Seeing the beginning of his announcement, it did not seem like it was going to be a drop out one but him doubling down on running
Seeing the beginning of his announcement, it did not seem like it was going to be a drop out one but him doubling down on running
I disagree. You may also be afraid of the consequences. I don’t think a normal person with a healthy concept of consent is going to rape someone no matter how drunk they are. It’s people who are close to doing that already that are going to be pushed over the edge by a lack of inhibitions.
As far as drunken consent it’s obviously a bit hazy but I personally think the idea that any amount of alcohol negates consent is a bit silly. When we’re talking about alcohol negating consent we’re talking about people who are impaired to the extent that they either don’t know what’s going on or can’t clearly express their preferences. If you are physically and mentally capable of rape you are obviously not this impaired. In fact I think the muddying of the waters that some people have done here is a bit dangerous as it gives cover for people to behave badly when drunk and claim that they’re no responsible for their actions, which again, I think is nonsense.
Why would being blackout drunk reveal your true desire to rape and not your true desire to consent? Or are you saying that being blackout drunk is not impaired enough to negate consent?
This sounds like you think non-consent from alcohol only occurs when you’re practically incapable of standing or speaking coherently (and thus would be incapable of rape). Basically a step away from just being unconscious. That’s a very expansive view on what qualifies as healthy consent, which is weird to pair with a concern about muddying the waters.
I’m not saying it’s healthy consent, but it’s a form of consent insofar as you are in control of your faculties. Obviously we as individuals should aim higher than that but as far as a legal or moral standard for where you can have responsibility for your actions, I think that’s where the line is. And yeah blurring the line by saying two drunk people having otherwise consensual sex is mutual rape or silly things like that is eroding people’s responsibility for their own actions, as here.
Like if Platner killed a guy in the same condition would you be saying these things? Like oh how could he have prevented it when he was so drunk… I just don’t think that argument has any merit. We are ultimately accountable for our own actions unless we’re so impaired that they can’t be said to be actions.
I’ve said he’s responsible for his harms to others while drunk because even if impairment removes his self-control, drinking caused that to happen. But that’s not because I think raping (or murdering) is someone’s true self and they’re basically just stuck being a fundamentally bad person. They should pay for the consequences of their actions, dedicate themselves consciously to never reoffending, and then never get drunk enough to lose control, because that’s a consequence of drinking.
I don’t think most people exhibit personal growth (at least initially) by actually changing their fundamental impulses but by dedicating themselves to controlling those that are harmful. And maintaining that control is part of being committed to it. Maybe over time that changes the impulses themselves, but it’s curbing the impact to others that matters morally.