Bay 12 Games Forum

Of those state, during the first three, you're still able to consent to sex. During the last three you're not.
People regularly gather at parties where they drink and look for mates. Even outside of these parties humans tend to drink to "gather courage" for flirtation. A huge majority of drunk sex is made with consent of both parties.

Tipsy =/= drunk.

Legally drunk for driving for instance is BAC > 0.08.  In a story about sexual encounters, there is unlikely to be breathalizer proof obviously, and for rape you can't use a cutoff like that, but I'm just pointing out that the law is quite capable of distinguishing between different levels of drunk.  Having a beer to help flirting does not have to be considered "drunk" for purposes of this discussion.

What I tried to explain is that 100% vaccination is better than randomly vaccinate people until the "optimal" percentage is reached. Take a hypothetical case of a disease with a vaccine. 10 people at risk of contracting the disease want to get vaccinated, but data shows that 10% of the people vaccinated suffer a worse reaction than the disease itself. The optimal range would be 90%, right? But the person who is going to suffer the reaction isn't random, it depends on its personal factors. So if you vaccinate 9 people and leave 1 without vaccinating, and you don't know which person is the one to suffer the reaction, there's a 90% chance that you leave without vaccinating a person who doesn't suffer a reaction and gets the disease, and the reactive person gets vaccinated and suffers the reaction. That's 2 people who get affected. If you do 100% vaccination the reactive person is sure to have a reaction, but it's the only one to be affected. (This of course assuming that disease infects all of them and vaccine has 100% effectivity.)

You're treating disease as a fixed, constant situation. It's not, diseases are dynamic and non-linear, due to herd immunity, so you can't make that assumption that disease affects all of the remainder. Which is actually the reason why optimal rates can be between 0 and 100%

See the graph in the spoiler in my first post in the thread. As vaccination rates change, the benefit of vaccination changes non-linearly. This creates 3 possible scenarios:

1) The vaccine is riskier than the disease at any level of vaccination - 0% is optimal vaccine coverage.
2) The vaccine is safer than the disease at any level of vaccination - 100% is optimal vaccine coverage
3) The vaccine risk is in the middle of the non-linear curve - somewhere in between 0% and 100% is optimal.

So yes 100% optimal rate is possible, but without more data, there's no reason to think it's any more likely than a 90% or 95% or 85% or whatever.

Vaccination seriously isn't optional for your children. Yourself, fine, go ahead and make that stupid decision and put yourself and people who can't get vaccinated in jeopardy.

This assumes out of hand that not vaccinating is a "stupid decision" and the entire point of the thread is demonstrating why we don't actually know that...

The content of your post is therefore equivalent to just writing "nope."  And okay, fine, you disagree, but please justify why for more interesting discussion.

Also, this is a really utilitarian perspective on vaccination, which, as with most utilitarian arguments, is complete bollocks because it uses arbitrary statistics with no regard to other factors or considerations.

I said in my very first post in the thread that there are ethical concerns about treating vaccination as a utilitarian problem. And I have consistently considered and promoted other concepts like deontological protection of bodily integrity. I'm not sure how you're interpreting my posts as the opposite of that. I did CONSIDER the pure utilitarian math for sake of discussion, but that does not necessarily mean I endorse the ethics of the approach of using societal benefit over personal benefit (again, as laid out in the first post)

Gavj, I disagree with you

Except you DIDN'T disagree with me. I laid out a method of math. What I'm advocating is not some blanket conclusion about "raise vaccination!" or "lower vaccination!"  What I'm advocating is an algorithm.

Which you followed, more or less. I.e. you agree with me.

The fact that the result of the algorithm for flu is different than for measles is not surprising. Flu vaccines make more sense than measles vaccines, I am quite happy to admit that. WAY more people die of the flu, and the vaccine coverage is MUCH lower (and thus much easier to infer a valence to whether to increase or not with less data), AND there's a lot more data about the most important strains, because a lot more version of vaccines have been developed for them and close cousin strains.

There are a bunch of problems with a study like that one you posted, but I don't want to get into tedious arguments about them, because I think in THIS case, for flu, the data is sufficient despite those problems to verify that we are helping people with our current vaccination rates (and they they could probably rise quite a good amount and still be data-supported)

Neolithic European tools were quite elegant. This is a stone axe from England-ish area, knapped and polished smooth over likely hundreds of man hours (these are fairly common, not often this smooth after being used though)



I don't think I've ever actually seen a real macuahuitl. Wikipedia claims the last authentic one was destroyed in the 19th century. The sketch of it is insufficient to show whether the stonework is better or worse than the European polished work above.

Here is a website with what they say are authentic prismatic blade segments individually: http://www.worldmuseumofman.org/aztprismblade.php
Which are definitely not as nice. But who knows whether these were nicer while they were in use (and got chipped by whatever destroyed the whole club, etc. etc.)
Or if these were simply cheap bargain basement club pieces and we didn't happen to find the really nice ones.
(well actually group 715 looks pretty high quality)

Quote from: GavJ on September 12, 2014, 12:48:56 am

You could both go get a notarized letter that you slept with each other on that date and that you were both willing at the time (just don't mention the alcohol either way). Lol.

Then even if one person presses charges, they are on record for having been awake and willing thus sealing their fate as a rapist as well. wheeeeee

You cannot make contracts agreeing to illegal activities, they are not recognized by the courts.

I just said a statement that something occurred, not a contract. You can make statements about anything, and they are indeed recognized. Including illegal things (for example you can make a statement about how you murdered 15 people, on the record, and you better damn well believe that will be recognized!)

Also though i was being silly. In reality, all that stuff should be a deterrent to having drunk sex in the first place. Not intentionally set up as a mutual threat situation.

Now lets bring practicality into this discussion

Two people enter a bar, they both get smashed on purpose, they both agree to have sex with each other and take a cab home first, they have sex with each other, then they are both sentenced to +5 years in a maximum security prison.

Well if the district attorney was next to you in the cab, then maybe. Otherwise, you'd have to press charges against each other, even knowing the other would do the same, in order for anybody to find out, which would be pretty dumb.

Unless you know, they force themselves onto you... Or they agreed ahead of time... or they are drinking with the explicit intent to have sex with you.

The scenario as described included you agreeing, so we already know they didn't force themselves. And I don't think agreeing ahead of time is necessarily morally justifiable, since you need to account for the possibility they might have wanted to change their mind in between had they remained sober, and only went ahead due to being drunk.  The last thing suffers from the same flaw.

That makes no sense. It is equally taking advantage if you accept a drunken person's request. So it should be equally rape.

I mean like, lying there or something. Not saying "yes please sex me I agree."  That would be ... okay initiating is a poor word.   Initiating OR reciprocating?  Participating? Whatever.

So yes, both people willingly participate, or whatever term, they would both be rapists if both are drunk.



I'm simply following the necessary extension of the logic that "you cannot consent while drunk."  If that's a rule, then drunken sex is rape, at least from one person, possibly both. Not including that in the statistics, or whatever, is undermining the definition which throws everything into fuzziness.

traffic designations really need an "infinite" option. Would makes things so much more intuitive.