Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

since you missed it the first time

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no sam not you, wynn

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fantastic. I love it

 

Yeah...I agree with Arthur on something...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

THE END IS NEAR!!!!!

 

Oh come now. You can't dictate mores to another society. Tsk tsk.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2862926&postcount=28

This is my shot at merging two Wynn threads.

 

So, tell us chimpkin, is "doing something supremely foolish" right or wrong?
To wit, should the victim do the same supremely foolish thing again under identical circumstances?

Here's the reality of life:

• Criminal responsibility applies to the perpetrator.
• Mature adult responsibility applies to everyone, including the victim.

In law, the lack of mature adult responsibility is called "negligence" (carelessness involving inaction) or "recklessness" (carelessness involving action). The term "a reasonable and prudent person" is splattered throughout American law concerning responsibility and negligence and recklessness. When you say that someone did "something supremely foolish", you are saying that they did something without due care — something that "a reasonable and prudent person" would not choose to do — that is, to act negligently or recklessly.

 

And girls are most likely to be raped by male family members. So a good start at preventing rape would be isolating male family members from their daughters and sisters.

 

That standard applies when someone else is harmed by your actions or lack thereof. That standard is applied to a perpetrator of negligence, say a landlord who lets a tenant fall through a chronically-unfixed staircase...or to the perpetrator of reckless behavior, for instance- a joyriding teen who slams her car into another car running a light.

Those standards do not apply when you are assaulted, robbed, ripped off, scammed, etc.


Pardon for the long C&P, but I thought this item, which bells linked but is all over the 'net, needed to be inthread:

From:malicious-pengy.livejournal.com/414461.html

 

Bells, I never advocated anything you have said here about me. You're taking this to the extreme and putting words/logic in my mouth. Why don't you add "chastity belts" to your list of imaginary logic? And speaking of very large attack dogs, I worked in underwriting in America for Allianz who must refuse you homeowners' insurance if you had even one, small, aggressive dog.

No Bells, my post apparently did not register with you. Negligence does not refer to when "someone does something wrong", it refers to when "someone fails to do something right" — fails to act responsibly — and the "something right" is "being reasonable and prudent". I have studied law, and I am published in law, and I know what I'm talking about.

###

So chimpkin, before we get into your latest post, is "doing something supremely foolish" right or wrong?
To wit, should the victim do the same "supremely foolish" thing again under identical circumstances?

And seriously, if you practice what you preach, you should call your insurance company and find out if they insure your property for loss if you leave your car (or home) unlocked and unattended.

source

In some parts of the civilized world, negligence toward securing one's car has become a crime! From Allianz in Australia:

source

Legally, the standards for recklessness and negligence also apply when you are harmed. Here's an example from Maryland:

source

Here's another example from Nevada:

source

 

No. This is an analysis far too simplistic.

If a person is truly innocent, they do not feel guilty, ashamed, nor hate themselves.

The only issue is what exactly are they innocent of, and what exactly they feel ashamed about or guilty for.


Let us take the example with the black man who gets assaulted, and who afterwards feels guilty, ashamed, or hates himself.

If he concludes "I was assaulted because I am black," then the shame and guilt he feels about being assaulted are possibly actually the shame, guilt, self-hatred that he already feels for being black.
The assault just, very painfully, emphasizes the guilt, shame or self-hatred that the person already feels.


Further, many people believe "I am in control of what happens to me."
For years, this kind of reasoning has been promoted by the popular culture and the self-help movement too.

And yet reality teaches us that this is not so.

The shame, guilt and self-hatred that a victim - any victim - feels after the crime has been committed, possibly pertains to exactly this mistaken belief that they should have been able to prevent it.


The difficulty with hardship and violence is that when they happen, it is difficult to think clearly and act wisely.

So when under durress, people sometimes, possibly often, wrongly connect what exactly is about what exactly.
This is true about victims as well as observers.

But I am not.
Can't you see that?

Probably none about sex, but possibly some not so useful ones as far as interactions with people are concerned.

For example, children sometimes still think it is not so wrong to go with a stranger who offers candy.
A belief that can have devastating consequences when acted upon.

I have emphasized several times that the issue is not legal or penal responsibility of the victim!

The fact is that even if the law apprehends and sentences the perpetrator, this does not automatically make the pain go away for the victim.

In order for the victim to recover, they have to find ways to think and act about the experienced violence that allows them to move on with their lives.

This is especially clear when we consider that the law may not be able to punish the perpetrator.

 

I think this applies on the legal, practical level, but also on the philosophical/psychological level.


For example, it is irresponsible to walk around hating oneself or other people.

This hate may provoke other people to attack one; but more importantly, it will certainly make it much more difficult for oneself to cope with the assault afterwards.


All traditional religions advocate an attitude of goodwill and harmlessness toward oneself and others.
And they do so for good reason!

 

I suppose the taboo around discussing the responsibility of victims is due to people not willing to or being overchallenged by analyzing their own intentions and actions.

 

There's a saying -

Your name is not the name people call you,
your name is the one you respond to.


If you are black and someone assaults you, claiming "Die, nigger!" are you under an obligation to believe that the reason they assaulted you is because you are black, and that it therefore follows that if you weren't black, you wouldn't be assaulted?

No, you are under no such obligation.

You are free to interpret the assault in many ways.

You do not have the accept that the motivation for the assault was whatever the perpetrator claims it was, or what the media claims, or whatever the first thought coming to your mind says.

You have the responsibility and the choice to find a wise explanation for what happened.

 

I would feel guilty in the first case, and have.