Thanks for the explanation.
The link is to an Op-Ed in the US News and World Report not a position paper of the American Enterprise Institute.
Does it make factually inaccurate statements you’d like to challenge?
If so, please present them.
Incidentally, I don’t agree with the thrust of the Op-Ed and also, FWIW, despise the AEI, but your rebuttal doesn’t strike me as particularly persuasive.
…which is exactly what the law does:
Does the fact that the law specifies not just intoxication, but a particular degree of intoxication, really surprise you?
IOW, the answer to your original question–
has no clear answer. If you substitute my phrase in–
“in California can someone who is falling over vomiting drunk legally consent to sex?”
has a much clearer answer.
Written by an AEI employee identifying herself as such.
Does the non-position-paper not by the AEI make any statements of fact whatsoever?
If not, was there any particular reason for this demand?
Perhaps you could actually read it. If you find yourself unable to do so, then yes, it contains several statements of fact.
Regards,
Shodan
I read it. That’s how I found out it was from the AEI. But you’re right, of course.
and
are statements of fact. What I should have asked, to be precise, was whether it made any statements of fact that anyone considers relevant or persuasive in connection with the gratuitous opinions put forth about devastating consequences and inflated statistics.
Or I could have just assumed it was a waste of my fucking time, as all these requests for responses have been.
Yes, it has those too. No, I am not going to read the article to you.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll give you this: your two statements of fact are at least as persuasive and relevant as the ones in the article.
Like I said, either/or. Regards.
I repeat.