Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[Quintessence]

Is it just me, or is people's belief (or lack thereof) in free will a major component of what perspective they take on this issue?

 

[kashmir]

Is it just me, or is people's belief (or lack thereof) in free will a major component of what perspective they take on this issue?

Its really too broad of a situation to put blame on anyone other than the attacker.
Rape is never the victims fault.

 

[Quintessence]

Its really too broad of a situation to put blame on anyone other than the attacker.
Rape is never the victims fault.

That doesn't really answer what I was asking. XD

 

[kashmir]

That doesn't really answer what I was asking. XD

whose free will was you talking about then?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That doesn't really answer what I was asking. XD

Hence, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3775801-post12.html.

 

[Quintessence]

whose free will was you talking about then?

Nobody's.

What I'm asking is whether or not OUR belief in the concept of free will (or lack thereof) influences how we play the blame game.

I know that for me, my rejection of free will plays a large role in my refusal to play the blame game. Words like "responsible" or "at fault" mean something dramatically different to a determinist than they do to someone who believes in free will, and I honestly prefer to not use those words at all. I see contributing factors or variables, and I don't take into account the (to me) non-existent free will of any entity involved. This is why I cannot see targets of crimes as non-contributing factors; they have to be, because the event involved them. The only way they couldn't be a contributing factor would be if the crime never happened to them in the first place.

 

[kashmir]

Nobody's.

What I'm asking is whether or not OUR belief in the concept of free will (or lack thereof) influences how we play the blame game.

I know that for me, my rejection of free will plays a large role in my refusal to play the blame game. Words like "responsible" or "at fault" mean something dramatically different to a determinist than they do to someone who believes in free will, and I honestly prefer to not use those words at all. I see contributing factors or variables, and I don't take into account the (to me) non-existent free will of any entity involved. This is why I cannot see targets of crimes as non-contributing factors; they have to be, because the event involved them. The only way they couldn't be a contributing factor would be if the crime never happened to them in the first place.

That is a horrible way to look at life.
A kid goes to school and shoots everyone dead
"well, they did go to school, it's their fault too they were killed"

I don't buy into that sort of reasoning.

 

[Quintessence]

That is a horrible way to look at life.
A kid goes to school and shoots everyone dead
"well, they did go to school, it's their fault too they were killed"

I don't buy into that sort of reasoning.

No offense, but based on your attempt at a summary here, you do not understand my line of reasoning at all, because that isn't something I would say. XD

 

[kashmir]

No offense, but based on your attempt at a summary here, you do not understand my line of reasoning at all, because that isn't something I would say. XD

I am not trying to be offense, just trying to relate..

This is what you said:
"This is why I cannot see targets of crimes as non-contributing factors"

 

[columbus]

I am not trying to be offense, just trying to relate..

This is what you said:
"This is why I cannot see targets of crimes as non-contributing factors"

.

Add the word SOME. Or include qualifiers like usually or rarely or normally. Always and never don't often accurately apply to human behaviour.

Tom

 

[Alceste]

I think I'd rather leave it up to people to decide what precautions they feel are necessary, than to coerce them into ignoring certain factors based on absolutist conclusions which are further based on incomplete and less-than-comprehensive information.

For example, a girl in college gets dragged to a frat party where there is lots of drinking and sexually aggressive behavior. She tells her friend they should leave, or not get drunk because it doesn't feel safe. Her friend says "well, Mystic told me that these aren't relevant risk factors for getting raped, so we don't need to worry about that - drink up!"

Do you really think that's a responsible message or approach? Do you think that simply defining some factors as irrelevant makes them so, and is it productive to send the message to not take into account risk factors just because some people decided they shouldn't be considered? Do you think that college girls never get raped in such situations by people they didn't know beforehand?

Honestly, I find your blind idealism in defining rape solely according to your perspective as unproductive at best, and highly irresponsible at worst.

My advice would be that a large number of people who embrace rape myths, exhibit a lack of empathy, hold an entitlement mentality, demonstrate aggression misread sexual signals etc. are likely to be found at a drunken frat party.

So I would advise finding another hobby or another social circle, since the only risk reduction factor I'm concerned with is avoiding people who are statistically more likely to commit sexual assault. Even when they're not at a frat party.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Not much point in having a conversation with mind readers.

Prude that I am I think people should treat sex as the powerful force in human life that I think it is. Blaming people because they're male isn't going to help with the problem.

Tom

You seem to be stuck on the male vs female aspect of this which is why I brought that up. Suppose he went to her house, she started going on about venereal disease/how much she wants kids/an ex or current bf,husband, imagine what you want the point is he is turned off such that your friend decides maybe he'd be better off leaving. She in turn is extremely upset that her 'promised sex' isn't happening. Would your friend be a ******** in that case for not providing her with sex? Suppose she then drugged him, exploited him sexually while he was passed out... would he have blame in that happening?

I never blamed him for being male. I blamed him for being a *rapist*. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever he had to do that. Part of being a decent human being is fighting what can be rather powerful instincts, including the desire to mate when aroused, the desire to murder when enraged and so on. There are things you just *can't do* and be a respectable person.

 

[Alceste]

Without a reasoned explanation of why, your claim is baseless.

It should be obvious, but a person's body is not a house. It has no locks. A sexual assault is not a burglary. The psychology of cat burglars and rapists is not necessarily the same - the first is a violation of property for personal enrichment. The second is a direct act of violence against another human being to feel powerful.

There is literally no way for you to "lock up" your own body to keep it safe from physical assault. The only thing you can do is steer clear of violent people. It doesn't matter what you're wearing while you do that.

 

[columbus]

You seem to be stuck on the male vs female aspect of this which is why I brought that up. Suppose he went to her house, she started going on about venereal disease/how much she wants kids/an ex or current bf,husband, imagine what you want the point is he is turned off such that your friend decides maybe he'd be better off leaving. She in turn is extremely upset that her 'promised sex' isn't happening. Would your friend be a ******** in that case for not providing her with sex? Suppose she then drugged him, exploited him sexually while he was passed out... would he have blame in that happening?

I never blamed him for being male. I blamed him for being a *rapist*. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever he had to do that. Part of being a decent human being is fighting what can be rather powerful instincts, including the desire to mate when aroused, the desire to murder when enraged and so on. There are things you just *can't do* and be a respectable person.

And that doesn't include bouncing in a guys lap, spending his money, and then going home with him?

Sorry, I have more respect for the power of women. And I have seen them use it in ways as disgusting as men often do.

Tom

 

[Quintessence]

I am not trying to be offense, just trying to relate..

This is what you said:
"This is why I cannot see targets of crimes as non-contributing factors"

I also said that I don't like using words like "fault" or "responsible" because the baggage those words carry generally fail to accurately represent my view.

I would not say: "well, they did go to school, it's their fault too they were killed".

I would say: their presence at school that particular day and at that particular moment provided the opportunity for them to be shot at that location.

That's the hard, objective fact of the matter; presence or absence is a contributing causal factor in events. I don't see the point in denying this, and I find it downright dangerous to do so. Part of conducting a risk analysis is making an honest appraisal of contributing factors, as well as assessing costs and benefits.

Taking this example further, say you're a parent trying to decide if you want to home school your child. If you are concerned about your child being killed in a school shooting, that would be a risk factor that influences your decision to home school them. If they don't go to public schools, they can't be shot in that location, ever. You'll mitigate or eliminate that risk.

Again, this really is not about who or what is "responsible" or "to blame" or "at fault." It's about objectively and impartially assessing risks, then making an informed decision about safety.

 

[dawny0826]

This thread is in many respects an extension of this one, only the intent here is to consider perpetrators and targets of crimes more broadly. In that thread, I'm noticing a worrying tendency for some to to completely absolve targets of crimes of any contribution to the event. Although I suspect some of this is due to choice of words and semantics, it is very concerning to me that people are able to ignore causal variables simply because they are centered on the victim of a crime.

Being a target of a crime does not magically erase the fact that aspects of that person's behavior or personality contributed to the situation. Suggesting so is unscientific, unwise, and potentially downright dangerous. It nullifies our ability to conduct an impartial, objective risk analysis of crime and its causes, and in particular it won't allow us to develop ways that we can protect ourselves from becoming targets. After all, if we can't bother to acknowledge how we, as targets, contributed to the situation, we're going to be blind to how we can change our behavior to reduce our risk. We need to take responsibility for ourselves too, not just engage in rubbish finger-pointing exercises.

Thoughts?

I think you post excellent questions and I agree with you. I don't support victim shaming in any way, but, I too, feel that there can be benefit to questioning the choices of a victim and the circumstances surrounding a crime.

In example, if I decided to go out late at night by myself, without telling anyone, without a cell phone and without any form of personal protection on my person and was assaulted - I think it foolish to not address that which may have been done differently to yield a different outcome.

If I had not been alone, would I be at less risk of being attacked? Would it have helped, if I had a cell phone or a weapon or something for self defense?

I don't think that asking these question have to translate to victim shaming or victim guilt. By reviewing circumstances, we can identify patterns.

Bottom line - we can never control the action of others. We are only responsible for our own choices. We are not invincible.

 

[kashmir]

I also said that I don't like using words like "fault" or "responsible" because the baggage those words carry generally fail to accurately represent my view.

I would not say: "well, they did go to school, it's their fault too they were killed".

I would say: their presence at school that particular day and at that particular moment provided the opportunity for them to be shot at that location.

That's the hard, objective fact of the matter; presence or absence is a contributing causal factor in events. I don't see the point in denying this, and I find it downright dangerous to do so. Part of conducting a risk analysis is making an honest appraisal of contributing factors, as well as assessing costs and benefits.

Taking this example further, say you're a parent trying to decide if you want to home school your child. If you are concerned about your child being killed in a school shooting, that would be a risk factor that influences your decision to home school them. If they don't go to public schools, they can't be shot in that location, ever. You'll mitigate or eliminate that risk.

Again, this really is not about who or what is "responsible" or "to blame" or "at fault." It's about objectively and impartially assessing risks, then making an informed decision about safety.

Your world view is completely flawed.

"Joe is walking to the store and a drunk driver just happened to loose control and ran over Joe"
The only relevant factor is that the drunk driver should not have been drinking and driving.

Trying to reason Joe as being part of the situation is not relevant.
Joe does not have superpowers and can determine when it the best to walk to the store, to avoid all dangerous situations.

People do blame themselves needlessly, for example, Mary might have wanted a candy bar and asked Joe to go to the store for her.
Mary then beats herself up for Joe getting hit by a drunk driver.
It is not Mary's fault.
Joe has walked to the store many many times before.
What we do in our natural lives has no reflect what so ever.

There is no such thing as a safe bubble one can live in and prevent themselves from all negative situations.

You are also talking in circles with the school thing.
You are placing blame on the victims but are trying to cover it up with inconsistencies.

"reducing the risk of being shot by homeschooling"
Is placing blame.

So what if the parent does in fact, home school?
And a robber just happens to pick that house, and kill everyone in the house including the kids.
Kids that wouldn't have even been there if they were in school.

Please don't try to defend this by saying the risks are less, that a robber would show up.
There are more people killed by robbers, then kids killed by other kids in school shootings.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My advice would be that a large number of people who embrace rape myths, exhibit a lack of empathy, hold an entitlement mentality, demonstrate aggression misread sexual signals etc. are likely to be found at a drunken frat party.

So I would advise finding another hobby or another social circle, since the only risk reduction factor I'm concerned with is avoiding people who are statistically more likely to commit sexual assault. Even when they're not at a frat party.

I agree. Whether the potential victim is male or female.

Maybe it's me, but I find much of the advice given to potential rape victims tend to be toward women specifically. Don't get drunk at frat parties. Don't walk around alone at night. Carry a rape whistle. Lock your doors when you get in the car.

Is this advice given to men, too? Or is there other bits of advice for men on how not to get raped? And if there is, what are they? And if there isn't, why not?

 

[Erebus]

There are loads of ways people can reduce the likelihood of becoming a victim of a crime. However, the only way to entirely negate the possibility of becoming a victim would be to wholly remove yourself from human society and make it impossible for anybody to reach you. Short of mastering interstellar travel, I have no idea how you could accomplish that. As such there are invariably going to be crimes that people simply couldn't have done anything to prevent (excluding of course the aforementioned hypothetical spaceman).

Even in cases where a victim could have done more to prevent what happened to them, I don't think any laxity on their part should be taken into consideration. To me the potential to discover new means of prevention by examining their contribution to the crime is massively overshadowed by the danger of such an examination becoming an exercise in blaming the victim.

 

[dawny0826]

I agree. Whether the potential victim is male or female.

Maybe it's me, but I find much of the advice given to potential rape victims tend to be toward women specifically. Don't get drunk at frat parties. Don't walk around alone at night. Carry a rape whistle. Lock your doors when you get in the car.

Is this advice given to men, too? Or is there other bits of advice for men on how not to get raped? And if there is, what are they? And if there isn't, why not?

Wouldn't most safety precautions apply to both men and women? Sometimes, don't you have to exercise common sense regardless as to who you are?

There are certain neighborhoods in my community that I'm not allowed to drive to alone when working. In fact, government officials will come to us as we work, if we ask them to, because it's not a safe area. Statistics clearly depict as such.

Male or female - walking those streets at night - alone - places you at greater risk to be mugged, assaulted or raped.