quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strangedesire

blah blah blah insert partial quote of me that you ignore blah blah blah

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

Karmastic, do you realize how broken you sound? You must know something happened along the way, that something's wrong. I feel as though I am watching someone unravel.

Strangedesire, I apologize. I was going to say something to support one of your points, but I don't see any value in it anymore. I'm off the thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
you implied that i edited posts after you responded to their content. i did not do that. this again fits what i'm saying, about me being very specific in refuting or correcting something, and u ignoring it while saying you're not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirLangsdorff

I always thought contracts were between the D/M and s/s, legally binding only in the relationship, not that taking it to the judge because the slave won't hold up to his/her part of the contract. someone correct me if I am wrong, please.

Actually, you're understating it. It is not legally binding in any way. If the contract ever ends up in court, it will be damning to the Dom because it shows that all actions (BDSM basically involves assault because consent is not recognized in these situations) were premeditated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ekaienoae

Maybe tomorrow we can get back to the OP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alecta

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic
you implied that i edited posts after you responded to their content. i did not do that. this again fits what i'm saying, about me being very specific in refuting or correcting something, and u ignoring it while saying you're not.

Please take it in a tone of sarcasm when I say yes, indeed this does illustrate your point--- because it's taken two replies from me to get to your explaining about what you mean regarding the edit/timestamp, and there is STILL no clarification from you regarding what specifically did I not get right. I am not arguing if you are wrong and I am right, I'm just asking for you to please clearly explain what you mean when you said I was wrong, and specifically why because I'm genuinely interested. Saying I'm confusing civil and criminal and contractual law is vague and unsubstantial. Saying "circumstance X is only applicable in a criminal court of law and not a civil court, which this would be deemed under" is more specific, and in case we're confused, the sort of clarity I was hoping for.

And actually, if you notice the time stamp, your edit was done at 11:56. My response to the post you edited was posted at 11:49. Even assuming that it took me a fraction of a second to type up that response, I didn't ignore your ETA deliberately. It didn't exist until afterwards.

quote:

let's agree to agree that we don't agree on the concepts of law, and hope to have good discussions in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Karmastic:

If "consensual assault" is all hunky-dory with the law, explain why doms get led away by police when the ER staff sees marks on the patient. Or when the ER folks are caring for a sub whose dom had an "oops!" moment during a scene. It's happened to people on this site.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ekaienoae

Maybe tomorrow we can get back to the OP?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Baroana

Aw, not this crap again.

As any lawyer knows, the answer is always "it depends."

For one thing, it depends on whether we are talking about civil or criminal actions. "Assault" and "battery" are defined differently in each.

It also depends what state/country, because different laws apply. Of course it also depends heavily on the facts of each individual case, blah blah blah.

Last but not least, it really depends on how much the parties involved are willing to humiliate themselves by making their private business public.

In general, any activity serious enough to cause an injury requiring medical attention will be considered a crime, consent notwithstanding. (emphasis added)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ekaienoae

Maybe tomorrow we can get back to the OP?

Here ya go: The OP came into the forums to demand an item. He couldn't be bothered with common courtesy. We opted to tell him how to get it himself. He has not been back.

There isn't really any further discussion needed for the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Karmastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Karmastic:

If "consensual assault" is all hunky-dory with the law, explain why doms get led away by police when the ER staff sees marks on the patient. Or when the ER folks are caring for a sub whose dom had an "oops!" moment during a scene. It's happened to people on this site.

i'm not sure i understand the context of your question. are you asking me why someone involves the police when a dom seemingly went too far and sent their sub to the hospital? if you follow your logic, then what process (other than calling the police) do we have to learn facts and differentiate accidents from something more than that? and for accountability?

simply put, what are you saying should happen when someone ends up in the hospital at the hands of someone else? what should we do?

beyond all that, i didn't say the law is hunky dory with "consensual assault". i said there's no such thing, and the words are incongruous, almost an oxymoron of each other. i think part of the major confusion is that people (esp in this thread) confuse assault, the threat of bodily harm or contact, with battery, actual contact. if one consents, then it's not a threat anymore, it's wanted.

thus, one cannot consent to assault, but they may consent to battery. boxing is a great example. some people seem to love (and socially accept, right or wrong) two men beating the fuck out of each other purely for entertainment. but society (again, right or wrong, i'm not advocating either) doesn't accept doing that for sexual entertainment (esp if one is weaker or isn't fighting back).

quote:

ORIGINAL: CastleRock32
I know I shouldn't be replying to this, but Karmastic, it seems like you are equating a sub ending up in a hospital with a dom "going too far". I have to disagree that a dom is at fault just b/c the sub needs medical treatment. I'm not trying to minimize a Dom's responsibility at all. I'm just saying, we play with dangerous stuff. Sometimes ppl accidentally get hurt. People on both sides need to recognize that, and no, I don't think a Dom should be arrested if the sub needs medical attention.

What do I think should happen? Talk to both parties. No need to lead anyone away in handcuffs.