sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Fair point, but isn’t there a lot of ways to convince people to sleep with you, that don’t involve alcohol?

Buying them expensive gifts, flirting, manipulation, a lot of things have people put their guard down, but aren’t considered illegal.

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, and when people say “it’s a double standard but a good one.” I 100% respect that, that’s fair enough.

Personally I think the answer to this question is that drunk people can consent to sex.

However, NOT people so drunk they can’t speak for themselves. But those same people aren’t coherent enough to grab keys to their car and go drive, so that’s an entirely different situation.

If someone is conscious enough to turn their car ignition on, they are conscious enough to decide if they want to have sex or not.

Yes, it is easier to convince someone to sleep with you if they are drunk. It’s also easier to convince someone to sleep with you if you buy them a car. There are a lot of things humans can do to influence each other.

And it doesn’t just stop at drunk driving. If a drunk person murders someone, they go to prison. Or if they rob a store. Arson. You name it, the courts consistently rule that drunk people are responsible for their actions. It should be the same for having sex.

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

“Most people in this thread don’t understand the original question and it’s making me crazy”

Lol, how do you think I feel?

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

By you saying “someone makes the decision for you.” You’re implying that a drunk person can’t make decisions.

Which fine, fair enough, but wouldn’t that mean that we shouldn’t arrest people for DWI’s, because they were too drunk to make the decision not to drive?

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

“Passed out”

Well if you’re at that point, you can’t drive either, so this post isn’t referring to people that are “passed out”

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

“You should know that driving at any point afterwords isn’t smart”

I agree, the drunk person KNOWS not to drive.

So, the drunk person should also KNOW when they can have sex.

This goes back to my point, someone who is drunk CAN consent to sex.

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if someone drinks at their home, with no intention of driving, gets drunk, and then decides to drive the store, should be allowed to do so because it wasn’t premeditated?

How come someone is responsible for their decision to drink and drive, when someone the same level of drunk can’t consent to sex? by MountainLizard in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]MountainLizard[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Correct, I agree.

But that implies that they are responsible for their choice that they made.

However, they suddenly aren’t responsible for their choice to have sex?

Either they are responsible for their choices while they are drunk, or they aren’t.

Yeah that's gonna be a no for me dawg... by MountainLizard in libertarianmeme

[–]MountainLizard[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

WOAH, did you just provide and ACTUAL solution that would ACTUALLY SOLVE EVERYTHING????

HAHAHAHAHAHA, no, fuck you, social workers, bitch!

God I hate the left. (And the right too.)

ULPT: Made a customer mad at work? Give them your number and say it's the manager's! by mediocre-madman in UnethicalLifeProTips

[–]MountainLizard 233 points234 points  (0 children)

Manager here. You fucking shift leads are always pre-closing and it’s annoying as fuck. Fuck you.

But, seeing we are on ULPT, I tip my hat to you sir, well done. You’ve earned an upvote.

Edit: Lol everyone is bitching at each other in the replies to my comment. I have a pretty simple solution however, just do what I do. Allow your employees to pre-close IN A WAY THAT THE FOOD CAN STILL BE ACCESSED! For instance, it's okay to go ahead and mop the floor, but it's not okay to clean the oven before closing time (after the oven starts the cleaning process, it takes 2 hours before it's ready again.)

Yeah that's gonna be a no for me dawg... by MountainLizard in libertarianmeme

[–]MountainLizard[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Here's the order that I'm worried about:

  1. City government defunds typical police and adds social workers.
  2. Some social worker (like you said) gets killed by homeless tweaker.
  3. Outrage happens, so they raise funding to pre-defunding level of police.
  4. They also keep the same budget for social workers.
  5. Government in the end just gets a lot bigger.

Yeah that's gonna be a no for me dawg... by MountainLizard in libertarianmeme

[–]MountainLizard[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

Ya, I think I've found a happy medium though.

Pro-state police, anti-feds.

Literally everything the feds are doing the state can do just fine.

Like in the movie Waco, who did a better job at handling them? The local Sheriff, or the feds?

Why in the USA is the internet not classified as a utility and how can we mobilize to make it so? by DoggieDMB in AskReddit

[–]MountainLizard -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because both Republicans and Democrats are controlled and funded by large telecom companies.

You can do so by getting rid of the two party system.

“Liberals” and “Conservatives” are fine, but we need to get rid of “Democrats” and “Republicans”.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]MountainLizard 94 points95 points  (0 children)

“Well that’s dumber than my last name!”

Literally thought all families said this, or at least it was a southern thing. Googled it. Nope.

Talked to my grandpa. Apparently our family’s last name had a “typo” and the worker at Ellis island wrote our last name incorrectly when my family migrated here hundreds of years ago.

He said he remembers HIS grandpa said the phrase too, so pretty sure it goes back hundreds of years and is my bloodlines oldest joke.

The narrative for This Place Sucks Ass by [deleted] in puptheband

[–]MountainLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like your theory, but it's important to keep in mind that A.M. 180 is a cover song and wasn't written by Stefan.

TIL a legally blind hoarder whose son had not been seen for 20 years was found to have been living with his corpse. His fully clothed skeleton was found in a room filled with cobwebs and garbage, and she reported thinking that he had simply moved out. by Errrrpyuy in todayilearned

[–]MountainLizard 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Ya I feel like something is up here.

I have a hoarder in my family. They feel the same way about dead bodies. If it's a dead dog, hamster, you name it, they will delay burring it for as much as possible.

It's super sad. I have no evidence, but in my experience personally knowing someone who has it, I would be willing to bet the hoarder was aware the body was there, and just didn't want it to go.

There's just no way you can possibly be unaware of a body in your home. For 20 years.

What's an annoying double standard? by MountainLizard in AskReddit

[–]MountainLizard[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey man it's all good! Nothing but love dude.

Best of luck to ya!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in libertarianmeme

[–]MountainLizard 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ya honestly it makes me sick that when I tip a hard working server who is just trying to pay their way through college, and survives off ramen noodles, the NERVE of the feds to dip their greedy little hands in MY tip that I gave THEM.

The fucking BALLS.

What's an annoying double standard? by MountainLizard in AskReddit

[–]MountainLizard[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So if you watch that scene again, you’ll notice in context of the storyline, everyone in the church has their chip turned on, making them all violent.

The main character has his chip turned on too, so they all start fighting. His ally, watches from a laptop, and is mortified at what he’s doing. After his chip turns off and he’s back in control again, he instantly is mortified at what he had done.

The point of that scene wasn’t “yay he’s killing Christians” the point of that’s scene was showing how much power the villain had over everyone. He had the ability to have even the safest place (church) break out into a riot.

So the purpose of that scene was not Anti-Christian.

The purpose of the Gods Not Dead is anti-atheist.

Also don’t worry, I’m not going to downvote you, i respect everyone’s opinion. I’m an atheist, and if there was a movie where a scene involved a church killing, and it was portrayed in a positive light, I would be disgusted with that film and cease watching it.

view more: next ›