binary solo said:
What? Y'know women do generally avoid places where they think there's a higher than normal danger of being raped, so they are practicing common sense. But if course if you're expecting them to avoid all places where there is a non-zero chance of being raped then they will need to pretty much live in solitary confinement. What most ignorant people say to rape victims is, "well you shouldn't have worn a skimpy dress", which is a total BS statement. Most people who get stabbed in a bar aren't getting stabbed at random, there's usually some aggro between the stabber and the stabbee (both are being antagonistic) before the situation escalates into a stabbing. Now if your second sentence was "She was at that seedy bar downtown was not wearing underware, sat on the bar spread her legs and said, hey boys who wants some of this, and got raped. She really needs to stop doing that." Then you might have something of a point. Basically what your exampe boils down to is this statement "you shouldn't antagonise the one with the knife." exactly equals in common sense the statement "you shouldn't flirt with the one with a penis." Now that is plain nonsense. And then of course there's the general attitude in society that violence, even killing, is an acceptable and reasonable response in some situations. So having a violent confrontation is often accepted as fitting within the norms of human social interaction. As far as I know in a normal society there is never a situation where forced, non-consensual sex is an acceptable and reasonable course of action that fits within the norms of social interaction. Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. |
What? Your victim blaming sickens me. God, what the hell, dude? Guy gets stabbed and it's his own fault? Serves him right for wearing that hoodie, huh? I bet he had some tattoos, that's the same as just asking for it.
Seriously, thank you for coming along and providing a real world example of people going out of their way to rationalize hypothetical situations two completely different ways, even to the point of making up their own details so that one is more negative and one is more positive. You've twisted it until the guy deserved to be stabbed just because you wanted to.
And, wow, "you shouldn't antagonise the one with the knife"? Because stabbings are never done when someone's back is turned?
Here, though, I'll give you the conclusion of the example: the guy got stabbed because he was trying to stop the girl from being raped. Still his own fault for messing with a person who had a concealed knife? Still want to apply two different sets of logic?
