/sci/ - Science & Math

this makes me proud to be a swede

It makes me ashamed to be a human. It's 2011 and the majority still believes in the big sky dude.

Well, sure, but you still have laws that say that women can withdraw their consent after they have been fucked, and that makes it rape.

>>2948462
[citation needed]

>>2948462

What the fuck man. That's like someone giving you consent to blow up their car and then after going "Hey, I needed that you asshole!"

>>2948469
Typical tripfag who doesn't keep up with current events.

If you really want to know, I'm sure the Swedish code of laws is online somewhere, just like that of every other country.

>>2948484
So... you DON'T have source? Just "current events"?

Why be proiud of something you have no control over? You are not the entirety of Sweden's population.
Also, 28% of creationists. Really. I can understand religion because it's hardwired into our brain, but creationism should not exist in the first fucking place. It's a disease.

>>2948493
I'm not that stupid that I will be taunted into giving you source just because you are too retarded or lazy to find it.

Allow me.

>>Section 2 of the Swedish Penal Code

'A person who, under circumstances other than those mentioned in Section 1, by unlawful coercion makes someone engage in a sexual act shall be sentenced for sexual coercion to imprisonment for at most two years.

If the person who committed the act exhibited particular ruthlessness or if the offence is otherwise considered grave, a sentence of at least six months and at most four years shall be imposed for grave sexual coercion.'

What the "current events" guy is referring to is the Julian Assange case, where he is being charged with rape, because he allegedly lied about something about himself in one case, and continued sex with a former consenting partner in another case after she fell asleep.

In both cases, the girl consented at the offset to sex, but decided after the fact to withdraw consent based on the actions of the perpetrator.

This means that in Sweden, if you pick up a girl in a bar by claiming to be a doctor, bring her home, have sex with her, and later she finds out you were lying. You can be charged with sexual coercion ( a lesser form of rape, as above.)

IANAL, but I am a Law Student. And the dude is right.

>>2948512
> thinks having to give sources is stupid instead of normal scientific practice

>>2948547

>>2948536 Here.

On a related note, >>2948547 Is correct. This is why I provided a source.

>>2948502
Dude, what the hell? You don't know whether god exists or not.

>>2948555

I believe he is referring specifically to the kind of Young-Earth creationists who claim things that are easily refutable scientifically, and which we CAN prove very easily are blatantly wrong.

No real scientist will argue that he is 100% certain that there is no God, just that is is incredibly unlikely, has no actual evidence for, and quite a bit of evidence against.

But as it's impossible to know anything 100% accurately without an infinite sample size, it's impossible to know about A God specifically.

The events of the Bible however or specifically the Judeo Christian God can be refuted logically if the whole book is to be taken as rules for his existence.

>>2948536
1. He hasn't been convicted of anything.
>because he allegedly lied about something about himself in one case
2. Full of shit. Court documents please.

>>2948573

Today, on the definition of the word "allegedly":

al·leg·ed·ly   
[uh-lej-id-lee]
–adverb
according to what is or has been alleged.

al·lege   
[uh-lej] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -leged, -leg·ing.
1. to assert without proof.
2. to declare with positiveness; affirm; assert: to allege a fact.
3. to declare before a court or elsewhere, as if under oath.
4. to plead in support of; offer as a reason or excuse.

So, yeah. That was the point. And also why I said "accused" instead of "convicted".

Words have meanings. Don't try to put the wrong ones in my mouth. I'm on your side, I think Assange is getting a bum rap.

>>2948598
Today we're learn the meaning of context and how a discussion flows.
Original point:
>Well, sure, but you still have laws that say that women can withdraw their consent after they have been fucked, and that makes it rape.
>and that makes it rape.
Which it doesn't.

>>2948625
I think you should learn to read before.

>>2948625

You're entirely correct. It's not rape. It is still a crime though, called "Sexual Coercion" which can be punished by up to 2 years in prison. I also never used the word rape in my post, except to show that sexual coercion was a lesser form of a related charge.

>>2948641
it doesn't make it sexual coercion either or any crime at all for that matter.
>'A person who, under circumstances other than those mentioned in Section 1, by unlawful coercion makes someone engage in a sexual act shall be sentenced for sexual coercion to imprisonment for at most two years.
If you have trouble understanding that, let me know and I can pull out some crayons and draw it for you.

>>2948641
>You're entirely correct. It's not rape.

That's like saying that manslaughter is not murder. Sure, using legal terminology it isn't, but outside of that the difference is negligible.

>>2948641
> It's not rape. It is still a crime though, called "Sexual Coercion"
We're suddenly stopping feeling proud about you guys.

>>2948652

I did say I was a law student, and I was asked for evidence of a law. Using legal terminology is sort of a given at that point.

>>2948651

Do you know the definition of a crime? It's an offence laid out in a Criminal Code that carries a penalty.

In this case the phrase "sentenced for" prefaces the name of the crime, which is as you can see in the thing you quoted "sexual coercion" and is then followed by the penalty 'imprisonment for at most two years"

So, we've established that there is a crime there.

Now, I believe I've already laid out a situation in which 'unlawful coercion', that is to say, lying about some aspect of yourself, leads a woman to consent before and during a sexual act, but afterwards withdraw that consent. Which falls under the provision of the law, and which also counts as a crime.

The connection to 'rape' is more of a social convention, as 'rape' is commonly used as a catch-all term for various forms of sexual assault which may or may not fall under the legal definition of rape.

In terms of precedent, I'm reminded of a case in Israel, where a young Palestinian man was convicted for allegedly telling a young Jewish girl that he was Jewish, which was a reason why she consented to having sex with him, only for that to turn out to be a lie afterwards and leading to him being charged with a crime.

Same kind of law, same situation, actual precedent.

This is how actual legal arguments work. If that doesn't convince you, I'm sure that I could find some crayons and we could work on that drawing you suggested.

>>2948697

P.S: Found that case I referenced as a precedent:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/arab-man-who-posed-as-jew-to-seduce-woman-convicted-of-rap
e-1.302895

>>2948536
>In both cases, the girl consented at the offset to sex, but decided after the fact to withdraw consent based on the actions of the perpetrator.

Oh wow Sweden.

Oh wow.

>>2948713
>>2948697

Other Anon's Status:

[ ] Told.
[ ] Steve Stone Told Austin.
[x] No Country for Told Men.

>>2948760
>Steve Stone Told Austin
>not Stone Told Steve Austin

wat