3 ms·

The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example: Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your l

by thwest 13y ago

The analogy you're looking for here is drunk being-run-over, not drunk driving. Consider this illustrative example: Driver: "Hey man, mind if I run over your leg?" Drunk Person: "mfamhhhhmmhaha sure lesh pud it on youtubes" Driver: looks at camera "You hear that judge and jury?! Consent! Yeeehaw!"

hackinthebochs 13y ago
That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.
- VLM 13y ago
  Puritanism, pure and simple. Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
- thwest 13y ago
  Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road. The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
    - thwest 13y ago
      Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem. Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home. (I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
      - hackinthebochs 13y ago
        >Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem. I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy. If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.

by thwest 13y ago

hackinthebochs 13y ago

That's not what he was asking. The question is if someone can be "too drunk to consent" (assuming they are conscious enough to verbally consent, but too drunk for that consent to be valid in the eyes of the law), then why are people held responsible for drunk driving incidents? If the law finds them incapacitated to the point of not being held responsible for their decisions (in this case to have sex, or sign contracts, etc), why are they held responsible for their decision to drive drunk? It's a valid question and I don't think I've ever seen it answered sufficiently.

VLM 13y ago
Puritanism, pure and simple. Note you can kill all the people you want in a plain ole traffic accident with practically no punishment compared to using any other weapon... as long as you're not drunk. Heck they don't even municipal cite people for killing bicyclists around here, sometimes. Needless to say I don't ride on the roads or let my kids ride on the roads, that would be pretty dumb to do, given the prevailing conditions.
thwest 13y ago
Because the drunk driver's lack of consent isn't the problem with drunk driving: it's the lack of consent from everyone else on the road. The issue with consent while drunk isn't about what you do to yourself while drunk: it is about hurting other people. You have the right to get drunk to the point of passing out in front of the stereo with The Cure's worst album at full blast, the dishes undone, leftovers on the stove and that still doesn't give anyone the right to steal your stereo, sharpie your face or fuck you (even if they shake you hard enough to get some vague affirmatory groan out of your body).
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Your answer implicitly casts the drunk person being acted upon, rather than an actor. I see this a lot and I have a feeling this stems from society's sexist views regarding sex that we've all internalized (men are always the actor, women passive). The point is assuming the drunk person (lets assume a women) is giving "enthusiastic consent", and thus is a "drunk actor" in this situation, why is responsibility invalidated in the case of sex, but not in the case of drunk driving?
  - thwest 13y ago
    Someone capable of enthusiastic consent doesn't have their responsibility invalidated. Where did anyone say that? The important cases are where the consent is marginal -- either temporally separated from the act or given from a person who is borderline comatose. Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem. Do you acknowledge that there is a level of drunk where you can still sort of walk and talk but all that is really happening is you on autopilot trying to find your bed or just anywhere to sleep? Imagine being in this state among many acquaintances both new and old (which are the typical assailants). Imagine trying to find the safety of a bed and upon half-hearing a friend's offer in a loud place, saying "yes I want to go to bed", and that being misinterpreted? Compare this to being drunk, and seeking out the danger of driving home. (I deliberately chose The Cure because I only know men who listen to them. Yes, society's norms frame women as passive, but it also makes them actual victims of sexual assault at alarming rates.)
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      >Assuming enthusiastic consent is just assuming away the problem. I would agree that if one can "enthusiastically consent" then they are responsible for their actions. The problem is a lot of people would disagree with this, and the law seems murky on the subject. Also considering the fact that one could enthusiastically consent at the time but still be black-out drunk and thus have a different interpretation of how they ended up in bed with a guy. If your concern is with people who are barely conscious, then we have no argument. However, I would say that the lines you draw in fact dodge the real question here. No one can reasonably consider a half-conscious person to offer consent. The question is really about people who are visibly drunk, not almost comatose, and actually give consent (enthusiastic or not). This is where the dangerous grey area lies. Many people claim that such a person cannot legally consent, whether enthusiastic or not. That is the real question here. I would like such a person's take on the difference between liability from driving and liability for a regrettable lay.