184 replies to this topic

[Thedream]

Ok, so me and some maggot were having a discussion about how in the real world, victims should not be absolved from blame in every circumstance.  (Sorta how in any type of car accident case, blame is most likely not 100% on a single person).  I made the point that a person subject to a bad event that occurs, should not be absolved of blame just because they are the victim, and this is without taking into account how the person was put into the situation.

Example one:  A woman strips off her clothing and lays down on her back in the middle of a dangerous alley in a dangerous part of town.  A random stranger comes over and rapes her as she lays there.  

Obviously the rapist is at blame for committing this crime, but do you believe that the victim should be absolved of all blame just because she is a victim?  (keep in mind this is not meant to be a formal court case or anything I'm just trying to ask a logic question).  



Example two:  A homosexual boy in a school is hiding his sexual orientation from other schoolmates because they are inherently homophobic and violent towards homosexuals.  The boy has several options, go through high school hiding his homosexuality and attempt to exist without people recognizing his sexual orientation; he could try to exist as an open homosexual in the school and subject himself to abuse and torment; or he could try to change the way the school/world is and attack the problem head on.  


Do you think that if the boy chose to exist as an open homosexual or to change the way things work, that he should be absolved of all blame for his suffering? (again, keep in mind that this is a logical question, not one based on morality.  Please don't respond with "he shouldn't have to hide his sexuality, the world sucks!!!").  





Response in spoiler:

Spoiler

My response to the two situations are that the victim should be at least partially blamed.  I can't justify taking any amount of blame off of the one doing the criminal act, but I can't justify not having blame attributed to the victim for subjecting themselves to such situations.  The person I had the discussion with would like to believe that the victim can never be at fault because they are subject to a cruel world filled with immoral people (which I agree that the world is cruel); however, I would like to think that the victim can be at fault because they failed to recognize that the world is cruel and the situation that they put themselves into could have and should have been avoided.  


So in response to the two examples, the woman should have blame attributed to herself for putting herself into the situation, but this should not take away blame from the rapist, and in example two, the student should be able to realize (or ask for help to realize) that the situation he could potentially be putting himself into is one that should be avoided for his own safety.


**once again, I do not condone any of the heinous acts, I just believe that the victim should have some blame in them, be it for naivety or what have you**

[Breadstick]

i'm the maggot in this discussion

todd confirmed for hating women and gay people

[Absoqt]

Because they're victims.

[Rilor]

You can't really blame people for being idiots, sad but true.

[Anjinsan]

Thedream, on 02 February 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

So in response to the two examples, the woman should have blame attributed to herself for putting herself into the situation, but this should not take away blame from the rapist, and in example two, the student should be able to realize (or ask for help to realize) that the situation he could potentially be putting himself into is one that should be avoided for his own safety.  

[/spoiler]

I've always been under the assumption that every man woman and child should be able to live free and to experience love and respect. To have human rights and to live in peace.
To lay blame on someone who is struggling with abuse in any form seems cruel. Are they not suffering enough?

Being a realist is all good and well but there is no need to be cruel, realising something does not mean you have to act upon it. You can chose to ignore it to lessen the suffering of others.

[treeqt]

there is never a single victim
hope this helped

+rep

[stcolbert]

I don't believe that victims should always be emmune to blame but in the examples you gave they are 100% not at fault.  To even attempt to blame them for those outcomes really shows your degree of autism.  Please stop drinking bleach.

[Kelustu]

Sorry but he's right on the victim thing. You autistics are getting hung up on the word blame. He's trying to say that there is a degree of fault or stupidity on behalf of the victim in some of these cases. For example, you are a white person wearing an expensive suit, bluetooth earpiece on and knowingly walk into an extremely poor/violent neighborhood. You've now put yourself into a situation where a robbing is significantly more likely. No one else put you there in this scenario, you just chose a terrible path to walk home. Obviously, it's not your fault if somebody robs you, because I can already tell you idiots will get hung up on that. But it was still an absolutely moronic decision on your part to do such a thing.

Another one. You're at the bank. Someone robs it. You stand up, from across the room, attempt to stop four armed robbers without a weapon. They're going to shoot you and anyone with any common sense would not have done what you just did. Think of it this way. An action you caused, that was not logical to commit (unlike just getting stabbed by a crazy homeless person on your way to work) directly put you in harms way. The person made a conscious decision to walk into the face of danger and should take responsibility for the stupidity of the actions taken. Now, that's certainly not to say that he should be punished for the robbing, or that a girl should be punished for the raping, that's absurd, but the person should simply acknowledge that they made poor choices and would not make them again, instead of acting as though they did nothing wrong or nothing to put themselves into a situation where bad things can happen.

[Kawklee]

"My right to punch you in the face stops at the point where your nose begins."

[AwesoMegAmazing]

It's never right to do something wrong, even if someone makes it easy for you to do it. I'm not going to give someone partial blame for leaving their car unlocked and someone stealing their iPod. It should never have happened in the first place. They did nothing wrong.

[Brian_Emo]

stcolbert, on 02 February 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

I don't believe that victims should always be emmune to blame but in the examples you gave they are 100% not at fault.  To even attempt to blame them for those outcomes really shows your degree of autism.  Please stop drinking bleach.

This sums it up pretty well. OP is just a rape apologist in disguise.

[Hobbeś]

wh at

[stcolbert]

Kelustu, on 02 February 2013 - 04:49 PM, said:

Sorry but he's right on the victim thing. You autistics are getting hung up on the word blame. He's trying to say that there is a degree of fault or stupidity on behalf of the victim in some of these cases. For example, you are a white person wearing an expensive suit, bluetooth earpiece on and knowingly walk into an extremely poor/violent neighborhood. You've now put yourself into a situation where a robbing is significantly more likely. No one else put you there in this scenario, you just chose a terrible path to walk home. Obviously, it's not your fault if somebody robs you, because I can already tell you idiots will get hung up on that. But it was still an absolutely moronic decision on your part to do such a thing.

Another one. You're at the bank. Someone robs it. You stand up, from across the room, attempt to stop four armed robbers without a weapon. They're going to shoot you and anyone with any common sense would not have done what you just did. Think of it this way. An action you caused, that was not logical to commit (unlike just getting stabbed by a crazy homeless person on your way to work) directly put you in harms way. The person made a conscious decision to walk into the face of danger and should take responsibility for the stupidity of the actions taken. Now, that's certainly not to say that he should be punished for the robbing, or that a girl should be punished for the raping, that's absurd, but the person should simply acknowledge that they made poor choices and would not make them again, instead of acting as though they did nothing wrong or nothing to put themselves into a situation where bad things can happen.

Probably because he was using the word blame not stupidity, they are not interchangeable, kelustu you fucking tard.

You are reinventing a completely different argument, you're an idiot.

The good old point comma insult, die maggot.

[Jinngofagswag]

Op is fucking retarded..

[Slashgiggle]

A woman lays down in an alley

Lol Todd

[Thedream]

stcolbert, on 02 February 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

I don't believe that victims should always be emmune to blame but in the examples you gave they are 100% not at fault.  To even attempt to blame them for those outcomes really shows your degree of autism.  Please stop drinking bleach.

you make a really solid argument, hard to dispute your statement.


??

[Movementx]

Situationally you could blame the victims for thier choices and putting themselves in a situation where something unfortunate would happen, but who knows if the naked girl was roofied or given E and she thought that laying on the ground naked was an ok idea, or the gay boy having his therapist tell him that he should come out and embrace his sexuality and people will embrace him. Its easier to not blame the victim because we will never know the whole story.

[Reliuna]

Slashgiggle, on 02 February 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

A woman lays down in an alley

Lol Todd

Lol Todd

is Todd even a real name?

[Sykeasaurus]

can you please stop

[Reliuna]

lil syke got offended, how?