On Responsibility

[ok doser]

Terrible analogy, as the father isn't the victim here, the children are (and yes, the father is responsible for the molestation as well).

it wasn't offered as an analogy, it was offered as an examination of responsibility

amazing, some have argued that the father didn't own any responsibility for the consequences of his actions

"Thou Shalt Not Steal" is a moral absolute. Thou shalt not be stupid isn't. If you're giving some of the blame to the victim, then you're downplaying God's moral absolute on stealing.

not sure why you'd think so, especially considering that I specified that the thieves are guilty of the crime of theft :idunno:

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" (i.e. out of wedlock sex)

not the same :nono:

 

[Foxfire]

A fourth scenario:

Joe gets off work every day at five and stops at the local bar, where he stays for two hours and downs ten beers. He then goes out to his truck where he keeps a quart of scotch and downs half the bottle. Joe then drives thirty miles to his home, going 120 mph on the highway. One day Joe crashes his truck and gets a DWI. Is Joe responsible for the situation he finds himself in? Would anybody object to saying of Joe "He deserved it" or "He had it coming" or "It was inevitable" or "It's his own fault"?

Absolutely and unequivocally his own fault. Joe chose to knowingly break the law and thereby endanger the lives of others.

That notwithstanding, this scenario is in no way supportive of your ludicrous assertions. Nor does it even approximate your previous inane examples.

Unless, in his drunken stupor, Joe slammed his vehicle into a car full of women and children and caused them grievous bodily harm and somehow you were implying that his victims, the passengers of the other car, were complicit in their own misfortune for driving on an unsafe thoroughfare. lain:

 

[Rusha]

Absolutely and unequivocally his own fault. Joe chose to knowingly break the law and thereby endanger the lives of others.

That notwithstanding, this scenario is in no way supportive of your ludicrous assertions. Nor does it even approximate your previous inane examples.

Unless, in his drunken stupor, Joe slammed his vehicle into a car full of women and children and caused them grievous bodily harm and somehow you were implying that his victims, the passengers of the other car, were complicit in their own misfortune for driving on an unsafe thoroughfare. lain:

Pffftttt ... of course it wasn't Joe's fault! How dare those people in the other vehicle entice Joe into slamming into them.

 

[ok doser]

Absolutely and unequivocally his own fault. Joe chose to knowingly break the law and thereby endanger the lives of others.

:thumb:

That notwithstanding, this scenario is in no way supportive of your ludicrous assertions.

which ludicrous assertions?

that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions?

Nor does it even approximate your previous inane examples.

not sure what you mean by this

Unless, in his drunken stupor, Joe slammed his vehicle into a car full of women and children and caused them grievous bodily harm and somehow you were implying that his victims, the passengers of the other car, were complicit in their own misfortune for driving on an unsafe thoroughfare. lain:

no, I wasn't doing all that

I was seeking to show that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions

in this particular example, I was interested in showing the kind of language we use when someone puts themselves at risk and the odds catch up to them

we tend to say things like:


"He deserved it"

or

"He had it coming"

or

"It was inevitable"

or

"It's his own fault"

 

[Foxfire]

which ludicrous assertions?

WOW! with so many viable options to choose from, it's hard to pick.

that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions?

That is not the same as to say that people should be responsible for the actions of others.

not sure what you mean by this

Not exactly surprising. Your inability to grasp linguistic concepts is quite legendary.

That's why I included a graphic illustration.

Supra:

no, I wasn't doing all that

I was seeking to show that people are responsible for the consequences of their actions

In the course of a voluminous diatribe attempting to extrapolate guilt and superimpose it on others. You have split so many hairs as to populate even my bald pate, numerically speaking, but not enough substance to weave a toupee for the smallest of pin heads. (no pun intended)

in this particular example, I was interested in showing the kind of language we use when someone puts themselves at risk and the odds catch up to them

we tend to say things like:


"He deserved it"

or

"He had it coming"

or

"It was inevitable"

or

"It's his own fault"

In this particular example, you have eloquently and succinctly encapsulated the entirety of the position of your detractors as regarding rapists that put themselves in the cross hairs of law enforcement by deciding it's OK to rape the vulnerable.

Hallelujah! There may yet be hope. lain:

 

[ok doser]

people should be responsible for the actions of others

good thing I don't say that, eh?

it's OK to rape the vulnerable.

no fox, it isn't :nono:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Terrible analogy, as the father isn't the victim here, the children are (and yes, the father is responsible for the molestation as well).

it wasn't offered as an analogy, it was offered as an examination of responsibility

I brought that up because in your two other scenarios you showed the actual victims' irresponsibility as justification for being victimized.

amazing, some have argued that the father didn't own any responsibility for the consequences of his actions

Bad judgment on the father's part doesn't take any culpability away from the child rapist.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
"Thou Shalt Not Steal" is a moral absolute. Thou shalt not be stupid isn't. If you're giving some of the blame to the victim, then you're downplaying God's moral absolute on stealing.

not sure why you'd think so, especially considering that I specified that the thieves are guilty of the crime of theft

Then why mention the irresponsible actions of the victims? What point are you trying to make here?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" (i.e. out of wedlock sex) is a moral absolute. Again, if you're giving some of the blame to the victim because she didn't use good judgment, then you're downplaying God's moral absolute on out of wedlock sex.

not the same

The Commandment on adultery covers all out of wedlock sex.
http://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-commandments/adultery-seventh-commandment/

If the pedophile, thief and rapist had all abided by God's Commandments they wouldn't be in trouble with the law.

Again, things such as stupidity on the victim's part doesn't take any culpability away from the culprit. By showing that the victims' were irresponsible, you're implying that the perpetrators of those crimes were not 100% accountable.

 

[ok doser]

a fifth scenario:

Joe is a US Navy Seaman, E2 rating. His ship puts into port in West Crapistan in the Middle East. Before going on shore leave, Joe and the other sailors are given directives by their CO - how to behave, what to do, what not to do, what areas of the city are safe, what areas of the city are off limits. Joe finds himself in an area of the city that is off limits, is identified as US military personnel by radical muslim extremists and is chased and beaten. Joe is rescued by the shore patrol and brought back to the ship where he is given the best possible medical care. And thrown in the brig. Joe's Captain, or the State Department, lean on the local authorities to catch and punish, swiftly and severely, those locals involved in the beating. Joe goes to the Mast and is busted down to E1 and given KP for six months. Joe's punishment is a result of his actions being a direct cause of the predicament he found himself in. It takes nothing away from the culpability of those who assaulted Joe - they receive their two years being tortured in the West Crapistan penal system. But the Navy recognizes that Joe's choices - Joe's actions - Joe's behavior - was directly responsible for the situation that arose

 

[Sherman]

a fifth scenario:

Joe is a US Navy Seaman, E2 rating. His ship puts into port in West Crapistan in the Middle East. Before going on shore leave, Joe and the other sailors are given directives by their CO - how to behave, what to do, what not to do, what areas of the city are safe, what areas of the city are off limits. Joe finds himself in an area of the city that is off limits, is identified as US military personnel by radical muslim extremists and is chased and beaten. Joe is rescued by the shore patrol and brought back to the ship where he is given the best possible medical care. And thrown in the brig. Joe's Captain, or the State Department, lean on the local authorities to catch and punish, swiftly and severely, those locals involved in the beating. Joe goes to the Mast and is busted down to E1 and given KP for six months. Joe's punishment is a result of his actions being a direct cause of the predicament he found himself in. It takes nothing away from the culpability of those who assaulted Joe - they receive their two years being tortured in the West Crapistan penal system. But the Navy recognizes that Joe's choices - Joe's actions - Joe's behavior - was directly responsible for the situation that arose

You nailed it. Joe put himself in that situation and does bear responsibility for what happened to him. During the years I served--1986-1996, Joe would have been tossed in the brig for disobeying orders and knowingly/needlessly putting himself at risk. The extremists are also culpable, but that does not remove Joe's responsibility for his actions.

 

[bybee]

You nailed it. Joe put himself in that situation and does bear responsibility for what happened to him. During the years I served--1986-1996, Joe would have been tossed in the brig for disobeying orders and knowingly/needlessly putting himself at risk. The extremists are also culpable, but that does not remove Joe's responsibility for his actions.

Joe is guilty of disobeying orders. He is not guilty of beating himself up.
As I understand it, when in the military you belong to the government?
If the government says do not put yourself in harm's way, then, obviously, you need to obey that order.

 

[bybee]

a third scenario:

Mary, a college sophomore, decides to smoke some dope in her dorm room Spoiler Mary then goes out alone to a club, starts drinking and meets up with some nice fellows who offer her some drugs Spoiler Mary drinks a lot! Spoiler Mary dances in her underwear! Spoiler Mary doesn't remember a lot of the night. Spoiler Mary wakes up the next morning. Spoiler Mary realizes that her purse and all her money are missing and that she's been raped. I think we can all agree that the thieves are guilty of the crime of theft. I think we can all agree that the rapists are guilty of the crime of rape. Does Mary bear any responsibility for the actions that she chose to take that put her at risk?

One really has to wonder that you spend so much time dreaming up these abominable scenarios of rape and mayhem? Perhaps you could benefit from counseling?
Of course I am forcing myself to pray for your warped soul.

 

[ok doser]

One really has to wonder that you spend so much time dreaming up these abominable scenarios of rape and mayhem? Perhaps you could benefit from counseling?
Of course I am forcing myself to pray for your warped soul.

bybee - i'm currently a student on a liberal campus that's devoting a huge amount of effort to discussions of rape and rape culture.

I'm taking Sociology 2, which has a strong focus on rape and abuse, and Abnormal Psychology, which also has a strong focus on abusive behavior

and nowhere is there a recognition that the behavior of the victim - the choices they make - can have a contributory effect on the outcome

i believe i may have mentioned it before

 

[ok doser]

and bybee - if you're not interested in addressing the questions i raise, i'd appreciate it if you'd take your trolling elsewhere


thanks in advance

 

[bybee]

bybee - i'm currently a student on a liberal campus that's devoting a huge amount of effort to discussions of rape and rape culture.

I'm taking Sociology 2, which has a strong focus on rape and abuse, and Abnormal Psychology, which also has a strong focus on abusive behavior

and nowhere is there a recognition that the behavior of the victim - the choices they make - can have a contributory effect on the outcome

i believe i may have mentioned it before

Jeepers! Are you forced to be there? By being there are you contributing to the Liberal agenda? Sounds like you are a victim contributing to your own abuse.

 

[bybee]

and bybee - if you're not interested in addressing the questions i raise, i'd appreciate it if you'd take your trolling elsewhere


thanks in advance

I am addressing you.
No need to thank me.

 

[Quincy]

Regardless of someone's poor judgement call, a thief doesn't get to be a victim of someone who has nice things and rapists don't get to be victims of women who seem particularly seductive to them. This whole line of reason implies the perp is a victim and that doesn't fly.

Only one example gave a fair example of a victim being punished and that was the military example. Joe disobeyed a direct order and in that system it works but not in your basic civilian scenario. People have sympathy for victims regardless of their irresponsible behavior.

 

[glorydaz]

People have sympathy for victims regardless of their irresponsible behavior.

Having sympathy for victims is great.

Pretending like their irresponsible behavior leaves them with no responsibility for the repercussions that ensue is what's wrong.

 

[Jerome84]

The father is responsible. If anything happens to one of his children then he has failed. Clearly.

 

[ok doser]

Regardless of someone's poor judgement call, a thief doesn't get to be a victim of someone who has nice things and rapists don't get to be victims of women who seem particularly seductive to them. This whole line of reason implies the perp is a victim and that doesn't fly.

:doh: go back and read it again, particularly this part: "I think we can all agree that the thieves are guilty of the crime of theft. I think we can all agree that the rapists are guilty of the crime of rape."

People have sympathy for victims regardless of their irresponsible behavior.

if i make a habit of drinking to excess and driving like a maniac and crash my truck and end up in a hospital, you're going to be sympathetic to me when i whine about how unfair it is that i have two broken legs? :freak:

i'll bet not

i'll bet you're going to be more apt to say "Serves you right, moron - how many times have we told you not to drive drunk?"


and you'd be right :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Scenario #6:

Joe is planning to go down to the Ferguson protests dressed in klan robes and a hood, carrying a sign that says "Michael Brown Deserved To Be Shot!" and shout racial slurs at the protesters. Joe tells his plans to his friend Frank. Frank says "Don't do it - you'll get your butt kicked, severely." Joe says "You're not the boss of me - I'll do what I want!" Joe goes down to the Ferguson protests dressed in klan robes and a hood, carrying a sign that says "Michael Brown Deserved To Be Shot!" and shouts racial slurs at the protesters. Joe gets his butt kicked, severely. Those who assault Joe are arrested and charged. Frank comes to visit Joe in the hospital. Joe whines about how unfair it was that he got his butt kicked, severely. Frank says "What are you talking about? You deserved to get your butt kicked. I told you not to go down there. You chose to get your butt kicked. Next time don't be such a moron."

Should Frank have been more sympathetic to Joe?