Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

[mattx4]

The thing is I'm not sure the guys targeted by this sort of thing are necessarily more likely to do anything more than simply call out, someone earlier in the thread (Devilman IIRC) was posting about how they could stop people moving onto more serious crimes (sort of like the conservative ideas re: weed/cannabis as a gateway drug) but plenty of rapes are carried out by people known to the victim; date rape etc.. being an obvious example.

Also, the basement-dwelling incel types that many are worried about being influenced by Andrew Tate are likely too scared to approach women in bars let alone call out to or harass them in the street.

I'm not sure that working-class builders wolf-whistling or shouting out "alright luv" etc. and black guys wanting to "holla" at "shawty" are necessarily any more likely to become actual sex offenders on the basis that they engage in that sort of behaviour. This seems more related to comfort or social taboo than it is to risk.

I'm inclined to agree with most of this, but do think the existing laws could use some updating or tweaking even if it's used very rarely to convict and more to raise awareness on behavior that is not ok.

Things have changed, the whole thing is in flux. You need to define a man, then a woman. in these gender fluid times all I can say is good luck...

Don't worry we have all had one of those moments doesn't mean your any less masculine

 

[Angilion]

So like i said then, turns out ignorance isn't just an excuse for some people, it's a way of life.

You can whine about how you personally think a reasonable person is not objective all you like but good luck arguing that if you ever find yourself in the courts. They won't give two hoots about what you personally think a reasonable person is, they won't give two hoots because your personal opinion on the matter is the very definition of something that's subjective.

As is their personal opinion on the matter, since it's a subjective thing. The difference is that they have enough power to impose their opinion on other people.

Will you answer the question I've already posed twice:

Since you're referring to the use of the term in 1856, are you arguing that we should apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today?

You're arguing that it's wholly objective and you're arguing that the 1856 legal opinion defines it, so why would you not apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today?

And why choose 1856 England as the sole arbiter of what is reasonable? Why not 1356 England? Or 500BC Sparta? Or any other time and place in which "reasonable person" would have a different meaning?

 

[Malevolence]

Don't worry we have all had one of those moments doesn't mean your any less masculine

I'd have gone with this over Aerosmith.

 

[dowie]

It's a good job people are reasonable:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1641108127180365827

 

[C Kent]

I literally quoted a Wikipedia article that covers a 1856 legal case concerning reasonableness in the law of negligence, that first case and the one that set a precedence for what reasonableness is for the next 150+ years. One that's taught in A level legal studies to this day to teach students what a reasonable person is.

bits of law | Tort | Negligence | Breach of Duty: Standard of Care

Study note on standard of care and breach of duty in negligence. Free study and revision resources for law students (LLB Degree/GDL) on tort law and the English Legal System.

www.bitsoflaw.org

The Reasonable Man: Subjective or Objective?

The Student Lawyer discusses the case law surrounding the 'Reasonable Man' test. Is this a test that is subjective or objective?

thestudentlawyer.com

Thanks for proving the point that the definition of a reasonable person changes depending on circumstance, much appreciated homeboy

 

[Murphy]

As is their personal opinion on the matter, since it's a subjective thing. The difference is that they have enough power to impose their opinion on other people.

Will you answer the question I've already posed twice:

Since you're referring to the use of the term in 1856, are you arguing that we should apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today?

You're arguing that it's wholly objective and you're arguing that the 1856 legal opinion defines it, so why would you not apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today?

And why choose 1856 England as the sole arbiter of what is reasonable? Why not 1356 England? Or 500BC Sparta? Or any other time and place in which "reasonable person" would have a different meaning?

If you bothered to read the judgment you'd know the answer to that.

You can claim things which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, things someone would do ordinarily, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do has somehow changed its meaning in the last 150+ years but it's not.

The reason you wouldn't apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today is because 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable is not what people would consider reasonable in 2023, you know what with the two times being separated by more than 150 years. Look i get it, you've got it into you head that 1856 England is the sole arbiter of what is reasonable and you've completely brushed over the fact that it says "which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs", you know the fact that what ordinarily regulated the conduct of human affairs in 1856 of even 500BC Sparta is not what ordinarily regulates the conduct of human affairs in the UK in 2023.

However in doing so you're choosing a very strange hill to die on because you're totally ignoring the fact that things "which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs" changes, just like society changes. That reasonableness is not a fixed standard, that it changes depending on the time, the place, and even the circumstances. It changes because what was reasonable in 1853 may not be what is reasonable in 2023. (and before you say it no that's not subjective, it's objective. Just like saying the Athlon 64 was the best CPU was an objective thing to say in 2003 but it's not in 2023)

Thanks for proving the point that the definition of a reasonable person changes depending on circumstance, much appreciated homeboy

No one said it didn't. Just because something changes depending on circumstances does not mean it's not objective, what's reasonable in one circumstance maybe different from what's reasonable in another but it doesn't somehow magically change what's reasonable.

Nice of you to admit that you were wrong on the whole objective/subjective thing though, oh wait...

Also, homeboy, you for real?

 

[C Kent]

No one said it didn't. Just because something changes depending on circumstances does not mean it's not objective, what's reasonable in one circumstance maybe different from what's reasonable in another but it doesn't somehow magically change what's reasonable.

Nice of you to admit that you were wrong on the whole objective/subjective thing though, oh wait...

Also, homeboy, you for real?

Christ on a bike, you are the one claiming a reasonable person is set in stone and isn't at all subjective depending on differing circumstances, and now all of a sudden you are agreeing the definition changes depending on differing sets of circumstances? Make your damn mind up would you, this flip-flopping on position doesn't do you any favors.

What you define as a reasonable person could well differ entirely to what Fred from Eastern Europe will define it as, that's precisely what makes it subjective. A judge telling a jury to apply the reasonable person test will give different results depending on how the jury has lived their life/their religious beliefs/their age etc. Do you not understand that?

 

[Murphy]

Christ on a bike, you are the one claiming a reasonable person is set in stone and isn't at all subjective depending on differing circumstances, and now all of a sudden you are agreeing the definition changes depending on differing sets of circumstances? Make your damn mind up would you, this flip-flopping on position doesn't do you any favors.

What you define as a reasonable person could well differ entirely to what Fred from Eastern Europe will define it as, that's precisely what makes it subjective. A judge telling a jury to apply the reasonable person test will give different results depending on how the jury has lived their life/their religious beliefs/their age etc. Do you not understand that?

Those reading comprehension skills letting you down again i see. I did not claim "a reasonable person is set in stone and isn't at all subjective depending on differing circumstances" despite your attempts to misrepresent what i actually said.

Do you even understand what the difference is between subjective and objective? Here, I'll help you out. What you personally think is reasonable is subjective, it's based on the the subjects perspective. What everyone else thinks is reasonable is objective because it's not based on personal opinion, it's based on observations.

e: If you dig a five foot deep hole and don't put safety barriers around it because you don't think anyone's going to fall into it that's a subjective judgment, if ten other people think you should because someone could fall into it that's objective, that's what a reasonable person would/should do.

 

[C Kent]

Those reading comprehension skills letting you down again i see. I did not claim "a reasonable person is set in stone and isn't at all subjective depending on differing circumstances" despite your attempts to misrepresent what i actually said.

No you've decided to become fixated on one small detail of something (as usual), in this instance 'a reasonable person', you've decided the terminology meant one thing and one thing alone. You've been called out on it, shown that firstly the reasonable person test changes depending on the nature of the court case, civil vs criminal and secondly can change entirely depending on someone's world view and experience - the 2nd element (especially in criminal court cases - which is where the defendant will end up should charges be brought against under the vague terminology in the proposed bill) is what makes it entirely subjective. Your little passive aggressive digs won't change that fact.

Do you even understand what the difference is between subjective and objective? Here, I'll help you out. What you personally think is reasonable is subjective, it's based on the the subjects perspective. What everyone else thinks is reasonable is objective because it's not based on personal opinion, it's based on observations.

Wrong, objective is something that's provable without the basis of any personal opinions or biases, be that mine or someone else's. What you describe here

What everyone else thinks

makes something entirely subjective

 

[Chris Wilson]

No offence, but in choosing to use the example of which processor is the best has changed over the years and what was the best then is not now is amusing.

The arguments on this very forum as to what is the best piece of hardware for a PC at any current moment are legendary and shows just how subjective that example is.

 

[Murphy]

Wrong, objective is something that's provable without the basis of any personal opinions or biases, be that mine or someone else's. What you describe here

makes something entirely subjective

You don't think it's possible until you actual come across it but here you are.

Do you seriously not understand that what EVERYONE else thinks is objective, that while each individual within the group of EVERYONE have subjective opinions that collectivity they make up an objective judgment. That if a group of ten people each hold their own personal, subjective, opinions on something like whether the death sentence is right or wrong that collectivity we can make an objective judgment, if seven out of ten think it's wrong that's the very definition of an objective judgment. You've canvassed the subjective opinions of ten people and come to an objective judgment that 7 out 10 people think it's wrong.

No offence, but in choosing to use the example of which processor is the best has changed over the years and what was the best then is not now is amusing.

The arguments on this very forum as to what is the best piece of hardware for a PC at any current moment are legendary and shows just how subjective that example is.

No, it shows how poor some peoples understand of really basic concepts of reason and logic are. I also choose which processor is the best specifically in an attempt to make it easier for some people to understand that things like best, good, bad and even reasonableness changes with time, that reasonableness is not being judged on 1853 ideals as Angilion claimed. That reasonableness is, like i quoted, something that's "ordinarily" and 1853 is not ordinary in 2023 just like the best processor from 2003 is not the best processor in 2023.

 

[Chris Wilson]

You don't think it's possible until you actual come across it but here you are.

Do you seriously not understand that what EVERYONE else thinks is objective, that while each individual within the group of EVERYONE have subjective opinions that collectivity they make up an objective judgment. That if a group of ten people each hold their own personal, subjective, opinions on something like whether the death sentence is right or wrong that collectivity we can make an objective judgment, if seven out of ten think it's wrong that's the very definition of an objective judgment. You've canvassed the subjective opinions of ten people and come to an objective judgment that 7 out 10 people think it's wrong.

No, it shows how poor some peoples understand of really basic concepts of reason and logic are. I also choose which processor is the best specifically in an attempt to make it easier for some people to understand that things like best, good, bad and even reasonableness changes with time, that reasonableness is not being judged on 1853 ideals as Angilion claimed. That reasonableness is, like i quoted, something that's "ordinarily" and 1853 is not ordinary in 2023 just like the best processor from 2003 is not the best processor in 2023.

Is the "best" processor currently available not subjective depending on what usage is most important to the purchaser or reviewer?

So what is the best processor?

 

[C Kent]

You don't think it's possible until you actual come across it but here you are.

Do you seriously not understand that what EVERYONE else thinks is objective, that while each individual within the group of EVERYONE have subjective opinions that collectivity they make up an objective judgment. That if a group of ten people each hold their own personal, subjective, opinions on something like whether the death sentence is right or wrong that collectivity we can make an objective judgment, if seven out of ten think it's wrong that's the very definition of an objective judgment. You've canvassed the subjective opinions of ten people and come to an objective judgment that 7 out 10 people think it's wrong.

FML, are you real? You do know there is a difference between coming to an objective consensus and what people subjectively think are 2 different things?

Actually, you really don't do you.

 

[Murphy]

Is the "best" processor currently available not subjective depending on what usage is most important to the purchaser or reviewer?

So what is the best processor?

Seriously, you want to go down that road. You want to turn a discussion of whether the term used in the legislation of "reasonable person" is subjective or objective into a discussion of what processor is "best".

OK, I'll bite. Yes what processor is best for an individual person, usage, or reviewer is subjective but like i keep telling you each of those subjective opinions form an objective judgment. If 80% of people subjectively think processor X is the best then objectively it's the best.

@C Kent: You feeling OK there 'homeboy', you seem to have quoted me and said nothing. Are you loosing the plot?

 

[C Kent]

Is the "best" processor currently available not subjective depending on what usage is most important to the purchaser or reviewer?

So what is the best processor?

I think Atari are better than Amiga

 

[C Kent]

@C Kent: You feeling OK there 'homeboy', you seem to have quoted me and said nothing. Are you loosing the plot?

Cat stood on my hand so I pressed the 'save' in error.

 

[Murphy]

FML, are you real? You do know there is a difference between coming to an objective consensus and what people subjectively think are 2 different things?

Actually, you really don't do you.

Yes i do know and that's exactly what I've been telling you for goodness knows how many posts now. That's why "reasonable person" is not subjective as some people claimed, it's not subjective for precisely the reasons UK case law sets-out, for precisely the reason i laid out.

I mean what part of "which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs" is it that you think is subjective? Is it because you don't understand what "ordinarily" means?

 

[C Kent]

Yes i do know and that's exactly what I've been telling you for goodness knows how many posts now.

Not to me you havent , you decided to start banging on about 'a reasonable person' yet again after I made a jokey post about the word creep not being subjective as long as its terminology is clearly defined.

That's why "reasonable person" is not subjective as some people claimed, it's not subjective for precisely the reasons UK case law sets-out, for precisely the reason i laid out.

I mean what part of "which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs" is it that you think is subjective? Is it because you don't understand what "ordinarily" means?

My God, you still don't understand the difference do you?

You can have an identical scenario that hinges on what a reasonable person would do and come to 2 different outcomes because it is entirely subjective. Take your example from post 548

If you dig a five foot deep hole and don't put safety barriers around it because you don't think anyone's going to fall into it that's a subjective judgment, if ten other people think you should because someone could fall into it that's objective, that's what a reasonable person would/should do.

2 different sets of 10 people: The first set of come to the conclusion that barriers were required because people are stupid and will fall into the hole without any sort of warning. The 2nd set of people come to the conclusion that common sense was more than enough and no barriers were required. Same scenarios, different outcomes precisely because their definition of a reasonable person differs. Do you understand now?

 

[Murphy]

Not to me you havent

No wonder you're having issues, you don't even know what someone has been saying.

2 different sets of 10 people

So in other words one set of 20 people! And you're throwing your toys out the pram because you think I don't understand.

Honestly i CBA with you any more, obviously you're not going to take my word for it, you're not going to take the word of people who teach these things, nor the thousands of people whose jobs hinge of these very principals, and you're not even going to accept 150+ years of UK case law that puts reasonableness to the test day in day out, so i give up. You obviously know better than everyone, although like i said good luck if you ever find yourself in the courts on something like a negligence charge where you have to prove you did everything a reasonable person would do in order to prevent injury or death.

 

[C Kent]

No wonder you're having issues, you don't even know what someone has been saying.

So in other words one set of 20 people! And you're throwing your toys out the pram because you think I don't understand.

nope, but there is one person here that cant grasp something so fundamentally simple and thats why you are running away

Honestly i CBA with you any more, obviously you're not going to take my word for it, you're not going to take the word of people who teach these things, nor the thousands of people whose jobs hinge of these very principals, and you're not even going to accept 150+ years of UK case law that puts reasonableness to the test day in day out, so i give up. You obviously know better than everyone, although like i said good luck if you ever find yourself in the courts on something like a negligence charge where you have to prove you did everything a reasonable person would do in order to prevent injury or death.

I can see why you stick to SC, fewer people to call you out on your nonsense, although I expect the majority just ignore you when you go on 'murphy rant' there as well.