3 ms·

>If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that

>If someone purposefully hides salient facts from you in order to coerce sexual intercourse then it can be that consent was only acquired by deception and that under the law consent was not freely given. Assange could have Tuberculosis too. So that's also rape, right? The flu? Also rape. He could be a triple rapist! Just forget all that systematic government murdering, spying, and lying he revealed, we won't entertain facts from a possible triple rapist!

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault. Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice? How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?
- torified 6y ago
  Is there any evidence at all to suggest that is the case? Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact. A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    FWIW I made it quite clear I was addressing the general principle of how sexual intercourse might be rape even if consent was seemingly given (that 'consent' being ignorant of the facts, and ignorant of the law). And also addressed the question of why a country might seek prosecution even when a person didn't feel they were raped. I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

If one knows one has a deadly communicable disease and is willfully negligent knowing that your actions are likely to cause particular harm then it would be assault. Rarely people with HIV have _chosen_ to spread it through intercourse, if someone purposefully chose to give you HIV would you say you had fully consented to that sexual act, given you were entirely ignorant to their infection and their choice? How would you protect people from active malicious infection? Or, have you done reason that we shouldn't consider these things to be assault?

torified 6y ago
Is there any evidence at all to suggest that is the case? Of course not, it's a ridiculous allegation with no basis in fact. A baseless allegation that would have rightly been completely ignored by police if it wasn't Assange.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  FWIW I made it quite clear I was addressing the general principle of how sexual intercourse might be rape even if consent was seemingly given (that 'consent' being ignorant of the facts, and ignorant of the law). And also addressed the question of why a country might seek prosecution even when a person didn't feel they were raped. I assume from what you're saying that Assange did not have (or have reason to believe he had) HIV at the time of the alleged rape? Which would of course rule out this love of reasoning in this case, but would not make my response to the OC incorrect.