NationStates Jolt Archive

You know the scenario - you're at a party, and someone passes out from too much alcohol. There happens to be a set of markers standing by, and you and your friends decide to become artists...

Is this fair to do?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/caitlincock.jpg

If you pass out with your shoes still on, it's open season. That's the rule. *nod*

Do as you would be done by always makes a lot of sense to me.

Fairly harmless, no?

yup it is. and he is lucky that worse wasnt done. (worse would be unfair)

Do as you would be done by always makes a lot of sense to me.

When I passed out at a party in High School, I came to naked and duct taped in a compromising position to another unconscious naked guy. And I'm supposed to be concerned about a little graffiti?

its ONLY fair to do it at the party. its not fair to mark up your dad who is passed out on the couch or the homeless guy passed out in a doorway.

If you pass out with your shoes still on, it's open season. That's the rule. *nod*

Our rule was you had to make it back to your own bed, even that rule was broken now and again, and yes, marker pens might be the least of your worries, mustard in the nose was always a fun one.

EDIT: You didn't have to be drunk either, falling asleep in a public space was an open invitation.

Where is the poll choice: Only by hot blonde chicks?

The worst I heard involved laxatives, nudity, clingfilm and a lamppost.

Imagine waking up in that predicament.

Yes yes it is. I speak both as a victim and one who is guilty of such crimes.

It's harmless. As long as no one is hurt, then there's no problem. After all, if you're foolish enough to be three sheets to the wind and passed out on the floor, then you deserve to be a human canvas. :)

Our rule was you had to make it back to your own bed, even that rule was broken now and again, and yes, marker pens might be the least of your worries, mustard in the nose was always a fun one.

EDIT: You didn't have to be drunk either, falling asleep in a public space was an open invitation.

Well, sometimes rules have to be broken. When a bunch of drunk wackos are feeling rowdy and mischievous, a convenient semi-comatose friend's sacrifice can keep you from doing something horribly stupid and public that could get you all arrested. :p

Of course, if you are foolish enough to fall asleep or pass out at a party, with a dozen other people who are in a happy and jokey mood, bad stuff WILL happen to you.

Though we sometimes do the same to people even if they are not, but such cases usually involve holding the target down long enough to strip and pen them. Did that to a friend, in broad daylight, in a park, when he was having his leaving party.

Where is the poll choice: Only by hot blonde chicks?
What about ugly, blonde skanks? (as pictured in the OP?)

Either way, if someone passes out in a house/apartment/residence, they should be off limits. Even if it isn't their residence, and even if there is a huge party going on, their still a guest and should be treated with a minimum of respect.
If one of your friends passes out in public, then give 'em Hell. They deserve it for passing out in public.

Well, sometimes rules have to be broken. When a bunch of drunk wackos are feeling rowdy and mischievous, a convenient semi-comatose friend's sacrifice can keep you from doing something horribly stupid and public that could get you all arrested. :p

One of my friends, due to an unrelated injury, discovered iodine. Now marker pens, with a bit of alcohol and a lot of scrubbing can be erased, iodine really infuses into to the skin, I had to go into work with a purple face for about a week.

Where is the poll choice: Only by hot blonde chicks?

hear hear

It depends.

Personally, I've very carefully avoided doing it, as I'd rather not have it done to me. I generally avoid passing out from drink, but on the very rare occassion, my not having done unto others has come back as a reward/threat - don't write on Dai on the rare occassion and Dai won't write on you every chance he gets...

An example of slightly different example, but more or less equal case, a freind was having marital problems a few weeks ago, and ended up passed out in the barroom. Anther friend who'd been targeted by the first for "funny" pics while passed out was ready for a bit of revenge. I stopped him, because there really are certain lines that shouldn't be crossed, and taking advantage of someone's very real emotional upset is one.

As our local Loki God puts it, "Comfort the Disturbed. Disturb the Comfortable." ;)

Well, sometimes rules have to be broken. When a bunch of drunk wackos are feeling rowdy and mischievous, a convenient semi-comatose friend's sacrifice can keep you from doing something horribly stupid and public that could get you all arrested. :p

Real stat to back that up - Japan's National Police Agency long ago noted that the "tiger box" (drunk tank for agro drunks) has had a significantly lower nightly population since the invention of karaoke. :p

If they deserve it, sure.

Just as arresting an invalid is perfectly fine if he's hitting some kid with his crutch.

As our local Loki God puts it, "Comfort the Disturbed. Disturb the Comfortable." ;)

Well said. :)

Well said. :)

To quote another great sage "Sometimes you gotta say "What the Fuck", make your move. Joel, every now and then, saying "What the Fuck", brings freedom. Freedom brings opportunity, opportunity brings freedom."

What the Fuck...

:::breaks own rules to write on a passed out Loki God:::

Oh Hell yes.

An acquaintance of mine had the poor taste to get drunk, puke in the hot tub and grope everyone in it (including another man). When we got him inside, dried off and dressed, his wife and two of the women he groped proceeded to put make up on him - including fake eyelashes and extremely red lipstick. He made a very ugly woman (of course, he wasn't a very good looking man).

*wonders how LG would look in fake eyelashes.*

If the shoes are on, you're fair game. If you managed to get one shoe off, but not the second, then you've pretty much just asked to lose your clothes.

You know the scenario - you're at a party, and someone passes out from too much alcohol. There happens to be a set of markers standing by, and you and your friends decide to become artists...

Is this fair to do?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/caitlincock.jpg

Considering the other options...

including the drunk passing out at the wheel of his car...

yeah, it's fair.

(Marks up Hotwife with bright red lipstick)

If the shoes are on, you're fair game. If you managed to get one shoe off, but not the second, then you've pretty much just asked to lose your clothes.

If you pass out with your shoes still on, it's open season. That's the rule. *nod*

Never heard of this rule.

here in Hawaii, we party at people's places (Homes, Apartments, Dorm rooms, etc...) with our shoes off.

Never heard of this rule.

here in Hawaii, we party at people's places (Homes, Apartments, Dorm rooms, etc...) with our shoes off.

Our rule was that if you made it to the bed/couch you were intending on sleeping on that night, you were safe.

If, however, you passed out somewhere else, fair game.

So this is called 'cheifing' - whatever happened to i before e except after c.

Never heard of this rule.

here in Hawaii, we party at people's places (Homes, Apartments, Dorm rooms, etc...) with our shoes off.
people always wondered why I took my shoes off. It protected me several times.
Our rule was that if you made it to the bed/couch you were intending on sleeping on that night, you were safe.

If, however, you passed out somewhere else, fair game.See...whereever I passed out is exactly where I intended to sleep. Yes, even in the front lawn of the neighbors house.

So this is called 'cheifing' - whatever happened to i before e except after c.
We call it "shaming" around these parts.

the rule sense times immemorial is pass out with your shoes on you are fair game to be messed with. If the shoes are off leave him alone.

I've been on both sides of this, and I still find it funny. Also, I carry a permanent marker with my when I go drink for the explicit purpose of drawing on someone.

Considering my friends.....I would NEVER pass out!

Considering my friends.....I would NEVER pass out!

This is also wise. Stay conscious if you object to becoming a human canvas.

I stay pretty far away from alcohol because of things like this. Even if there's no chance of it happening to me, I don't want to be in an environment where it's likely to happen at all. The same with all sorts of other things that go on when people imbibe too much nectar.

It's absolutely fair. Personally, I prefer to give them a good antiquing.

I think it's fair to do it if it's someone who has done such things to others before or should know to expect this (i.e. someone who has partied before with the same people). It's unfair to do it to someone who is new to the group and hasn't seen this occur at a party before or with someone who wouldn't do this to someone else.

I think it's fair to do it if it's someone who has done such things to others before or should know to expect this (i.e. someone who has partied before with the same people). It's unfair to do it to someone who is new to the group and hasn't seen this occur at a party before or with someone who wouldn't do this to someone else.

Exactly this.

Technically, it's assault, and assault on someone unable to defend themselves, too, so there's the added bit of cowardice attached to the act.

That said, if you tend to party with assholes, best to stay in control of oneself.

Whwn you're that hot, you can do whatever the fuck you want

Whwn you're that hot, you can do whatever the fuck you want

No. No you can't.

And hot? I beg to differ. With such lovely blonde hair, why do they dye their roots black like that? Never gone in for the sorority girl look. The poses are kinda asinine too -- "ooh, look, we've been caught, tee hee". Ugh.

Am I detecting an attitude that if they got drunk, its their own fault, so that makes it ok? If that is the case, how is that different from the old "they were asking to be raped" excuse?

Bottom line, the behavior described in this thread is a violation of the person in question. However, the most serious is the "leaving a passed out drunk person lying their." Yeah its funny (to jackasses at least), until someone dies.

I've been on both sides of this, and I still find it funny. Also, I carry a permanent marker with my when I go drink for the explicit purpose of drawing on someone.

my favorite incident was when someone passed out with his camera in hand. we marked him up and then took pictures of him with his own camera.

Nope, no writing on people. I would never do it. Although is it did happen to me I believe I would be more embarrassed than angry.

There are two people in my group of friends we draw on. And only these two.

Why you ask? Because theyre two guys who always talk big about how they can out drink everyone and theyre real hardass with booze, and then get drunk and pass out after 3-4 beers.

When I passed out at a party in High School, I came to naked and duct taped in a compromising position to another unconscious naked guy. And I'm supposed to be concerned about a little graffiti?You have lived an interesting life haven't you?:p

*draws Ifreann angry eyebrows*

of course... I've never gotten marked up... however I've been to my share of parties where people have been marked... And... I simply think... if your dumb enough to drink enough to pass out anyplace other then your bed... or where ever you are to be sleeping... Then... let the games begin.

of course... I've never gotten marked up... however I've been to my share of parties where people have been marked... And... I simply think... if your dumb enough to drink enough to pass out anyplace other then your bed... or where ever you are to be sleeping... Then... let the games begin.

Pitiful. You are basically saying that because someone got drunk, they deserve to be abused. This sounds like a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped."

The results of this poll are a sad commentary on the state of human ethics.

You have lived an interesting life haven't you?:p

There will come a time when all I'll have are stories. I intend to have good ones. :)

I prefer black boot polish. The dye tends to stay for a week or so.

Pitiful. You are basically saying that because someone got drunk, they deserve to be abused. This sounds like a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped."

The results of this poll are a sad commentary on the state of human ethics.

Wow, nice straw-man there: because drawing on someone automatically equates to rape.

Wow, nice straw-man there: because drawing on someone automatically equates to rape.

This is such a blatent strawman (and hence a blatent act of hipochrisy), that it should be laughable on the fact of it, but I'll be charitable here and proceed on the assumption that you are not being dishonest, but mearly lack reading comprehension skills. However, you must be pretty dim to miss the part where I explicitely said "a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped." I was drawing a parallel between two similar mentalities, not exactly equating the act of drawing on a drunk person to the act of rape. Though I would note that both acts constitute a violation of someone's privacy for the sake of one's own pleasure or satisfaction.

So here is my warning to you: either you make at least some abortive attempt to justify taking advantage of a potentially life-threatening state of helplessness to violate someone's privacy for your amusement, and do so without resorting to hypocritical strawmen, or we can simply abandon any pretense of reasoned discussion and move ahead to the flaming stage right now.

This is such a blatent strawman (and hence a blatent act of hipochrisy), that it should be laughable on the fact of it, but I'll be charitable here and proceed on the assumption that you are not being dishonest, but mearly lack reading comprehension skills. Yes, the problem is with my "hipchratic" lack of comprehension. Put since I don't take every issue personally, I'll explain to you why my argument isn't a straw-man.

However, you must be pretty dim to miss the part where I explicitely said "a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped." I was drawing a parallel between two similar mentalities, not exactly equating the act of drawing on a drunk person to the act of rape. Though I would note that both acts constitute a violation of someone's privacy for the sake of one's own pleasure or satisfaction.

"Pitiful. You are basically saying that because someone got drunk, they deserve to be abused. This sounds like a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped."" -No one said this, so you're arguing against a claim not being made.


life-threatening state of helplessness to violate someone's privacy for your amusement, For goodness sake, no one is suggesting that if someone is suffering alcohol poisoning and in a drunken stupor you do anything other than provide the best possible level of care available, so stop creating a false argument to rail against. The overwhelming majority of people on this forum understand the difference between light-hearted and reciprocal fun, such as drawing on someone who is sleeping (if you know they're cool with it), and taking advantage of someone when they're drunk

Yes, the problem is with my "hipchratic" lack of comprehension. Put since I don't take every issue personally, I'll explain to you why my argument isn't a straw-man.

For the record, I am aware that my spelling sucks, and rest assured you are not the first person to attack my spelling when they should be attacking my arguments. I consider this a form of ad hominum fallacy, attacking an irrelevant trait of the debater instead of the arguments.

"Pitiful. You are basically saying that because someone got drunk, they deserve to be abused. This sounds like a milder version of the same mentality that says "they were asking to be raped."" -No one said this, so you're arguing against a claim not being made.

It was my interpretation perhaps, but not, I think, an unfounded one. To quote the post I was originally responding to: "of course... I've never gotten marked up... however I've been to my share of parties where people have been marked... And... I simply think... if you're dumb enough to drink enough to pass out anyplace other then your bed... or where ever you are to be sleeping... Then... let the games begin." This suggests that basically, an abusive and probably illegal behavior is an acceptable form of entertainment because they "brought it on themselves," hence the comparison I made (emphasis mine).

This attitude also strikes me as borderline sociopathic, but without knowing the individual in question, I will refrain from making that judgement, and merely attack the statement itself.

(I will concede that I may have been overly simplistic in my interpretation. However, I believe that the fundimentals of the point more or less stand).

For goodness sake, no one is suggesting that if someone is suffering alcohol poisoning and in a drunken stupor you do anything other than provide the best possible level of care available, so stop creating a false argument to rail against.

I thought the whole point of this thread was weather it was ok to scribble on a person who was passed out drunk?

The overwhelming majority of people on this forum understand the difference between light-hearted and reciprocal fun, such as drawing on someone who is sleeping (if you know they're cool with it), and taking advantage of someone when they're drunk

Oh please.:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe you could be this poor at reading comprehension, so is it dishonesty, or did you just fail to even skim the thread?

To quote the OP: "You know the scenario - you're at a party, and someone passes out from too much alcohol. There happens to be a set of markers standing by, and you and your friends decide to become artists...

Is this fair to do?"

Also, I would cite the options in the poll:

Yes, always (emphesis mine)

Yes, as long as it isn't me (emphesis mine)

Sometimes

Never

Thus, the OP suggests a situation where a random person passes out drunk, and asks weather it is ok to take advantage of that situation, presumably for one's personal amusement. Now, if I have made any unfounded assumptions or false accusations, or been overly melodramatic, I sincerely apologise. But I simply do not see how you can defend the behavior the OP seems to be implying, or twist that implication to something benign.

I consider this a form of ad hominum fallacy

Ad hominem.

Ad hominem.

Thanks, but my point still stands.

Thanks, but my point still stands.

No it doesn't, because if you are going to launch ad hominem attacks on other people's "reading comprehension", then misspell it, you could earn yourself a place in the dictionary next to "irony".

For the record, I am aware that my spelling sucks, and rest assured you are not the first person to attack my spelling when they should be attacking my arguments. I consider this a form of ad hominum fallacy, attacking an irrelevant trait of the debater instead of the arguments.It would be, if you weren't so keen to raise this alleged arguement: "Oh please.:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe you could be this poor at reading comprehension, so is it dishonesty, or did you just fail to even skim the thread?"



It was my interpretation perhaps, but not, I think, an unfounded one. To quote the post I was originally responding to: "of course... I've never gotten marked up... however I've been to my share of parties where people have been marked... And... I simply think... if you're dumb enough to drink enough to pass out anyplace other then your bed... or where ever you are to be sleeping... Then... let the games begin." This suggests that basically, an abusive and probably illegal behavior is an acceptable form of entertainment because they "brought it on themselves," hence the comparison I made (emphasis mine).It is called hyperbole, and it was used here for the purpose of humour.

This attitude also strikes me as borderline sociopathic, but without knowing the individual in question, I will refrain from making that judgement, and merely attack the statement itself.
Only to someone looking for a literalist interpretation of humour.

(I will concede that I may have been overly simplistic in my interpretation. However, I believe that the fundimentals of the point more or less stand).
Yes, you have oversimplified a point that was entirely comical demonstrating both a lack a a sense of humour, and a lack of intellectual rigour.


I thought the whole point of this thread was weather it was ok to scribble on a person who was passed out drunk?

To quote the OP: "You know the scenario - you're at a party, and someone passes out from too much alcohol. There happens to be a set of markers standing by, and you and your friends decide to become artists...

Is this fair to do?"

Also, I would cite the options in the poll:

Yes, always (emphesis mine)

Yes, as long as it isn't me (emphesis mine)

Sometimes

Never

Thus, the OP suggests a situation where a random person passes out drunk, and asks weather it is ok to take advantage of that situation, presumably for one's personal amusement. Now, if I have made any unfounded assumptions or false accusations, or been overly melodramatic, I sincerely apologise. But I simply do not see how you can defend the behavior the OP seems to be implying, or twist that implication to something benign.

I'm going to go out an a limb and assume the best case scenario, that you are either too young to have hosted a great deal of house parties, or you simply aren't invited to any. Because, frankly, this is not was meant at all. It used to be a standing penalty at a friend of mine's house that if you went to bed early, you could expect to wake up with a moustache drawn on. No malice was meant by it, and no harm done. What did happen, is a group of friends enjoyed each other's company and got a little silly.

No it doesn't, because if you are going to launch ad hominem attacks on other people's "reading comprehension", then misspell it, you could earn yourself a place in the dictionary next to "irony".

Congratulations. You may yourself have set a new high (or low) for "irony," between your strawman accusations of strawmanning, and your accusations of ad hominems while you yourself are perpetrating that particular tactic.

Questioning your reading comprehension when you have failed to get the point of anything I have said is perfectly legitimate. Their are, of course, alternatives, which are frankly more likely. You could be lying, or you could have simply not bothered to read the thread (a common enough phenomenon I know, but you could at least try not to ignore the poll and OP).

Finally, I would observe that their is no particular irony in accusing you of ad hominems while misspelling the term.

Congratulations. You may yourself have set a new high (or low) for "irony," between your strawman accusations of strawmanning, and your accusations of ad hominems while you yourself are perpetrating that particular tactic.Wow, well done. No one well ever look as foolish, or as wrong as you for majority of human history, congratulations

Questioning your reading comprehension when you have failed to get the point of anything I have said is perfectly legitimate. Their are, of course, alternatives, which are frankly more likely. You could be lying, or you could have simply not bothered to read the thread (a common enough phenomenon I know, but you could at least try not to ignore the poll and OP).No, we have different opinions on fact

Finally, I would observe that their is no particular irony in accusing you of ad hominems while misspelling the term.Stop using straw man arguements, that isn't what was said:

No it doesn't, because if you are going to launch ad hominem attacks on other people's "reading comprehension", then misspell it, you could earn yourself a place in the dictionary next to "irony".

It's more offensive to liken marking up to rape than it is to mark up.

No one has condoned putting someone in danger.

Finally, I would observe that their is no particular irony in accusing you of ad hominems while misspelling the term.

The irony is you accusing others of ad hominem attacks while attacking another poster's reading comprehension, perhaps the most widely used ad hominem attack there is.

It would be, if you weren't so keen to raise this alleged arguement: "Oh please.:rolleyes: I find it hard to believe you could be this poor at reading comprehension, so is it dishonesty, or did you just fail to even skim the thread?"

Let me get this strait: you believe that you are justified in attacking my spelling, which you acknowledge would otherwise be an ad hominem, based on my questioning of your reading comprehension, honesty, and/or attention to the thread?

I may be taking an aggressive and derisive approach, but this question is a perfectly legitimate one stemming from your apparent inability or unwillingness to get even the most fundamental points of this debate. My misspelling has no bearing on this whatsoever, both because spelling and reading comprehension (never mind matters of honesty) are different things, and because errors on my part do not justify errors on your part.

It is called hyperbole, and it was used here for the purpose of humour.

Given the regularity with which one encounters absurd and dispicable opinions on the internet, how am I supposed to know weather its intended to be humorous or not? For that matter, how are you?

Only to someone looking for a literalist interpretation of humour.

Horseshit, for reasons described above.

.
Yes, you have oversimplified a point that was entirely comical demonstrating both a lack a a sense of humour, and a lack of intellectual rigour.

Rather, you have demonstrated a profound intellectual dishonesty, and destroyed your credibility through your blatantly hypocritical attacks.

I'm going to go out an a limb and assume the best case scenario, that you are either too young to have hosted a great deal of house parties, or you simply aren't invited to any. Because, frankly, this is not was meant at all. It used to be a standing penalty at a friend of mine's house that if you went to bed early, you could expect to wake up with a moustache drawn on. No malice was meant by it, and no harm done. What did happen, is a group of friends enjoyed each other's company and got a little silly.

Which based off the quotes I provided is a different scenario from the some of those included in the OP and poll options. The situation you describe sounds all well and fine, but I would suggest that their is a serious disconnect between the experiences you are thinking of, and the implications of this thread.

As far as my age and social life are concerned, that's really none of your business, but for the record I am 19, and I take pride in the fact that I am not a part of the drunken party scene. That said, I have been to a party with lots of alcohol. I left early out of boredom.

Given the regularity with which one encounters absurd and dispicable opinions on the internet, how am I supposed to know weather its intended to be humorous or not? For that matter, how are you?

As far as my age and social life are concerned, that's really none of your business, but for the record I am 19, and I take pride in the fact that I am not a part of the drunken party scene. That said, I have been to a party with lots of alcohol. I left early out of boredom.

So, you've absolutely no experience of this phenomenon yet you feel you can accurately judge not only the situation but also ascribe malicious intent to other posters?

Can you not see how wildly judgmental you're being?

Yes marking up a drunk is fair, but the markup shouldn't be more than the market will bear.:D

It's more offensive to liken marking up to rape than it is to mark up.

I likened them, but only in the sense that they are both examples of taking advantage of someone without their informed consent, and that both are defended by a "blame the victim" mindset.

No one has condoned putting someone in danger.

Using someone who is so drunk as to have passed out as your personal canvas, instead of getting them medical attention, is putting someone in danger.

Also, on your accusation that I am judgemental in attacking something I have no experience of, all I can say is damn right I'm judgemental.

Frankly, their are some things one doesn't have to experience in order to know that they are bad. I've never fought in a war, but I know torturing prisoners is bad. I've never driven drunk, but I know its bad. And I've never taken advantage of a person passed out from alcohol, but I know its f***ing bad. So yes, I'm judgemental. We have our judgement to allow us to differentiate right from wrong, without having to experience every horror and atrocity first hand.

The irony is you accusing others of ad hominem attacks while attacking another poster's reading comprehension, perhaps the most widely used ad hominem attack there is.

If I was engaging in the use of an ad hominem, I apologise. However, I was trying to draw attention to the foolishness of his arguments by pointing out that they would more or less have to stem from dishonesty, ignorance, or lack of comprehension.

I guess I figured it wasn't an ad hominem if it was based on a valid criticism. Note that I have consistently tried to attack his arguments, as opposed to simply discrediting the poster through the personal attacks. I may take an aggressive approach to doing so, but I feel its more of a "these are the possible reasons why he would make these arguments," than it is "his arguments are wrong because he's a bad person/did X bad things."

I likened them, but only in the sense that they are both examples of taking advantage of someone without their informed consent, and that both are defended by a "blame the victim" mindset.

There is consent, note the 'rules', which even seem to be slightly different in the US (shoes off) compared to the UK (back to bed), the fact that there are rules implies there is consent in terms of understanding those rules.

Where I go to a party with friends, I am aware that I need to get back to bed, if I don't, I am aware that all manner of japes may be played on me.

People have clarified that you don't do it to strangers and, well I don't know about your friends, but mine can tell the difference between when I've passed out and when I'm in trouble.

Using someone who is so drunk as to have passed out as your personal canvas, instead of getting them medical attention, is putting someone in danger.

'Passed out' does not equal 'collapsed', since you don't drink it's understandable that you don't comprehend what people mean by the phrase, but it doesn't take a great deal of basic reading comprehension skills to realise that people aren't talking about a medical emergency.

However, you're being entirely judgmental in continuing to make up your own mind, despite Rotovia's explanations, about other people despite absolutely no experience of this phenomenon.

There is consent, note the 'rules', which even seem to be slightly different in the US (shoes off) compared to the UK (back to bed), the fact that there are rules implies there is consent in terms of understanding those rules.

My understanding was that you could not give consent when severely intoxicated. Am I missing something here?

I suppose if some people made an agreement beforehand that if any of them passes out they can become the subject of graffiti then you would have consent, but that's not the only scenario covered in this thread by any means. When this little debate began, I was responding to a specific post which basically suggested "they deserve it for getting that drunk." I also cited the OP, which was exceedingly vague, and the poll, which includes always acceptable as an option.

Where I go to a party with friends, I am aware that I need to get back to bed, if I don't, I am aware that all manner of japes may be played on me.

Yeah, and I'm aware that if I go walking through back alleys at night, I may get mugged. Doesn't mean I gave consent.

(Awaits claims that I have equated marking and mugging).

People have clarified that you don't do it to strangers and, well I don't know about your friends, but mine can tell the difference between when I've passed out and when I'm in trouble.

Your friends are medical professionals? Lucky you.

'Passed out' does not equal 'collapsed', since you don't drink it's understandable that you don't comprehend what people mean by the phrase, but it doesn't take a great deal of basic reading comprehension skills to realise that people aren't talking about a medical emergency.

I take "passed out" to mean unconscious. If people here are using a different definition from the one I'm familiar with, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that's not really my fault is it?

However, you're being entirely judgmental in continuing to make up your own mind, despite Rotovia's explanations, about other people despite absolutely no experience of this phenomenon.

Already addressed.

My understanding was that you could not give consent when severely intoxicated. Am I missing something here?

Yes you are, it's your understanding, based on nothing, where has anyone said 'severely intoxicated', Rotovia has even explained that's not what is meant, that's your interpretation, no one else's, why do you continue to take your mistaken understanding, when people have already told you it's wrong, when you have no experience of what we're talking about, and believe it's the valid understanding?

It's not.

I take "passed out" to mean unconscious. If people here are using a different definition from the one I'm familiar with, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that's not really my fault is it?

It is not your fault for misunderstanding at first, it's absolutely your fault to continue to misunderstand, especially when you have no experience or understanding of what we're talking about, especially when we've explained it to you more than once.

Yes you are, it's your understanding, based on nothing, where has anyone said 'severely intoxicated',

I'm not sure how often someone passes out from one or two bears.

Rotovia has even explained that's not what is meant, that's your interpretation, no one else's,

And has presented no real evidence that such is the case so far as I can see. His assertions are meaningless to me, especially in light of his sever hypocrisy and repeated logical fallacies.

why do you continue to take your mistaken understanding, when people have already told you it's wrong, when you have no experience of what we're talking about, and believe it's the valid understanding?

The first part of this is addressed above. The second part I have long since rebutted, but I will do so again in case you can't be bothered to read the previous posts properly.

It is not your fault for misunderstanding at first, it's absolutely your fault to continue to misunderstand, especially when you have no experience or understanding of what we're talking about, especially when we've explained it to you more than once.

Ok, tell me: how would you define the term "passed out."

As for inexperience, I have refuted the illogic of your position already, by demonstrating that first-hand experience is not always nessissary to make a moral judgement. I can research, I can analyse, and I can reason.

And as a matter of fact, I do have some experience. My brother would probably fit the definition of alcoholic, and I am probably the only male in my immediate family who does not drink fairly heavily. So maybe I know a little bit about it?

I have two groups of friends. With one set, we don't do this. They're hard-time, long in the tooth drinkers and thus worthy of my respect.

The others group are my college friends, a mix of those who are new to drinking and other who never shut up about anything else. Those guys I'd mark up in an instant.

So basically, it depends.

*snip*

I'm sorry but you're being quite ridiculous, you're taking your own unique angle on things and then ascribing it to everyone's else's experience, there's really little point in continuing this if you're going to be so willfully obdurate.

I'm sorry but you're being quite ridiculous, you're taking your own unique angle on things and then ascribing it to everyone's else's experience, there's really little point in continuing this if you're going to be so willfully obdurate.

1. The Romulan Republic gives his definition of the term "passed out."

2. Barringtonia disagrees, and uses "lack of experience" to dismiss The Romulan Republic's positions.

3. The Romulan Republic asks for Baringtonia's definition of "passed out," and gives examples of his experience in this area.

4. Barringtonia dismisses The Romulan Republic's arguments and request for clarification, and declares the debate pointless.

5. The Romulan Republic accepts Barrintonia's concession.:)

I'm not sure how often someone passes out from one or two bears.
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/polar-bear-tongue.jpeg

Using someone who is so drunk as to have passed out as your personal canvas, instead of getting them medical attention, is putting someone in danger.

Fact: medical professionals are particularly appreciative of people who call them out late at night because someone got drunk and passed out at a party.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/polar-bear-tongue.jpeg

"Did my Kool-aid make my tongue turn blue?"

Alright, I'll make this concession: its possible that the post I initially responded to was, like much of this thread, humorous in nature. Indeed I would be much relieved if that is the case, though such things can be difficult to tell on-line, or in the heat of a debate. Perhaps I reacted too hastily, in which case I apologise.

However, I feel that that is almost a moot point now, as Rotovia and Barringtonia have devoted considerable time to seriously arguing how the behavior described in the OP and the attitude of the post to which I first responded are genuinely acceptable. Thus, if it began as a joke, it ceased to be some time ago.

Let me get this strait: you believe that you are justified in attacking my spelling, which you acknowledge would otherwise be an ad hominem, based on my questioning of your reading comprehension, honesty, and/or attention to the thread? It is only relevant because you insist on using it as a debating point. I personally don't think it is relevant if an Alaskan governor's daughter enjoys unprotected sex, unless she parades her family as a moral example, as a case in point

I may be taking an aggressive and derisive approach, but this question is a perfectly legitimate one stemming from your apparent inability or unwillingness to get even the most fundamental points of this debate. My misspelling has no bearing on this whatsoever, both because spelling and reading comprehension (never mind matters of honesty) are different things, and because errors on my part do not justify errors on your part.

People disagree, in fact, the overwhelming majority of people find your arguments silly at best, and absurd as standard. I refuse to accept a line of attack that amounts to little more than: you disagree with me, therefore you are wrong.

Given the regularity with which one encounters absurd and dispicable opinions on the internet, how am I supposed to know weather its intended to be humorous or not? For that matter, how are you?
Given the regularity, one would assume the majority of such encounters


Rather, you have demonstrated a profound intellectual dishonesty, and destroyed your credibility through your blatantly hypocritical attacks.I have been in no way dishonest, please do not attempt to cover a lack of argument by matching my vocabulary, especially if you lack an understanding of certain terms


Which based off the quotes I provided is a different scenario from the some of those included in the OP and poll options. The situation you describe sounds all well and fine, but I would suggest that their is a serious disconnect between the experiences you are thinking of, and the implications of this thread.
Except everyone else disagrees. You are arguing against a line of opinion that people are universally lining up to deny they hold.

As far as my age and social life are concerned, that's really none of your business, but for the record I am 19, and I take pride in the fact that I am not a part of the drunken party scene. That said, I have been to a party with lots of alcohol. I left early out of boredom.
It is precisely relevant because it has uniquely shaped your views of this situation, particularly an apparent view that people cannot drink or have fun in a responsible manner, and a frankly offencive and misplaced sense of moral superiority

However, I feel that that is almost a moot point now, as Rotovia and Barringtonia have devoted considerable time to seriously arguing how the behavior described in the OP and the attitude of the post to which I first responded are genuinely acceptable.
The argument seems to stem from why you don't see it as acceptable.

If someone has fallen asleep because they are drunk, and is in no way in need of medical attention, then drawing on their body seems as harmless as many other practical jokes; balancing a bucket of water on a door, swapping deodorant with shaving foam, etc.

Some people, perhaps yourself, might see it as an invasion of privacy -- and in that case I wouldn't do these things to you -- but I would bet that most don't.

However, I feel that that is almost a moot point now, as Rotovia and Barringtonia have devoted considerable time to seriously arguing how the behavior described in the OP and the attitude of the post to which I first responded are genuinely acceptable.

If it were acceptable behavior, it wouldn't be fun. These pranks are meant to be unacceptable behavior among people who also engage in and enjoy unacceptable behavior and are capable of laughing when reminded of when it happened to them.

20 years ago, I probably wouldn't have cared as much. I was younger and stupider among a younger and stupider generation. Today, I would never suggest engaging in such unacceptable behavior except among friends and people capable of laughing at themselves. That's not just because the world has changed, but I've changed too.

So relax and have a few tequilas. ;)

its ONLY fair to do it at the party. its not fair to mark up your dad who is passed out on the couch or the homeless guy passed out in a doorway.

What if it's just a bulls-eye in his bald spot? :p

Well we did put a garlic sausage in some ones zipper. When his wife saw, she screamed her head off. Their cat was on his lap eating the sausage.

It is only relevant because you insist on using it as a debating point. I personally don't think it is relevant if an Alaskan governor's daughter enjoys unprotected sex, unless she parades her family as a moral example, as a case in point

Did you miss where I pointed out that spelling is not the same as reading comprehension? You seem to think that I am guilty of some sort of hypocrisy because I suggest dishonesty or lack of comprehension on your part while making spelling errors myself, but you fail to recognize that the two issues are more or less unrelated.

People disagree, in fact, the overwhelming majority of people find your arguments silly at best, and absurd as standard. I refuse to accept a line of attack that amounts to little more than: you disagree with me, therefore you are wrong.

My arguments amount to a good deal more than that. I have endeavored, as obvious as it should be, to explain what I believe "passed out" to mean (I would note that you have not provided an alternative definition, and that Barringtonia has outright declined to do so). I have endeavored to explain, though again it should be obvious, that violating someone's privacy when they are incapacitated and risking their health in the process is wrong, and that someone who is so intoxicated cannot give consent. I have quoted posts to back up my interpretation of this thread and this debate, and refuted the illogic of the attacks leveled against me and my arguments with specific counter-examples. Your claim is not merely dishonest, its arguably defamatory.


Given the regularity with which one encounters absurd and dispicable opinions on the internet, how am I supposed to know weather its intended to be humorous or not? For that matter, how are you?
Given the regularity, one would assume the majority of such encounters

If someone makes an absurd and offensive claim on-line, and unless the humor is obvious or I know they have a reputation for humorous posting, I consider it quite reasonable to at least consider the possibility that they are serious.

I have been in no way dishonest, please do not attempt to cover a lack of argument by matching my vocabulary, especially if you lack an understanding of certain terms

Your dishonesty is appalling. Please do not attempt to disguise it by simply throwing every accusation back at me.

Strawman: misrepresenting your opponent's argument to make it easier to defeat.

Ad hominem: attacking the person rather than the argument.

Could you tell me what terms I have supposedly misused?

(I am aware that these are probably not perfect dictionary definitions. However, they capture the general meaning of the terms, and you could probably find similarily-worded definitions on many different websites.)

Except everyone else disagrees. You are arguing against a line of opinion that people are universally lining up to deny they hold.

A few other people have joined you, and only Barringtonia has highly vocal. Also, the poll shows that nearly a quarter feel that the behavior described in the OP is never acceptable. Leaving aside any joke votes, of course.

It is precisely relevant because it has uniquely shaped your views of this situation, particularly an apparent view that people cannot drink or have fun in a responsible manner, and a frankly offencive and misplaced sense of moral superiority

Oh God, the cliches. Its just the tired old "book smarts vs street smarts" again, isn't it?. I haven't spent my time getting drunk off my ass, therefor I am incapable of understanding drinking, or even the concept of fun.:rolleyes: This is utterly absurd.

Nor do I assume that, in the grand scheme of things, I am morally superior to you. I do believe that I hold the morally superior position on this issue, and I see nothing wrong with that. We draw on our knowledge and experience to make moral decisions and judgements; its part of how society functions. Their's nothing wrong with it.

Incidentally, please quote the places where I:

1. Said that people cannot drink responsibly

2. Said that people cannot have fun responsibly (are you equating drinking to having fun their?)

What's that? You can't? What a pity.:rolleyes:

The argument seems to stem from why you don't see it as acceptable.

If someone has fallen asleep because they are drunk, and is in no way in need of medical attention, then drawing on their body seems as harmless as many other practical jokes; balancing a bucket of water on a door, swapping deodorant with shaving foam, etc.

Well obviously, certain behaviors are more acceptable depending on your relationship with the people involved. Part of the problem with the question posed in the OP is that its very broad, and does not specify your relationship with the person in question.

However, people who are so drunk they lose consciousness may be in physical danger, and that's not something I'd ever take lightly.

Some people, perhaps yourself, might see it as an invasion of privacy -- and in that case I wouldn't do these things to you -- but I would bet that most don't.

Well I'd never be in a position where I might be subjected to such things. But simply being stupid enough to place yourself in such a position does not constitute consent.

Yes marking up a drunk is fair, but the markup shouldn't be more than the market will bear.:D

That's actually pretty much it...

I have two groups of friends. With one set, we don't do this. They're hard-time, long in the tooth drinkers and thus worthy of my respect.

The others group are my college friends, a mix of those who are new to drinking and other who never shut up about anything else. Those guys I'd mark up in an instant.

So basically, it depends.

Indeed.

If it were acceptable behavior, it wouldn't be fun. These pranks are meant to be unacceptable behavior among people who also engage in and enjoy unacceptable behavior and are capable of laughing when reminded of when it happened to them.

20 years ago, I probably wouldn't have cared as much. I was younger and stupider among a younger and stupider generation. Today, I would never suggest engaging in such unacceptable behavior except among friends and people capable of laughing at themselves. That's not just because the world has changed, but I've changed too.

So relax and have a few tequilas. ;)

Indeed part two.

And, having met this evening with my drinking buddies who are inclined to engage in these sorts of practical jokes, I put it to the local Loki why he didn't write on me when he had the opprotunity last year. His answer back was much as I'd surmised - 1) I hadn't engaged in it 2) rarely presented a chance, and 3) he feared my potential revenge....

So, if you hang with folks so inclined, follow those rules:

1) Don't do unto others
2) Don't give 'em a chance
3) Make sure there's a Mutually Assured Destruction understanding and put a real fear into it...

SNIP

So what were you like when you were immature? :eek:

So what were you like when you were immature? :eek:

Unpredictable. One moment, I'd be relaxing on the couch engrossed in a good book and the next, I'd be tackling a much larger friend and squirting a ketchup bottle down his pants. Another moment later, I was usually curled up in the fetal position, holding my nuts. ;)

However, people who are so drunk they lose consciousness may be in physical danger, and that's not something I'd ever take lightly.
Neither, I would reckon, do the vast majority of people who draw on their inebriated friends.

Having concern for another's wellbeing and drawing a penis on their forehead are not mutually exclusive.

But simply being stupid enough to place yourself in such a position does not constitute consent.
I don't think it's a question of consent; it's a practical joke.

If we sought consent any time we played a prank on people, it'd spoil all the fun.

There are two people in my group of friends we draw on. And only these two.

Why you ask? Because theyre two guys who always talk big about how they can out drink everyone and theyre real hardass with booze, and then get drunk and pass out after 3-4 beers.

I find that those who can actually do that rarely brag about it.

So, you've absolutely no experience of this phenomenon yet you feel you can accurately judge not only the situation but also ascribe malicious intent to other posters?

Can you not see how wildly judgmental you're being?

Wait -- one needs experience to know that being drawn on with permanent ink (like the ubiquitous Sharpie) is, apart from juvenile, assault? And on someone without consciousness?

I'm not saying that you're not getting into what you ask for when you attend parties like that and decide to drink your body weight, but the assurances I've read in this thread that it doesn't happen to strangers or "those who can't laugh at themselves" is fiction of movie-level proportions.

I did grow up in a semi-rural area, where deliberate cruelty was almost an endearment, but the assumption that the guy a few people don't like who shows up at the party isn't being stalked by those just waiting for him to make himself in any way vulnerable...well that's just wrong.

I'm glad your particular peer group was large enough to include you. Many aren't so large or inclusive, and could give less than a fuck about whether or not you're a stranger or whether or not you can laugh at yourself...or have a job interview in the next few days.

In short, be glad your "rules" applied to you.

There is consent, note the 'rules', which even seem to be slightly different in the US (shoes off) compared to the UK (back to bed), the fact that there are rules implies there is consent in terms of understanding those rules.

Yes, and these rules are posted where? I don't know where this idyllic place you party(-ied) is (was), but you seem to assume it's the majority. Where's your experience of parties everywhere to justify this assumption? You're just as guilty of judgment as RE. You've both had personal experiences that color your take on this topic.

Where I go to a party with friends, I am aware that I need to get back to bed, if I don't, I am aware that all manner of japes may be played on me.

Good for you. You are not everyone. You are arguing from the same point of view as RE when you say that -- your own.

People have clarified that their groups don't do it to strangers and, well I don't know about your friends, but mine can tell the difference between when I've passed out and when I'm in trouble.

[first bold = fixed for accuracy]

Once again, good for you. Others' mileage may vary.

'Passed out' does not equal 'collapsed', since you don't drink it's understandable that you don't comprehend what people mean by the phrase, but it doesn't take a great deal of basic reading comprehension skills to realise that people aren't talking about a medical emergency.

So everyone at YOUR parties, at all times, is capable of telling a good "passing out" from a dangerous one -- even while drunk themselves? One more time, good for you. Were that the case everywhere, nobody would ever be hospitalized or die from binge drinking, so I'm forced to conclude that your crowd is above average. Congratulations.

However, you're being entirely judgmental in continuing to make up your own mind, despite Rotovia's explanations, about other people despite absolutely no experience of this phenomenon.

What a coincidence; so are you.

Well we did put a garlic sausage in some ones zipper. When his wife saw, she screamed her head off. Their cat was on his lap eating the sausage.

Now THAT is fucking hilarious. And hey, no marks, no damage. I suppose that might be a large part of my objection to marking. It's just so trite. "Oooh, let's write stuff on him." It's too easy. I suppose it's too much to ask drunken assholes to do anything more than graffiti, but one can hope for a scenario like the above quoted. I'd love to have seen that reaction.

*ship*

Having concern for another's wellbeing and drawing a penis on their forehead are not mutually exclusive.

They're not terribly close together, either.

I don't think it's a question of consent; it's a practical joke.

If we sought consent any time we played a prank on people, it'd spoil all the fun.

Absolutely true.

Pranks usually have a reason to happen, though. They can be low-grade interventions on someone who's getting too big for their britches, to bring them some perspective. They can be retributions for a slight or other mild offense. Stuff like that and more.

My gripe is when damage is done to person or property, and to me, permanent ink on the skin of a person who, in all likelihood, doesn't want it, is a kind of damage.

The other gripe is prank-blindness. That's when the prank becomes more important than consideration for the person being pranked. Most pranksters don't take things like the target's immediate future into account, leading to ill-timed pranks that can backfire.

I guess what I mean to say is that I wish merry pranksters would be exactly that -- merry, as opposed to the veiled viciousness I often see accompanying those acts. That point-and-laugh-derisively ethos that has developed as a result of some reality TV (I'm thinking the dreadful "Punk'd" and the still worse "Candid Camera" knockoffs...even as a kid, I thought Allen Funt was a bully with a camera).

I guess what I mean to say is that I wish merry pranksters would be exactly that -- merry, as opposed to the veiled viciousness I often see accompanying those acts.
Nothing but agreement from here.

Did you miss where I pointed out that spelling is not the same as reading comprehension? You seem to think that I am guilty of some sort of hypocrisy because I suggest dishonesty or lack of comprehension on your part while making spelling errors myself, but you fail to recognize that the two issues are more or less unrelated.
So you fail yo see the irony in personally attacking a person's English skills, whilst yours are bellow par at best?


My arguments amount to a good deal more than that. I have endeavored, as obvious as it should be, to explain what I believe "passed out" to mean (I would note that you have not provided an alternative definition, and that Barringtonia has outright declined to do so). I have endeavored to explain, though again it should be obvious, that violating someone's privacy when they are incapacitated and risking their health in the process is wrong, and that someone who is so intoxicated cannot give consent.
Except you are having a completely different discussion to everyone else. This is akin to everyone standing around discussing how much fun a water fight is, whilst you debate the merits of using a water cannon on protesters.

Numerous people have also attempted to correct the definition your using (it is never advisable to lie about something that is publicly verifiable).

I have quoted posts to back up my interpretation of this thread and this debate, and refuted the illogic of the attacks leveled against me and my arguments with specific counter-examples.
a) So have I, and so do most people
b) Arguing against a straw man even when caught, then merely mirroring criticisms of your argument is the ultimate illogical tract.

Your claim is not merely dishonest, its arguably defamatory.
No, it isn't. Find one thing I've said that is dishonest, or one thing that is defamatory, or even "arguably defamatory"


If someone makes an absurd and offensive claim on-line, and unless the humor is obvious or I know they have a reputation for humorous posting, I consider it quite reasonable to at least consider the possibility that they are serious.
Yet you now know better, but refuse to change your tact


Your dishonesty is appalling. Please do not attempt to disguise it by simply throwing every accusation back at me.Find one example, or the only defamation here is coming from you

Could you tell me what terms I have supposedly misused?Intellectual dishonesty


A few other people have joined you, and only Barringtonia has highly vocal. Also, the poll shows that nearly a quarter feel that the behavior described in the OP is never acceptable. Leaving aside any joke votes, of course.That's less than half the amount of people who believe a dead carpenter's father created all life on Earth in seven days

Oh God, the cliches. Its just the tired old "book smarts vs street smarts" again, isn't it?. I haven't spent my time getting drunk off my ass, therefor I am incapable of understanding drinking, or even the concept of fun.:rolleyes: This is utterly absurd.How dare you assume anyone spends their time "drunk off their arse"

Nor do I assume that, in the grand scheme of things, I am morally superior to you. I do believe that I hold the morally superior position on this issue, and I see nothing wrong with that. We draw on our knowledge and experience to make moral decisions and judgements; its part of how society functions. Their's nothing wrong with it.
You think you are more moral because you never get drunk? I set a higher moral standard than my blood alcohol level, personally

Incidentally, please quote the places where I:

1. Said that people cannot drink responsibly


2. Said that people cannot have fun responsibly (are you equating drinking to having fun their?)
It is precisely relevant because it has uniquely shaped your views of this situation, particularly an apparent view that people cannot drink or have fun in a responsible manner, and a frankly offencive and misplaced sense of moral superiority

Inference


We have a number of problems here, and I think I'll list the big ones, in order

1) You are arguing a straw man against a hyperbolic argument, no one you're arguing with holds
2) You complain of ad hominem attacks, whilst not allowing a single post to slide without using on, particularly making use of misspelled attacks on other people's English skills.
3. Your arguments either make little sense, are based on incorrect assumptions, or are just plain inflammatory

Being drunk doesn't warrant having your person violated.

if you pass out at a party, you are going to get played with. the photo given is pretty much a best-case scenario when it comes to party pranks.. it would take some of the sting out of it all if i knew that it took a couple of cute blondes crawling on top of me to mark me up like that.

Being drunk doesn't warrant having your person violated.

That relies on the assumption that we're talking about drawing on someone who wouldn't draw on you. I would also go as far to say, if you think being drawn on is a violation of your person, you may have some deeper issues

Being drunk doesn't warrant having your person violated.

We aren't talking about date rape, just some innocent fun with (semi)permanent markers! If you are willing to consume enough alcohol to crash out cold you should be aware of the risks you are taking, the least of which would be getting penned up a bit. If you woke up from a party like Ryan Dunn in Jackass, you would have something to complain about with regards to being "violated"..

That relies on the assumption that we're talking about drawing on someone who wouldn't draw on you. I would also go as far to say, if you think being drawn on is a violation of your person, you may have some deeper issues

If it's someone you know well enough, then we're not talking about marking up "the drunk," but your friend. Which is slightly different.

And yes, having someone mark you up with anything IS a violation of your person if you do not consent to it. (It's why most people will strenuously object if you try when they are conscious). Just because it's not violent anal tentacle rape doesn't mean it's not wrong. I have issues with anything that smacks of the idea that being drunk is consent to having your way with their body.

a couple of cute blondes

I think the worst thing about your post(s) is that you find the two blondes in he photo "cute".


Unless "cute" means "fake ugly skanks".

I think the worst thing about your post(s) is that you find the two blondes in he photo "cute".


Unless "cute" means "fake ugly skanks".

Thanks for the critique- I'll try to clarify myself more in the future. :rolleyes:

Yes. If they've had more fun than you in the drinking of the booze that is now not available for you to drink, than you have a right to more fun through markering. Shaved eyebrows may also be acceptable.

Yes. If they've had more fun than you in the drinking of the booze that is now not available for you to drink, than you have a right to more fun through markering. Shaved eyebrows may also be acceptable.

My rule of thumb has always been: nothing permanent.

My rule of thumb has always been: nothing permanent.

what, no obscene tattoos?

My rule of thumb has always been: nothing permanent.
Instead of drawing on or shaving the pour souls, I always prefer a good game of Buckaroo.

Take turns and see how many (softish) things you can pile onto your inebriated chum, before they move and destroy your hard work.

Shoes are often a good choice.

Instead of drawing on or shaving the pour souls, I always prefer a good game of Buckaroo.

Take turns and see how many (softish) things you can pile onto your inebriated chum, before they move and destroy your hard work.

Shoes are often a good choice.

We played this once.

We used my friend's skanky roommate's panties.

We used my friend's skanky roommate's panties.
A resounding 'ewww'.

A resounding 'ewww'.

Seconded... though, I'm oddly inspired

I have issues with anything that smacks of the idea that being drunk is consent to having your way with their body.

You mean it's not? Damn.

*Starts removing the tape from the three or four naked drunk people currently attached to his ceiling.*

You mean it's not? Damn.

*Starts removing the tape from the three or four naked drunk people currently attached to his ceiling.*

I think I broke something laughing

You mean it's not? Damn.

*Starts removing the tape from the three or four naked drunk people currently attached to his ceiling.*

Buddy, if people saw that you had actually been /able/ to tape people to your ceiling, i think "consent" will be the last thing on everyone's mind.

anyone who chooses, in a social context, to put themselves in a state of empared judgement, can't logically expect there not to be unpredictable consiquences of doing so.

of course its "not fair" to exploit anyone else's disadvantaged condition, whatever that condition might happen to be, but when they voluntarily put themselves in that condition, well, i don't see how they can possibly expect this to not happen.

Buddy, if people saw that you had actually been /able/ to tape people to your ceiling, i think "consent" will be the last thing on everyone's mind.

It can be done. Trust me, it can be done. It takes some teamwork and careful planning, but oh yes, it can be done. :)

If the shoes are on when they pass out, here at my house we like to play a little game we called Maneroo. Think Buckaroo the kid's game with putting stuff on a donkey, but with people instead of a plastic animal :)

What about ugly, blonde skanks? (as pictured in the OP?)

Either way, if someone passes out in a house/apartment/residence, they should be off limits. Even if it isn't their residence, and even if there is a huge party going on, their still a guest and should be treated with a minimum of respect.
If one of your friends passes out in public, then give 'em Hell. They deserve it for passing out in public.

^ This ^

Whatever happened to hospitality.

I wonder if the question was "Is it fair to rape the drunk" would it have such enthusiastic support..

I wonder if the question was "Is it fair to rape the drunk" would it have such enthusiastic support..

Before or after drawing on them?

Before or after drawing on them?

First one, then t'other.

Well my entry for the Turner prize is sorted - 'Marked up drunk#5' pen and ink on a human canvas.

First one, then t'other.

As long as its after labor day... or is that before?

First one, then t'other.
Whatever happened to multitasking? Or are you just clumsy?

I would almost say that you don't truly know a friend until you've tested their limits, it's not to say that one should overtly aim to take someone to the edge of tolerance but I find there's a certain dishonesty in people who haven't been all flaps to the wind yet still friends.

It's almost like family, you can know all the faults of one's family to a point yet you would do anything to help them when needed.

My friends trust that they can effectively screw me over and there's no hard feelings, they know my limits through trial and error.

It can be done. Trust me, it can be done. It takes some teamwork and careful planning, but oh yes, it can be done. :)

I own at least two stepladders and have several different kinds of tape. Mind you, the difficult part isn't putting them up there, it's getting them back down once they're awake, sober, and screaming. *nods*

Whatever happened to multitasking? Or are you just clumsy?

my penmanship goes to hell when I'm busy buggering some drunk frat boy without his consent.

my penmanship goes to hell when I'm busy buggering some drunk frat boy without his consent.

See, the problem is that you're also probably trying to do it with your offhand. That's too much at once.

See, the problem is that you're also probably trying to do it with your offhand. That's too much at once.

I suppose I could try using my other. The problem is, while I know they're unconcious and don't notice, it just doesn't seem fair without at least trying to give a reach around.

You know the scenario - you're at a party, and someone passes out from too much alcohol. There happens to be a set of markers standing by, and you and your friends decide to become artists...

Is this fair to do?

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/caitlincock.jpg

only on areas that are normally covered by clothing, but when said clothing is removed, will not result in embarrassment (feet, shirts for guys, lower legs where the socks are). It can take days for permanent marker to come off, so really - play nice!

only on areas that are normally covered by clothing, but when said clothing is removed, will not result in embarrassment (feet, shirts for guys, lower legs where the socks are). It can take days for permanent marker to come off, so really - play nice!

That's why I think makeup is better. Blue eyeshadow, bright red lipstick and blusher, impossibly long eylashes, maybe even glitter. Make it as clownish as possible, if possible, try to get him into a really nice, fluffy, ruffly negligee, then take pictures and threaten distribution on the internet if he is ever so stupid again. Makeup and negligees are easily removed and pictures can be filed away, never to be seen again.

I'm not sure what to do with stupidly drunk women.

only on areas that are normally covered by clothing, but when said clothing is removed, will not result in embarrassment (feet, shirts for guys, lower legs where the socks are). It can take days for permanent marker to come off, so really - play nice!

If it'll take days to come off, then wouldn't the courteous thing to do be to draw on the parts normally covered? :D