Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Author Topic: Blaming the victim  (Read 1019 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Blaming the victim
« on: December 31, 2011, 11:53:17 AM »

So I think this is a spinoff discussion worth having without cluttering up what is now The Rape Discussion Thread: The Sequel (if you don't recall, we had one back when the whole PA thing happened the first time).

I am going to ask a very, very dangerous, but also completely honest and unsarcastic question here. Before I do, I would also request that we please try to leave off any stupid insults or similar. I wouldn't ask such a question in most places, but I actually think we are theoretically capable of having a mature discussion on the subject. 

Do you think that there ever comes a point where blaming the victim - for any kind of serious crime or harm - is in fact justified?

A few points to clarify things and frame the question: 

I understand that any reasonable moral code assigns all blame to the perpetrator of an evil act and not to the victim. That is as is should be. I also understand that any decently functional sociaty should strive to make its citizens as safe as possible. Increased safety for everyone (without getting into the freedom vs. security argument which is an entirely separate can of worms) is a good thing for everyone, increasing prosperity, health, and general well-being for everyone.

The reason I think the question is worth asking is because no moral code or ideal social plan has ever been replicated perfectly in real life. Expecting people to take responsibility for their self-preservation is essentially taking the view that: A) Not only will we always have bad situations and bad people, but B) also that we cannot ever count on always having another person around to help us against said situations or people and C) further assumes that the socially expected response of people should primarily one of self-preservation.

Can that be a valid viewpoint? And if it is, where do you draw a line on the assignment of responsibility? Is it even possible to draw a line? If you answer yes to the first and no to the third, how do you reconcile that?

I am interested in your replies.
Logged

Shinra

  • Big Juicy Winners
  • Tested
  • Karma: 34
  • Posts: 3269
    • View Profile
Re: Blaming the victim
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2011, 12:13:14 PM »

There is a certain extent where bad decision making should be allowed to be it's own punishment.

Since rape is the discussion that spawned this:

You make the decision to go out to a club. Most people go to the club to drink and meet people. Many go to the club to meet a partner for sex. Then, while at the club, you make the decision to drink. And drink, and drink, until you are very, very drunk. And then, while drunk, you make the decision to go home with someone and have sex with them. Realistically speaking, yes, the other person involved was probably a tremendous piece of shit taking advantage of a drunk person, but at the end of the day do you really have anyone to blame but yourself for every decision made that lead up to that?

You made the choice to go to the club (where you knew people would be looking for sexual partners) and you made the choice to get incredibly drunk. (where you knew your judgement would be impaired.) If you made decision A, and made decision B, whether or not you were mentally capable enough to make decision C, you put yourself into that position knowingly and willingly, and I would say at that point you lose the ability to rationally make the argument that you are blameless.

Context is important here, of course. If you choose to get out of bed, put on skimpy clothes and walk around a bad part of town and someone viciously assaults you, I think you do deserve a certain amount of scorn for being fucking stupid, but that does not mean your attacker should be punished less for your stupidity. I do not, however, think that you should go without being shamed for being a moron. The same applies to, say, the wall street investor who flashes a huge wad of cash in a sleazy bar and gets mugged. You were being really dumb, and you deserve to be made to feel like you were being really dumb, but that's something that should be wholly segregated from the actual crime - the guy who mugged you is still a criminal who used the threat of violence (or actual violence) to steal from you.

The primary distinction between these cases is that in one situation you chose every step of the way to be a victim, and in the other situation you simply chose to put yourself in a very bad position. I still think in the secondary situation, you are certainly at fault for your own fate, and I think you deserve to be reminded of this. But I do not think that should come into play in a court of law.

In a less extreme example of choosing to be a victim, if you are choosing to play a shell game on the street and you get cheated, you are pretty much entirely to blame for choosing to play a shady game with a shady guy who you knew might try to rip you off.
Logged

Classic

  • Happens more often than you'd think.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -58471
  • Posts: 7501
    • View Profile
Re: Blaming the victim
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2011, 12:31:43 PM »

You just blamed a rape victim for wearing skimpy clothes. What?

No. No. Ok. Reasoned discussion. Not going to get emotional.
Alright, it seems to me that you're saying this:
There is a certain extent where bad decision making should be allowed to be it's own punishment.
...
Reasonable paranoia is the obligation of the individual.

A person is obligated to avoid danger, sure. However, as part of your going to the club for sex example, we have to assume that the people we're entered into social contract with don't have our exploitation as a goal. We have to believe, that at least some people (unrelated to us, we hope), abide by that social contract which prohibits malign engagement. Where do you draw the line for who you can assume the social contract with, and those you can't?

Our day-to-day functioning demands that we assume almost everyone is playing by the same rules. That's why we (ostensibly) have a police force. To enforce a shared, objective, social contract.
Logged

Norondor

  • Where I'm at is: Fuck you, get shot
  • Tested
  • Karma: 30
  • Posts: 4184
    • View Profile
Re: Blaming the victim
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2011, 12:39:14 PM »

I am interested in your replies.

does your wife know you're pro-rape
Logged

Shinra

  • Big Juicy Winners
  • Tested
  • Karma: 34
  • Posts: 3269
    • View Profile
Re: Blaming the victim
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2011, 12:42:33 PM »

If you can't discuss this rationally, Norondor, you should not be discussing this at all.
Logged

Friday

  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65374
  • Posts: 5122
    • View Profile
Re: Blaming the victim
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2011, 12:46:14 PM »

k, I'm gonna lock this thread before this shit gets any worse.
Logged