The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Rape Charges and Convictions and Stuff
Posts
Ignore this person.
Human beings are not animals. I am not a bear. (especially since bears are godless killing machines) I have control over my actions and am held account because of that. A bear doesn't have the same kind of sentience and isn't held to the same standards for those reasons. The two aren't analagous.
Viscount is trolling (intentionally or not) with his views on rape and should be ignored for the sake of discourse, but he did raise a point about self defense that wasn't mentioned yet. It seems to me that effective self defense methods, such as Jiu-Jitsu, should be actively tought to women so they can protect themselves in situations of abuse. A smaller, weaker person can defeat a larger stronger one if they have a sufficient advantage in training, or failing that at least prevent rape. Of course knife-fu and gun-fu trump that, and a lot of such situations involve intoxication or incapacitation, but the goal of reducing the amount or rape is realistic through these means.
Yes, correct. I may have not articulated myself entirely well, but that's what I was trying to communicate.
Never been raped by a bear.
Placing any blame on the victim abrogates the responsibility of the rapist. It perpetuates the idea that men cannot control themselves, and are not responsible for their sexuality. It is essentially at cross-purposes with the role of the law to control and regulate behaviour.
If you start saying that the victim bears some responsibility for a criminal act, or that the rapist is not entirely to blame, you are - by implication - undermining the rule of law. So it is very relevant to this discussion.
I wouldn't ever intentionally troll the PA forums.
I don't troll/rape unless its 4chan.
Well my freind got his gashed open by a bear because of basically what I just said, he was a dumbass to do it. Is it the same thing as a girl getting raped by going through a bad part of town where she knows girls have been raped? No. However just as my friend could have prevented losing a lot of blood, the girl could have simply not gone through the neighborhood. Thats all I'm saying.
But we're talking about rape. There are ways to minimize risk, just as there are ways to minimize getting killed by a drunk driver. It's somewhat avoidable, but the onus is not on the victim.
Maybe men should be taught what constitutes rape and how to keep it in their pants. Or, instead, we can do what you suggest, and send exactly the wrong message.
Hey, chicks: if you're too drunk or too weak to karate chop that guy's ass, then it's your bad. Have fun living in fear!
The role of the law is to maintain social order. You could argue that deterence impacts people's behaviour, but laws (either on the books or in enforcement) in no way controls or regulates behaviour outside of police states. I'm not about to go out and rape/murder my neighbor. Not because it's illegal, but because it's an egregious up thing to do. My own moral code controls my behaviour, never the state. Outside of certain architectures of control which they have power over.
Okay.
Let's go this route, since you are clearly reading WAY more into my statements than what I have written:
Do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for a girl to (willingly) get so drunk that she passes out surrounded by sleazeball guys?
No.
So... poor people that live in bad neighborhoods are bears? Does Bill O'Reilly know about this yet?
Fuck you. I'm shaking I'm so angry right now. You obviously know NOTHING or you wouldn't have said something so retarded.
What if there's more than one person? What if the victim is physically weaker? What if the rapist anticipates a fucking groin kick? It's not the most subtle of attacks. What if the victim didn't expect anything? What if the victim was on crutches?
Why was it my fault I was sexually assaulted? For being alone with male friends? Please explain this.
You're missing (at least my) point. There are two separate responsibilities:
1) An imperative to act toward self-preservation of mental and physical health.
2) An imperative not to rape.
The imperative not to rape is all the law does and should concern itself with. If the other person has failed in their responsibility not to rape you (if you want to phrase it that way), then regardless of your failure to act in the interests of your own safety, the other guy is a fucking asshole and entirely at fault.
However, it IS possible to evaluate ones actions after an incident and decide is some were better or worse toward fulfilling the "self-preservation" imperative. And, given upbringing and just general knowledge and common-sense, one can also act toward their self-preservation in the future.
So, there are many different parallel responsibilities that lead toward an incident. They don't have to contradict or detract from one another. Rape is rape, and it is always the rapists fault, legally, morally, and otherwise, but it does no one any good to pretend that common-sense isn't something to strive toward.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Cass, he's a god damned troll. Please don't listen to him at all.
You realize that he's an idiot that's trolling, right?
Are those guys still alive by the way?
In my scenario she doesn't.
No idea. It's just an accessible stereotype that I used for a hypothetical situation.
How can you not see that one intrudes on the other? They are at mutual cross-purposes.
Still waiting.
I think he was being sarcastic.
I hope he was being sarcastic.
People let themselves get shot. You have to choose to be on the wrong end of a firing gun and not dodge bullets.
Jesus, you're a retarded goddamn monkey.
Maybe people just shouldn't steal, or be jerks, or kill each other, or have predjudices or...
We are living in realityland here, people are evil and people make mistakes. Just restricting yourself to decrying evil is naive, since even if you can reduce it through such means you will not eliminate it. Even then, I see nothing that makes teaching women how to protect themselves and educating men to be upstanding, law abiding citizens mutually exclusive.
Making preparations for the fact that some people are going to be dicks is common sense.
No. What you are describing there is the idea of a dichotomy, which is a very aristolian form of logic. Basically, you divide the world up into two logically exlusive view points, where if one is not one, it is the other. This is not a very healthy way to view the world, because this gives people all sorts of wonderful ways to manipulate your rigid ways of thinking back onto you.
It is possible to say the victim bears some personal responsibility for a criminal act and also say the rapist is enitrely to blame. There is no responsibility split between the victim and the rapist, where the victim gets 20% of the blame and the rapist gets only 80%. This is not math, where everything has to tally up neatly. This is a real situation where things are messy.
The rapist should ALWAYS get treated as if it was entirely his fault. Whatever the responsibility the victim bears is personal, and should have nothing to do with the law, and nothing to do with any leniency of punishment towards the criminal. It is not a responsibility that should hold any weight in a court of law. It does, because the law is based around dichotomies. Law is stupid. That's why we have judges, to turn the heavy blunt object of law into a precise instrument that can solve disputes.
I basically just think you are thinking about it the wrong way doc.
There are bad ideas, like walking in an area that's known to be dangerous at night. Now, the person may not have a choice, like the Cat described. It may not be a good idea to walk there, but they may have no choice. So it's not necessarily a good idea, but it isn't something the victim has any control over. The victim can control things like being able to defend herself and so on, but just because she can't doesn't mean that being targeted is her fault.
Basically, the answer to your question is yes. Some ideas are better ideas, some ideas are bad, but that places no responsibility on the victim.
Because they don't. People aren't absolved from having common-sense because rapists are to blame for their rapes. It doesn't matter if the victim was exhibiting common sense or not: the rapist is to blame. However, a person should exhibit common-sense. I don't get how this is so non-understandable.
if it was a serial killer i'd probably question going out alone.
i must be an idiot.
Maybe we shouldn't blame the victim.
First off, WTF
second, real life attackers seldom stand, legs akimbo, waiting for a groin shot. While I would encourage anyone to take a self defence class or study a martial art it should not be a prerequisite for walking down a public street.
thirdly, WHAT THE FUCK MAN?
Sorry - I was waiting for you. Didn't see your post.
The woman should be free to do whatever she wants, without fear of being raped.
Sleazeball guys are in control of their own actions. It is not the same as saying "is it a good idea to walk on the edge of a cliff?", or "is it a good idea to leave potato chips out at a camp site?" because cliffs and bears are not humans. If you even hint at the fact that the woman bears any responsibility to protect herself from rape, then you are tacitly removing the guys' responsibility for their own actions.
I am not an idiot. I know we live in a practical world, and if I had a daughter I sure as hell would be teaching her how to avoid rape. But from a moral standpoint she bears no responsibility to protect herself.
Way to dance around the question. Good idea or bad idea?
Edit: 3rd option: "okay idea."