Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
(The children did not follow you into the house)
The secret room is small and cramped, 5 foot by 10 foot. The book shelves flank the walls on either save, with the chest at the far end. Grahf's magic hand opens the chest, allowing the skeleton to fall out. A dull twang is heard as the chest opens, but nothing else happens.
Upstairs, Eikka opens the door the adjoining nursery. It contains a crib covered with a hanging black shroud. The crib slowly rocks back and forth, but there is no visible source of the rocking. Between Eikka and the crib, is a barely visible apparation of a young woman that he does not recognize.
It turns to face him as he opens the door and howls...
STAY AWAY FROM MY CHILD!
Apparition:
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Third Floor Map (update):
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Banning Alex Jones only adds to credibility to the idea that he is saying things they don't want you to hear.
Ok, and?
Besides that, I don't believe the accusations against him are substantiated. I think banning Alex Jones only helps his case, and will backfire on those trying to censor him.
What case?
So hypothetically speaking, what if every form of communication was monopolized by private companies, and they all agreed with eachother to censor and limit free speech.
This is such an impossible and alien scenario that it would require the existence of a world so fundamentally different from our own that I lack the capacity to even speculate how it would operate.
Wouldn't this be a way of getting around something pesky like the 1st amendment without actually abolishing it?
They don't need to "get around" the 1st amendment or abolish it: it doesn't apply to them in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
There would be no conversion, just a scrapping of male bathrooms.
That costs money too.
Created:
Posted in:
(Guys, it'll be a few hours before I can post again. I like the activity, though)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Well, do you have a problem with him having his own platform?
Nope. He does have his own platform.
What if all the social media people use starts to block anything linking to that platform?
Then hopefully he'll become irrelevant and disappear into the ether.
What about e-mail? Do you think that e-mail should be cleansed of those not worthy to have a platform?
E-mail isn't a platform.
A private business owns the e-mail service, do they have a right to censor private communications?
If the users have agreed to it, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
(Weight certainly is a concern, I'll say that Grahf takes the most promising book on each topic).
As Grahf rummages through all the books, he finds one that does not come free from the book shelf. Instead it tips forward, revealing a secret door along the south wall. This secret room contains more bookshelves packed with tomes describing fiend-summoning rituals and the necromantic
rituals of a cult called the Priests of Osybus.
A heavy wooden chest with clawed iron feet stands against the south wall, its lid half-closed. Sticking out of the chest is a skeleton in leather armor. Three darts are stuck in the dead adventurer's armor and ribcage. Clutched in the skeleton's left hand is a letter.
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
The desk has several items resting atop it: an oil lamp, a jar of ink, a quill pen, a tinderbox, and a letter kit containing a red wax candle, four blank sheets of parchment, and a wooden seal bearing the an insignia of a windmill. The desk drawer is empty except for an iron key.
The bookshelves hold hundreds of tomes covering a range of topics including history, warfare, alchemy, and collected works of poetry and fiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Not if you consider the savings in cleaning staff and materials, and space and water usage, and security. No one meant it would be free, but would cost less.
It doesn't eliminate the initial cost of conversion. And when you have schools that can barely make ends meet as it is, unable to provide basic amenities such as working AC, I don't see them spending money over something that is a non-issue. Nor do I see how converting them saves money in the long run.
But sometimes yes? Glad to you you confident enough make such decisions for others.
I don't recall making any decision for anyone but myself.
You son asked why. You did not tell him why. That is fine, but you cannot pretend it answered his question. So you are right, regardless of any "disagreement" of mine, you did not answer the question. You responded to it, but did not answer it.
Your like or dislike of my answer does not alter its status as an answer.
Created:
Posted in:
Back on the second floor, Grahf checks out the room to the east...
Red velvet drapes cover the windows of this room. An exquisite mahogany desk and a matching high-back chair face the entrance and the fireplace, above which hangs a framed picture of a windmill perched atop a rocky crag. Situated in corners of the room are two overstuffed chairs. Floor-to-ceiling bookshelves line the south wall. A rolling wooden ladder allows one to more easily reach the high shelves.
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know, is it an infringement of a persons first amendment right of Social Media to decide to suspend an account without the user clearly breaking the rules of the site?
No.
Or would possibly be classified as discrimination?
The generic act of "discrimination" isn't illegal, civilly or otherwise. Only forms of discrimination which have been explicitly identified as illegal are illegal.
Unless it does not matter either way because it is a private business.
Correct.
Created:
Posted in:
Right Room: This dark room contains a wooden tub with clawed feet, a small iron stove with a kettle resting atop it, and a barrel under a spigot in the east wall.The plumbing no longer appears to works.
Middle Room: Dusty shelves line the walls of this room. A few of the shelves have folded sheets, blankets, and old bars of soap on them. A cobweb-covered broom leans against the far wall.
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Third Floor Map (updated):
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
(There are three unexplored doors, left, middle, right)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
To say that there is "more than just" the 1st amendment at stake is to still say the 1st amendment is at stake (it's just not the only thing at stake). So, what does the 1st amendment have to do with this?I meant there is more than just the 1st amendment at stake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Sure)(can i provide thoughts as to what I think that mirror is/does?)
Created:
Posted in:
While Roberts and Snerp deal with a mischievous mirror, Grahf checks out the double doors to the east. The double doors to this room have dusty panes of stained glass set into them. Designs in the glass resemble windmills. The dusty, cobweb-filled master bedroom has burgundy drapes covering the windows. Furnishings include a four-poster bed with embroidered curtains and tattered gossamer veils, a matching pair of wardrobes, a vanity with a wood-framed mirror and jewelry box, and a padded chair.
A rotting tiger-skin rug lies on the floor in front of the fireplace, which has a dust-covered portrait of the father and mother from the previous portriat on the floor below hanging above it. A web-filled parlor in the southwest corner contains a table and two chairs. Resting on the dusty tablecloth is an empty porcelain bowl and a matching jug.
A door facing the foot of the bed has a full-length mirror mounted on it. The door opens to reveal an empty, dust-choked closet. A door in the parlor leads to an outside balcony.
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Third Floor Map (updated):
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
The second Snerp calls attention to the mirror, the reflection reverts to normal. While Snerp may have heard of mystical mirrors exhibiting strange behavior, he is not entirely sure if that is the case here, or if the house is simply playing tricks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Then I don't understand why you brought it up at all.
Created:
Posted in:
Roberts finds the tables and wardrobe to be empty. Out of the corner of his eye, he notices that his reflection in the mirror does not seem to mirror his movements. Instead it stays still, save only the eyes which watch him menacingly.
The sound appears to be that of someone humming a lullaby.
Created:
Posted in:
Grahf snags the helmet while Robert examines the surroundings. There are no evidence of footprints or any other activity. If anyone has occupied this floor, it would have been on the time span of weeks, if not months.
The group heads west and opens the door. Dust and cobwebs shroud an elegantly appointed bedroom. Double doors set with panes of stained glass pull open to reveal a balcony overlooking the front of the house. The group can see fog outside appears to have enveloped the house in a misty cocoon. The bedroom contains a large bed, two end tables, and a wardrobe. Mounted on the wall next to the wardrobe is a full-length mirror with an ornate wooden frame carved to look like ivy and berries.
You can hear a faint, melodic humming coming from the adjoining room to the north.
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Third Floor Map:
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
There are a lot of people who can be considered dangerous and crazy that not only are given a bullhorn, but are even propped up and celebrated by culture at large.So why is Alex Jones a special case?
He isn't a special case in my book. Get rid of the lot of them. He is not entitled to an audience and Twitter is under no obligation to provide him a platform for one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
I don't know much about Jones, don't listen to him.... but if someone on the left were silenced on one of these social media sites, you know they would say it is an infringement of their free speech. Don't tell me they wouldn't.
Oh, I don't doubt it. That's because most people - on either side - really don't have a clue or really don't care to be accurate. But, right now in this moment, I'm talking to you. You invoked the Constitution for this particular case so I'm asking you what it has to do with this particular case.
They are claiming because Donald Trump took away Brennan's Security clearance, it is an infringement of his free speech. Explain that one.
The explanation seems pretty straightforward: the government (via Trump) is imposing a punishment (revocation of clearance) on a private citizen (John Brennan) in response to his speech (harsh criticism of Trump).
Not that I know what the hell that has to do with Alex Jones, Twitter, and the Constitution, which is what this discussion is about.
Created:
Posted in:
The spear is in serviceable condition, but the helmet has suffered too much damage to be of use. Roberts takes stock of the room [Wisdom (Perception) Check: 14], looking for anything unusual. Upon first glance, the doors on either side appear to be carved with dancing youths, but a second look reveals that they aren't dancing, but instead fighting off swarms of bats. Sufficiently disgusted, the party moves up to the third floor, climbing the red marble staircase to its full
height.
The staircase ends at a dusty balcony with a suit of black plate armor standing against the far wall, draped in cobwebs. Oil lamps are mounted on the oak-paneled walls, which are carved with woodland scenes of trees, falling leaves, and tiny critters. Unlike the first two floors, this floor does not appear to be as well maintained. A thin layer of dust has collected on any available ledge, and thick cob webs fill the corners of the room. The paint on the walls is beginning to peel and crack, and the floorboards groan underfoot.
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Player Summaries:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
Grahf releases another round of force bolts, turning the armor into swiss cheese.
[Magic Missile Damage Roll: d4 (2) + 1 = 3 (x3) = 9 force damage]
Eikka rushes up along side his comrade-in-arms, bashing at the armor with his shield. The armor is buffeted slightly, but doesn't appear any more damaged.
[Ranged Attack Roll: d20 (3) + 2 = 5, Miss!]
Roberts strikes again with his sword, cleaving the armor in twain. It separates first at the waist, then collapses into a lifeless heap on the floor.
[Melee Attack Roll: d20 (15) + 5 = 20, Hit!]
[Damage Roll: d8 (6) + 3 = 9 slashing damage]
COMBAT OVER!
Player Summary:
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⭘⭘
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12 HP - 19 AC
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
(Concentration is passive. You don't have to do anything special to maintain it, so you are free to act normally. However, I make a note of it because it can be disrupted - by damage - and you can only have one concentration spell active at a time. So you are still free to act or cast spells)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Nigredo, albedo, rubedo, these are the three main stages of spiritual alchemy. Nigredo is the stirring up of unconscious material into the conscious. Albedo is the processing. Rubedo is the end result and enlightenment, the fixing of the higher consciousness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
@Mopac
Mopac:
Why is it a good thing that Alex Jones is not allowed on twitter?Because you don't liike what he says?Because you feel threatened by what he says?
Because dangerous crazy people like him shouldn't have a bull horn to amplify their craziness. I don't personally feel threatened, but I'm sure people like - oh I don't know - Sandy Hook survivors and families of the victims, do.
DBlaze:
This is just proof that you don't give a sh!t about the constitution
Oh, please, please, please, tell me how this has anything to do with the constitution.
Created:
Posted in:
Grahf again flicks his wrist, and three bolts of magical force fly from his finger-tips, riddling the suit of armor with holes, revealing the hollow interior.
[Magic Missile Damage Roll: d4 (2) + 1 = 3 (x3) = 9 force damage]
Eikka takes careful aim and looses a bolt at the construct, but it deflects harmlessly off the grill.
[Ranged Attack Roll: d20 (6) + 2 = 8, Miss!]
Roberts bravely steps forward and slashes at the armor with his sword, leaving a heavy crack down the breast plate.
[Melee Attack Roll: d20 (16) + 5 = 21, Hit!]
[Damage Roll: d8 (8) + 3 = 11 slashing damage]
Snerp raises his flute, and emboldens the fighter with a jaunty battle jig.
[Casts heroism on Roberts]
The armor focuses its attention on the warrior before him, dropping its spear and raising two spiked gauntlets and bringing them heavily down upon Roberts. Thankfully his armor deflects both of the blows.
Combat Status:
[13] Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘
[12] Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
[10] Roberts - 16/12 HP - 19 AC [+4 temporary hit points, immune to frightened]
[7] Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⭘ [concentrating on heroism, 10 rounds remaining]
[4] Animated Armor - Cracked
(Next round!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Or you could just scrap male bathrooms.
That still costs money.
But gender segregation is OK?
Universally? No.
Fair enough. I had no reason to assume you would actually answer him.
I would. Your disagreement with my answer is immaterial to the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Buddamoose
@Earth
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Grahf reaches out with a hand. An ephemeral copy of his hand shoots forth, crackling with necrotic energy. It latches onto the suit of armor. The armor suddenly comes to life, red pin points of malevolent light visible beneath the visor. It swats the hand away effortlessly and turns to face the party.
[Ranged Spell Attack Roll: d20 (9) + 5 = 14, Miss!]
COMBAT!
Combat Status:
[13] Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
[12] Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
[10] Roberts - 12/12HP - 19 AC
[7] Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
[4] Animated Armor - Uninjured
(You don't have to wait your "turn" to post your actions. Everyone simply post what they want to do. When everyone has posted, I'll process the full round of combat)
Created:
Posted in:
The party ascends the red marble staircase to the second floor...
Lit oil lamps are mounted on the walls of this elegant hall. Hanging above the northern mantelpiece is a wood-framed portrait of a family: A father and mother with their two smiling children (who bear a striking resemblance to the children the party met outside). Cradled in the father's arms is a swaddled baby, which the mother regards with a hint of scorn.
Standing suits of armor flank wooden doors in the east and west walls. Each suit of armor clutches a spear and has a visored helm shaped like a wolf's head. The red marble staircase that started on the first floor continues its upward spiral to the third floor. A cold draft can be felt coming down the steps.
First Floor Map:
Second Floor Map:
Player Summaries:
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12HP - 19 AC
Created:
Posted in:
The party cautiously enters the house.
A wide hall runs the width of the house, with a black marble fireplace at the north end and a sweeping, red marble staircase at the south. Mounted on the wall above the fireplace is a longsword with a windmill cameo worked into the hilt. The wood-paneled walls are ornately sculpted with images of vines, flowers, nymphs, and satyrs. The decorative paneling follows the staircase as it circles upward to the second floor.
A cloakroom near the staircase has several black cloaks hanging from hooks on the walls. A top hat sits on a high shelf.
The oak-paneled room to the southwest looks like a hunter's den. Mounted above the fireplace is a stag's head, and positioned around the outskirts of the room are three stuffed wolves.Two padded chairs draped in animal furs face the hearth, with an oak table between them supporting a cask of wine, two carved wooden goblets, a pipe rack, and a candelabrum. A chandelier hangs above a cloth-covered table surrounded by four chairs. Two cabinets stand against the walls.
The kitchen to the south east is tidy, with dishware, cookware, and utensils neatly placed on shelves. A worktable has a cutting board and rolling pin atop it. A stone, domeshaped oven stands near the east wall, its bent iron stovepipe connecting to a hole in the ceiling. Behind the stove and to the left is a thin door leading to a wellstocked pantry. All the food in the pantry appears fresh but tastes bland.
The centerpiece of the wood-paneled dining room to the north east is a carved mahogany table surrounded by eight highbacked chairs with sculpted armrests and cushioned seats. A crystal chandelier hangs above the table, which is covered with resplendent silverware and crystalware polished to a dazzling shine. Mounted above the marble fireplace is a mahogany-framed painting of an alpine vale. The wall paneling is carved with elegant images of deer among the trees. Red silk drapes cover the windows, and a tapestry depicting hunting dogs and horse-mounted aristocrats chasing after a wolf hangs from an iron rod bolted to the south wall.
(There haven't been many rolls, mainly involving Roberts checking the tracks. In the future, I will post the results of any rolls made. For Budda, I did not count your previous mention of casting Heroism as that would have been a waste)
First Floor Map:
Player Summaries:
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12HP - 19 AC
Created:
Posted in:
When I said: "cite this" I didn't mean give me a dictionary definition of tacit. You've outlined a specific scenario:
1. A person gives active consent.
2. The person secretly withdraws consent.
3. The other person is then convicted of rape and/or sexual assault as a result.
I want a citation of a specific case where this has occurred. Because, my main issue here is not a defense of affirmative consent laws as a panacea of rape and sexual assault, but rather to ridicule the ridiculous flailing about of man-children in response to these laws, as if it is going to be the end to the very idea of romantic sex and good ol' boys are just going to be rounded up on the flimsiest of charges and shipped off to jail to have their dicks chopped off.
If tacit consent holds as its core principle that revoked consent must be made known through verbal or non-verbal communication, but active consent does not hold the inverse principle, that being it does not need to be made known, then active consent and this discussion as a whole is consequentially a herring to mutilating tacit consent as you arent even addressing the core principle. Either you disagree that consent cant be revoked passively, or you agree. If active consent does not operate as an inverse to that principle, then it is not addressing tacit consent, full stop.
This is perhaps the first interesting argument you've made this entire conversation. First, let us propose a spectrum of consent:
(1)Affirmative consent - (2)tacit consent - (3)tacit nonconsent - (4)Affirmative nonconsent.
Now, you are arguing that:
1. Laws based on tacit consent, require affirmative non-consent in order for there to be a crime (that is: 1, 2, & 3 are legal, 4 is illegal)
2. Affirmative consent laws, in order to be a counter to tacit consent laws, must be the inverse (that is: 1 is legal, 2, 3, & 4 are illegal)
First, I am not aware of any explicit tacit consent law that requires nonconsent to be affirmative or explicit. Every law I've read that relies on consent simple requires that consent be lacking; it places no requirements on what kind of consent lacking. Thus, tacit consent laws aren't 123|4 (legal|illegal) but rather 12|34 (legal|illegal).
This requirement that affirmative consent be the "inverse" of tacit consent is unfounded seemingly based on your personal preference about how laws should be made. A cursory glance of any legal code should rob anyone of the notion that laws are about bound by any but the most generic logical principles. Laws are designed by committee, seldom revoked, mostly put into place to appease political ideologies, and are judged based on practical effects.
That said, my reading of affirmative consent laws simply shifts 2 to the illegal side, rendering our 1|234 (legal|illegal).
Now, you will probably go "Ah ha! You still have tacit nonconsent in the illegal column!" Indeed I do. As a strict reading of the law, tacit or affirmative necessarily places tacit nonconsent in the illegal column. Immediately apparent, then, is that this issue if tacit non-consent is the same in either case, not a consequence of affirmative consent laws.
The reason why I request a citation, then, is because in light of affirmative consent being given, the prosecutions case would be inordinately hard to prove, and I see no court in this country convicting anyone under these laws, where affirmative consent was given (not disputed by either side) but nonconsent was allegedly tacitly given.
Tacit nonconsent is a ridiculously hard thing to prove. The conflicting presence of affirmative consent makes it impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
The small boy cowers behind his sister in light of the frightening half-orc.
Girl: We don't know how the monster got in the basement, just that our parents trapped it in there. Only a monster could make the sounds it makes. She shudders. We've been out here, sleeping in the cold rain for the past couple of days, and that's the last time we saw our parents or brother. You're the first people to come along to help.
The children lead the party to the house.
A wrought-iron gate with hinges on one side and a lock on the other fills the archway of a stone portico. The gate squeels slightly when opened. Oil lamps hang from the portico ceiling by chains, flanking a set of oaken doors that open into a grand foyer.
Hanging on the south wall of the foyer is a shield emblazoned with a coat-of-arms (a stylized golden windmill on a red field), flanked by framed portraits of stony-faced aristocrats. Mahogany-framed double doors leading from the foyer to the house are set with panes of stained glass.
As the party enters through the front door, the children stay out side in the portico.
House Front
Player Summaries:
Snerp - 9/9 HP - 13 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Eikka - 10/10 HP - 16 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Grahf - 8/8 HP - 10 AC - Spell Slots: 1⬤⬤
Roberts - 12/12HP - 19 AC
Created:
Posted in:
Now, Drafter proposes this as something that addresses the ambiguity of non verbal communication. But no, it doesn't, as active consent allows for non verbal cues as consent.
I agree. But while all verbal cues are generally less ambiguous than all non-verbal cues that is not to say that all non-verbal cues are as equally ambiguous as any other.
Which necessarily means burdens of proof are shifted AND presumption of guilt.
There is no evidence that this is the case. The burdens of proof in trying these cases remains the same.
Before:
Her: I said "No"
Him: No she didn't
After:
Her: I didn't say "Yes"
Him: Yes she did
The burden is still upon the prosecutor/plaintiff/accuser to prove their statement (be it "I said 'No'" or "I didn't say 'Yes") beyond a reasonable doubt (criminally) or with a preponderance of evidence (civally). THAT HASN'T CHANGED.
Now, we can argue which is harder to prove or defend against, but that doesn't materially change the fundamental nature of presumed innocence.
Under active consent *it is only necessary a person not want to continue sexual activities* even after otherwise consenting previously in the same encounter, without having to make it known or indicate otherwise
Cite this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
@Earth
(Going to wait for Snerp and Grahf to weigh in before continuing)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You could have saved yourself some time and energy by simply saying you believe in gibberish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Jesus Christ Budda. Let's try to keep this in consumable quantities. I'm not going to do a point-by-point here. I'll address what I think are the key issues:
This statistic is absolute rubbish. First of all, that information was from a survey. A survey that had numerous issues.
All of your citations are in reference to a sexual assault survey performed by the Association of American Universities in 2015. My reference came from here (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem) and is linked to a survey performed by the National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1998. And - fuck - you didn't even quote me. No where did I utter the words "1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted." So you manually typed that in, then highlighted it, then clicked the "Quote" button.
For these statistics to even matter you would have to be presuming guilt where it's either not been prosecuted, or does not reach a conviction.
I presume no such thing, I am simply reporting the numbers of how often these things get reported, result in prosecutions and incarceration. This was in direct response to your concern that somehow sex is now going to become this criminally risky behavior:
to protect oneself legally from accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, that measures be taken to safeguard
We're both just talking about the accusations here, valid or not. I'm simply pointing out, from a pure risk management perspective, that the fear here is unwarranted, or at least not in proportion with the likelihood of a bad outcome - guilty or innocent!
Which, holy shit, this directly ties into my point about C.K. and coercion.(which btw, in person, he was pretty clear he asked for consent before pulling out his junk.), And yet, you hold he still committed wrongdoing because his celebrity, as you held, constitutes as "pressuring" which is itself included within "intimidation" itself included in "coercion". Ergo, you still consider it to be coercive, for a celebrity, to make a sexual advance on someone.
I don't see what one has to do with the other but C.K. has conceded to the accusations, which include him masturbating infront of women without getting her consent. I don't consider it to be coercion in the legal sense, no.
Which brings up a huge issue, you are advocating for active consent as if this will solve alllll these problems. When you necessarily conceded with the C.K. issue, that you can still be held as having committed wrongdoing, criminal or non-criminal is irrelevant, as the accusation still has heavy real world consequences, even if they seek consent, active or otherwise.
I'm less advocating for these laws and more criticizing all the penis-wringing that is being had over it, as if this is the end of romantic sex. I challenge you to quote anything I've actually said that states or implies this will solve these problems. Nor do I recall conceding anything with C.K.
resulted in young adults being railroaded out of university without any semblence of a fair trial, in proceedings where guilt is presumed and burden of proof is on the accused.
For example?
Now, I'm pretty sure we can both realize, that though these students arent usually criminally prosecuted, they are still ousted from a federally funded university and given a black mark on their record that will follow them around for life. This all from something that it seems obvious both of us would agree does not at all constitute a fair trial.
I would have to see an example of what you're talking about to judge whether or not the trial was fair.
Then you are going to have to own up to the real world consequences of the very position you are advocating for. That is not hyperbole...
Stop. Slow down. Take a deep breath. No where have I said there won't be consequences for this. Necessarily, this change alters the dynamic of prosecuting sexual assault cases in a non-zero way. It does shift the nature of how these cases are tried and defended against in court. Whether that shift is significant or not remains to be seen. But we strengthen and loosen laws all the time, that's how the law works.
The idea that there are consequences to this isn't what I'm calling hyperbole. What I'm calling hyperbole is this notion that this change somehow completely and utterly inverts the presumption of innocence. It doesn't. There is no evidence it has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I understand that Reddit is differently coded, so I get it if it can't be implemented here, but if you want to see what I'm talking about (and you have a Reddit account), simply find any comment, highly part of the text, then click the "Reply" button. Your post will appear with that highlighted text prepopulated in "quoted" format.I've never stumbled upon anything like it but it sounds awesome, I will research that as well.
Now, Reddit is different in the sense that the text field doesn't even appear until you click the "reply" button whereas here the text field is omnipresent, but I'm not sure how that affects the coding side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
What links exactly do you mean?
When someone cut and pastes a URL into a reply field like this:
I'd hate to see all those huge sheets of quotes
An alternative is that you can highlight a portion of text in a post, click "reply" and it only quotes the stuff you have highlighted. I believe Reddit utilizes this functionality.
Created:
Posted in:
Girl: We've never seen the monster, we've only heard its terrible howls coming from the basement where our parents trapped it. We don't know what happened to them, but our baby brother is still in the nursery on the third floor!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Couple of ideas:
1) What do you think about having links default to opening in a new tab (equivilent to adding target="_blank" in an href tag)?
2) When I click on a reply notification from my notifications window, it takes me right to the post. This is convenient! But, when I get an e-mail notification about a reply, the link is just to the forum itself, not to the individual post. Would it be possible to have e-mail notifications have a link to the actual post in question?
3) Probably already mentioned: when you click the "Reply" button, it autopopulates the username in the "Receivers" field. Would it also be possible to have it autopopulate the user's post in the text field of your reply in "quoted" format?
4) Also, I think it would be nice for you to click "reply" and have it append (rather than overwrite) users in the "Receivers" field so you can more easily reply to multiple people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
But consider, two individuals are both drinking. Both actively consent to sex throughout the encounter. The next day Person A files a complaint against person B for rape. Now, the question here is not whether person B is guilty of rape, the question is, how do we determine that? If both are drinking, then neither is capable of consent, no? So both are guilty of rape, or neither?
The idea of inebriation inhibiting consent has largely become a strawman itself. It's hard to pin down specific details because different jurisdictions have different definitions of intoxicated and have different stances on what levels of intoxication can nullify consent (if any). For example, at the federal level, there is no stipulation for this!
Notice that the section on intoxication/drug-imparied-judgement, requires that the drug be administered "by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent." Thus a person voluntarily getting drunk is not covered here. Furthermore, the element of alcohol actually decreases the rate upon which sexual assault cases result in prosecution and conviction (http://www.startribune.com/how-alcohol-foils-rape-investigations-in-minnesota-denied-justice-part-three/488413421/).
Now this is just in universities, right now. But it is not "omg that's so absurd, stop strawmanning hardcore" to bring up the situation where such standards end up mandating, to protect oneself legally from accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, that measures be taken to safeguard. Nor absurd to examine for effects if adopted widespread.
Yes, inherently risky behaviors do warrant people taking measures to protect themselves, physically, socially, legally. My question is: why single out sexual assault for criticism? You can be accused of a any crime by any one at any time. Sexual assault cases already have an extremely low prosecution rate (about 1 in 30) and, of those that actually get prosecuted only about half result in actual incarceration (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system). And that's just the ones that are reported! Only about 1 in 5 cases are reported to the police to begin with! That means, rolling the die (and depending on the circumstances), you could commit 179 acts of sexual assault before you have a 50% chance of going to jail for it.
Yet, if you're a woman, then the odds are 1-6 that you are the victim of attempted or actual rape thoroughout your life time. Given those statistics, where should the focus be? Almost 20% of women actually getting raped with no recourse? Or snotty kids hand wringing because they're losing their chubby when the woman actually expresses consent?
Ur right that written contracts would be useless and are a total strawman though, because consent can just be revoked after the theoretical contract would be signed. So then comes the issue, is the burden of proof being shifted, is the presumption of innocence being reversed, worth it?
Histrionics. Presumption of innocence isn't being reversed. Basically this is establishing affirmative consent as a positive defense against sexual assault. PLENTY of crimes have a positive defense. For example: murder. You are allowed to kill someone if it is necessary for self-defense. That is a positive defense: you must prove it in court. Yet do we suggest that the presumption of innocence is reversed? No!
The only thing this changes is what elements constitute rape (lack of affirmative consent vs. lack of consent). It's not some drastic upheaval of the justice system.
I would hold no, my mind does not sit easy with an ends justify the means approach as that in essence is 🤔. Nor does it sit easy with me the kind of precedent that would set for criminal prosecutions. And thats not a slippery slope fallacy, because that is already an issue in universities, now even with Title IX, apart from the aforementioned law, which is now holding that same presumption.[2]
Laws don't establish precedent, cases do. I can't actually find a specific case tried under these laws.
I can see the noble intent, but what do you suggest individuals do when guilt is presumed, and written consent is pointless? I agree it theoretically should be revokable at any time, but it becomes a clear issue to me when such standards constitute as reversals of the principles of presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on prosecution/accuser.And now the accused is placed in a position of having to prove they didnt commit a crime, instead of having to prove a crime has been committed.
This is all hyperbole. This does not change the nature of the criminal justice system. You are still innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution still has the inherent burden of proving their case. It doesn't even change the fundamental "he said she said" nature of sexual assault cases.
Created:
-->
@linate
Neither of those are particularly accurate. As others have stated, but I think it's important to understand why the words mean what they do.atheist means to reject god. agnostic means to be neutral about god. babies don't reject god, but can be said to be neutral.
Firstly, all -ism words are about beliefs. They denote world views, philosophical systems or idealogies.
Secondly, a- means "not"; it is a negation.
So what both words have in common is that they are a type of belief involving a negation of some kind. What kind?
For atheism, the root here is "theos" meaning "god." Hence: "belief in no god." This can mean an active or passive disbelief, each flavor of which has earned its own labels over time (positive/strong, negative/weak, etc.).
For Agnosticism, the root here is "gnostos" meaning "to be known" leading us to "belief in no knowledge." But, the context in which the term was coined, it is belief in no knowledge specifically of god (and other elements associated with a god).
The terms are related in the sense that they both deal with people's beliefs of god, but they address different aspects of god. Atheism tells you that the person doesn't believe in a god. Agnosticism tells you that the person believes that one cannot attain knowledge about god. There is quite a big difference here. You can believe or disbelieve in a god independent of whether or not you think knowledge can be obtained about god. Here are different ways that can manifest:
Agnostic atheist - No one can ever know whether or not a god actually exists, and I don't believe in one.
Agnostic theist - No one can ever know whether or not a god actually exists, but I believe in one anyway.
"Gnostic" atheist - You can know whether or not a god actually exists, and I don't believe in one.
"Gnostic" theist - You can know whether or not a god actually exists, and I do believe in one.
Created:
Posted in:
After shushing the boy, the girl turns to Snerp and Eikka and says, There's a monster in our house! She then points to a tall brick row house that stands out from the houses around it. Unlike the others, it looks new - or at least well maintained. The curtained windows let glimpses of dim light spill out from its interior. It has a gated portico on the ground floor, and the rusty gate is slightly ajar. The houses on either side are abandoned, their windows and doors boarded up. At the sight of a half-orc pointing a crossbow at them, the little boy cowers and hides behind the girl.
Grahf finds no resistance in breaking into a nearby building. The wood of the door seems to crumble easily in his fingertips. The house inside is empty, save for the swarms of rats that scatter, their beady red eyes flashing in the dim moonlight. The fog that has allowed them into the town now begins to close in around the village, snaking tentacles of the mist through the streets.
Created: