Rape

Crow: See? So why wouldn't you act the same with a rape victim?

Your position isn't held by logic. You're just rephrasing the position. For it to be logic you need more than a conclusion, you need to show what premises led to that conclusion.

every choice you are responsible for making
This does not follow. At best you are only responsible for your OWN choices, and even there, people's choices are often limited by others, for example when the choice is made under duress.

Being responcible for your choices makes you partially responcible for what happens as a result of those choices.
Two things, first, actionable phrase here is "as a result". If some island gets wiped out by a volcano, was that the fault of the islanders? Of course not, they could not help it, it was the movements of lava deep beneath the earth's crust. There was no causality. Similarly, if I fire a gun, completely at random, and somebody dies, then there was nothing that person could have done, because none of their choices influenced mine. There is no causal connection between the decision taken and the outcome.

Second, "responsibility" does not imply blame - even partial blame - for somebody else's choice to rape. Hence the slutwalk movement, "a dress is not a yes". In the context of rape people often say somebody was "asking for it" for example, and it's just silly. Even if their choice caused somebody else to want to rape them, that doesn't sanction the positive action of actually raping somebody. That would make you responsible for somebody else's choice to rape you. If you're saying people should be responsible for their choices, then looking at attackers would seem pretty obvious.

admin: See? So why wouldn't you act the same with a rape victim?

With a recent rape victim. I explicitly said that. Bullying is not even close to rape or serious assault, so I'll gladly tell someone to stop acting pathetic if they are crying about getting bullied.

This does not follow. At best you are only responsible for your OWN choices, and even there, people's choices are often limited by others, for example when the choice is made under duress.

You do not possess any choices that are not your own. That is self explanatory.

If you are not retarded, then you can recognize millions of choices each day, and not just 3-5 choices.

There was no causality. Similarly, if I fire a gun, completely at random, and somebody dies, then there was nothing that person could have done, because none of their choices influenced mine.

Like I said, I have more sympathy for some victims more than others.

In this scenario, I have more sympathy for the person who got shot because there is a whole lot less that could of been done to have avoided the situation.

Second, "responsibility" does not imply blame - even partial blame - for somebody else's choice to rape.

Do you know what responsibility is? It definitely implies fault for whatever good or bad comes out of it.

In the context of rape people often say somebody was "asking for it" for example, and it's just silly.

Yep, that's pretty stupid in my opinion. I can't imagine a scenario in which someone is asking for non-consensual sex.

If you're saying people should be responsible for their choices, then looking at attackers would seem pretty obvious.

Definitely, which is why I have been saying partial fault this entire thread.

Crow: How can somebody have partial fault for a decision they didn't make? You haven't really shown what the causal link is between "them having made an arbitrary choice at some arbitrary point in the past" and "them being responsible for somebody else's choice to rape them". Under what scenario do you have less sympathy for a rape victim?

admin: How can somebody have partial fault for a decision they didn't make?

It is the decisions they didn't make, or made poorly, that allowed the rape to happen.

Under what scenario do you have less sympathy for a rape victim?

For one, the actual severity of the rape.

Besides that, the decisions that they made leading up to the rape. If they acted really stupidly, then it is hard to have a lot of sympathy.

One of the best examples is where a rapist is provoked through demeaning comments or intentionally sexually provocative nature (directed at the rapist)

Crow: What do you mean, "allowed to happen"? I don't see them choosing to get raped - somebody else made that choice. They didn't allow that choice, but it wasn't their choice to make. Somebody else chose to rape them.

How is one rape more "severe"? That's a pretty meaningless word in context.

Decisions leading up to rape don't justify a rapists decision to rape either. Even you called it stupid just a post ago. Again, the seminal example is the defense that people who dress sluttily are asking to be raped.

If somebody "provoked" you to self-harm, you wouldn't do that. So why is it different if somebody "provokes" you into harming somebody else? They're two sides of the same coin - provoking is no defense for a harmful choice.

admin: What do you mean, "allowed to happen"? I don't see them choosing to get raped - somebody else made that choice. They didn't allow that choice, but it wasn't their choice to make. Somebody else chose to rape them.

Choose to get raped they did not.

Made choices which allowed them to be raped they did.

How is one rape more "severe"? That's a pretty meaningless word in context.

Somes rapes cause excessive physical penetratio, and the victim is forced to endure more deviant acts than simply getting screwed while passed out.

Decisions leading up to rape don't justify a rapists decision to rape either.

I agree. The two don't even have bearing on each other.

Again, the seminal example is the defense that people who dress sluttily are asking to be raped.

You might not want to use that example, since we both agree it is ridiculous. That is a justification that the sex was consensual anyhow.

If somebody "provoked" you to self-harm, you wouldn't do that.

I wouldn't, but others would. Know how there is that controversy about whether the bully is responsible for the victims suicide? Kind of like that.

You are too hung up on this idea that I am defending rapists. I am not doing that. I am however returning some of the rightful blame to rape victims. Taking responsibility is the first step in becoming empowered.

Crow: So if a choice is made to dress sluttily, and on that basis somebody rapes someone, would you consider the slutty dresser at partial fault for the rape because of their decision to dress the way they did?

admin: Yeah, I would.

Usually people who dress like sluts, want to be treated like sluts. That in itself isn't consent. but it does increase the chances of being raped or even simply being treated immodestly.

Crow: And that's exactly one step removed from a dress being a yes. The whole line of thinking is wrong ... somebody isn't even partly at fault for somebody else believing something they did implied consent. It's the other person who has the problem here for having that clearly mistaken belief.

Crow: That's kind of like saying men want to be kicked in the groin because they're not wearing a cup.

admin: somebody isn't even partly at fault for somebody else believing something they did implied consent.

Yes, they are. They created a liability, and therefore are at fault.

Women who want to be treated with modesty and respect, dress modestly and display self-respect.

Krazy: Not even close to being a proper equivalency.

Crow: So then a dress is a partial yes to you. And I have a significant problem with that.

There's no logic to this, btw. Nothing to connect their choice of how to dress with the choice of somebody else to rape them on that basis. People have a right to self expression, including to be safe no matter how they dress. The idea that "but for the fact you were wearing those clothes..." is like saying we should censor all media that might offend somebody so everyone can live without making immoral decisions. Of course, that ignores the fact that rapists aren't doing it because they think some girl is so hot they can't stop themselves. They're doing it to live out a power fantasy.

This is like the old Islamic view that men cannot control themselves so women need a full-body veil. Seriously, this is you wanting to attack victims just to prove the point you have no pity for anyone really again. I don't know why you bother to keep pointing that out but if it makes you feel special, well, congrats.

admin: (note: "girl" used as an example only. Don't mean to ignore the problem of male rape also.)

Crow: How?

If your saying that dressing like a whore makes it their fault if they get raped, then that would mean that it's your fault if you get kicked in the groin because your not wearing anything a cup.

Krazy: *ignore "anything".

admin: Nothing to connect their choice of how to dress with the choice of somebody else to rape them on that basis.

I already agreed with you. One's choice to protect themselves has no bearing on the choice of the rapist to instigate a rape. The choice to protect oneself does have an actual bearing on the actual rape though.

People have a right to self expression, including to be safe no matter how they dress.

I believe self expression is a good thing. If people want to be idiots, that's also fine.

is like saying we should censor all media that might offend somebody so everyone can live without making immoral decisions

False equivalency. I am not saying that anything should be censored or banned.

Of course, that ignores the fact that rapists aren't doing it because they think some girl is so hot they can't stop themselves. They're doing it to live out a power fantasy.

Yes, I agree. A lot of things about how to prevent rape were discussed before you brought up dressing like a slut. You invented a strawman, and are trying to misconstrue a false position that you are claiming I hold.

(note: "girl" used as an example only. Don't mean to ignore the problem of male rape also.)

Liberals around the world thank you for being politically correct.

Krazy: How?

If your saying that dressing like a whore makes it their fault if they get raped, then that would mean that it's your fault if you get kicked in the groin because your not wearing anything a cup.

Because it is falsely assuming that the instigation of an act and the actual act are connected. You are going to be kicked whether or not you are wearing a cup. It is totally irrelevant.

Now please stop saying really stupid things without understanding the context of what is being argued.

Crow: You're going to be raped whether you dress like a slut or not, regardless of what the rapists say. Science is pretty clear on that. Totally fair equivalency.

Crow: Liberals are right, because male rape is really bad and there needs to be more attention on it. It's seriously under-reported too.