like "well, ooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaay...", or even "well, that's fine", you gotta be all "i want to jump your bones so hard your pelvis turns into quarks and all my ova get fertilized".
 
Last edited:
Zero Day Defense said:
Be careful with that one-- it highlights New York as dark green, yet...

844712

844717
Click to expand...
A plain reading of those sections suggests that they're describing circumstances of forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent and the victim also does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce or consent. It's not "or," it's "in addition to." Am I just reading that incorrectly?
 
Kosher Salt said:
Am I just reading that incorrectly?
Click to expand...
My reading is that C covers cases where the victim is incapable of consent (unconscious, drugged, bound and gagged...) and cannot give neither explicit ("no") nor implicit consent (pushing, trying to move away, saying he/she go needs to go somewhere else, etc).
 
Last edited:
Wake me up said:
My reading is that C covers cases where the victim is incapable of consent (unconscious, drugged, bound and gagged...) and cannot give neither explicit ("no") nor implicit consent (pushing, trying to move away, saying he/she go somewhere else, etc).
Click to expand...
Yeah, if anything I interpret C to be a BDSM exception. A person can consent, either expressly or impliedly, to being pinned down/tied up/choked during a sexual encounter, or to having someone else do something sexual to them while they're incapacitated.
 
Kosher Salt said:
I interpret C to be a BDSM exception
Click to expand...
I think it's much simpler than that: it makes clear a person cannot consent if she's unconscious or otherwise been prohibited from consenting - but then again I only looked directly at that one quote since you asked and have zero idea of its context.
 
Wake me up said:
I think it's much simpler than that: it makes clear a person cannot consent if she's unconscious or otherwise been prohibited from consenting - but then again I only looked directly at that one quote since you asked and have zero idea of its context.
Click to expand...
It says that it's referring to situations where, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent, the victim also does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce. This implies that someone could expressly or impliedly acquiesce to a sexual encounter even if it involved forcible compulsion or incapacity to consent.

Consent would obviously have to be given prior to such engagement, while the person was free and of sound mind, but if that consent was somehow automatically revoked from the situation the instant they were physically or mentally unable to continue consenting (or to resist, since any consent given at that point would be under coercion), BDSM would basically be illegal.
 
GenericReviewerDraco said:
Some guy with a bootleg Sora avatar is chimping out.


archive.fo

Twitter

archived 17 Jul 2019 23:00:19 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo

archive.fo

Twitter

archived 17 Jul 2019 23:07:44 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
Click to expand...
"gosh those SJW KVers are bad. But don't you think those anti-SJWs ISWV are worse?"
He says behind his normal person mask.

Jesus fuck these people. Dumber than a sack of hammers the lot of them.
"How do you know that the money goes to Vic's lawyers"
"The IOLTA specifies BHBH."
"Yeah but how do you know know."
 
ColtWalker1847 said:
Jesus fuck these people. Dumber than a sack of hammers the lot of them.
"How do you know that the money goes to Vic's lawyers"
"The IOLTA specifies BHBH."
"Yeah but how do you know know."
Click to expand...

If you're confronted by people who can't reason, just turn their stupid logic back at them.

"Okay, so where does the money go then?"
"Nick is stealing it all!"
"Yeah but how do you know?"
 
GenericReviewerDraco said:
Some dude sperging at Ty Beard.

archive.fo

Martin Bettik on Twitter: "Oh, please, please let us see a video of y…

archived 18 Jul 2019 00:19:13 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
Click to expand...
Same guy, reposting from the general thread:
The biggest iron said:
twitter.com

Pretend Lawyer Martin Bettik on Twitter

“@TyBeard10 You puckering up yet, Percy? You feel the hammer coming? Something tells me this weekend will suck for you, with the motions dropping. Try not to panic. Just remember that when you lose, you still get $paid, while your client just suffers the most crushing experience of his life.”
twitter.com twitter.com
View attachment 846464
archive.fo

Martin Bettik on Twitter: "You puckering up yet, Percy? You feel the …

archived 18 Jul 2019 00:08:31 UTC
archive.fo archive.fo
Click to expand...
 
GenericReviewerDraco said:
Some guy with a bootleg Sora avatar is chimping out.
Click to expand...

Vic's detractors just got the biggest W they've ever gotten(Read: Vic admitted that Marchi was only partially making up the hairpulling story). I forecast massive sperging online, reaching a fever pitch on Friday when the other defendants file their TCPA motions. And to be fair, this gives credence to Nick's statement that Marchi has the strongest TCPA case, though I have no idea if playfully yanking someone else's hair without affirmative consent constitutes battery(I'm assuming that's what it would be?), but claiming it somehow proves Vic wasn't defamed by anyone else seems kind of stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom