RE: slave contract (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 2:03:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
haha, wanna play word games? "null" has a different legal meaning than "void", and the correct term is "voidable", since that's what it is until a court rules on it (not "deemed", what was that anyway, so vague)

and "illegal" is an abstract and vague word (criminal or unlawful have more meaning). and, North America has nada to do with it. lol, dunno why i'm picking u to argue his case, but u sounded so sure. and i guess vague legalities raise my hackles (get's me pompous).



Somehow I get the feeling you've either had too much coffee or not enough when you wrote this lol

I stipulated North America and I feel that is important to note because laws change depending on culture, locale, and that tiny detail that America seems to forget, that their rules are not everybody else's rules :p

If null and void meant the same thing, wouldn't it be terribly strange and inarticulate to put them together? A contract is "voidable" if it has the potential to be voided. A contract is void if it already voided. "Null and void" is a set and legal turn of phrase.

When a Court makes a decision on something, they have deemed it to be whatever they've decided. I don't understand your issue with the language.

Illegal is not an abstract, it is the opposite of legal, which is not an abstract either, it is what the letter of the law says. Things can be illegal but not criminal. Perjury, for instance, is illegal but not criminal. "Unlawful" is the abstract, as you put it, as "lawful" is the word that carries the implication of "what is right" over the actual letter of law.

I've got a twenty on my having a higher TOEFL score than you :p

i had to look that up, and it's kinda irrelevant.

this isn't about proper use of English. it's about grasping basic legal concepts, such as understanding the difference between criminal & civil, and different concepts in contract law.

edited to remove these stupid quotes that keep appearing for no reason (bleh)



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 2:07:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i think your intent is good, and you raise a lot of great points. but i think you need to go back to the basics, and start to build the proper understanding and framework, starting with using the proper terms and concepts.

e.g., first, you have to separate out civil from criminal. then, get the lexicon down, like battery (not assault).

i know no one knows me from shit on this board, and i sound pompous. but it raises my hackles because this can have real world consequences if people don't understand and have mixed up or confused notions of civil and criminal law. i admit, it also irritates me that no one else sees this, and in fact, just the opposite, seems to glam on to a mish mash of mixed up civil and criminal and contract topics.


Now I think you need to get your head out of your ass and go stick it under a cold tap.

I also point you to the part where battery and assault are different, in the way that manslaughter and murder are different, and where my point on assault was in reference to an earlier statement by someone else regarding the validity of "consensual assault".

And, no. Us getting it wrong has no real world consequences on other people understanding or not the difference between criminal and civil law. For the sake of argument, a slave contract falls under contractual law, and everything I have personally said sits firmly within that. No deviation into civil or criminal whatsoever. What DOES make a difference is what the hell the person who misapplies it was thinking taking the word of a bunch of strangers on a fringe forum without consulting with a local lawyer.



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 2:10:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i had to look that up, and it's kinda irrelevant.


I don't see how that holds up since you started your argument by specifically picking on words.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 2:30:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i think your intent is good, and you raise a lot of great points. but i think you need to go back to the basics, and start to build the proper understanding and framework, starting with using the proper terms and concepts.

e.g., first, you have to separate out civil from criminal. then, get the lexicon down, like battery (not assault).

i know no one knows me from shit on this board, and i sound pompous. but it raises my hackles because this can have real world consequences if people don't understand and have mixed up or confused notions of civil and criminal law. i admit, it also irritates me that no one else sees this, and in fact, just the opposite, seems to glam on to a mish mash of mixed up civil and criminal and contract topics.


Now I think you need to get your head out of your ass and go stick it under a cold tap.

I also point you to the part where battery and assault are different, in the way that manslaughter and murder are different, and where my point on assault was in reference to an earlier statement by someone else regarding the validity of "consensual assault".

And, no. Us getting it wrong has no real world consequences on other people understanding or not the difference between criminal and civil law. For the sake of argument, a slave contract falls under contractual law, and everything I have personally said sits firmly within that. No deviation into civil or criminal whatsoever. What DOES make a difference is what the hell the person who misapplies it was thinking taking the word of a bunch of strangers on a fringe forum without consulting with a local lawyer.

but that's just it. if you understood the law, then your answer to not mislead them would be to say there's no such thing as "consensual assault". these words are incongruous because the very definition of assault is the threat of bodily harm. if you've consented to something, then it's no longer a "threat" in any reasonable sense (or more importantly, in a legal sense, as a matter of law). you should have then gone on to explain the nuances of setting out expectations, and gradients of consent.

i think spreading misinformation can make a real-world negative difference, and i have a big mouth and speak up when i see it and know from my training that it's wrong. it wasn't anything personal against you, just your words.

that is all. we can respectfully disagree without your potty mouth fixation (pun intended) [8D]

edit ps:
"battery and assault are different, in the way that manslaughter and murder are different"

battery is not different from assault in the way manslaughter and murder are different. assault is the threat of harm, and battery is the actual harm. that's very different than comparing manslaughter and murder, which is the difference between intent to kill or not, and are gradients of killing, not opposite concepts like battery and assault.


another example of a total lack of understanding of the law



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 2:49:19 PM)

Actually, if you bothered to look again, you'll see that my words support exactly that, there is no such thing as "consensual assault" on the sheer basis of if it were consensual it would not be assault. I see no point in my expanding on that point since it was covered, and merely an illustration to my overall point.

Spreading misinformation is printing out pamphlets telling people that "this is legal". THIS is a discussion. Again, I do not consider it the faults of the participants if someone were to read a forum debate and use that information as their legal background. The fault there is on the guy who does it.

Also, just so we're clear, I'd welcome correction, but I am rejecting your input because you haven't actually made any contribution to the subject, whether it is in agreement with me or not, just levied a vague generic disapproval towards my choice of words. What gives?


edit for typo



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 3:01:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

Actually, if you bothered to look again, you'll see that my words support exactly that, there is no such thing as "consensual assault" on the sheer basis of if it were consensual it would not be assault. I see no point in my expanding on that point since it was covered, and merely an illustration to my overall point.

Spreading misinformation is printing out pamphlets telling people that "this is legal". THIS is a discussion. Again, I do not consider it the faults of the participants if someone were to read a forum debate and use that information as their legal background. The fault there is on the guy who does it.

Also, just so we're clear, I'd welcome correction, but I am rejecting your input because you haven't actually made any contribution to the subject, whether it is in agreement with me or not, just levied a vague generic disapproval towards my choice of words. What gives?


edit for typo

i've gradually included corrections as we discuss. and i appreciate being able to do that (discuss). i edited my prior response to give one such example. and again, my contribution was to say, WAIT, start over, separate out the civil from criminal, then separate out the contract stuff. then get the terms and lexicon right.

i could parse your prior posts line by line, but hey, let's not go there. it would be very rude, time consuming, and prob result in tit for tat that wouldn't add anything.






strangedesire -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 4:22:31 PM)

Karmastic, are you a lawyer? Because unless you are a lawyer recognized as an expert in this field, you should perhaps stop insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact.

Every competent lawyer I've met defends his or her interpretations of laws on the books by citing case law. The fact that you don't see the need to refer to actual cases makes me suspect that your "training" was a bit less comprehensive than you might think. If you can provide facts - with citations! - to back up your assertions, this discussion might go somewhere. As it stands, though, you are pretty much indistinguishable from a troll.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 4:53:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire

Karmastic, are you a lawyer? Because unless you are a lawyer recognized as an expert in this field, you should perhaps stop insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact.

Every competent lawyer I've met defends his or her interpretations of laws on the books by citing case law. The fact that you don't see the need to refer to actual cases makes me suspect that your "training" was a bit less comprehensive than you might think. If you can provide facts - with citations! - to back up your assertions, this discussion might go somewhere. As it stands, though, you are pretty much indistinguishable from a troll.

wow, indistinguishable from a troll? i've come here with sincere good intent trying to get some clarity here and help, and you kinda stoop to personal shit there.

since you asked - no, i do not practice law. i have a law degree, was a law review editor, graduated with honors, and passed CA bar on first try - i think i know the law generally speaking, and how to find it when i don't. esp this first-year easy shit that is being totally twisted up here.

i don't understand why all of the sudden, after showering praise on misleading and/or incorrect information posted by someone else, you now ask me to spend the time to research and cite cases. REALLY?

despite your uncalled for stance, i will be happy to cite whatever it is you think needs citing. most of it can be found in blacks law dictionary, cus again, this is basic shit your buddy you praise is mixing up.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 4:55:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire
[image]http://www.collarme.com/photos/tn/tn_1172405.jpg[/image]
Karmastic, are you a lawyer? Because unless you are a lawyer recognized as an expert in this field, you should perhaps stop insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact.

Every competent lawyer I've met defends his or her interpretations of laws on the books by citing case law. The fact that you don't see the need to refer to actual cases makes me suspect that your "training" was a bit less comprehensive than you might think. If you can provide facts - with citations! - to back up your assertions, this discussion might go somewhere. As it stands, though, you are pretty much indistinguishable from a troll.

ps - wasn't it you who claimed i was "dismissing" NCSF, when in fact you simply didn't read what i posted, and rather, read into it? you were very silent about being adult enough to admit that mistake.

pss - why is it that when i disagree, i'm "insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact", but when your buddy does it, it's helping out. do u see just how fucked up that is?



RedMagic1 -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:05:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
no, i do not practice law. i have a law degree, was a law review editor, graduated with honors, and passed CA bar on first try

That's just enough information to hurt you, because it leads to sophomorism. (Which, frankly, is what others on this thread appear to be accusing you of.)

To give you a point of reference, I know a kinky law professor in real life -- he's made me dinner at his house, shown me his violet wand, etc. -- and I've already decided not to ask him to help with this because I think his area is too far afield. I'm interested in spending 4-6 hours under the supervision of a top specialist who can check my work well enough that we would have a reasonable thesis that a masters student or advanced undergraduate could confirm or falsify as a semester-long thesis project.



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:06:09 PM)

I'm still waiting for you to come up with an actual argument or statement of your own besides "you're wrong". I'd be content if you'd be able to come up with a coherent "actually, you're wrong because xyz and it would actually work zyx way because yzx" contribution to the discussion, no case files needed. I mean, if you're able to say "hey, you're wrong there, actually the law in this state has the precedence of treating this case as blah" or "that only applies if this case is treated as blah" then yea, that's worth discussing. Even though I have my reservations regarding the actual expertise of someone who seems to think law as he knows it is universal.

ETA re Assault
Assault is sticky business because half a dozen judicial systems define it all differently. Whereas assault carries elements of threat, as in "causing a victim to apprehend immediate and personal violence". But that is not the same as "a threat of harm". A threat can be a form of assault, an assault is not restricted to threats. In a broader sense, assault is taken as "causing intentional harm". It is comparable to manslaughter vs murder based on intent, since the decision on whether it is assault or battery (if based solely on the circumstances of A hitting B) is generally based on the intention of harm: did A assault B, employ physical violence as a means of threat or intention to hurt? or did A hit B (batter) without further expectation?



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:24:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

I'm still waiting for you to come up with an actual argument or statement of your own besides "you're wrong". I'd be content if you'd be able to come up with a coherent "actually, you're wrong because xyz and it would actually work zyx way because yzx" contribution to the discussion, no case files needed. I mean, if you're able to say "hey, you're wrong there, actually the law in this state has the precedence of treating this case as blah" or "that only applies if this case is treated as blah" then yea, that's worth discussing. Even though I have my reservations regarding the actual expertise of someone who seems to think law as he knows it is universal.

i understand where you're coming from, and i think i addressed that. i corrected several very basic things. each time i did that, you ignored the prior point and moved on to a new point. there's a name for that type of thing, i fergit it now.

e.g., you never said, yeah, you're right, i didnt understand what assault meant, and my answer was misleading. or, yeah, i mixed up a bunch of criminal concepts into the same paragraph or sentence where i discussed civil and contract.

and now u have this other dude making another incorrect statement about me or what i said, neither of which he's adult enough to address even after i directly challenge him with it, twice now. and him asking me (but not you) to make citations, suspecting trolls.

c where this sillyness is going?



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:28:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
no, i do not practice law. i have a law degree, was a law review editor, graduated with honors, and passed CA bar on first try

That's just enough information to hurt you, because it leads to sophomorism. (Which, frankly, is what others on this thread appear to be accusing you of.)

To give you a point of reference, I know a kinky law professor in real life -- he's made me dinner at his house, shown me his violet wand, etc. -- and I've already decided not to ask him to help with this because I think his area is too far afield. I'm interested in spending 4-6 hours under the supervision of a top specialist who can check my work well enough that we would have a reasonable thesis that a masters student or advanced undergraduate could confirm or falsify as a semester-long thesis project.

i think they're accusing me of not knowing what i'm talking about, even after i gave them easy to understand but blacks law dictionary textbook descriptions (assault, battery, manslaughter, murder, etc.).

i'm not sure how else i can help you. you've pretty much joined in the shit-parade of dismissing my attempts to do so.

peace out



strangedesire -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:34:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

pss - why is it that when i disagree, i'm "insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact", but when your buddy does it, it's helping out. do u see just how fucked up that is?


The only context in which I agreed with anyone on this thread was to approve of the NCSF link. I approve that information because a) it cites case law, and b) I've had the pleasure of hearing most of it in the context of a talk by a gentleman on NCSF's board who is a lawyer actually practicing in this field. (I'm blanking on his name, but I did look him up at the time, and was suitably impressed by his credentials.)

Where I come from, "passed the bar but never practiced law" is code for "couldn't hack it in the real world". This may not be the case with you - I don't know you - but the fact that you know the academic side of the law is not especially impressive to me. Joseph Rakofsky passed the bar. It doesn't have all that much reflection on your ability to practice law in the real world, and we aren't discussing the law in abstract.

quote:

most of it can be found in blacks law dictionary, cus again, this is basic shit your buddy you praise is mixing up.


This is your problem - Black's law dictionary is a good source for students, but it has little actual value in the US legal system. Courts look at precedent to interpret the law. Seriously, this is not complicated, and the fact that you do not understand this makes you look like an idiot. (That, and your total inability to either make an argument or punctuate.) If you want be authoritative in a legal discussion, argue like a lawyer or go the fuck home.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 5:49:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

pss - why is it that when i disagree, i'm "insisting that we accept your interpretation of the law as fact", but when your buddy does it, it's helping out. do u see just how fucked up that is?


The only context in which I agreed with anyone on this thread was to approve of the NCSF link. I approve that information because a) it cites case law, and b) I've had the pleasure of hearing most of it in the context of a talk by a gentleman on NCSF's board who is a lawyer actually practicing in this field. (I'm blanking on his name, but I did look him up at the time, and was suitably impressed by his credentials.)

Where I come from, "passed the bar but never practiced law" is code for "couldn't hack it in the real world". This may not be the case with you - I don't know you - but the fact that you know the academic side of the law is not especially impressive to me. Joseph Rakofsky passed the bar. It doesn't have all that much reflection on your ability to practice law in the real world, and we aren't discussing the law in abstract.

quote:

most of it can be found in blacks law dictionary, cus again, this is basic shit your buddy you praise is mixing up.


This is your problem - Black's law dictionary is a good source for students, but it has little actual value in the US legal system. Courts look at precedent to interpret the law. Seriously, this is not complicated, and the fact that you do not understand this makes you look like an idiot. (That, and your total inability to either make an argument or punctuate.) If you want be authoritative in a legal discussion, argue like a lawyer or go the fuck home.

wow, i've never seen anyone parse quotes and yet so utterly and disingenuously dodge each and every point. great job!

and low and behold, the substance of your reply is an ad hominem attack on me (not even on what i said). e.g., why on earth would i need to cite case law to define assault. the generic term pretty much means the same thing in 49 states. yet u go off on a case law rant.

edit ps: your hateful ignorant assumptions about why i never practiced law have more to do with your own sick need to lash out, rather than any reality about me. and i'm not talking about the good kind of lashing out [&:]



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 6:28:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i understand where you're coming from, and i think i addressed that. i corrected several very basic things. each time i did that, you ignored the prior point and moved on to a new point. there's a name for that type of thing, i fergit it now.

e.g., you never said, yeah, you're right, i didnt understand what assault meant, and my answer was misleading. or, yeah, i mixed up a bunch of criminal concepts into the same paragraph or sentence where i discussed civil and contract.

and now u have this other dude making another incorrect statement about me or what i said, neither of which he's adult enough to address even after i directly challenge him with it, twice now. and him asking me (but not you) to make citations, suspecting trolls.

c where this sillyness is going?



Yea there's a problem with going back and editing your post after it's been discussed, chances are those who've already replied to your post pre-edit missed the edit. Can't blame them for that.

I am struggling to see what point you raised to me that I missed. Please kindly bullet point it again so I can see if I'd missed your point, or if I'd responded in a way that you thought I did.

I did not say "yea you're right i didn't understand assault" because as far as I am aware, I do, and while that discussion was being tabled, you did not offer a clear alternative to my inherent understanding-- which, on a philosophically tangent, I do not agree with either on account of sweeping ill-defined usage.

I did not say "yea my usage was misleading" because I did not think it was, and had not been given cause to think it was. If you thought it was misleading, you didn't explain to me what you thought was misleading about it, or, in fact, mistaken.

I am inclined to agree with strange on the troll accusation because your participation on the discussion has been so far a flippant "you're all wrong but I don't need to explain myself you should just all agree with me" (even though you've not presented anything for one to agree with). But it seems more a shame to me because if you could just be bothered to explain yourself cohesively I'm sure there actually is something worth hearing and discussing there.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 6:56:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i understand where you're coming from, and i think i addressed that. i corrected several very basic things. each time i did that, you ignored the prior point and moved on to a new point. there's a name for that type of thing, i fergit it now.

e.g., you never said, yeah, you're right, i didnt understand what assault meant, and my answer was misleading. or, yeah, i mixed up a bunch of criminal concepts into the same paragraph or sentence where i discussed civil and contract.

and now u have this other dude making another incorrect statement about me or what i said, neither of which he's adult enough to address even after i directly challenge him with it, twice now. and him asking me (but not you) to make citations, suspecting trolls.

c where this sillyness is going?



Yea there's a problem with going back and editing your post after it's been discussed, chances are those who've already replied to your post pre-edit missed the edit. Can't blame them for that.

I am struggling to see what point you raised to me that I missed. Please kindly bullet point it again so I can see if I'd missed your point, or if I'd responded in a way that you thought I did.

I did not say "yea you're right i didn't understand assault" because as far as I am aware, I do, and while that discussion was being tabled, you did not offer a clear alternative to my inherent understanding-- which, on a philosophically tangent, I do not agree with either on account of sweeping ill-defined usage.

I did not say "yea my usage was misleading" because I did not think it was, and had not been given cause to think it was. If you thought it was misleading, you didn't explain to me what you thought was misleading about it, or, in fact, mistaken.

I am inclined to agree with strange on the troll accusation because your participation on the discussion has been so far a flippant "you're all wrong but I don't need to explain myself you should just all agree with me" (even though you've not presented anything for one to agree with). But it seems more a shame to me because if you could just be bothered to explain yourself cohesively I'm sure there actually is something worth hearing and discussing there.

i pretty much have explained everything, including correcting you on what many terms mean, repeatedly, including assault/battery, and how the comparison to manslaughter/murder was diametrically incorrect, misleading, and showed you needed correction. many other examples, and i'm astonished you ignore the written words still, and repeatedly.

and you cannot re-write the time stamps on the one edit i made that show you ignored what was already posted, so why even go there?

it's a good thing we have the rule of law and facts, and not mob rule, otherwise, i would be just a troll, and you would all be geniuses.

this has been a fun exercise in futility.



Karmastic -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 7:06:50 PM)

since i've been accused of being a troll multiple times, i will give you this gem of an example of being just so so so so wrong:

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire, aka, a person who doesn't have a even a fundamental grasp of the law, courts, or how they work.
Courts look at precedent to interpret the law.
(poster's emphasis in bold)

crimeny - wrong wrong wrong! just one more example of a stupid person (who's already had no problem insulting me) trying to sound smart, totally not grasping even the concept.

courts look at THE LAW to interpret the LAW. appeals courts interpret the law when lower cases disagree. lower courts follow binding appeals court precedents, and take them under advisement when they're not binding (out of jurisdiction)



strangedesire -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 7:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

why on earth would i need to cite case law to define assault. the generic term pretty much means the same thing in 49 states. yet u go off on a case law rant.



Oh, I'm sorry, I though that we were having a conversation about the way that assault & battery laws and consent have been applied in real life. Actual, real-live courts who make decisions that influence the lives of actual people haven't accepted your dictionary definition of assault. I am someone who engages in sadomasochistic activities in real life, and so I am vastly more interested in the way these situations play out in real life. If you are more interested in the way that a legal dictionary says the law should be, I wish you the best, but I really don't care.

Incidentally, Alecta and I are different people. It's hard to tell with the way you write, but you seem to be conflating us. It makes this whole conversation an extra layer of weird, and I think it might be part of why your argument seems so completely incoherent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
your hateful ignorant assumptions about why i never practiced law have more to do with your own sick need to lash out, rather than any reality about me. and i'm not talking about the good kind of lashing out [&:]


I'm just going to quote what I actually said:

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire

Where I come from, "passed the bar but never practiced law" is code for "couldn't hack it in the real world". This may not be the case with you - I don't know you - but the fact that you know the academic side of the law is not especially impressive to me.


I'm off to bed. Have fun sharing your valuable information with the world.



Alecta -> RE: slave contract (4/20/2012 7:23:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
i pretty much have explained everything, including correcting you on what many terms mean, repeatedly, including assault/battery, and how the comparison to manslaughter/murder was diametrically incorrect, misleading, and showed you needed correction. many other examples, and i'm astonished you ignore the written words still, and repeatedly.

and you cannot re-write the time stamps on the one edit i made that show you ignored what was already posted, so why even go there?

it's a good thing we have the rule of law and facts, and not mob rule, otherwise, i would be just a troll, and you would all be geniuses.

this has been a fun exercise in futility.


I don't understand what you're trying to say regarding timestamps. My point most people do not refer back to a post they've already read or responded to previously to see if it had been edited. So if you're going to edit a post, you have to allow for the large chance that the edit was missed somehow.

I'm not following with regards to your sweeping generalisation that I've basically ignored everything you've said, either. I'm trying my best to follow your finger but I'm not seeing what you think you're pointing at. What do you think I am ignoring? Like I said, bullet point me.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.125