What did Rubio say...

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 06:05 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It is, but it's not the question they asked the woman.

No it's the explanation to the question, a question which everyone else agrees says the same thing.

[Brownshoe]

(08-11-2015, 06:13 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No it's the explanation to the question, a question which everyone else agrees says the same thing.

The fact is the question does not ask if they were unable to consent except with the precursor of being passed out. It simply just asked if they were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent. If they asked the question differently then I would agree with you, but they didn't. If someone was drunk, high, drugged and still gave consent and had sex the answer to the question they asked would be yes. That would then be recorded as a rape even though they gave consent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNsJ1DhqQ-s

maybe that video will help you out.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 06:27 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: The fact is the question does not ask if they were unable to consent except with the precursor of being passed out. It simply just asked if they were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent. If they asked the question differently then I would agree with you, but they didn't. If someone was drunk, high, drugged and still gave consent and had sex the answer to the question they asked would be yes. That would then be recorded as a rape even though they gave consent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNsJ1DhqQ-s

maybe that video will help you out.

That's a lot of words for something that is wrong.

You're wrong. I explained how you're wrong. the questionnaire explained how you're wrong.

Sorry.

[Brownshoe]

(08-11-2015, 06:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's a lot of words for something that is wrong.

You're wrong. I explained how you're wrong. the questionnaire explained how you're wrong.

Sorry.

You're the one who's wrong. If someone asked that question, and someone had consensual sex while intoxicated the answer would be "yes". The CDC would then report it as them being raped.

[Westwood Bengal]

(08-10-2015, 09:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Because it's almost as rare as seeing a unicorn.

You are completely wrong. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-is-very-low/2013/06/12/936bc45e-d3ad-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_blog.html



…just saw that someone already posted the actual numbers. (and it didn't use fox news as a source)

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 06:35 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You're the one who's wrong. If someone asked that question, and someone had consensual sex while intoxicated the answer would be "yes". The CDC would then report it as them being raped.

That's cool, bro. I agree with the questionnaire, not you. 

I'm really not sure how you explain away that direct quote, but whatever makes you feel inside that you aren't hilariously wrong. 

[Brownshoe]

(08-11-2015, 07:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's cool, bro. I agree with the questionnaire, not you. 

I'm really not sure how you explain away that direct quote, but whatever makes you feel inside that you aren't hilariously wrong. 

Because the question asks if they were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent. That's the question. There's nothing else to it. According to the CDC if you have sex when you're drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent then it's rape. I would only consider "passed out and unable to give consent" as rape, but not if they were drunk and gave consent.

If someone says sometimes when people swim in the ocean they are attacked by a shark, because they were bleeding. Then they ask you have you ever bled in the ocean, or been attacked by a shark? If you say "yes" to bleeding in the ocean that doesn't mean that you were attacked by a shark. So saying you were drunk and had sex doesn't mean you were raped.

[BmorePat87]

(08-11-2015, 08:52 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Because the question asks if they were drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent. That's the question. There's nothing else to it. According to the CDC if you have sex when you're drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to give consent then it's rape. I would only consider "passed out and unable to give consent" as rape, but not if they were drunk and gave consent.

If someone says sometimes when people swim in the ocean they are attacked by a shark, because they were bleeding. Then they ask you have you ever bled in the ocean, or been attacked by a shark? If you say "yes" to bleeding in the ocean that doesn't mean that you were attacked by a shark. So saying you were drunk and had sex doesn't mean you were raped.

That was the dumbest thing I have ever read. Congratulations on embarrassing yourself even further. 

[Brownshoe]

(08-11-2015, 09:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That was the dumbest thing I have ever read. Congratulations on embarrassing yourself even further. 

Yeah I guess if you don't understand grammar I could see how that's hard to grasp.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-11-2015, 06:39 PM)Westwood Bengal Wrote: You are completely wrong. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-is-very-low/2013/06/12/936bc45e-d3ad-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_blog.html



…just saw that someone already posted the actual numbers. (and it didn't use fox news as a source)

It's less than 1%

[Brownshoe]

(08-11-2015, 06:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That's a lot of words for something that is wrong.

You're wrong. I explained how you're wrong. the questionnaire explained how you're wrong.

Sorry.

to be clear, the normal way of reading the actual wording they used has "passed out and unable to consent" as a separate clause, implying that "unable to consent" doesn't apply to "drunk, high, drugged".


(drunk, high, drugged), (or passed out and unable to consent)
vs
((drunk, high, drugged or passed out), (and unable to consent))

The ironic part is that you already knew what an oxford comma was.

[Brownshoe]

[fredtoast]

(08-12-2015, 03:45 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's less than 1%

So what?

Just because it is rare does not mean there should be no exception to cover it.

[BmorePat87]

(08-12-2015, 01:47 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Yeah I guess if you don't understand grammar I could see how that's hard to grasp.

You've shown us that grammar is hard for some to grasp. I would assume that, despite your struggles with grammar, you could at least read this intro to the question that was supplied for those who took it:

Quote:Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications. 

I guess this is why people PMed me to tell me what a joke you were in Jungle Noise. Playing an idiot for 24 hours might work there, but this isn't Jungle Noise. You cannot explain away direct quotes from the questionnaire you are referencing. 


BTW, Dalton isn't a top 10 QB either lol

[*PhilHos*]

(08-12-2015, 10:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So what?

Just because it is rare does not mean there should be no exception to cover it.

If anything, the rarity should make it easier for the staunchest pro-lifer to be okay with the exemption.

[Brownshoe]

(08-12-2015, 12:15 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You've shown us that grammar is hard for some to grasp. I would assume that, despite your struggles with grammar, you could at least read this intro to the question that was supplied for those who took it:



I guess this is why people PMed me to tell me what a joke you were in Jungle Noise. Playing an idiot for 24 hours might work there, but this isn't Jungle Noise. You cannot explain away direct quotes from the questionnaire you are referencing. 


BTW, Dalton isn't a top 10 QB either lol

Too bad that's not the question they asked.

I never said Dalton was a top 10 QB.