As a general reply to all your posts in this thread:
This being the net, I guess basic civility is often too much to ask for. [re: tone argument]
The tone argument is not usually pulled out to maintain "basic civility." It's pulled out to dismiss legitimate criticism (usually of the person using the tone argument) because the criticism was couched in angry vocabulary.
And the point I'm making here is that just pointing out the someone did something is unwise is enough to make people treat you as some sort of SOB.
That's because of the context in which you're doing it.
Look, if you just randomly said one day to a woman "It's probably a bad idea to walk around in Central Park in skimpy clothing and flashing a wad of cash," she'd probably think you were an idiot (or think that you thought she was an idiot) but I doubt anyone would get upset. On the other hand, if you're talking about a rape that actually happened and you say "Well, it wasn't a very good idea for her to wear skimpy clothing and flash a wad of cash..." then you're clearly attempting to downplay the rape and thus people are going to get upset at you. It's the context that matters.
But is it right to fully *absolve* someone of their actions just because their actions lead to them being victimized?
Congratulations for loading that question so well. The answer is simple:
1) If the person did not commit something immoral, then yes. Doing something stupid does not mean you deserve to have something horrible happen to you.
2) On the other hand, if they did commit something immoral, then no--as long as their victimization fits the crime they committed. If you attempt to kill someone, you bear full responsibility for the intended victim killing you back. If you play around with someone's feelings, you bear no responsibility if that person rapes you.
3) Anyone who thinks that sometimes women share partial responsibility for being raped is an asshole.
no subject
This being the net, I guess basic civility is often too much to ask for. [re: tone argument]
The tone argument is not usually pulled out to maintain "basic civility." It's pulled out to dismiss legitimate criticism (usually of the person using the tone argument) because the criticism was couched in angry vocabulary.
And the point I'm making here is that just pointing out the someone did something is unwise is enough to make people treat you as some sort of SOB.
That's because of the context in which you're doing it.
Look, if you just randomly said one day to a woman "It's probably a bad idea to walk around in Central Park in skimpy clothing and flashing a wad of cash," she'd probably think you were an idiot (or think that you thought she was an idiot) but I doubt anyone would get upset. On the other hand, if you're talking about a rape that actually happened and you say "Well, it wasn't a very good idea for her to wear skimpy clothing and flash a wad of cash..." then you're clearly attempting to downplay the rape and thus people are going to get upset at you. It's the context that matters.
But is it right to fully *absolve* someone of their actions just because their actions lead to them being victimized?
Congratulations for loading that question so well. The answer is simple:
1) If the person did not commit something immoral, then yes. Doing something stupid does not mean you deserve to have something horrible happen to you.
2) On the other hand, if they did commit something immoral, then no--as long as their victimization fits the crime they committed. If you attempt to kill someone, you bear full responsibility for the intended victim killing you back. If you play around with someone's feelings, you bear no responsibility if that person rapes you.
3) Anyone who thinks that sometimes women share partial responsibility for being raped is an asshole.
Really, this isn't very complicated.