Preying on drunk women in social settings = rape?

No you're just overreaching a lot. I've used you and your compadre's EXACT logic earlier to equate you to rape-celebrators to illustrate how your claim of fuzzy logic on my part is the pinnacle of hypocrisy and I can easily do it again. It doesn't make it true, and you're just saying I am a rape apologist because you need an excuse for why anyone would have an opinion on this not 100% in line with yours you fucking thought policing fascist cunt. You're another semi-literate faggot Patrick no doubt brought in to tilt the numbers in his favor so his ego can walk away unscathed, because without a support group he and you no doubt are reduced to a quivering mass of moral uncertainty. But I like that you have to establish a network of friends purely devoted to the exact same hivemind idea to prop each other up on these fascist internet crusades, it's pretty telling of how you operate as an internet equivalent of the morality enforcers in Muslim countries.

I have no problem retracting the statement "If she's too drunk to give informed consent she's too drunk to speak eg. passed out." It wasn't a very good one and a very rushed one, but then you'd be left with nothing in your previous post and just be wrong. You are the exact sort of faggot left-winger who give reason a bad name, literally thinking if someone is even SLIGHTLY put off by a million year sentence in a rape case they are themselves a rapist and a rape apologist, an exact Bizarro world version of Sean Hannity, rationally incompetent and intellectually bankrupt and just spoiling to call anyone a fucking name. I retaliated against this violently because it was idiotic mislabelling based on nothing but an off-hand comment containing the essence of what I meant which was then completely lost in your fatuous heads straining out a way to call me a monster because the world has no business veering from your rashly formed opinions.

You still ignore the problems De Jure of when a person committing the crime is no longer legally liable because he's had too much to drink. At which point has a person had so much to drink he can no longer be prosecuted? You fucking myopic piece of shit you make me sick, still refusing to see that there are serious issues with the way you "think" and I use the word as loosely as fucking possible. On behalf of men everywhere you should fuck off, your children should be put in a hessian bag and drowned over a period of months in a tub and your significant other lanced by a aids-ridden heroin syringe to make sure you and your fucking knee-jerk feminazi thoughtless shitheaded bullshit go extinct. And I hope your parents are ashamed of you and waiting to die to get rid of having to see you from time to time because of how fucking unbearable you are to everyone around you.

Seriously crouch in a corner and fucking kill yourself you are not worth the fucking air you breathe you fucking useless shit.

As a fun exercise I'm going to quote and respond specifically to the parts of your post which are actual content so we can compare and contrast.

put your money where your mouth is motherfuckre, also i'm not even sure that counts as content

OK, so now that you've retracted that statement (because you're obviously wrong), what are you going to put forth in it's place? Are you going to adjust your definition of consent or adjust how you apply your current definition? You also have the option of just conceding the point (I will take more content-less invective as a concession)!!!!

Wow, the rebuttal to this nonsense is really really obvious: we prosecute drunk drivers without any problems De Jure, moreover I'm not sure why problems De Jure are relevant for the individual trying to decide whether or not a girl is too drunk to consent to sex(unless he's trying to decide if he can get away with raping her), moreover De Jure objections have never and will never be a meaningful refutation of a sound moral argument, so eat shit you legalistic reptile!!!!

What Jay holds personally as a definition is pretty dumb... for someone like me? Please explain to the class what you're trying to say.

You tried to argue with me, then you tried to avoid further debate on the grounds that we're defining a single term differently. This was your attempt to escape our little exchange. I am telling you to define consent for me, then I'll rewrite my post in accordance with your definition (because semantics don't fucking matter). Your copout will get tossed out the window and we can carry on.

If you don't want to argue anymore, that's fine, but admit it instead of posting the hilariously misguided excuses you know I see on every forum. There's a reason you're obsessively pursuing these points with everyone except me, and it's because we could be having this argument in Norwegian and you know you'd still lose.