Objectifying women

[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...