It's All Our Fault

[CatholicNewby]

Richardols:

A drunk waving a wad of cash or a boobsy girl with her blouse open down “to here” and a skirt an inch below her panties are provoking trouble even if they don’t carry a dictionary around with them.

You could easily say that they were unwise and that, for their own safety, they should have taken greater steps to protect themselves from the evil actions of others. To say, however, that they in some way provoked the attackers is merely to shift a portion of the blame from the guilty to the innocent. I hope that you are just baiting me and that you don’t really believe these things.:banghead:

 

[Jay74]

vern humphrey:

Is that the argument you would make if you were the defense council?

It’s common. It’s safer and easier to reason with the decent than the indecent. That’s why many chose to lecture the victim rather than contend with the monster who hurt them.

It is, ironically, the same logic that leads many to protest peace loving countries like the USA instead of contending with the terrorists and brutal tyrants–it’s easier, and safer. No one ever got ran through a tree shredder because they criticized the American President.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Jay74:

It’s common. It’s safer and easier to reason with the decent than the indecent. That’s why many chose to lecture the victim rather than contend with the monster who hurt them.

It is, ironically, the same logic that leads many to protest peace loving countries like the USA instead of contending with the terrorists and brutal tyrants–it’s easier, and safer. No one ever got ran through a tree shredder because they criticized the American President.

I realize this argument used to be common in rape cases. I hope it is less common now.

My question to Richard, though, sought to penetrate to the center of the discussion. If he would not use it as a defense lawyer (and I sincerely hope he will answer in the negative), why use it here, when far less is at stake?

 

[BlindSheep]

Richardols:

A drunk waving a wad of cash or a boobsy girl with her blouse open down “to here” and a skirt an inch below her panties are provoking trouble even if they don’t carry a dictionary around with them.

Are you saying the police shouldn’t arrest the mugger/rapist in these cases? Because that is the logical conclusion to your analogy between this and terrorism, if you are trying to argue that a war on terrorism is not justified.

 

[abcdefg]

Richardols:

A drunk waving a wad of cash or a boobsy girl with her blouse open down “to here” and a skirt an inch below her panties are provoking trouble even if they don’t carry a dictionary around with them.

The most outrageous argument ever.:banghead:
according to your logic:

1. don’t blame me or call the police if one day I would went over there and gave you a good beat, your words provoked my action.
2. if a girl in that dress appears in front of you, you will rape her as you’re provoked. 99% males won’t rape, why you have to be the rapist?
   no offence

you should read about the “just world fallacy” and “victim blaming”

 

[KathleenElsie]

Richardols:

But, sometimes it is. Men walking around drunk displaying a wad of cash, girls in a rough part of a city wearing overly suggestive clothing and exposing too much of themselves are two examples of people who are virtually inviting robbery or rape.

**Victims are not to blame and do not invite others to harm them. It is the person committing the crime that is to blame.:banghead: The person that covets what another has be it their money, freedom or body is morally wrong. The taking from another person their dignity and security is also morally wrong.

Selling illegal drugs, prostitution (both the participants), robbery and all have the same root cause. The cause is lack of moral teaching and lack of social responsibility. :banghead:

Self control is no longer in vogue. Blame others is in vogue.
**

 

[mlchance]

Richardols:

We weren’t discussing political tactics. The Democrats favor unrestricted access to abortion. They have never said that they are in favor of “baby killing” or “killing children.” That’s all.

The Democratic Party doesn’t say that because that would mean admitting the truth about what abortion really is. IOW, the Democratic Party is lying. Imagine that. The party that supports the wholesale destruction of the unborn also lies about the fact that abortion kills children.

Amazing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

mlchance:

The Democratic Party doesn’t say that because that would mean admitting the truth about what abortion really is. IOW, the Democratic Party is lying. Imagine that. The party that supports the wholesale destruction of the unborn also lies about the fact that abortion kills children.

Amazing.

– Mark L. Chance.

No, the amazing thing is that it is working, just look at Richard’s replies, he seems to believe them.

 

[Richardols]

BlindSheep:

Are you saying the police shouldn’t arrest the mugger/rapist in these cases? Because that is the logical conclusion to your analogy between this and terrorism, if you are trying to argue that a war on terrorism is not justified.

Do you actually think that I was arguing that the police should not arrest the perp?

I said nothing about any war on terrorism in this thread.

 

[iamrefreshed]

gilliam:

What you are seeing is no more Islam at work than Hitler was Christianity at work. What you are really seeing is fascism at work. The difference is that it is being cloaked under the guize of Islam

Then we disagree.

 

[Richardols]

mlchance:

IOW, the Democratic Party is lying.

Not IOW, but IYO.

The party that supports the wholesale destruction of the unborn

Utter nonsense. You are falsely claiming that they support abortion even for those unborn whom their mothers want to have. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be “wholesale.”

Amazing.

Indeed. I’m surprised that you could draw such conclusions.

 

[iamrefreshed]

gilliam:

What you are seeing is no more Islam at work than Hitler was Christianity at work. What you are really seeing is fascism at work. The difference is that it is being cloaked under the guize of Islam

Just a thought from my catholic perspective Gilliam. My catholic beliefs force me to believe that Islam is a religion made up by a man in 610 AD. Made up for whatever purpose Mohammed had in mind. Based on his actions, I have to come to the conclusion that those reasons were to control the local population.

I never claimed Muslims were not peaceful. Most are. It is their belief system that is the problem.

The Islamic religion and fascism are very much similar my fellow dhimmi.

 

[Richardols]

**Victims are not to blame and do not invite others to harm them. **

In New York City, a tactic used by the Transit Police to catch muggers is to have a plainclothesman lying in the stairwell of a subway station, acting as though he were drunk and practically asleep. He wears expensive jewelry and an expensive watch.

If an innocent passerby tries to assist him or get him up, some other “passerby,” another policeman, will come up and say that help has been called for.

But, the bejeweled “drunk” is a lure, inviting others to harm him, unlike what you think, Kathleen. As soon as a mugger takes the bait and is actually removing the jewelry, the police close in and arrest him.

Victims can share some blame for their being victimized. And, if you still disagree, fine. In any case, I believe that to be true.

 

[Richardols]

1. don’t blame me or call the police if one day I would went over there and gave you a good beat, your words provoked my action.

Depends what I said. If I mocked your (e.g.) crippled or paralytic child for her infirmity, moving her to tears and cursed your wife roundly for butting in, you could still be charged with assault for hitting me, but I’d be surprised if your attorney didn’t blame it on me, the “victim,” for my extreme provocation that led a decent man to do what he did in reaction to the vile attacks on his family.

As for a girl with indecently provocative dress, unless she’s retarded, she knows what such can invite, and has contributed to, though not caused, her subsequent rape.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

Utter nonsense. You are falsely claiming that they support abortion even for those unborn whom their mothers want to have. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be “wholesale.”

A million plus abortions a year is NOT wholesale?

 

[Richardols]

vern humphrey:

A million plus abortions a year is NOT wholesale?

The actual number is not the point. The Party supports access to abortion. They don’t support the “wholesale destruction of the unborn.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

The actual number is not the point. The Party supports access to abortion. They don’t support the “wholesale destruction of the unborn.”

Would you say the Holocaust was wholesale slaughter?

That was only twelve million innocent lives – our abortion Holocaust is about four times that many.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Richardols:

The actual number is not the point. The Party supports access to abortion. They don’t support the “wholesale destruction of the unborn.”

More semantics and rationalization.

“I am for their right to choose, but I take no responsibility when they choose to kill even though I want them to be able to choose to kill.”

Just does not make any sense.

If you support access to kill, then you support the killing.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Richardols:

In New York City, a tactic used by the Transit Police to catch muggers is to have a plainclothesman lying in the stairwell of a subway station, acting as though he were drunk and practically asleep. He wears expensive jewelry and an expensive watch.

If an innocent passerby tries to assist him or get him up, some other “passerby,” another policeman, will come up and say that help has been called for.

But, the bejeweled “drunk” is a lure, inviting others to harm him, unlike what you think, Kathleen. As soon as a mugger takes the bait and is actually removing the jewelry, the police close in and arrest him.

Victims can share some blame for their being victimized. And, if you still disagree, fine. In any case, I believe that to be true.

Once again, if you were the defense lawyer in a rape case, would you claim the rapist was “provoked” by the way the victim dressed?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

The actual number is not the point. The Party supports access to abortion. They don’t support the “wholesale destruction of the unborn.”

Abortion + equivocation on the term ‘murder’ + multimillion dollar marketing of the Culture of Death = wholesale destruction of the unborn.

Do the math.