Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Holding the Victim Accountable

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.
My work here is, finally, done.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:21:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Compared to a man who lives alone in the woods, locked off and alone, we must all look foolishly risky and vulnerable to attack. Some people may take actions that make them more likely to be victimized, but that is because of the nature of crime in our society. The second we blame the victim for their actions or inactions, we let criminals dictate our norms and values. Won't do it.
"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
3/5/2015 11:41:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:21:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Compared to a man who lives alone in the woods, locked off and alone, we must all look foolishly risky and vulnerable to attack. Some people may take actions that make them more likely to be victimized, but that is because of the nature of crime in our society. The second we blame the victim for their actions or inactions, we let criminals dictate our norms and values. Won't do it.

Perhaps I was unclear. I do not mean victims are wholly accountable, or that the perpetrator is not at fault.
What I want to ask is if you view the victims differently. If so, why?
Imagine if you could help only one of the victims in the respective examples, would you just flip a coin as to whom to help, or help each equally?

I see taking risks or making stupid decisions as disallowing a victim to throw their hands up and say "why me?". There was ample reason why it was you, and ample reason to assume it could have been avoided.
It is often said that most criminals are opportunistic. If this is true, by allowing the opportunity to exist, you inadvertently abetted your own victimization, and it should be recognized as such. Otherwise, how is crime to be fought/prevented?

Perhaps I am alone in this view and I am too callous and expect too much of others, but I don't view the victims as equally innocent.
My work here is, finally, done.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:42:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

Ultimately we can't prevent ourselves or anyone else from becoming a victim. Is it your choice to be robbed? Or is the decision of the robber. In most of the second scenarios I would feel some sense of sympathy but not too much. There are things to be done to make us less of a target or less of a victim. However, the second scenario you mentioned when you make fun of someone with a lisp and they punch you, I would have zero sympathy. Sure what the lisp guy did was illegal but I have no sympathy for someone that deliberately tries to aggravate someone else for a quick laugh.

I will admit I do view someone on welfare due to a medical condition differently than someone with five kids. We all have choices, some ugly and some pretty but choices are the only things we directly have control over. In all the situations you mentioned, the victim can't control the decisions of the other person, they can only control themselves and what they chose to do or not do.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:56:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:42:18 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

Ultimately we can't prevent ourselves or anyone else from becoming a victim. Is it your choice to be robbed? Or is the decision of the robber. In most of the second scenarios I would feel some sense of sympathy but not too much. There are things to be done to make us less of a target or less of a victim. However, the second scenario you mentioned when you make fun of someone with a lisp and they punch you, I would have zero sympathy. Sure what the lisp guy did was illegal but I have no sympathy for someone that deliberately tries to aggravate someone else for a quick laugh.

I will admit I do view someone on welfare due to a medical condition differently than someone with five kids. We all have choices, some ugly and some pretty but choices are the only things we directly have control over. In all the situations you mentioned, the victim can't control the decisions of the other person, they can only control themselves and what they chose to do or not do.

Yeah, I worded this poorly.
I did not mean to imply the victim is wholly responsible or fully to blame, as it is the choice of the perpetrator to act. My issue is to see if others view victims as having some accountability in their victimization. You seem to agree, since you hold less sympathy for the second set of victims due to the actions they control. That is the type of response I was looking for.
My work here is, finally, done.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 12:12:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:56:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Yeah, I worded this poorly.
I did not mean to imply the victim is wholly responsible or fully to blame, as it is the choice of the perpetrator to act. My issue is to see if others view victims as having some accountability in their victimization. You seem to agree, since you hold less sympathy for the second set of victims due to the actions they control. That is the type of response I was looking for.

I understood what you said generally.

I think the answers you receive will be reflective of each person's experience or lack thereof or possibly their knowledge of someone else's experience(book learning). I will admit, I don't live in one of the more happier places in the United States so I know I have to take precautions to look at for my own well being.

A lot of people who would sympathize with the second person would seem to be very inexperienced and someone that can be taken advantage of easily. My favorite slogan is "you will learn far more as a bus rider in Chicago for 24 hours then you ever could learn at the University of Chicago as a student for 24 hours."
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 12:29:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:41:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2015 11:21:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Compared to a man who lives alone in the woods, locked off and alone, we must all look foolishly risky and vulnerable to attack. Some people may take actions that make them more likely to be victimized, but that is because of the nature of crime in our society. The second we blame the victim for their actions or inactions, we let criminals dictate our norms and values. Won't do it.

Perhaps I was unclear. I do not mean victims are wholly accountable, or that the perpetrator is not at fault.
What I want to ask is if you view the victims differently. If so, why?
Imagine if you could help only one of the victims in the respective examples, would you just flip a coin as to whom to help, or help each equally?

I see taking risks or making stupid decisions as disallowing a victim to throw their hands up and say "why me?". There was ample reason why it was you, and ample reason to assume it could have been avoided.
It is often said that most criminals are opportunistic. If this is true, by allowing the opportunity to exist, you inadvertently abetted your own victimization, and it should be recognized as such. Otherwise, how is crime to be fought/prevented?

Perhaps I am alone in this view and I am too callous and expect too much of others, but I don't view the victims as equally innocent.

Like I said, some people put themselves in positions that increase their odds of being victimized, but a victim is a victim and I'm not inclined to pass judgement on a victim.

I've been a victim of crime many times. My house has been robbed on multiple occasions. I've been mugged at gun point. I've been hit in a hit-and-run. Perhaps I should have invested in better locks, or those were the wrong streets to be walking down. At the end of the day, though, it isn't the victim's choice to be victimized. Circumstances and actions may make person A a better target than person B, but we're all a better victim than someone and I'm not inclined to say anyone had it coming.
"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
3/5/2015 12:43:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 12:29:35 PM, Maikuru wrote:
At 3/5/2015 11:41:37 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2015 11:21:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Compared to a man who lives alone in the woods, locked off and alone, we must all look foolishly risky and vulnerable to attack. Some people may take actions that make them more likely to be victimized, but that is because of the nature of crime in our society. The second we blame the victim for their actions or inactions, we let criminals dictate our norms and values. Won't do it.

Perhaps I was unclear. I do not mean victims are wholly accountable, or that the perpetrator is not at fault.
What I want to ask is if you view the victims differently. If so, why?
Imagine if you could help only one of the victims in the respective examples, would you just flip a coin as to whom to help, or help each equally?

I see taking risks or making stupid decisions as disallowing a victim to throw their hands up and say "why me?". There was ample reason why it was you, and ample reason to assume it could have been avoided.
It is often said that most criminals are opportunistic. If this is true, by allowing the opportunity to exist, you inadvertently abetted your own victimization, and it should be recognized as such. Otherwise, how is crime to be fought/prevented?

Perhaps I am alone in this view and I am too callous and expect too much of others, but I don't view the victims as equally innocent.

Like I said, some people put themselves in positions that increase their odds of being victimized, but a victim is a victim and I'm not inclined to pass judgement on a victim.

I've been a victim of crime many times. My house has been robbed on multiple occasions. I've been mugged at gun point. I've been hit in a hit-and-run. Perhaps I should have invested in better locks, or those were the wrong streets to be walking down. At the end of the day, though, it isn't the victim's choice to be victimized. Circumstances and actions may make person A a better target than person B, but we're all a better victim than someone and I'm not inclined to say anyone had it coming.

So, you are a categorical no?
Even in that bar room lisp bullying scenario?
I would never say you should have had better locks or wrong streets, but I see your infinite regression point. It doesn't mean there can't be a line in the sand.

Also, that sucks, a lot.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 12:48:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There has to be a line where it is extremely difficult to say for certain that the victim did not desire the criminal event.

How do you explain masochism?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 12:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Some people are much better at coping with violence, crimes, and robberies. Would you expect these people to take more precautions than a person who could not emotionally deal with fistfights and robberies very well?

A lot of people project Sympathy with a wide brush to victims with the assumption that all victims must emotionally deal with victimhood the same way as you do.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 9:44:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 11:21:37 AM, Maikuru wrote:
Compared to a man who lives alone in the woods, locked off and alone, we must all look foolishly risky and vulnerable to attack. Some people may take actions that make them more likely to be victimized, but that is because of the nature of crime in our society. The second we blame the victim for their actions or inactions, we let criminals dictate our norms and values. Won't do it.

I really enjoyed this response.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 10:46:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

1) for different situations, there is a different level of "fault" that is yours [the victims]
2) fault is not a zero sum equation
3) as such, this does not diminish the crime that was committed, nor does it suggest that the criminal should get any less of a crime.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 11:59:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

I think both of these pretty just much mean you were either a jerk or not, and were assaulted.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

While not smart, clearly #2 puts the ball squarely in the robber's court, the law breaking still was all on him/her, there was no expectation of an invite to enjoy the pleasures your place may keep. (CWI am doing here?)

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Again, while 2 is not smart, is the victim in this claiming he was talking about giving the money over? Perhaps asking the 'mugger' if he could see his walled to put the money in it?

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Fraud and deception with bad business practices.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

Just 'that was stupid'. One should never expect to be assaulted for contrary remarks.

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?

There is a certain measure of wisdom in not looking like a victim in order to not be a victim, though that doesn't exonerate the aggressor.

Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

Sure, its a matter of circumstance and free will. No matter what, the gambling problem was their choice, where as ID or some other such foul play is completely illegal.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 5:38:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is interesting. I've always thought that the amount of sympathy we feel for the victim should vary (at least a bit) based on how unlucky they were.

That is to say that if a person avoided taking certain risks and still got victimized, they are more deserving of sympathy than somebody who put themselves in a vulnerable situation.

What this is not saying is that the victim is at fault. Pointing out that a victim put themselves in a position to be victimized relative to other victims does not equate with blaming the victim. At least, it shouldn't.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 8:12:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The two are not mutually exclusive.

It's a bit concerning that some people are so easily to blame the victim and see that as excusing at least in part the crime.

It's counter productive, cause if society adopts that attitude it sends the message to criminals, hey just look for stupid, cause that will at least in part absolve your guilt.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 8:37:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 10:46:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

1) for different situations, there is a different level of "fault" that is yours [the victims]
This is a response I am looking for. Thank you.
2) fault is not a zero sum equation
Never suggested it was.
3) as such, this does not diminish the crime that was committed, nor does it suggest that the criminal should get any less of a crime.
Explicitly said it shouldn't.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 8:49:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 8:12:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Not at all.

It's a bit concerning that some people are so easily to blame the victim and see that as excusing at least in part the crime.
That is not what I am doing.
I am explaining the crime, and understanding why a crime occurred is the first step in preventing it from happening again.

It's counter productive, cause if society adopts that attitude it sends the message to criminals, hey just look for stupid, cause that will at least in part absolve your guilt.
Except, that is exactly what they do.
Burglars prefer empty houses.
Muggers prefer single targets.

And, I know plenty of people whose view is "if you are stupid, it's your fault" in regards to overcharging people (car dealerships, pizza parlors, etc.). The aggressor will find a way to absolve guilt and risk in their actions and/or crimes.
The issue is, by crying "why me" and making yourself a target, you are not making it any more difficult for them. Take responsibility for yourself and try to mitigate your own victimhood.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 9:34:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/6/2015 8:37:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/5/2015 10:46:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

1) for different situations, there is a different level of "fault" that is yours [the victims]
This is a response I am looking for. Thank you.
2) fault is not a zero sum equation
Never suggested it was.
3) as such, this does not diminish the crime that was committed, nor does it suggest that the criminal should get any less of a crime.
Explicitly said it shouldn't.

It was more of a statement towards everyone rather than just you. I just quoted you because I have no idea why.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2015 11:56:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 9:31:56 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Take the following two examples of being a victim of assault:
1. At the club, I say "excuse me" to a girl and her boyfriend punches me in the face for talking to her.
2. At the club, I make fun of a man for his clothes and lisp, and he punches me.

Further, take these situations as well:
1. Someone breaks down my door or breaks my window to rob my apartment.
2. I habitually leave, and often announce, that I am leaving and I did not lock the door. I am robbed.

And:
1. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino and is mugged in the parking lot.
2. A man in T-shirt and jeans leaves the casino, hooting and hollering, muttering "ten thousand dollars!!", and fanning himself with the $10K he just won. He is mugged.

Lastly:
1. A woman has had only one job, one residence, and one bank account ever, and her identity is stolen and bank account drained.
2. A woman freely gives her bank account to obvious scams (like foreign lotteries and Nigerian prince), does not shred financial documents, and has lost her checkbook on more than one occasion. Her identity is stolen.

Now, in their respective scenarios, do you feel the same level of compassion and outrage at the crime, or do you hold the victim in the second scenario in a separate light, saying "what did you expect" or "that was stupid".

If you do view these victims in the exact same light, do you believe that there is no imperative to take pro-active steps to avoid becoming a victim? You actually believe that all victims are equal?
Does this matter if, instead of being a victim, it is a matter of circumstance? For example, do you view someone in poverty because they have a gambling problem in a different light than one who is ruined due to identity theft, or someone on welfare due to a medical condition vs. having five kids.

There are places in this country where a person can feel safe doing all the things in those examples. Your talking about street smarts, or maybe common sense but not having that doesn't make a victim accountable. Some people don't think that way because they've never had to. And really that's how it should be. It just isn't because people are a-holes.

Of course people should be smart enough to know when someone is scamming them or that prod-casting important info puts them at risk, but that just because other people are willing to break the law. We shouldn't have to be so cautious in life. So no, none of those people are at fault. They aren't doing anything wrong. They just don;t have common sense about things most people do.