Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rape and Victim Blaming

jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 8:32:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Imagine two scenarios:

1.) A man was sleeping in his home late at night when a robber broke into his house and took $800 from his house.

2.) A man was walking around a bad part of town at 2 AM with expensive clothing and flaunting the $800 he had on him. The man was mugged and all of his $800 was stolen.

Did either man deserve to be robbed?

No. Nobody deserves to be robbed.

Do you have equal sympathy for the two men?

You shouldn't. Even though both men are victims who didn't deserve their fate. One victim chose to engage in behavior that dramatically increased his risk of being a victim.

The other chose not to engage in such high risk behavior. In other words, the first victim was largely a victim because he had terribly bad luck. The second victim also had bad luck, but he made choices that made his chances of mugging much more likely.

I think everyone knows where I'm going with this. Imagine two more scenarios:

1.) A woman is asleep in her house when a man breaks in and holds her down and rapes her.

2.) A woman goes out on Friday night in extremely skimpy clothing. She gets highly intoxicated and ultimately brings a man she just met home. Right before they are about to have intercourse, she changes her mind and tells him no to sex. The guy is drunk, angry, and horny. So, he goes ahead and puts it in anyway and has intercourse with her.

Did either girl deserve what they got?

No. Nobody deserves rape.

Are both of these crimes equal?

No. No rational person could say that these crimes are equal. The second girl put herself in a position where rape was quite likely, through her own choices. The first girl did not.

Is that really such a radical notion?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 8:52:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The obvious and immediate difference in comparing your two cases is that in the one you suggest that the actions of the man flaunting his money was stupid, and thus we should feel less sympathy for Him, In the other case you suggest that the woman's actions were risky/stupid and that therefore the Rapists Crime is less of a Crime.

no. The man who robs a man that flaunts his cash, and the man who robs a man who doesn't flaunt his cash has committed the same crime.

And a person who intentionally rapes a person intentionally rapes a person.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's people like you who give me a bad name.

The second analogy isn't comparable.
People aren't mugged in their apartments.
My work here is, finally, done.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:09:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If anything you Might be able to make an argument suggesting that the levels of punishment should vary similar to how the responsibility associated with Murder varies depending on if it's committed in the first degree (pre-meditated) or murder in the second degree (intentional, but not pre-meditated)...

But that's about it.

In some Murder cases and assaults and the like you might be able to suggest that you suffered from temporary insanity or something if the court/jury would find the circumstances you were placed to be emotionally extreme...
but there's no way anyone respect the sexual drives of a person as being such a cause.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:17:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:09:14 PM, mortsdor wrote:
If he is anything like me, he is saying that the woman who is date raped (though not the best example) is not entirely blameless for her victimization.
Is she a victim? Absolutely, but she made bad decisions that brought her to that point.

He's saying you don't feel as bad for her as you would a different rape victim.
Similar to an elderly woman having her purse snatched vs. a wealthy socialite athlete having his wallet pickpocketed. You feel worse for the former.
My work here is, finally, done.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:29:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:17:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If he is anything like me,
Not sure if the "he" there refers to me or Jim
he is saying that the woman who is date raped (though not the best example) is not entirely blameless for her victimization.

For my part I'd avoid the implication that she's at all responsible for the crime... She didn't commit any crime no matter how stupid she may've been.

(and as to how Bad I'd feel for someone who was so taken advantage of... well, I think I'd feel quite bad for the vast majority of cases that happened in either way... I think it would be quite the exceptional case which would make me feel significantly less bad.. but in all cases I'd see a regular standard of punishment applied to the offender )

As I said, the only thing that may be relevant would be that you could make an argument for having different degrees of Rape depending upon whether the act was pre-mediated, similar to how there's different degrees of murder.
(and this may in fact be how it's currently treated, I wouldn't know)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:29:47 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:17:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
If he is anything like me,
Not sure if the "he" there refers to me or Jim
Jim
he is saying that the woman who is date raped (though not the best example) is not entirely blameless for her victimization.

For my part I'd avoid the implication that she's at all responsible for the crime... She didn't commit any crime no matter how stupid she may've been.
There isn't really a good word. Saying you blame the victim sounds too harsh, and responsible isn't quite right either.
And, like I said, the example is bad.

Think of it this way:
Would you feel as bad if a person asked a stranger to hold their purse while they went to the bathroom? That's just stupid. What would you expect?


(and as to how Bad I'd feel for someone who was so taken advantage of... well, I think I'd feel quite bad for the vast majority of cases that happened in either way... I think it would be quite the exceptional case which would make me feel significantly less bad.. but in all cases I'd see a regular standard of punishment applied to the offender )
The offender should be punished nevertheless.

As I said, the only thing that may be relevant would be that you could make an argument for having different degrees of Rape depending upon whether the act was pre-mediated, similar to how there's different degrees of murder.
(and this may in fact be how it's currently treated, I wouldn't know)
Agreed.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:55:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 8:52:15 PM, mortsdor wrote:
The obvious and immediate difference in comparing your two cases is that in the one you suggest that the actions of the man flaunting his money was stupid, and thus we should feel less sympathy for Him, In the other case you suggest that the woman's actions were risky/stupid and that therefore the Rapists Crime is less of a Crime.

no. The man who robs a man that flaunts his cash, and the man who robs a man who doesn't flaunt his cash has committed the same crime.

And a person who intentionally rapes a person intentionally rapes a person.

I'm explaining two things:

1.) Why some rapes are more serious than others. Just like we punish more harshly for premediated murder than a murder of passion, we should do the same for rape.

2.) Why it is appropriate to feel less sympathy for some victims than others. Nobody is too blame for their own rape. But, some people did take more risks that exposed them to increased likelihood of being victims.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Wait, you think there is a difference in those scenarios for punishment?
In both cases, the woman is forcefully raped. It is the same act.
The fact that one was premeditated might mean a higher sentence, but I am almost certain it is the same charge.
My work here is, finally, done.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 9:59:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:55:12 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
Just like we punish more harshly for premediated murder than a murder of passion, we should do the same for rape.

I can see an analogy to 1st degree(pre-meditated) and 2nd degree(not pre-meditated, but intentional) murder.

From what I know, Sometimes extreme emotional distress is used as a defense for things like murder. I cannot see that as being defensible in any circumstances for a rape case.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:00:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Oh well, it looks like that was fully refuted. I'll just go home then.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:06:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:00:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Oh well, it looks like that was fully refuted. I'll just go home then.

What exactly was refuted?

Certainly nothing I said. All my arguments continue to stand on firm ground.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:07:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Wait, you think there is a difference in those scenarios for punishment?
In both cases, the woman is forcefully raped. It is the same act.
The fact that one was premeditated might mean a higher sentence, but I am almost certain it is the same charge.

If a guy gets hit by a car by accident or murdered with premeditation, the result is the same: a dead man. Yet, we can recognize that those two things are not morally equivalent.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:07:47 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Wait, you think there is a difference in those scenarios for punishment?
In both cases, the woman is forcefully raped. It is the same act.
The fact that one was premeditated might mean a higher sentence, but I am almost certain it is the same charge.

If a guy gets hit by a car by accident or murdered with premeditation, the result is the same: a dead man. Yet, we can recognize that those two things are not morally equivalent.

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:11:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:10:18 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:07:47 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:59:24 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 9:53:41 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

No it doesn't. But, if you think that both rapists deserve equal punishment, you're nuts.

Wait, you think there is a difference in those scenarios for punishment?
In both cases, the woman is forcefully raped. It is the same act.
The fact that one was premeditated might mean a higher sentence, but I am almost certain it is the same charge.

If a guy gets hit by a car by accident or murdered with premeditation, the result is the same: a dead man. Yet, we can recognize that those two things are not morally equivalent.

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.

Not at all. In my second hypothetical, the guy and girl were about to have consensual sex, but she changed her mind.

And, him, in a drunk and horny state, went ahead and put it in.

Is that really the moral equivalent of breaking into a house and raping a girl?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:15:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:11:48 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.

Not at all. In my second hypothetical, the guy and girl were about to have consensual sex, but she changed her mind.

And, him, in a drunk and horny state, went ahead and put it in.

Is that really the moral equivalent of breaking into a house and raping a girl?

As far as the rape goes, yes, it is.
Both could have stopped, they did not.

By your logic, is there a difference between breaking into the apartment to steal and seeing a woman asleep and raping her vs. breaking into the apartment with the sole intent of raping her?
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:16:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:15:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:11:48 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.

Not at all. In my second hypothetical, the guy and girl were about to have consensual sex, but she changed her mind.

And, him, in a drunk and horny state, went ahead and put it in.

Is that really the moral equivalent of breaking into a house and raping a girl?

As far as the rape goes, yes, it is.
Both could have stopped, they did not.

By your logic, is there a difference between breaking into the apartment to steal and seeing a woman asleep and raping her vs. breaking into the apartment with the sole intent of raping her?

In fact, yes there is. Although the difference is slight.

We differentiate planned or premeditated murders from manslaughter or crimes of passion. The same should hold for rape.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:18:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You call the first woman scenario rape and the second intercourse. They are both rape. That was very subtle manipulation.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:20:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:16:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:11:48 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.

Not at all. In my second hypothetical, the guy and girl were about to have consensual sex, but she changed her mind.

And, him, in a drunk and horny state, went ahead and put it in.

Is that really the moral equivalent of breaking into a house and raping a girl?

As far as the rape goes, yes, it is.
Both could have stopped, they did not.

By your logic, is there a difference between breaking into the apartment to steal and seeing a woman asleep and raping her vs. breaking into the apartment with the sole intent of raping her?

In fact, yes there is. Although the difference is slight.

We differentiate planned or premeditated murders from manslaughter or crimes of passion. The same should hold for rape.

Sexual assault in my state has have degrees. I am not sure what the difference is.
Murder and manslaughter are not the same thing.
Murder in the first (premeditated) carries a higher sentence than Murder in the second (passion), but the crime is still murder, and the only difference is the circumstances.

The fact that a man broke in vs. was invited in is not enough to differentiate between the two rapes.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:20:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:18:20 PM, Maikuru wrote:
You call the first woman scenario rape and the second intercourse. They are both rape. That was very subtle manipulation.

They are both rape. But, any rational person who's mind is not poisoned by feminist propaganda can see that some rape is worse than other rape.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:21:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:20:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:16:32 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:15:20 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:11:48 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

The result is the same, but the crime is different.
In your examples, the crime is the same: premeditated forceful rape.

Not at all. In my second hypothetical, the guy and girl were about to have consensual sex, but she changed her mind.

And, him, in a drunk and horny state, went ahead and put it in.

Is that really the moral equivalent of breaking into a house and raping a girl?

As far as the rape goes, yes, it is.
Both could have stopped, they did not.

By your logic, is there a difference between breaking into the apartment to steal and seeing a woman asleep and raping her vs. breaking into the apartment with the sole intent of raping her?

In fact, yes there is. Although the difference is slight.

We differentiate planned or premeditated murders from manslaughter or crimes of passion. The same should hold for rape.

Sexual assault in my state has have degrees. I am not sure what the difference is.
Murder and manslaughter are not the same thing.
Murder in the first (premeditated) carries a higher sentence than Murder in the second (passion), but the crime is still murder, and the only difference is the circumstances.

The fact that a man broke in vs. was invited in is not enough to differentiate between the two rapes.

If a man plans to rape a woman, should he have a harsher sentence than a man who didn't make plans but was so horny that he couldn't hold himself back?

I think both should be punished but not equally.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:30:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:20:46 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:18:20 PM, Maikuru wrote:
You call the first woman scenario rape and the second intercourse. They are both rape. That was very subtle manipulation.

They are both rape. But, any rational person who's mind is not poisoned by feminist propaganda can see that some rape is worse than other rape.

Uh huh
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:30:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 8:39:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Both "crimes" are equal as violations of a person's rights (presuming no other crimes took place, though they likely did). You don't give the robber a lower sentence or less jail time because the guy was an idiot walking with his money hanging out.

I have no problem calling people idiots for not comprehending the risks they take, but calling them idiots for it does not diminish nor excuse the actions of others.

This +1000

Why do we feel it necessary to categorize some versions of the same crime as being more bad than others? If we cared about the victim as a human being, we'd feel bad for them regardless. If my friend came to me and said he got mugged, I'd feel equally bad for him whether he was right outside his parents home in suburbia or whether he was walking to his $hitty apartment in a bad part of town. Neither our first nor our last reaction to hearing about a crime should be to blame the victim. We can call people idiots for putting themselves in risky situations, but that's different than trying to analyze whether the crime itself was "bad" or "as bad" as a similar crime.

It's almost absurd that walking through a "high crime" area would mean that you deserved to be victimized. That literally means that the crimes of other people (the preceding rapes and muggings that made that area a "high crime" neighborhood) somehow make the crime that was committed against you less bad. How can more crime make subsequent crime less bad?

I think it's gross how OP says further down that "some rape is worse than others." All rape is horrible and demoralizing to the victim.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:36:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You should read your comment a couple of times, Ma'am, until you realize where you have, quite severely, failed to comprehend the difference, or lack thereof, concerning your comparison of two hypothetical scenarios both involving the act of rape. At the point a woman is raped, she is being forced to have sexual intercourse; by definition, that is without asking for it. To have the narrow-minded view and suggest that because she may have involuntarily provoked rape due to certain factors like clothing, that therefore the crime itself should be deemed less severe than if she were fully clothed yet raped, is absolutely idiotic.

Even if a woman were to be aware of the risks of clothing herself provocatively and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, it still, nevertheless, makes the crime of rape no less reprehensible. The perpetrator is equally guilty in this type of scenario as he would be if he were to rape a random woman who had taken no risks upon herself. That is, if the risks described in the scenario are, in fact, risks at all. It's certainly not always the case, and factors like choice of clothes are insignificant in overall rape-causing factors, statistically speaking.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:36:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
You should read your comment a couple of times, Ma'am, until you realize where you have, quite severely, failed to comprehend the difference, or lack thereof, concerning your comparison of two hypothetical scenarios both involving the act of rape.

Mirza wins

/endthread
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:50:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:21:47 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

If a man plans to rape a woman, should he have a harsher sentence than a man who didn't make plans but was so horny that he couldn't hold himself back?

I think both should be punished but not equally.

Are you suggesting that the difference in time (one minute vs ten minutes) is a mitigating factor for sentence?
That is what sentence hearings are for.
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:52:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:36:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
You should read your comment a couple of times, Ma'am, until you realize where you have, quite severely, failed to comprehend the difference, or lack thereof, concerning your comparison of two hypothetical scenarios both involving the act of rape. At the point a woman is raped, she is being forced to have sexual intercourse; by definition, that is without asking for it. To have the narrow-minded view and suggest that because she may have involuntarily provoked rape due to certain factors like clothing, that therefore the crime itself should be deemed less severe than if she were fully clothed yet raped, is absolutely idiotic.

Even if a woman were to be aware of the risks of clothing herself provocatively and being at the wrong place at the wrong time, it still, nevertheless, makes the crime of rape no less reprehensible. The perpetrator is equally guilty in this type of scenario as he would be if he were to rape a random woman who had taken no risks upon herself. That is, if the risks described in the scenario are, in fact, risks at all. It's certainly not always the case, and factors like choice of clothes are insignificant in overall rape-causing factors, statistically speaking.

You totally destroyed that strawman you created.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:02:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The OP's hypothetical scenarios can be compared to the following:

Mondays are, statistically, the days at which most murders occur in a certain large area, spread out evenly at any hour and place. Fridays have the lowest murder rates. Person A and B work at the same place, and due to the type of job they both have, it is their obligation to work only one day of the week. Suppose Person A chooses Friday, and Person B Monday because they find these days convenient for themselves.

Perpetrator A murders Person A on a Friday, and Perpetrator B murders Person B on a Monday. Both perpetrators are guilty of murder. According to the OP, however, Perpetrator A's crime is less severe, because Person A did not but himself in a position where he increased for himself the risk of being murdered. Consider the following OP wrote: "No rational person could say that these crimes are equal. The second girl put herself in a position where rape was quite likely, through her own choices. The first girl did not." In the same way, Person B put himself in a position where murder was more likely [choosing to work on a day with the highest murder rates], and, thus, Perpetrator B is guilty of a lesser form of crime than Perpetrator A.

Notice how the OP attempts to escape the truth in his response to me above. If his opinion merely revolved around victim blaming, as opposed to how we should weigh the crime itself, then I would not have written out this comment. Since he quite clearly stated that the crimes are of different levels because the victims made some decisions that, knowingly, put them in higher risks of becoming victims, I therefore oblige to respond.