Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No problem. Happens to all of us.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why don't we admit the fault of victims?
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
No problem. Happens to all of us.
Well, you'd think I'd might be a bit emotional about my assault.
Understandable.
And don't let people get to you who suggest that you need to go be irrational, and to go quietly cry in a corner while the grown-ups work this out to help you.
You have a voice. Use it. You were not at fault, and those who suggest otherwise are using a tactic to get you to shut up about your assault.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Not really.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Often qualifiers like "some" makes all the difference. The problem I had with that other thread was words like always and never. Human behavior is just too chaotic for words like that to be accurate in most contexts.
I know a woman who bounced in a guys lap, for most of four hours, hitting him up for drinks. He'd never had such a hot woman pay attention to him before. At closing time he worked up the courage to invite her to his place. She not only went, she drove her own car.
But once they were there she was too tired, drunk, bored or something. He did her anyway. She accused him of rape.
Which he was guilty of committing. She said "no".
Tom
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Without a reasoned explanation of why, your claim is baseless.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Mud wrestling is probably the best way to proceed since we're at an impasse. I'll even tie one arm behind my back since you're a girl and all.
I'm short. I tend to aim for what's between the legs anyway. What I do there depends on how much I like you right now.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
A house is a house, it doesn't need clothing, it isn't a person.
That should be enough.
In certain places, women can be severely punished, sometimes beaten up, by their relatives or husbands for going outside their homes without being covered from head to toe. There is definitely a risk for many women who don't cover their entire body before leaving their homes.
Are those women responsible at all for getting punished and/or beaten up by their relatives or husbands if they go out without abiding by the aforementioned restriction? Why or why not?
Are those women responsible at all for getting punished and/or beaten up by their relatives or husbands if they go out without abiding by the aforementioned restriction? Why or why not?
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The great thing is that I'll enjoy it either way.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I don't think you understand the point of the analogy.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
See, they aren't responsible (according to some), but if I go out and drink or wear 'sexy clothing' I am. :cover:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Inauguration message of Mr John Blinkered, Chief Constable of Kentistan
Dear residents, I didn't get into this position for my good looks, even though I can still pull a shag when on distant Federation meetings.
As part of my new crime prevention initiative I have instructed my officers to question and scutinize crime victim statements in order to assess the % of provocation which they extended to criminals who would otherwise have been decent law abiding citizens. I'm not losing my bloody job just because a crowd of idiots within my Constabulary boundaries exposed themselves unnecessarily.
Mrs White got mugged last week as she went to do her weekly shopping, all because she is daft enough to still carry cash, and hasn't figured out that debit cards are safer in-transit. What a tw-t!
Mary Wenlock wondered why she got grabbed, dragged into a hedge and raped last wednesday afternoon until our discerning officers pointed out to her that her figure definitely sends signals to otherwise reasonable blokes. In future she will be required to wear a sack when outside her own home, and forsake any makeup.
As for the idiot who got half beaten to death for his duke-genieve wrist watch the other morning, I would like to ask him, 'Which part of keep-it-in-your-pocket-till-you-get-to-the-office' don't you understand?
People like these idiots are raising crime in my districts, costing my force masses of money and keeping me off the gold course and away from my secret society meetings.
And so, victims of crime..... look out, 'cos I'm out to get yer....
Dear residents, I didn't get into this position for my good looks, even though I can still pull a shag when on distant Federation meetings.
As part of my new crime prevention initiative I have instructed my officers to question and scutinize crime victim statements in order to assess the % of provocation which they extended to criminals who would otherwise have been decent law abiding citizens. I'm not losing my bloody job just because a crowd of idiots within my Constabulary boundaries exposed themselves unnecessarily.
Mrs White got mugged last week as she went to do her weekly shopping, all because she is daft enough to still carry cash, and hasn't figured out that debit cards are safer in-transit. What a tw-t!
Mary Wenlock wondered why she got grabbed, dragged into a hedge and raped last wednesday afternoon until our discerning officers pointed out to her that her figure definitely sends signals to otherwise reasonable blokes. In future she will be required to wear a sack when outside her own home, and forsake any makeup.
As for the idiot who got half beaten to death for his duke-genieve wrist watch the other morning, I would like to ask him, 'Which part of keep-it-in-your-pocket-till-you-get-to-the-office' don't you understand?
People like these idiots are raising crime in my districts, costing my force masses of money and keeping me off the gold course and away from my secret society meetings.
And so, victims of crime..... look out, 'cos I'm out to get yer....
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If you know for a fact that you'll get beat up if you go outside without being fully covered, then it's up to you to decide whether you wish to do so or not, for whatever reasons you find relevant. Perhaps, you decide that you're going to walk outside uncovered to make a stand and make a point, even though you know you'll get beaten. Perhaps, you want to avoid getting beaten, so you do as expected. Either way, when you know there is a cause-effect relationship between your actions and the results, you are taking responsbility for your actions. And again, this has nothing to do with blame or fault.
brokensymmetry
ground state
I'm not impressed by this. Presumably he was freely exchanging drinks for her attention at the bar. After all, he found her attractive and he already got to have her company. If he was only doing it in hopes for sexual favors later he should have known that was never going to be a guarantee. Perhaps when they were alone she realized he turned her off after all. Whatever it was, when he 'did her anyway' that is just outright rape and he's a piece of **** for doing that. I have no idea why you'd present this as a fuzzy case or a case where we ought to have sympathy for this guy.
If this is the sort of thinking where having victims 'take responsibility' goes this is seriously problematic. This is not good for anyone.
Is this an elaborate way of saying "yes"?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
No, it's a detailed an nuanced answer which attempts to answer your rhetorical and oversimplified question in a reasonable and realistic manner.
These attempts by people to play some sort of "gotcha" through rhetoric and argumentative fallacies is getting really boring.
Leftimies
Dwelling in the Principle
Keep your opinions to yourselves and to voting post, don't betray trust, do not steal, do not boast with all that you have in front of bitter people who have nothing, don't cause or take part in a division not concerning yourself, etc. etc. The list goes on. People kill for both the most valid and feeble reasons.
The most popular reasons for homicide are, I believe, cheating (betrayal of trust), expressing too loudly one's views (political killings), financial crimes (thefts), emotional killings (jealousy), or choosing a side in a battle which escalates (taking part in division).
Sometimes it cannot be avoided, like in the recent case of Taipei metro stabbing. But you can definitely decrease the odds by maintaining low profile.
While it may look like an oversimplified question to a lot of people (and understandably so, in my opinion), it does reflect very real and concrete circumstances for many people in certain cultures. The only difference I see between those circumstances and the fact that many women are told they are partially responsible for getting raped if they don't do this or that is that a lot of relatively free cultures are still desensitized to the latter, whereas most people in those same cultures wouldn't even question whether a woman is not responsible for getting in trouble if she drives a car or goes out of her house without covering her entire body.
Whether intentional or not, placing responsibility--even partial responsibility--on victims of crimes seems to me to be a form of victim-blaming. I don't think I could call placing responsibility (partial or not) for a negative outcome on a victimized person anything other than that.