Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

Mel Gibsons' in the John Wicke prequel films despite beating his wife. James Franco is playing Fidel Castro (lol) after being accused by 5 of his own students. Cosby is out and about despite what, 50 or 60 allegations? Weinstein has even been granted an appeal right?

Doesn't seem to matter much what the law says mate. You do you.
 
Murphy said:
So what you're saying is that the people on mumsnet understand that reasonableness is objective but certain posters here don't! I'm not sure mumsnet is a particularly high bar to get over but OK, maybe we should direct C Kent over there so he can argue about how it's subjective. ;)
Click to expand...
You ok hun? You seem a bit rattled.
 
Last edited:
ArcticHeron said:
Mel Gibsons' in the John Wicke prequel films despite beating his wife. James Franco is playing Fidel Castro (lol) after being accused by 5 of his own students. Cosby is out and about despite what, 50 or 60 allegations? Weinstein has even been granted an appeal right?

Doesn't seem to matter much what the law says mate. You do you.
Click to expand...

You know this isnt an international law and only UK and its not even in the books yet?
 
Murphy said:
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)
Click to expand...

You're missing a key point here. I don't know how you're managing to miss it, but I'll point it out:

You are arguing that "reasonable person" is objective.
I am arguing that "reasonable person" is subjective.

I have no idea how you've managed to reverse my position and your own position inside your head. Or are pretending to.

The very fact that "reasonable person" varies (sometimes dramatically) from place to place and time to time proves that it's subjective. If it was objective, it wouldn't be affected by different cultures. "reasonable person" means "whatever people with enough power within a time and place decree to be acceptable". Nothing more or less than that.

Your CPU analogy fails because it's based on measurable factors, i.e. is objective in that respect. The fact that it's a comparison with other CPUs and thus subject to change if new CPUs are made doesn't stop it being based on measurable factors and thus objective in that respect.

Cultural norms are not based on measurable factors and are not objective in any way.
 
Murphy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, now I see. You don't know what "objective" and "subjective" mean.

That makes any form of interaction requiring knowing what those words mean impossible.

What's objective about your scenario is the following:

There is a hole 5 feet deep.
There aren't any safety barriers around it.

What's subjective about your scenario is the following:

Whether or not any particular person decides that safety barriers should be place around the hole.

If a person with enough power to enforce their opinion decrees that safety barriers are mandatory in this scenario, that does not make it objective. It's the subjective opinion of one person.
If some people hold a vote on whether or not safety barriers are to be mandatory in this scenario, that does not make it objective. It's the subjective opinion of a majority of voters in that particular time and place. Which might or might not even be a majority of people in that area and time.

Here's another example:

Outside a particular pub in a particular town in England in the 1980s, several people who happen to be in that time and place at the time think that it's reasonable behaviour to beat up another person who happens to be in that time and place because they think that person is homosexual.

According to your rules, the fact that the majority of people in that specific time and place deem the beating to be reasonable behaviour made the beating objectively reasonable.

In case anyone is wondering then yes, that is an example from my own life. Fortunately for me, some other people who thought the beating was not reasonable behaviour intervened and expressed their opinion in a sufficiently forthright way.
 
Angilion said:
You are arguing that "reasonable person" is objective.
I am arguing that "reasonable person" is subjective.
Click to expand...
No, really? How did i miss that, oh that's right i didn't. :rolleyes:

e: Don't take my word for it...
C Kent said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even C Kent is as dishonest as you.

The only place the positions have been reversed is with you purposely misinterpreting things, and i say purposefully because how you think I've reversed positions after posting this is frankly an insult to everyone's intelligence.

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.
The important aspect regarding breach of duty is to apply the reasonable person test, established in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks. This case defined 'fault' as doing something that a reasonable person would not do, or not doing something that a reasonable person would do. It is used for the ordinary person to establish whether or not they have breached the duty of care to the victim.
Click to expand...

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 www.bitsoflaw.org

Reasonable man​

As a general rule, the standard of care required is an objective one, that of a reasonable man.

  • Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781​

    Baron Alderson: .. Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard demanded is thus not of perfection but of reasonableness. It is an objective standard taking no account of the defendant's incompetence - he may do the best he can and still be found negligent....
  • The reasonable man is now often referred to as the reasonable person and has been described by judges in many memorable ways in cases.

  • Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205​

    Greer LJ: .. the man on the Clapham omnibus....

  • McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999] 3 WLR 1301​

    Lord Steyn: .. commuters on the London Underground....
  • The reasonable person test is an objective one: What would a reasonable person have foreseen in the particular circumstances? Therefore, the defendant is required to take as much care as a reasonable person in his position.

  • Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] AC 448​

    Lord MacMillan: .. standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an impersonal test. It eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question....
Click to expand...
thestudentlawyer.com

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 thestudentlawyer.com
Alderson’s statement portrays the reasonable man as an objective figure whose decision is always the same and takes ‘no account of the defendant’s incompetence’. While this is true, case law proves that at times, the courts have been willing to adjust their decision to the competence of individuals, which makes one question whether the reasonable man is truly as objective as Alderson makes it out to be. Furthermore, Aldersons use of the reasonable ‘man’ is heavily reminiscent of the male-dominated attitudes that existed in the 1800’s, which explains the bias towards men, giving rise to feminist arguments against his statement as a result.
Click to expand...

I mean there's gaslighting and then there's what you're doing, outright lying.
Angilion said:
Oh, now I see. You don't know what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
Click to expand...
Says the person who somehow waffled on for ages and didn't manage to get within a thousand feet of saying what objective and subjective even is. FYI subjective is influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, it's what one person believes typical not based on facts, or it's what they feel is right. Objective is not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice and is based on facts (Like asking 50 people what they believe and reporting that 35 people believe X).

Like i said before your position is beyond ridiculous, you're trying to argue that reasonable person is subjective and standing against you are people who teach law, thousands of people whose jobs hinge the principal, and 150+ years of UK case law that puts reasonableness to the test day in day out.

At this point the only conclusions is that you're trolling.
 
Last edited:
@Angilion murphy often struggles with the English language. He then obfuscates, says the other person is trolling or gets all huffy.
It's quite entertaining.
 
Dis86 said:
@Angilion murphy often struggles with the English language. He then obfuscates, says the other person is trolling or gets all huffy.
It's quite entertaining.
Click to expand...
indeed, worth a giggle though
Angilion said:
Oh, now I see. You don't know what "objective" and "subjective" mean.
Click to expand...
He had no idea what the difference was before being schooled a few posts back :D tbh he's still unable to apply either correctly. Hell, I don't think he has even bothered reading the little article he posted as the conclusion the author draws is the opposite of what murph maintains :cry:
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
What's subjective about your scenario is the following:

Whether or not any particular person decides that safety barriers should be place around the hole.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of how epically you don't know what your talking about and perfect example of how your trying to twist things.

Whether or not any particular person decides that safety barriers should be place around the hole is not subjective because of the very thing you're disputing and don't understand, because a reasonable person would expect that a 5 foot deep hole would have safely barriers placed around it, if you didn't do that you'd be convicted for negligence because you didn't do what a reasonable person would do. That's what that court case that you claimed was relevant was about, one of the standards that need to be meet in proving negligence is if someone could've reasonably foreseen someone falling down a 5 foot deep hole (for example), if they could've then it's negligence, if they couldn't it's an accident, it's unintentional.
 
Last edited:
C Kent said:
indeed, worth a giggle though

He had no idea what the difference was before being schooled a few posts back :D
Click to expand...
Like i said ignorance doesn't only seem to be an excuse for some posters in GD, it's a way of life.

Feel free to point out to me where i had "no idea what the difference was before being schooled a few posts back" and while we're at it @Dis86 is more than welcome to point out where he thinks i struggled with the English language or obfuscated. Although i best not hold my breath as i suspect neither of you will take up that offer.
 
Murphy said:
Like i said ignorance doesn't only seem to be an excuse for some posters in GD, it's a way of life.

Feel free to point out to me where i had "no idea what the difference was before being schooled a few posts back" and while we're at it @Dis86 is more than welcome to point out where he thinks i struggled with the English language or obfuscated. Although i best not hold my breath as i suspect neither of you will take up that offer.
Click to expand...

Short term memory issues too.
 
Murphy said:
Good of you to prove me right. :D

Can't believe you walked into that one so willingly.
Click to expand...

Yeah...no. just have a look at our last conversation in speakers corner where you showed your poor grasp of the English language. Keep back pedalling though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom