Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by wynn, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    How exactly am I trolling? For asking you to explain your comments? To elaborate on who one should be careful of?

    See, this is what I do not quite understand with individuals such as yourself who hold the view that a woman, man or child can somehow do something to prevent themselves from being raped. A woman can take self defense classes, never go out at night, wear a full on Muslim garb that covers her from head to toe, never be alone in male company, and she could still be raped. Some can break into her house and rape her or her own husband, brother, father, grandfather, uncle, friend, son, etc can rape her. Yet, here we have you saying that women should just be 'careful'.

    The sole onus when it comes to rape is on the rapist to not rape.

    People say, don't dress in a manner that brings attention to yourself, do not wear revealing clothes, do not drink, do not go out with strangers, do not go out on dates at all, etc. There is a plethora of lists and reasons. But none of it works. Because no one can know what sets a rapist off or what will make you attractive to a rapist. Unless we become mind readers or fortune tellers, we do not know. So saying to "be careful" can only go so far, unless one wants to live in a bubble with absolutely no outside contact whatsoever. Because when even a trusted family member, parent, sibbling, friend, teacher, can rape a child or a woman or a man, saying to "be careful" is really kind of stupid. Unless of course you teach your children to live like armed hermits, just in case? Sure, I tell my children to not speak to strangers and that if someone, anyone, tries to touch them in a manner that they are not comfortable with, that they come and tell me or their father. I can tell them not to speak to strangers all I like, drill it into their brains, but that won't stop someone possibly breaking into their room at night and kidnapping them or raping them in their beds, as can and does happen.

    So please, how exactly does one be careful to not be raped?

    Because if you have that solution, then you would be a wealthy man.

    No thanks. After all, one has to be careful.

    So you tell your sons and daughters to be careful around you?

    Has your wife told your children to be careful around you and not really trust you, just in case?

    I am sorry, but I need to ask. Are you high or drunk at the moment?

    You seem slightly off centre.

    Back to your post, do you think it is reasonable to tell your daughter(s) to always be on the lookout and take precautions from you, to not always fully trust you, because as you said yourself above, one has to be "careful in general"?

    Which can mean squat if your spouse, parent, sibbling, etc decides to pin you down and rape you.

    It does not mean that a rape victim is responsible or complicit in his or her rape. And it does not mean they are responsible or complicit in their sexual assault if they feel ashamed of what happened to them, if they are angry, vengeful, feel self-hatred, feel embarrassed, etc.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member


    Thanks for noticing.

    OTH, what is it with you lately? I deliberately try to be a good boy here, which really doesn't matter because 99% of my activities are "Read-Only", but you insist on trying to chase me to ground - even when I ask you politely, as in "please", or try to make light of the situation, as in "running into you in SoHo".

    What do you want? To "plumb the depths" of my psyche? (Ummm... that's a joke Bells, since you seem quite deficient on picking up humor lately...)

    For real - why? I highly respect you - do you truly dislike me this much? Not like I can put you on ignore, my moderat[ess?]

    Any way, if you have any intentions beyond trolling, PM me and I will be happy to do the whole "dissect the post, tear it to pieces and throw it back in your friend's face thing"...


    It would be fun, but I think this is something deeper, going back aways - what is it?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cifo Day destroys the night, Registered Senior Member

    Ask wynn. (Why hold me responsible for what wynn said?). I never claimed that a 4yo had any "mature adult responsibilities" (my exact words from a previous post) in her rape. Being less than 18yo, she was not an adult, had not reached the age of majority (~12yo), had not even reached the age (~7yo) to know reality from fiction, and has a profoundly incomplete perspective of life. The responsibilities of a 4yo are assumed by the child's parents etc. So for example, if the parents responded by explaining "good" and "bad" touching to the 4yo, then perhaps they were negligent in not having done so before.
    Yes, as I said previously (verbatim), "criminal responsibility" versus "mature adult responsibility".
    These are claims that I never advocated. And no, I do not. No one does.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Not in any way. For example, I consider you stupid, but there is absolutely no hostility in that assessment, it's just plain deduction from observation.

    Indeed, it is the very opposite of hostile. If I thought you were intelligent and held the views you do then my reaction would be extremely hostile. So, by recognising your stupidity I isolate you from any potential hostility.
  8. Bells Staff Member

    Wasn't that hard..

    Umm.. considering I barely ever speak to you, I honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I believe the last time I responded to a post you made in response to me (I think) was in the Egypt girl post, and prior to that, well I can't even remember when I last even responded to you or even noticed your posts on this forum. To claim that I "chase" you around?

    You will have to excuse me if I do not take a man who appears to be either drunk or high seriously and if I dare question what he posts in a thread (where you appeared to enter the thread and responded to me as if I had been chatting to you in this thread, which I had not been)..

    What in the hell are you even talking about?

    You responded to a post I made in this forum. Not the other way around. You sort of blathered on about being careful and about other things that, yes, lets just say 'other things', which prompted me to ask you if you were under the influence of alcohol or drug of some sort. I did not seek you out in this thread. It was the other way around. To now have you claim that I don't like you and to accuse me of trolling after the posts you have been making? My posts are on topic. Yours so far have not really been.

    So yeah, what in the hell are you even on about?

    No thank you. I would rather continue this conversation in public. I have found that PM'ing people who don't seem all there to be very unpleasant in the past. So I would rather err on the side of caution and keep it all public and in the open, thank you very much.

    Perhaps you can explain to me how I have been trolling? Do you feel my asking you to explain your position on this issue to be trolling? You made claims about how everyone should be careful of everyone. I asked you if that meant your children should be careful of you, since you had earlier responded "yes, yes" about who women and children should be careful of, which included parents.

    Randwolf, I would strongly advise you return to this thread when you are sober or less high, whichever one you are at the moment. Because at the moment, you do not seem to be making much sense. You make claims and statements and then accuse me of trolling when I query what you have typed.

    What is deeper?

    Okay, you know what? I really do think you should return to this discussion when you are in a better frame of mind.
  9. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Screw it...

    You are trolling by trying to elicit an emotional response from your adversary, rather than discussing the topic at hand. Textbook..

    You already have the explanations Bells. You had them three years agao. I linked the thread. I also divulged personal information, which you oh so kindly elected to ignore...

    It's really not that difficult - everyone. Now you are able to say I am a paranoid schizophrenic and we can all go home peacefully, right?

    This is all so much political posturing and bullshit that it doesn't even deserve dressing - or stuffing... (Wait, I'm in the states and it's Thanksgiving...)

    You know precisely, exactly, what I am saying. I can't even believe that I am typing these words again - "It is not unreasonable to personally take precautions that match your expectations of immortality and to advise others to do the same". If you want to be a journalist on the battlefield don't complain if you get shot. Get it?

    I have never advocated anything beyond reasonable care. This is "Part II" of the very first thread I participated in on this site. You're aware of that. You were involved in the previous rendition. What, exactly, is your problem with my stance? Because I truly, really, honestly, absolutely (hmmm... out of synonyms, but I imagine I could come up with some more if you can't quite "get it" yet...) don't understand why you have such a problem with me on this issue. I have a quite functional family, albeit with history, yet you approach me as an adversary. Why?

    Do you secretly have a crush on me? I mean, what?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You are correct. And the sole onus upon the dead is not to have died - they would be fine today if they just hadn't gone and kicked off, right?

    Define "works". Lessens the probability? Sure it does. Notice I'm very careful to leave out sexuality (male, female, hetero, etc...) because these are simple concepts that apply to everyone in all circumstances - to one degree or another.

    Every military, police force, self defense group, et. al. promotes the idea of situational awareness. Be prepared - live to fight another day. This is the same stuff I'm saying - check your back seat before you get in your car, don't go around crack-town at night, etc. What exactly do you have a problem with here? Give me one, that's one, just one, fucking example of something specific that I advocate that you don't agree with. Just one... Can't do it, right?

    Exactly. So one must balance "freedom" against "security". The same issues that nations struggle with, and you know this. I'm not just going to let you get away with acting like a total moron here, you know...

    Not likely to happen anytime soon...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Check this word out Bells: BALANCE. Do it slowly, one letter at a time. Now do it again. Now do it again. Is it seeping in yet?

    Really? Is it "stupid" to say "be careful" ever? Under any circumstances? Really? Stupid? For real?

    See, this is where you lose it at - no where do I ever say: "Here, follow this prescription and you will never get raped, or assaulted in any way." You try, really hard, to read that in there. It doesn't work Bells. Not now. Not ever. Give it a rest. I'm not buying...

    If that's what you think is proper and reasonable, sure. I don't happen to feel that way. If anything, I'm an adrenalin junkie. So is my family. I don't think you missed the skydiving, scubadiving, speed skiing, etc. etc. references over the years, did you Bells? Didn't think so. Why do try to pretend otherwise? I want you to live life to the fullest. I also want you to have a third degree black belt, or to take whatever precautions you feel are reasonable to balance the "fun" in your life with the "safety". This is bad? Why don't you come clean here, like I did? I have a personal vendetta, and admitted such. What is your agenda? Hmmmm, sweetie?

    Oh no. Gosh. And Geewilikers. You have a certain set of precautions that you advocate? Well gee wiz cupcake, you just planted yourself squarely in my garden. That is exactly, and I mean exactly, what I advocate. Each person, family, group, nation, etc. must make a determination as to what is reasonable in terms of precautions. It's always a tradeoff - you know this - you're involved in the system for a living. I'm not telling you anything new, nor anything that you haven't heard a thousand times before. Why do you pretend not to accept this philosophy? Your own words belie you, and I don't even have any idea why you adopt this legend. It's not true - you know this. You advise your loved ones to "be careful", yet you tell me i'm being unreasonable to suggest the exact same thing. Why?

    One does not "be careful to not be raped", one takes reasonable precautions to avoid assault of any type. Look, this subject is not new to me, go reread the thread from three years ago. What's with the grandstanding here?

    I am a wealthy man. You already know this Bells. You need to update your playbook...

    Cute. This is actually the comment that got personal. I don't know if you're jousting here or playing for real. Because my statement was closer to reality then fiction...

    Absurd. Included only for context...

    Well, since I would be a subset of all people, I guess so...

    No you.re not.

    No you don't. You choose to ask.

    Asked and answered.

    Reply censored.

    To a degree, in the abstract, this would be a be affirmative. What part of "balance" do you not get?

    Again, where did I assert: "Here is a surefire recipe to prevent rape" at, exactly? Give it a rest...

    No one said it did - except you. If you feel differently, LINK PLEASE...

    [Bells;2863338]And it does not mean they are responsible or complicit in their sexual assault if they feel ashamed of what happened to them, if they are angry, vengeful, feel self-hatred, feel embarrassed, etc.[/QUOTE]Repetitive and badgering....

    Look forward to your incomplete and out of context attempt at a reply here.

    Have a nice night Bells...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Nov 25, 2011
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Yes you have.

    Big time.

    And who is my "adversary" in this discussion?

    I had mostly been speaking to Wynn, who does believe that women and children are complicit and share the responsibility if they are raped. I would strongly suggest you go back to page one of this thread and read the links provided. So I was discussing her beliefs to her.

    You entered the thread, demanded everyone be careful and we tell our children to be careful, take precautions, upon which I asked you whom should we be careful of? I gave a list of people one could advise one's children and you responded "yes" to all. Which yes, included the parents as well. So I asked you a question based on your answers.

    So now you have gone on this drunken spiel about how you are being somewhat victimised and apparently stalked by me, when I barely ever say 'boo' to you ever and when I do discuss anything with you, you are usually able to respond in a fairly sober manner, even when we disagree on something. This is obviously not one of those moments.

    You linked a 30 page thread from 3 years ago and I am supposed to remember it in detail and what you apparently divulged in that thread?

    As I explained to you a few times now, I rarely ever pay attention to you. Glancing through the link you provided, I didn't back then either really.

    In short, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

    How about you go to bed and sleep off the booze?


    Are you mad?

    No, really. Are you?

    You enter this thread, claim I am "chasing" you around the forum, link a thread from 3 years ago, in which I barely participated in and where I did, I appear to be discussing with angrybellsprout more than anything, claim I ignored personal things you divulged in that thread (I actually hadn't read or paid that much attention to what you wrote), claim I have a problem with you, which is mildly amusing seeing I really don't speak to you that much at all... Now you ask me if I have a crush on you?

    I was not aware this was "Part II" of the first thread you ever participated in on this site. Seeing that you are not the one who started it and I had been debating with Wynn mostly before you stuck you nose into it and claimed to be a victim of my wrong doing apparently in this thread and the other one..

    If your stance is what you have managed to mumble out in the midst of the drunken rambling you have been doing in this thread, then I would imagine what my issue is with your stance is quite clear.

    Because that is what we are discussing?

    The onus is not on the woman or the child to not be raped. The onus is on the person to not rape.

    Get it?

    I advocate that people should be free to not live in fear of being raped at all times. Everyone has a survival instinct and the greater majority do what they can to ensure their own safety. That is not up for debate here. What I am saying is that there are no true precautions one can take to prevent a rape, simply because it is not something one expects to happen and usually when it does happen, in the greater majority of cases, the rapist is someone the person knows and trusts. So unless you are advocating that no one should ever be trusted because everyone is a potential rapist, then yes, I do have an issue with that.

    Coming from you at the moment, that is a bit rich and frankly, hilarious.

    So how should one secure themselves from rape from a spouse or family member or friend or partner? Never be in male company again? If a woman truly wants to be secure, that would be an option. Do you think it is a viable option? I don't.

    Now tell me what balance and precautions your wife takes with the male members of the household? What precautions do you take against being raped by a family member?

    Do you sleep with a baseball bat next to your bed in case your wife rapes you? Since you know, you are the one saying that we should always be careful and ensure our own security at all times, even with family members.

    Now tell me how you are careful so that you protect yourself against being raped by a family member? What about your children? After all, you said one should be careful of everyone, including family members. And we know statistically that most people are raped or sexually abused by people they know. So how are you careful?

    As I have said repeatedly now, I usually do not pay much attention to your posts unless you thrust yourself under my nose and demand attention, like you are now.

    So any reference to the adrenaline junkie things you and your family are into would be lost on me since really, I really do not know you or read your posts that much.

    Now, you have a personal vendetta against who? What do you mean by what is my agenda? Why do you assume I have an agenda?

    Because I was discussing this issue with Wynn when you jumped into the discussion and accused me of god knows what, ranted drunkenly about god knows what?

    Because that is not really what you have been going on about.

    Could that be it?

    You want me to read 30 pages of a thread from 3 years ago to try to understand your point, if you have one?

    And I would know you are wealthy how exactly?

    And I should care about your wealth because of what exactly?

    Ermm you think the reality of my bumping into you on SoHo beach is closer then fiction? Or are you now referring to something else and are not noticing what my response was in regards to?

    You stated that one had to be careful. I don't know you. I have never met you. I barely ever speak to you on this thread. In light of that, what do you think are the chances I would ever meet you anywhere? And as you claim, one has to be careful.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why is it absurd? You are the one who claimed that you tell your children to be careful and I queried 'careful of whom?' and then listed different types of family members, including the parents, to which you replied "yes" to all. So why is it now absurd to you?

    Yes, you did earlier. So why are you quoting it again and acting as if it was asked a second time?

    You really should come back to this when you are sober.

    And what part of you going back and forth don't you quite grasp yet?

    You claim one should be always careful, and then responded yes, when I listed many different people one would normally or usually have in one's life.

    That response was to Wynn, not to you. If you read the post clearly, you would see that I was responding to Wynn when I made that particular comment. Not you. I will give you a hint on how you can tell it was not to you. Look at the quote directly above that comment from me and see that it says "Originally Posted by wynn", which usually means that is the one I am responding to.

    Wynn did. Go back and read the first page of this thread. Pay particular attention to post #9.

    Right.. Because that is now what you have been doing with me?

    I have a suggestion.. Go to bed. Sleep it off. Come back and discuss it when you are sober. Otherwise, get stuffed.

    I think that should be clear enough.
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Wow. You are totally unable to sort fact from fiction, aren't you?

    You appear to being a good job of playing the part of your own adversary here.

    Please quote the bit where I demanded anything of anyone.

    To borrow a quote from you, what the hell are you talking about? I addressed your post and provided a point by point response, leaving out not a single word of yours. (That I am aware of)

    No, I have no such unreasonable expectations. I do expect you o acknowledge sources cited, however.

    What are you trying to convey here? That you don't pay attention to your posts?

    And likewise, I have no idea what you are talking about. Befuddled comes to mind, perhaps applicable to both of us?

    Please Bells. For real? Can you truly not discern an attempt to be jovial from a serious response? I would think that would be a hindrance to your career.


    Actually, since you seem to be a little slow today, I will translate - I'm to lazy too scroll down and see what this one word reply references...

    No. Are you?

    Ermmm, no. Really. I'm not.

    I made no such claim. Which post, please?

    I wasn't aware of any time limit. My apologies.

    Absolutely misinterpreted. Obvious. I claim you ignored personal information divulged in this thread, like a post or two before your initial rant. Care to check? Perhaps you are the one that imbibed excessively?

    See above references to levity and the distinction thereof. Won't make that mistake again. All business with you, no sidebars, no "off the record" comments in your threads. Got it. You would have thought the emoticon might have helped here, but apparently not.

    That's why I mentioned it. So that you would, like, be aware of it...

    I would love to see any substantiation of these allegations. "Stuck you[r] nose into it"? Since when are threads private?

    Bundle of joy, aren't you?

    Let's stay on track then. You seem to be mostly concerned with the following reply, made in jest to you: "Yes, thank you for noticing".

    What a surprise. We agree.

    You offer nothing to "get".

    As do I.

    Sure it is. That is my point. Apperantly, if one is to mention "precautions" in this context, one can expect a flurry of debate. At least from you...

    I am aware of the statistics and agree with you on rapists generally being known by the victim. Please cite your source as to why "there are no true precautions one can take to prevent a rape".

    I'm sorry. I admit to a bit of confusion here. You have an issue with not trusting anyone or with trusting some people? Look at the wording of your reply here - please clarify.

    Thank you.

    No. I never made any attempt to even allude to a "guarantee" not to be assaulted. I alluded to changing the odds. The core of my first (and only topical) post:
    Please answer the question - "Is that bad advice?"

    It certainly doesn't elicit impressions of a good time had by one and all, no. Your logic is sound though, I just would not want to live my life that way.

    Wait, on the other hand, although rare, I have heard of sexual assaults against females promulgated by other females, so... Nope - you're just plain wrong.


    If this is a sincere request I will find you some web sites hosted by law enforcement agencies as to suggested precautions. Let me know. Although I suspect disingenuity here...

    Wow. Yes, I do just happen to have a nice old wooden bat beside my bed, but it just sort of ended up in that corner. I suppose it might come in handy if my wife tries to rape me though - good idea, Bells. Thanks.



    What about them?

    After all, you're right again.

    Yes we do. This would also be, IMHO, the hardest type of assault to combat or prepare for - doesn't mean we can't try though, right?[/quote]

    See above...

    Ummm, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding there Bells. I actually thought you might be capable of holding a rational discussion, but that doesn't seem to be the case today. I no longer "demand" your attention - please feel free to leave at anytime...

    Yes. I think you have established your position on this issue pretty well, Bells. Please do feel free to continue your current behavior patterns.

  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    I thought I made that clear when I pointed out that contributory negligence would not affect the outcome of a trial. Nonetheless, most of us take precautions to reduce our probability of becoming crime victims, such as locking our doors and not wearing flashy jewelry on dark streets with little traffic. Or in the case of my wife, not carrying a purse so she appears less attractive to a mugger and more able to defend herself with both hands against an assailant.
    No, and I believe I made my opinion on the matter clear already.
    Just ask your insurance company. They will raise your rates (or perhaps even cancel your policy) if you do something that lame. They might forgive you the first time, but not the second.

    Again, this does not exonerate the person who steals your car. It just makes the point that we all have a responsibility to reduce crime, and it doesn't stop at petitioning our government to execute everybody who steals a jar of peanut butter to feed their children.
    That was my point. Why then do the leaders of those countries treat their own women as though they're expected to assume that the men in their society are utterly incapable of controlling themselves, and in many cases letting the men go unpunished, when we don't treat our women or our men that way?
    Dogs have tremendous empathic powers, for example interpreting pheromones that we don't even smell, and (for the short-muzzled breeds with photoreceptors concentrated in a small area of their eyes) reading human facial expressions perhaps more accurately than we do. Depending on the individual dog he'd be significantly less likely to attack a human who regards him with collegiality than one who regards him with hostility. Even more important would be the way you regard his human!
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Self-loathing and the Mitigator

    I disagree in the context of the thread inquiry. It is not taboo to discuss the victims' role in crimes.

    The thread, however, seems to have grown around a central theme of the question, and I think in that context the answer is demonstrable.

    For those who need it more clearly explained, I recall once upon a time, basketball star Gary Payton decided to go back to the old neighborhood and, as you might imagine, ended up being robbed. And, yes, people chuckled at the time about the question of why one would go wandering through a rough 'hood wearing that much bling.

    But it would never come about that a robber would be acquitted on those grounds. The dialogue Chimpkin quoted reminds how ridiculous a proposition that is.

    Yet accused rapists have been acquitted because a woman was wearing something sexy; indeed there was a case in Wisconsin, I believe, during the eighties in which a child molester was acquitted because his three year-old victim behaved promiscuously—we might as well make a thesis on Ferenczi an admissions standard for kindergarten.

    One part of this whole discussion does strike me as hilarious, though. So let's imagine for a moment ....

    Okay, so the women in my neighborhood decide to take the advice of the crowd that tells them how to not make themselves targets for rapists.

    I go down to my neighborhood pub. One of the regular bands no longer plays, since it would be unsafe for Kris to come down and play bass; we wouldn't want her to tempt someone who has a thing for rocker girls. And the lovely young lady I call "Rosie" for her Halloween costume (the riveter, not the talk show host) would not be there, and that's probably a good thing. After all, while she is part of the family that owns the pub, she is also what cheap writing might describe as "innocent", "fresh-scrubbed", or "the girl next door", and, hell, that's a really popular look among perverts. And the two or three female friends I've seen in her company would not be there either, including the one with the really appreciable rack that wears conservative clothing which, for its part, fails to utterly hide what really are good curves. In fact, there would be no women there at all. Not that my neighborhood pub is a dangerous place, but, you know, it's up to women to keep themselves safe.

    And maybe as I leave, a couple of guys having a smoke outside The Jet are grumbling about the lack of action.

    Perhaps about then it strikes me that things really are kind of strange. When I went to the gym, there were no women working out there. And when I drove home from the gym, I guess I did notice that the oft-raucous bar at Boston's was crowded, though now that I think of it, I didn't see any women there. Not even serving, since all the women in the area decided to take the mitigators' advice. To the one, it is common practice to put an attractive woman behind the bar. To the other, that might tell a man she wants him to have sex with her regardless of what she actually says. So ... yeah. Gotta be safe.

    Of course, I'm a bit sore from the gym, so it occurs to me that I might be able to use one of the massage certificates my daughter gave me for Father's Day. Of course, there are no women in evidence, since it might send the wrong signals to have their hands on my body while I'm pretty much undressed. Of course, what about the big black guy who played college football? What if he's gay? Does that mean he's going to rape me? Would that be my fault? All I wanted was a massage!

    So think about it. As long as the self-protection agenda is without any reasonable boundaries, this is what you're asking for. And if you're lucky, the women won't wise up to the real problem and simply declare a Lysistrata Revolution.

    And, frankly, I am sick of the misogynistic effort to remove women from the spheres of my life. It starts to make me wonder if maybe, just maybe, the resulting "sausage fest" isn't actually what the mitigators are hoping for.

    So they need to stop loathing themselves. Come out of the closet, guys. Deal with yourselves instead of telling women why your own misery is their fault.
  14. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member


    There are many dogs in my neighborhood. Mostly untrained, both spoiled and neglected. Many are quick to bark and charge after people.

    Once I was walking home and as I was passing by a house with one such nasty dog, I noticed something peculiar:
    The owner went to pick up the mail and was returning to the house, the dog accompanying him. As the dog saw me, I saw that he first looked up to his owner, and then didn't make a sound or seemed to care. It seemed like he looked up to his owner for instruction or assurance, and as the owner seemed to have communicated in some subtle way that I was not a threat, the dog didn't bother about me.
    But when this same dog was with the owner's wife, he was downright crazy. He has chased and bitten several people.

    So I figured let's try this logic in real cases:
    At another house, they have a dog that goes berzerk when anyone passes the house (the house is close to the public road, no fence). So one day the dog went crazy as usual, but I called his owner to come to me on the road and to chit chat with me. It took me some persuasion while he was trying to calm the dog down, but the owner came. Within not much more than 15 seconds, the dog went from crazy to snuggling up to my leg and wanting to be petted and allowing to be petted. It was fascinating to watch.

    I tried this with the other crazy dog and chit chatted with his lady. He didn't calm down so quickly, and I didn't pet him, but he did calm down.
    In fact, over the months, he has become rather tolerable, barely ever barks when he sees me.
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    People make mistakes. The younger and the less experienced they are, the more likely they are to make mistakes, be negligent.
    Children are bound to make many mistakes, to be negligent.

    Sometimes, making a mistake can have horrible consequences.
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    People can feel provoked by anything. Often, we cannot do much about that.

    The issue is whether a person's intention was to provoke. It is from this that feelings of guilt arise later on.

    I would think the best way to keep oneself safe is to think and act as harmless as possible.

    This doesn't automatically mean locking oneself in the house and never going out.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2011
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Domestic violence tends to have a history; it is generally not like everything would be fine for decades, and then suddenly a family member would explode and begin abusing other family members.
    Physical violence is generally preceded by a history of verbal and emotional violence.

    The problem is that people often let the verbal and emotional violence pass, which tends to exacerbate the situation.
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    With an attitude like that, heaven help you around dogs, thugs and psychopaths ...
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Not all cases of rape are the same.

    There is a difference between the rape of a person who was kidnapped in the middle of the day off a busy street and taken to a secluded location, and the rape that occurs when two people have known eachother for a long time, have been drinking buddies, fooled around, and then one day, things went too far.

    Then there are all the other different circumstances in which rape occurs. We would need to analyze each case per se.

    If a child freely steps into a stranger's car, and is then abused, the child does carry the responsibility for stepping into a stranger's car.
    The child doesn't carry responsibility for the abuse per se, but does carry the responsibility for committing an action (ie. stepping into a stranger's car) that can reasonably be considered as leading to the abuse, given the circumstances.

    Sure. Nobody claimed otherwise.

    What seems to be causing confusion here is the difference between
    the responsibility to prevent the crime
    the responsibility for the crime.

    These are two different things.

    We are not at fault if we are not able to prevent a crime.
    But we are at fault if we have done something that lead to the crime.

    This is like saying "We should be free not to live in fear of an asteroid hitting planet Earth" or "We should be free not to live in fear of aging, illness and death."

    I imagine the only way to transcend that fear is to find a refuge in something that is not subject to aging, illness and death, something that doesn't deteriorate, something that cannot be destroyed.
  20. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    @ Rand...
    No, I'm not happy.
    I'm saddened.
    For you, for whoever it was in your life that got hurt.

    We all do the best we can to keep the people we love safe.
    Not always enough.
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2011
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    It is a difficult topic that touches on one's basic beliefs about humanity and how the Universe works.

    If one's basic beliefs about humanity and how the Universe works are vague, or are not realistic, one is likely going to be very upset in situations where those beliefs are challenged or proven wrong.
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Welcome to Saudi Arabia.
    You would both be executed for homosexual activities. I'm not quite sure if this would happen in Saudi Arabia but it is routine in other Islamic paradises such as Indonesia.
    In the aforementioned Islamic paradises they're more concerned with their inability to work for a living or even drive cars.
    The leaders of those Islamic paradises insist that the men in their country are so obsessed with sex that if a woman walks by without being hidden by a full-body stocking AND escorted by her husband, brother or father, the men will simply grab her and rape her because they can't control themselves. Since this rarely happens in America (as noted, most rapes are not committed by random strangers), we are faced with a choice of two conclusions:
    • 1. Muslim men are uncivilized and really can't be trusted around women. This is unlikely because Muslim men in normal countries don't behave that way.
    • 2. The premise is bogus. There's some other reason the leaders of the Islamic paradises don't want their women to be free. This is much more believable because even in our countries men in power deprived women of basic rights such as voting and even now hold them back.
    Yeah, where do you think you are anyway, Saudi Arabia?
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Randwolf, I am going to say this again. I do not have any idea what your issue is with me. I barely ever speak to you on this forum. I barely said boo to you in the thread you linked and accused me of apparently not remembering or ignoring what you personally divulged from 3 years ago. I barely read your posts because, well, I find you a tad strange. It is now becoming very obvious to me why I should not read your posts, because you are irrational, over-emotional, abusive, angry.

    Reading your posts at the moment reminds me of the Simpson episode where Homer and family relive the Shining. Because right now, your posts are akin to Homer's 'No TV and no beer make Homer something something'..

    So I am going to play nice. Not because I like you, but because it is not nice to fight with someone about 'something something' (ie I have no idea what your issue is, nor do I want to know what your issue is) when they appear to either be off their nut or somewhat mentally unstable and in a bad place at the moment. Plus you also seem to have this need to fight with me about 'something something', which frankly, I do not think I should enable. You seem to be very confused. You seem to take offense to something I was discussing with Wynn and entered this thread ranting (yes, ranting) about 'something something', you also seem to believe that this thread is a continuation of the thread from 3 years ago. Unless you and Wynn got together and decided to continue that thread from 3 years ago, no one but yourself seems to believe this is so. The reason being is that we cannot read your mind.

    Now, your accusation that I ignored something personal about yourself in this thread... So I went back again and read through what you had written. I figured you calling Signal a "moron" was not it, so I then went to the second time you entered the thread, where you went apeshit at me for my discussion with Signal, which you seemed to act as if I was discussing it with you. That post contained information about how you killed in combat and how a friend of yours clincally died twice and how some of your friends are deceased. My sympathies. I tend to not usually comment on such things because yes, they are personal and frankly, were not a part of this discussion in that it would have been off-topic for me to comment on it about you and it had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Everyone has their horror stories Randwolf. Being insulted that I did not comment on yours is your problem, not mine. I am sorry for whatever suffering you have had in your life.

    Suffice to say, you admitted to being drunk or something in this thread, you have been personal and frankly quite abusive and over-bearing. You have also attempted to joke while angry, which will never come off as sounding 'quite right'.

    There is something you need to understand before I sign off on this post to you. This thread and my posts to Wynn and Cifo had nothing to do with you. It was not about you or what you posted 3 years ago. You entered this thread and seemed to take personal umbrage with what I was discussing with Wynn and yes, you ranted and went off your rocker. When I tried to confirm what you were on about, you became even more emotional and abusive.

    I asked my colleagues if there is something I have missed and so far, the answer is, well.. no one can really tell. Because there seems to be something very personal with you that others participating in this thread do not really know about. At one point I even wondered if you had a sock participating in this thread and had confused which account you had signed in with.

    So in light of what appears to be something going on with you, I doubt I will be responding to you any further, unless it is to seek clarification for 'something something'. Whatever issue you have with me is your own Randwolf. I am not a mind reader.

Share This Page