(May 22, 2010 at 5:48 am)tackattack Wrote:(May 21, 2010 at 11:06 pm)tavarish Wrote:Hate to chime in with my 2 cents, but some atheists aren't great with contextual reading, Eil seems to be one that definately good at that. I think I'm with Eil on this one. For directly personal violation, responsibility should be a one sided, all or nothing thing. I think when dealing with direct violations of personal rights/ freedoms, (hate crimes, rape, zealotry, etc.) the better route would be one of absolute personal accountability and one-sided responsibility. On less direct violations/ crimes you can possibly spread the responsibility out with intent, not in this case, IMO.
Tack, do you recognize that there's a difference between telling someone to watch out for danger, and blaming that same person when that danger happens to them? I'm not blaming the victim. I'm advising them to watch out and be alert. That's my argument, at a very basic level so everyone can be on the same page. My initial gripe was with some attractive women and how they were apparently oblivious of the clothes they left the house with, as the attention came as somewhat of a surprise to them. That's it. I'm not blaming someone when they get sexually assaulted.
My blog: The Usual Rhetoric