Objectifying women

[Dotard]

Dotard, I'll try again.
Would you like to see the legal position altered so that a defence of " shared responsibility " ( or some other words which describe what you keep banging on about ) is acceptable to the courts with the implication on sentencing that entails?

No.

[Autumnlicious]

Dotard, I'll try again.
Would you like to see the legal position altered so that a defence of " shared responsibility " ( or some other words which describe what you keep banging on about ) is acceptable to the courts with the implication on sentencing that entails?

It already exists somewhat. It is called mitigating circumstances. But had you read my post, you would've known that and why striving for noting all levels of responsibility, blame and actions taken actually increases accountability. But I suppose we can all go bat shit at OMFGWTFTHEYAREBLAMINGWOMENFORBEINGRAPE!!!!111!1!

You know, how bout we go bat shit insane. We might understand religion after that.

[tackattack]

It always boils down to that, but I shouldn't be surprised by this point

[Violet]

Oh, so here's where this went! Leave a few days, and forget where everything is :S

Understand that sexual attractiveness is perhaps the single most important aspect of why a rape occurs...

Sorry, no. It's not even close.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/...nd-rapists

If indeed it had nothing to do with sexual attractiveness... then allow me to illustrate a point (originally made by Dotard):

---

And another thing......

The politically constructed social studies reasons rape happens are false. Rape happens for evolutionary reasons as outlined in my links above.

To claim rape is not sexually driven but driven by violence and men's need to dominate women is no different than claiming the theft of my wallet was not monetarily driven but driven by violence and the the perpetrators need to do dominate me. Nothing to do with the fact I was flaunting/exposing it.

A thief goes out to rob somebody. Will he chose to rob this guy --> or will he chose to rob this guy-->?

A deserves to be shot scum-bag rapist heads out to rape someone. It is of my opinion, in our present day society,
this girl --> has an increased chance of becoming his victim more than this girl -->

---

I said it once before, and I will say it again:

It is true that being sexy is not the cause of rape (Hence how non-human animals are sometimes raped, which is quite related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia a linky for you)... but it is an great part of the choice for whom to rape. It is true that riches are not the cause for theft (Here is a link to prove this: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/crime/story/868944.html )... but that riches are an great part of the choice of whom to steal from.

---

This conversation is unbelievable.

I believe it... :S

---

[quote='tavarish' pid='71598' dateline='1274465840']
1. Rape is wrong, but it happens
2. Pretty girls get more attention that less attractive ones - good and bad.
3. Pretty girls should do more to safeguard against negative actions taken against them due to this extra attention.

Implied points:

Pretty girls who are raped didn't do enough to safeguard themselves.
(Edit: having problems with the quote above... no idea why, just informing) As they got raped, this is necessarily true. Perhaps they could not have done more... and STILL not done enough.

It is the responsibility of pretty girls to not get raped.

It is the responsibility of all people to not be in harmful situations when they do not want to be... having more necessarily means one must do more to protect what they have than others who have less. In example... you are the leader of a nation... it is 10 kilometers by 10... and you have 8 border policemen. If you buy more land, and suddenly your domain is 100 by 100 kilos: to maintain the level of border security, you must hire more than your 8 police.

Apply this to money. Say you have a few dozen dollars in your ghetto bank: the chance of that money being stolen is low when compared to the rest of the money in the bank. If, however... your coffers should extend to the hundreds of thousands: they are much more likely to be stolen where they are, and must be moved to a more secure (and larger) bank. Having more, once again, means that one must protect more to maintain a level of security.

Similarly, being more sexy will lead to a need for more protection for yourself. The girl who is about the size of a baby hippo is outstandingly less likely to be raped... when compared to the slender sexy Jamaican stripdancer. To have an equivalent level of security... the stripper would have to pay (money they almost certainly do not have) for it.

To quote Sirian: "Possession is nine tenths of the law, and they have established that a certain planet did not, in fact, belong to me after all, because I was unable to protect it."

Pretty girls who are raped are partially to blame for failing to not get raped.

This is by necessity true.

You are a terrible person.

For understanding blame/responsibility/causation?

Some unnamed people who gave your post kudos are overreacting

[Violet]

---

How about you look at a dictionary.

blame   [bleym] Show IPA verb,blamed, blam·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to hold responsible; find fault with; censure: I don't blame you for leaving him.
2.
to place the responsibility for (a fault, error, etc.) (usually fol. by on): I blame the accident on her.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blame

I highlighted the key word for you.


Words, they mean things. Go figure.

You're an idiot, and I mean that in the nice- ....no, I don't.

---

Interestingly... responsibility is pretty much defined as 'that which can be blamed'. Quoting dictionarily circular words is rather pointless, Ely

However, to engage your definitions:

There is a car crash... and in the crash 3 people are killed, 2 brain dead for the remainder of their life, and 1 drunken driver escapes with minor injuries.

All of this came together to cause the crash... and safely it could be said that if any of them did not occur (at least insofar as the effect of the cause): the crash would not have occurred.

1: One driver urgently left 5 minutes early because his kid complained.
2: The kid complained because there was no bathroom, and he really had to 'go'.
3: There was no bathroom because a group of partiers blew up the toilet only the day before with fireworks.
4: The partiers obtained the fireworks minutes before the store closed.

Had the partiers not obtained the fireworks in time: the toilet would (likely) not have been exploded, the kid could have (likely) gone at the party, and the driver would (likely) not have urgently left five minutes early, and the crash would thus likely not have occurred.

To say that all of these contributing factors are not to blame for the event of the crash is, as you like to say, "Completely ridiculous"

At the least... it is true that events are the summation of all their parts... and that to not blame all of the parts accordingly for how much they affected the outcome is to do a disservice to them all.

---

I agree with Tarvish, responsibility is different to blame of course, blame has the negative connotation of it being someones "fault". You can be the victim and still be partially responsible for what happened to you in the sense you didn't take enough precautions or were careless or whatever so it increased the likelihood of you getting hurt, NOT in the sense of "blame" in the sense of it's your "fault".

Emotions always get in the fucking way of arguments IMO. Even with the most cood headed people it can be an issue. I fucking love emotions, but when you mix them in with debates everything is fucked up to fucking fuck.

EvF

Yet... it could easily be questioned, "What but for connotation does 'blame' have different from 'responsibility'?"

And I actually have an answer for that one: Nothing.

The words are interchangeable, though indeed the usage of them is usually subtly different.

As I consider it, of course... if you are a part that affected the outcome: you are partially responsible for the outcome. As is every part involved. If a single part were ever able to be solely responsible... then it would be wholly responsible. However, I cannot think of any real-life situation where this could ever occur.

---

Dotard, what you are arguing could be really radical in a legal context.
You seem to be suggesting that the courts should view robbery/rape somewhat differently than they now do.
If I understand you correctly, a robber/rapist could offer the defence that the victim had shared responsibility. If that were accepted then a much lighter sentence would follow or indeed no sentence.
Is this your proposition?

I doubt that is what Dotard means to suggest.

I, on the other hand, am all for every part in a crime being weighted according to its effect on the crime's occurrence. This is a rational distinguishment between those who steal out of desperation and the thieves only in it to line their pockets. Observe:

A man steals a few apples from an apple stand because he is starving, and would likely die if he does not steal. Say that in this case, this man has a family that is starving... and the only way he can keep them alive is by stealing food for them. The primary factor in this case is not the man... but the starvation that forces him to stoop to theft. The answer to this should not be to punish a man for having the will to act to save himself and his family... but to ensure that his family does not starve again.

A man cracks a safe, and lines his pockets with cash. He continues to steal for his livelihood... his greed driving him to more risky operations to feed his growing living costs (as what is money for, but to spend?)... until he finally is caught. This is the mode behavior that should be punished by the society: behavior that directly disturbs and damages the society. A few apples won't be missed, and they are a dollar a dozen... but the same cannot be said of vandalizing buildings (as in this case, though it could be written otherwise of course (which must then be repaired at great cost, and the security improved so that it does not happen again... once more at cost)) and/or taking a society's money so that one can get a good computer and an expensive car.


A shared responsibility is honest... and disservices none of the identified parts. Indeed... what justice can be found if we restrict our system to asking "What", "When", "Where" and "How", and never "Why"... when intent is such an important part of sentient action?

---

We seem to have 100% affirmation of what women feel about this discussion. As males we're speaking from a position of power: the civilised world being heavily patriarchal. It's obvious it fucking hurts a lot. Just saying our focus maybe should be listening and understanding rather than dictating/ making proclamations.

I'm over here... thanks...

[bozo]

Saerules, regarding " shared responsibility " as a defence in court, Dotard did indeed deny it was what he was inferring.
Now, addressing your 2 crimes, I don't see how shared responsibility could be argued in either case. Neither victim appears to be in any way responsible for the crime.
Also, playing devil's advocate in the first example, the man could easily beg for enough money to buy a few apples, couldn't he? ( but if it were me I'd rob! )

[Violet]

Saerules, regarding " shared responsibility " as a defence in court, Dotard did indeed deny it was what he was inferring.

Indeedy

Now, addressing your 2 crimes, I don't see how shared responsibility could be argued in either case. Neither victim appears to be in any way responsible for the crime.

Shared responsibility is more than a 2 way street... it is a great mixing bowl of ingredients mixed just so to make the soup.

Also, playing devil's advocate in the first example, the man could easily beg for enough money to buy a few apples, couldn't he? ( but if it were me I'd rob! )

Not necessarily... beggars have a very hard time usually (to my knowledge, of course). Perhaps he feels that the only way to help his family is to save what money he can make doing what work he can do... and the only way to not spend that money on food is to steal the food. Any way you look at it... it's a bad situation you are in when you are stealing food to survive...

[Dotard]

@ Sae;

Your eloquence at outlining my (our) reasoning on this matter is extrodinary. Clear and concise without any 'machoism' creeping into it as it seems to inadvertently do in my, and the other fellas, posts.

Perhaps you truely are 'female'.

(see? there it is again)

[Autumnlicious]

Spelling mistake Dotard - it is spelled truly. Not truely.

[mem]

I think its a difficult question. A woman should be able to wear what she wants but we don't live in an ideal world. There are some real bad people out there and I think it's down to personal responsibility to protect yourself. Behaviour also has a lot to do with it. Being paraletic and putting yourself in dangerous situations is risky and there are some that will take advantage.