Yet, I will continue on (if this goes long enough I might actually get to 1,000)
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
24_Guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Do you think a person who is "pants-on-head drunk" should be held responsible for his or her actions while in such a state?
Yes. Being responsible for your actions, vs. being morally reprehensible, can be two different things.
That being the case, why is it often considered rape when some assholes film themselves gangbanging a woman who is clearly "pants-on-head drunk" and appears to be a willing participant? Aren't we suggesting that she wasn't responsible for her actions? And yet, after all that nastiness is over we expect her to have the faculty to know she shouldn't get behind the wheel. I'm not sure what the answer is, but that seems illogical and inconsistent to me.
Joe, come on, you are totally changing lanes. You have a responsibility to not kill someone. If getting drunk might end up with you killing someone, don't get drunk, or hand over your keys before you do, whatever. That does not, in any way, equate to someone being fair game to be violated because they drank too much. I don't see a comparison at all, here. You are responsible for YOUR actions when you're drunk; that's not the same as being fair game for anything anyone else wants to do to you...?
BR, your example is a good one, and it can be further exemplified this way: I'm sure everyone here sometime in their lives has done something that, under unfortunate circumstances, could have ended up in a fatality. I bet no one here has mercilessly brutalized and killed dogs. That right there kind of proves the point.
Actually Rick, here's one for you: Say Kyle Orton throws a football as hard as he can, at close range, at a poor defenseless puppy. But he figured that with his puss-arm, there's no way the dog could get hurt. But the dog actually is killed. Is that better, or worse, than Jay Cutler throwing another red zone interception?