So when the guards advise women to be careful and not walk alone etc, thats a conversation about âpersonal responsibilityâ (your paranthesis) thats out of line?
What is that to do with personal responsibility?
They advise people to be responsible for their own safety by being aware not to put themselves in dangerous situations. A big no no as far as you are concerned
Being responsible for your own safety is by not doing things like, say, lying down in the path of an oncoming train, or by not drinking turpentine, or by not drink driving.
How can somebody be personally responsible for being the victim of a crime?
They are not responsible for a crime they didnât commit.
They are responsible for minding their own welfare and for a girl to go back in a drunken state with a guy she barely, she is endangering herself.
You are taking things out of context. Nobody is mitigating the rapist, there are evil people out there who are going to do evil things. The only thing that is in a personâs own locus of control is how they can minimise these threats, heading back to a personâs house who youâve just met and know little about is behaviour that puts you in danger.
If I go stumbling down drunk one night in the middle of July through Donegall Pass with a Celtic jersey on, I am endangering myself.
1 Like
So when guards are telling women not to walk home alone to help prevent being raped, Whats that?
There. I think youâve
You do here:
Again, how can somebody be responsible for being a victim of a crime, especially a serious crime like rape?
Nope, thatâs personal responsibility - not mitigating a rapist. The only locus of control a person has in that situation is not putting themselves in danger. Your utopian view of society does not add up with reality, the reality is there are evil people in all walks of society who will do evil deeds, a person should look out for their own welfare and going back to a strangerâs room who you have barely met is behaviour that puts you in danger, it doesnât mitigate the rapist or shift the blame but it does bring into question what a person can do to protect themselves.
If you could try and stay on point rather than moving the goalposts, it would be a start.
As I said, if I went down loaded through Donegall Pass with a Celtic jersey on in the middle of July, I would be putting myself in danger.
Answer the question
When he meets a point he cant handle, he deflects or ignores. It what he thinks makes him a great great debater
Iâm the only one whoâs on point here.
Iâll refer you to these comments, because they make the point better than Iâll make it here.
And, really, thatâs about it.
1 Like
But theyâre out of context.
Personal responsibility is a reality.
Rapists are a reality.
People have it in their own control to minimise the risks of exposing themselves to dangerous people like rapists, whether you like it or not - that does not impact on mitigating a rapist or victim blaming - it just happens to be what happens in the real world.
You have failed utterly to answer my question.
Some posts back you posted the following.
Your mate followed up with this:
By shifting the focus of âpersonal responsibilityâ to the victim, you are putting forward an argument for mitigation of the crime of rape.
One of those crimes where a sexual predator both raped and murdered a minor was the Manuela Riedo rape and murder.
Yet here you are mitgating the blame of the rapist/murderer, in the case of the rape and murder of a minor, no less, by shifting the burden of personal responsibility in such a case to the victim, because the victim was walking alone at night on a deserted pedestrian track.
It is almost surreal that youâd do that.
Again, whose personal responsibility?
Youâre focussing on the âpersonal responsibiityâ of somebody to not be raped.
There is no such thing.
No i didnât make that argument at all, you are just pretending i did to suit yourself. How bizarre you bring up a crime that involved the rape of a minor. Seeing as this whole week long deflection by you arose because you thought cusack attempting to get a lighter sentence for a freak like Humphries was totally acceptable.
You are making that argument.
Youâre just not bright enough to see that thatâs exactly the argument youâre making.
Cusack had the right to do what he did. Itâs part of the justice system. The judge also has the right to dismiss it as a consideration when sentencing, as he should.
And we all have the right to think Cusack is a cunt for doing so.
1 Like
Of course.
But it would be less hypocritical if some of those same people werenât simultaneously defending George Hookâs comments.
You are saying my position is that someone charged with rape for example should be allowed argue, sure she was looking for it, as mitigation.
Nope.
Iâm saying thereâs nothing wrong with telling people to be careful in the real world.
But go on back to arguing in cusacks favour.