“We reject your Notions of virtue.”
This is a bold, yet problematic claim.
It’s boldness comes in presuming to speak for some unknown “we”, and presuming that simply announcing what “we” reject carries any weight in the world of objective reality.
It’s problematic in the following ways.
1. The writer is presuming that he knows specifically what “Notions of virtue” he is rejecting, when no specific “Notions of virtue” have been enumerated for the mystery “we” to reject.
2. It’s unckear if the entire “Notion” of actual virtues existing is being rejected, or if point #1 is operative.
3. The “Notion” of virtues extends back as far as Ancient Greece, it seems strange that “we” appear willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in this instance.
What’s strange is that the only specific virtue under discussion can best be described as “I You as young men behave in a gentlemanly fashion (respect, honor, value women because they have value), then women might react positively towards you.”
On the one hand that could be viewed in a cynical, transactional, pragmatic manner (If you do X, then Y), and perceived as a way to manipulate. Or one could argue that it’s a restatement of the virtually universal “Treat others as you wish to be treated”.
In either case, why anyone would reject highly valuing,honoring, and respecting women because of their intrinsic value as humans?
Ancient Greece founded their ethical system in 4 virtues.
Prudence
Justice
Temperance
Courage
Later The Church added
Faith
Hope
Love
If these are the “Notions of virtue” you “reject”, what a depressing and nihilistic world you inhabit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
I (and don't reject those values. Of course.
The topic of the post was young women should behave like "ladies," and then they could expect that boys would act like gentlemen. This plays into the age-old sexist attitude of blaming women for their own rapes or oppression.
"If they just covered up more their skin than this wouldn't have happened..." the evil argument goes.
I/We reject THAT sexist, misogynistic argument, that value.
We reject the notion that if you dress in a way that shows too much skin that you are not a lady worth respect. THAT value, we reject.
Stick to the actual argument being made and you'll be less likely to draw stupid conclusions.
Put another way, when I said that we reject YOUR notions of virtue, I was speaking specifically of rejecting SPECIFICALLY the notions of what makes for a virtuous woman, specifically as it comes from fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc).
And yet no one in this conversation, nor in the quote that has you so worked up in any of that either explicit or implicit.
If you think that recognizing the simple truth that how you act affects how others treat you, then you’ve clearly ignored the example set by your groupie. Hell, you’ve bent over backwards to use this very logic in justifying your vulgar, crude, vitriolic screeds.
It’s just simple reality.
You know, treat others how you want them to treat you.
FYI, I’m sticking to the actual statement you made and trying to get some clarification.
Don't act so much like a fundamentalist Christian and then people will be less likely to beat you up.
Do you see how backwards that is rationally and morally?
In the original scenario, there was only a sign telling girls to behave like what some considered to be ladylike and THEN guys will treat you like ladies and they'll act more gentlemen.
There were no signs for the guys saying "Guys, just don't be a dick. Just don't oppress, rape, harass, assault women." Nothing like that only a sign for potential victims to say change your behavior in a way that some people like fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians think is appropriate for a lady and then you'll be safer from rapists.
That is jacked up s***.
So, when various scriptures discuss the idea attributes of Christian men and women do you reject those out of hand?
Do you also realize the difference between what was said (which was a suggestion that if you do x, then Y might happen) and an attempt to coerce or mandate certain specific behaviors?
Or are we past the point where it’s permissible to make suggestions?
There is a history of the oppression, rape and sexual assault of women in our society, and in our world. To ignore real history is to be foolish.
Given the context of real world history where women have regularly been oppressed, harassed and raped by men... Where boys and men have gotten off the hook because of arguments like "well she was dressed too sexy... she gave off the wrong signs...," Given that real world history and context then we can say that a sign that goes up in the school that ONLY identifies young women as the ones who have to dress or behave somehow in a way that SOME people consider appropriate (in this case, typically it's fundamentalist Christian types), then that is to continue placing blame upon women for their own rapes and oppression.
Is it the case that you are ignorant of the actual history of the oppression of women in our world and in our society? Perhaps you need to begin reading a little bit of women's history.
Have you ever considered the possibility that as you look at these types of things that your political views, biases, prejudices, and preconceptions about people you don’t know anything about just might lead you to assume the worst possible meanings and motives? That just maybe, you’re blowing things out of proportion.
I’m mean seriously, you’ve accused these people about whom you know nothing of encouraging rape. You don’t think there’s any possibility that you could be wrong about this?
Look Craig, I GET that you rarely understand my points, generally interpreting me to have said something I didn't say or suggest. But given your regular inability to understand my points, don't you think you'd be better served to ask questions, rather than presume you understand?
I never said that these people (people like you, except that they say they apparently recognized the error of their way and removed the sign... maybe you should learn from them..?) INTENTIONALLY are promoting rape culture. Of course, it is not their intent. But the road to hell, good intentions and all that.
The point is: Whether or not you and people like you don't recognize that it is supportive of rape culture and victim shaming, it is.
Again: IF the point was merely, "young men and women should behave respectfully and treat others as they want to be treated," they could have SAID that. Instead, in the context of a history that has blamed and shamed women and girls for "dressing like whores" and suggested, "You know, it's sorta your fault..., you own some of this... maybe you shouldn't have dressed like that..." that it is precisely victim shaming/blaming and supportive of the sick and perverted idea that boys/men can't help themselves if a woman dresses "provocatively" and that women need to dress a certain way to be considered respectable.
To hell with that sort of misogyny.
I'm sorry you don't get it.
Yes Dan, rape is a real thing, yet nothing implicit or explicit in the sign in question advocates or excuses rape. V
when various scriptures discuss the idea attributes of Christian men and women do you reject those out of hand?
And God damn you. Don't you dare try to bring God into this perverse mindset.
God never told anyone to say, "You know, if women show a little ankle, they might just be raped and, well, ya know, who could blame a fella..."
Again, IF they had wanted to say, "People should respect one another," they could have had a sign that said that. If they wanted to get to the SERIOUS problem of sexual assault of women and girls by men and boys, they could have had a sign for the potential perpetrators. But no, they opted for a sign specifically to young women and girls.
Again, I'm sorry you don't understand it.
Things Dan doesn't embrace grace strongly enough to consider:
---The mention of this sign in no way implies there does not exist somewhere not so far away a similar sign for the edification of boys.
---The posting of the sign may have been provoked by a rash of incidents involving females acting in very un-ladylike ways.
Yes, heaven forbid Christians should bring God into things.
Heaven forbid, you’d answer the question you were asked instead of simply making up some BS that I didn’t say.
Once again, I’ll suggest, that the problem isn’t that I don’t understand the points you intend to make, it’s that all I can do is understand the actual words you use.
What’s interesting is how (once again) you are providing such a great illustration.
I’m treating you in a much more respectful and less confrontational way than you are treating me. I’m posting all of your comments. (Except the one I haven’t had the chance to read the study, and the one that got me to realize that my comment hadn’t posted), yet you are routinely deleting mine. I’m using calm measured language, you certainly haven’t been.
Thanks for such helpful object lessons.
If it’s going to be too much of a problem, just don’t bother answering any questions or to use some of the examples I’ve given you about how conservatives “should” be responding. I know it’s a lot and I don’t want to be a burden.
Speaking of “bringing God” unto things.
To quote you, “Who died and made you God?”
There are those who believe two truths cannot exist side by side:
1. Do not rape.
2. Do not dress provocatively.
In the same way, a female's choice of attire does indict her as she does become a cause of her own suffering. Yet this truth does not in any way mitigate the guilt of the rapist, nor provides a legitimate defense for him. It has nothing to do with his responsibility to control himself IN SPITE of the trampy look and behavior of an un-ladylike female. They are each guilty of different sins.
One of the best young conservatives out there (a woman) wrote an excellent price about the hypocrisy of women who incessantly post nude photos of themselves in social media. Apparently these women are upset that men look at the nude photos and “objectify” them.
What Dan and his ilk don’t understand is the difference between suggestion and coercion. They can’t distinguish between “If you do X, then Y may happen”, and “You must do X.”. They further don’t understand the concept of contributory negligence. It’s the legal doctrine that recognizes that it’s possible to contribute to an outcome without being responsible for what happened.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Dan is now allowing slander and ad hom at his blog.
And what you do to perverts do not understand is that women are not contributing to their assault and harassment. If a woman is walking naked down the street shaking her bottom and breast as she walks she is not contributing to anything other than just being naked. If someone is seltzer it's not in any way her fault she does not own any of it. Only a deviant pervert with suggest that she has part of the responsibility. There is no contributory negligence in other words. Not for a moral and right thinking decent human being. Maybe for a pervert though.
Marshall just use the phrase a cause of her own suffering suggesting that her clothing choices do indict her in part. Feel free to point out how perverted Marshall is for making such a grossly indecent and immoral suggestion. Begin to stand up to the perverts in your own party.
I've seen the bumper sticker, "Treat her like a thoroughbred and she won't be a nag." We need to rip those stickers off cars for their laying blame on the husband for their wives' nagging. How sexist!! Oh, wait, I forgot. Only whites can be racist and only men can be sexist. My mistake.
The the underlying question, both here and at Dan’s is something like, “Do people bear any individual responsibility for their actions?”.
We see it in Feo’s repeated attempts to blame a curriculum, for the results of sexual activity.
We see it in blaming Indiana for the actions of thugs in Chicago.
We see it in the fact that the Jacksonville shooting has been blamed on all sorts of people or groups.
Dan I am sure you don’t realize it, but you can’t be unaware of how ridiculous you sound insisting that a woman walking naked down the street fairs absolutely zero responsibility for anything that might happen to her while she is doing that. Not in anyway to observe someone who would attack such a woman, but choosing not to behave in a prudent manner is a poor choice. Part of my problem in responding to you at this point is that if you had answered the questions I have asked you I would have a better understanding Of your position. But because you have chosen not to, I am left with simply having to interpret your words and drawl my conclusions from what you have said only.
Art, please stop suggesting that anyone’s actions could possibly carry with them negative or unintended consequences. It is completely ridiculous and absurd to warn someone that by walking down the street naked that they might potential he increase their chances of someone saying something that will offend them, doing something that will offend them, or misinterpreting the message That was intended by walking down the street make it.
As you know, Dan is a big fan of hypothetical situations. So I am going to take Dan’s position and apply it to a hypothetical situation.
Hypothetically, I am planning a trip to Chicago. I asked my friend Jim if there is anything that I should know about Chicago before I go there. Jim tells me that Chicago is a great place, except that I should not spend a lot of time on the southside of Chicago. I asked Jim why, what’s wrong with the southside of Chicago. Jim responds by telling me that the southside of Chicago is a bad part of town. Again I asked why should I not go there? He says there’s a man down there, who will beat the crap out of you if he sees you. This man’s name is Lee Roy. So I told Jim, thank you very much for the advice I appreciate it. And then I go to Chicago. While in Chicago I decide to visit the scenic southside of Chicago and I walk down the street with an expensive camera on my neck a wallet full of cash sticking halfway out of my back pocket and my brand new iPhone X held loosely in my hand.All of a sudden, I am jumped from behind by Leroy beaten to a pulp and my valuables stolen.
According to Dan’s logic, I would bear no responsibility for my feet.
The moral of the story, is that while I bear no responsibility for the actions of a person who attacks me, I do bear responsibility for the choices that I made that placed me in a situation where an attack was more likely as opposed to less likely. I do bear some degree of responsibility for ignoring the wise counsel Of someone who knew more about the situation than I did and for my choices that stem from ignoring that advice.
The disconnect in all of this discussion, is the difference between advice and coercion. Or the difference between persuasion and demand. Dan and his group B, are acting as if suggesting a prudent course of action is somehow the same as demanding that someone behave the way I tell them to.
Let’s explore Dan’s suggestion that women should be able to walk naked anywhere they want free from responsibility for the consequences.
A. If this naked woman is arrested for indecent exposure, does she bear any responsibility for that?
B. Is it inappropriate to even have laws about indecent exposure?
C. If this happens on a nude beach, as opposed to downtown Riyadh, is it reasonable to presume that she beats some responsibility for the difference in response?
D. Does the rest of society have any right or expectation of not having to see naked people walking around in public?
E. Does this woman’s “right” to walk naked with zero responsibility for negative consequences trump society’s interest in maintaining some level of public decorum.
F. If a KKK member in full regalia is walking down a public street, in silence, obeying every applicable law, and gets attached by a bunch of leftists, is he also free from any responsibility for the consequences?
Do you know how perverted and evil you sound? Comparing women dressed in skimpy clothes to KKK members? Or suggesting that women and some form of Garb that you deem to be too sexy are at least partially responsible for their own assault and rape? It's just evil. I know you don't recognize it, I know you don't see, it I know you don't get it but it is perverse, debauched, gross and Evil.
Do you know how silly you sound suggesting that I’m comparing women and KKK members. (Don’t think I didn’t notice your retreat from the naked thing), I’m comparing two actions that will be relatively certain to elicit reactions. You problem is, that while you most likely agree with the assault of the KKK member, your realize that to say so undermines your point. So you retreat to bluster and falsely characterizing what I said.
It’s sweet that you allow your groupie free reign to accuse me of dodging things, while you’ve been dodging all sorts of points, questions, and other things.
I’m not asking for answers or direct responses, I’m just pointing that out.
Who would have thought that responsibility for one's choices would be so contentious.
Since you basically ignored my other hypotheticals and questions, let's try this.
A young All American Kid named Billy, caught up in a rush of patriotism rushes down to his local recruiter to enlist in the military. Billy joins the Marines, and with notions of being a hero and returning to his girlfriend Natalie, he heads off into the danger zone. One night, Billy's squad leader says "We're going to go out in the jungle to ambush the enemy. It'd be a smart move to make sure you get your faces and hands camouflaged well so they don't see you." Billy thinks, "Camouflage, I don't need no stinkin' camouflage, I'll be just dandy." So, he chooses not to camo up like his squad mates. Hours later, in the middle of the jungle, the moonlight peeks through the clouds and the canopy and shines right smack dab on Billy's uncamouflaged face. The enemy soldiers, seeing his illuminated face, open fire, killing or wounding several of Billy's squad mates.
Wouldn't Billy bear some responsibility for the failure of the mission as well as for the casualties because of the choice he made?
I think what it comes down to is that Dan, who never ever in his entire life engaged in any degree of locker room discussion of women, nonetheless is desperate to preserve his right to lust after scantily clad women walking around in public.
Unlike Jimmy Carter, Dan has never listed after a woman.
I'm done here. But wait. Are you all suggesting that you two DO talk about women the way that Trump talks about women?
Do you all engage in or have engaged in that sort of so-called locker room talk?
If so, perhaps you're projecting a bit to presume that all men are at that level of perversion.
Dan, if you’re not going to do anything but make up and misrepresent what others have said, avoiding what has been said, and just generally being obtuse, then you’ve probably been done here for quite a while.
Against my better judgment, I'll answer your question when you answer mine. But I won't answer anything about family members, you creep.
Are you all suggesting that you two DO talk about women the way that Trump talks about women?
Do you all engage in or have engaged in that sort of so-called locker room talk?
Dan,
Since you use them all the time, and since you habitually construct your hypotheticals to force the answer you want to get, I'm a little surprised that you don't understand the concept of a hypothetical. By it's very nature a hypothetical isn't referring to your actual daughter, it's referring to an "imaginary; situation that theoretically could occur, and exploring your theoretical response to that "imaginary" situation.
Having explained that, I think that you've quite explicitly and emphatically answered my hypothetical question. Thanks.
Once again, thank you for how effortlessly you demonstrate exactly what point I'm trying to make.
Sadly you are a pervert who defends perverts and rapist. It's a damned shame that this is what conservatism has become... the Refuge of perverts and their Defenders.
And of course I have not explicitly answered your question. Whatever conclusion you are drawing, there's a very good chance that you are drawing the wrong conclusion.
That's the problem with a debauched, debased and perverted mind, it ceases to function well. It turns up to down, good to bad and says that rape victims are to blame.
You are a sick son of a b****.
Repent, and get help.
"Are you all suggesting that you two DO talk about women the way that Trump talks about women?"
Am I saying that I've never talked about women inappropriately, no, I was once young and immature. But I grew up."
"Do you all engage in or have engaged in that sort of so-called locker room talk?"
Again, that sort of comment specifically, no. But have I spoken of women in inappropriate ways in my life, yes. I'm not proud of who I was when I was younger and immature, but I've never claimed perfection. Just that I'm a sinner saved by grace.
Occasionally at Dan's, comments that point out inconvenient truths about Dan's actions disappear. While I respect his "right" to control what comments he allows, I also, sometimes, feel the need to make sure that certain things stay in the public record. This is one such time. Usually Dan is a little less direct when he lies. Usually he leaves himself as way to weasel out of his claims. But this one is cut and dried, inarguable, undeniable.
On August 29, 2018 at 7:04 AM you wrote "Please answer all these questions. I answered yours."
4 minutes later, on August 29, 2018 at 7:08 AM, you wrote "I'll answer your question when you answer mine. But I won't answer anything about family members, you creep."
Clearly and unequivocally one of these two statements is false. It's a lie. It's you intentionally making a claim of fact that you know isn't true.
Is it possible that you've answered my questions somewhere that isn't readily apparent, sure. But if the answers aren't available, then you haven't answered in any real way.
Is it possible you made a mistake, sure. If so, I assume that you'll be as quick and forthright about admitting your mistake and apologizing as I was.
Nicely done, I guess we'll see if you can take responsibility for your choices.
August 29, 2018 at 8:47 AM Delete
“Sadly you are a pervert who defends perverts and rapist. It's a damned shame that this is what conservatism has become... the Refuge of perverts and their Defenders.”
If you are going to make fact claims, you should be prepared to provide actual proof.
“And of course I have not explicitly answered your question”
1. No, but you’ve explicitly lied about it.
2. Your response, such as it was, combined with your lies tells me plenty.
Thanks again for demonstrating so well my points.
Well done, deleting my comments, and piling lie upon lie to cover your lies.
Dan has demanded that I remove references to “people I don’t know”, yet he won’t do the same thing.
Fear is quite the motivation.
In the interest of accuracy, and I am not screaming about being deleted. I am copying and pasting certain comments to demonstrate the fact that Dan is lying about the contents.
You’re responding to a ghost you fear so much you can’t face me in the open. And you scream about being deleted?
The irony of ignorant hypocrisy.
See above. Provide what’s been asked for.
"If so, perhaps you're projecting a bit to presume that all men are at that level of perversion."
It's reality, not projection. Men tend to talk about women in less than gentlemanly terms in a way that's very common indeed. Dan wants to pretend he's always been above it his entire life, while defending a woman's right to walk around dressed in as provocative manner as she pleases, as if there are no repercussions that should be considered. Fine. That's demonstrating true concern for women. "Don't worry, honey! When you get raped, we'll all just say the rapist shouldn't have done it regardless of how you present yourself." And while there is indeed truth there, it doesn't negate the parallel truth that such men exist and women need to take that truth into account before parading themselves around in a manner that will inflame their passions.
And yeah, I've engaged in my share of locker room talk, and I still admit when an attractive woman catches my eye. To call that "perversion", especially when true perversion is championed, makes Dan a greater hypocrite than formerly understood. Indeed, it isn't the conservative who had brought about today's level of moral corruption. Conservatives accept the fallen nature of man, and of themselves, and steel themselves against it the best they can, without pretending they're morally perfect, like Dan tries to do. The truth is Dan's suggestions are simply attacks against those of us who have once again exposed the blatant flaws of his idiotic positions. Demonizing the opponent with the superior argument or position is among the many false cards in the deck of the leftist "progressive" Christian.
Clearly Dan fears engaging with both the various hypothetical situations as well as the documentation of his blatant lies. In the same way Feo apparently fears answering the two questions I asked at Dan’s as well as providing the defined, detailed plan he’s been avoiding for months.
They both express their fear, by trying to assert control in their own petty ways. Dan with his name calling, slander, lies, and deletions because of whims. Feo, with his ignoring of questions, string of baseless allegations, slander, and simply dodging things that he’d rather pretend don’t exist.
Dan is certainly free to exert his capricious, erratic, arbitrary control at his blog. Even to the extent of lying about things that are inarguably true. But his attempts to do so elsewhere are pathetic.
Fear is a powerful motivator.
According to Dan’s logic, if a woman chooses to don a brown fur coat and strap antlers to her head and wander through the woods in deer season, she wouldn’t be responsible when she got shot.
Because why would you want to prevent a woman from dressing how she chooses and going where she chooses.
Art, did you know that we changed our comment policy because we were scared? After years of dealing with all sorts of foolishness, now we’re scared.
I thought it was because an immature, childish, twit decided to post the same comment thousands of times. Or because of the lack of a detailed, defined, plan.
But scared, not so much.
I guess if we were truly afraid, we would lift the invitation to respond to the questions he continues to avoid simply because he isn't man enough to do so according to the terms his infantile behavior brought down ipon him. I mean, we must have been shaking in our sneakers to decide to assert our rightful control against a troll who thinks he has free reign to misbehave as he has from his very first visit. In the meantime, it was a sign of courage to force us to suscribe to his "defunct" (read: I'm too scared) blog in order to engage there.
Dan perverts the word "pervert", in typical leftist fashion. He applies the word "creep" to Craig for daring to ask an incredibly pedestrian hypothetical question. But I'llhappily answer as if Craig asked me:
"Don't do it, honey! Aside from the obvious immorality of walking about naked, there exists in the world those who would be inflamed by such a sight and you will be more likely to be secually assaulted. Progressive false Christians might refer to this as 'victim shaming'. But real men who truly love their daughters call it 'common sense in the midst of a fallen world'. Trust your Daddy on this. He doesn’t ignore reality."
Take ten random men with daughters and I'd wager 9 of them would strngly object to the girl leaving the house dressed provocatively, and more so out of concern for her safety than for the immorality of so dressing. The 10th guy will be a progressive fake Christian who defends homosexuality and abortion.
Good point. If control is an expression of fear, how much fear does it take to devote every post on your blog to personal attacks on others, while having the most restrictive comment policy possible.
Of course you are correct that 9/10 fathers would cousel their daughters thus. Because we love our hypothetical daughters and want to protect them and keep them as safe as possible.
When you live in a world where love means approval of virtually any decision, no matter how potentially harmful, I guess you see things differently.
If control is a manifestation of fear, then how fearful must Dan be? Not only is his control arbitrary, irrational, and capricious, he also feels the need to lie blatantly about what he deletes.
re: Fear. Dream on you little perverts. The day I'm afraid of pervert defending perverts who are unable to construct reasonable, moral arguments and who regularly run from direct answers to direct questions is the day that I'm afraid of a cockroach.
And I ain't afraid of cockroaches.
Y'all are projecting way too much and just not realizing the great damage you've done to your credibility. You are the defenders of the worst sort of people and attackers of basic human decency and, I believe, so blinded that you just don't realize how petty and perverted you present yourselves.
You're done at my blog, until you recognize your sin, repent, apologize and remove the offending comments.
Dan, your angry at the wrong people. Your groupie is the one who pronounced that exerting control of blog comments equals fear, I’m just applying his pronouncement equally.
Of course your actions do contradict your words. Which is a problem for you. Or at least it would be a problem for you if consistency in any form was a concern to you.
But, let’s be honest about your behavior, not about your words. You have a long history, years of history, of arbitrary and capricious deleting of comments and then miss characterizing the contents of the comments you deleted. Yesterday, you went further than that, and simply lied in an incredibly blatant manner. You also have a history of manufactured outrage which gives you the excuse to run away from conversations. Finally, the fact that in this recent exchange you’ve ignored and just responding to any question or hypothetical that I suggested while simultaneously demanding that I responded to every one of your questions, which I did. Even after that you felt it necessary to delete on topic comments.
Finally, even your recent comment (which I allowed) is full of slander, ad hom references, and unproven claims.
Fear seems a reasonable explanation for all of your behaviors.
I also note that you frequently bash Stan for not allowing your comments (due to reasons he’s been very clear about), yet are silent when your groupie has an entire blog solely devoted to slander and personal attacks (your very concerned about slander when it’s not directed at your enemies), yet you stand silently by.
No, fear seems like an excellent explanation.
Yet, you’re still welcome here despite your sins and without having to repent or apologize.
Sort of how Jesus works.
Even Feo is welcome to comment once he finished his homework.
It’s interesting to watch how fear manifests itself as a desire to exert control over things that aren’t in ones sphere of control. It makes me wonder if it’s the fear that causes someone to try to exert more and more control over the situation, or if it’s not having control over the situation makes people afraid. Either way, seeing that it drives people to lies, distortions, excuses, and mischaracterizations, makes me wonder if some people don’t take life on the Internet a little bit too seriously.
Art raises a great point elsewhere, that I thought I’d comment on.
So far that talk has all been about actions in terms of what clothing might be worn. But let’s look at another big action, using substances that impair your judgement. I’m only referring to instances where the intoxicant is consumed freely and voluntarily.
If a woman and a man both drink themselves into insensibility, and have sex, can this be rape?
Does the woman bear any responsibility for intentionally consuming a substance that she knows will impair her judgment and lower her inhibitions?
If both parties are intoxicated, can you only hold one of the parties responsible for whatever happens?
What about the research we’re seeing that women intentionally consume intoxicants because it lowers their inhibitions and allows them to engage in behavior they wouldn’t engage in if sober?
If we’re going to hold some people responsible for their actions when intoxicated, shouldn’t we hold all people equally responsible?
If a motorist is drunk and a pedestrian is drunk and the motorist runs over the pedestrian, is the motorist at fault?
The rational and moral answer to your last question is hell no.
1. Good question, I’d ask you to answer it, but you’re not really answering significant numbers of questions.
2. If that’s the case then, why? What is the dividing line the absolves some intoxicated people from the consequences of their actions, but condemns others.
Bearing in mind that an intoxicated person is, by definition, impaired in their cognitive abilities.
Let’s add this into the mix. If alcoholism is, in fact, a disease then are you suggesting that people be held responsible for something that, again by definition, they don’t have complete control over?
The rational and moral answer to Dan's question remains the same as before: the driver, drunk or not, is responsible because he wasn't paying attention. He's obligated to be in control of his vehicle at all times.
The pdestrian, drunk or not, is responsible because he is obligated to be aware of his surroundings at all times, watch where he's going and not walk into the path of an oncoming vehicle...something hard to not see.
Art, I then to agree with you, especially if (for example) the drunk pedestrian is walking down the middle of the street. Conversely, if the driver is driving on the sidewalk, it might change the equation.
It does seem reasonable to take circumstances into account, rather than to make broad pronouncements.
Even if the drunk driver was on the sidewalk, how hard is that to notice unless the drunk pedestrian is listening to music on his smartphone through ear pieces? Pedestrian is responsible for his own safety.
I’m suggesting that all of those circumstances might change how responsiblity is assessed. It’s ridiculous to simply announce that X is equally responsible under any and all possible circumstances.
Dan is essentially arguing that responsibility is essentially fixed and that nothing certain parties could ever do will change that fixed responsibility.
Much like his desire to judge people according to the groups he perceives them to be a part of, rather than as individuals.
Then this is an area where we disagree. I believe that each individual is responsible for his/her own self (I cut slack for young children, the aged suffering from dementia and other unique situations), directly and indirectly. This doesn't necessarily suggest evil intent or malicious intent or such, but one is still responsible for one's self at all times.
Let's say a man is walking down the street, and a piece of concrete dislodges from atop a tall building, which falls and strikes the man who had no idea the piece was falling. This type of scenario has actually happened. That man was where he was at that particular moment due to some choice he made in walking down that street at that particular time at that particular speed that put him in just the right spot to get clobbered by that hunk of concrete. There was no aggressor seeking him out. It "just happened". But he did make those choices. How can he not be responsible?
We're getting pretty far afield from the original point, but I"ll take a shot.
I agree that we all bear some degree of responsibility for the choices we make and the actions we engage in. But, in your "hit by a chunk of concrete" scenario, I see a couple of problems.
1. As long as the guy was walking on a public sidewalk, and in an area where there isn't a warning of falling debris, I don't see how he can be responsible for being hit.
2. Your hypothetical doesn't address why the concrete fell. If a construction crew was doing demolition, then they have the responsibility to provide protection from falling objects or to establish a safe zone that keeps people away from the area of danger.
3. If someone dropped the concrete on purpose, trying to cause mischief, then wouldn't they be responsible?
My point in all of this is that it's rare that an individual is 100% responsible for the things. Essentially, you are taking the extreme opposite position from Dan. Dan is saying (essentially) people have the freedom to do anything they want, and they shouldn't have any negative consequences. (In reality, he's applying arbitrary limits to his construct, and then arbitrarily assigning responsibility, but you get my point.)
You are suggesting that if someone makes an unconscious decision to walk near the curb and gets hit by a bus, that the pedestrian, bears all of the responsibility for the outcome.
I'm suggesting that it's a continuum. It's possible for two parties to bear some degree of responsibility for the same event. Further, if mental impairment is a mitigating factor (as you suggest), then isn't inebriation (at least for an addict) mitigation of responsibility to some degree.
I don't think we disagree on the underlying principle, as much as how we draw the line. I also think the bigger issue is trying to get a coherent principle expressed by Dan.
"We're getting pretty far afield from the original point..."
Then we can consider it just a mental exercise...since nothing else is going on at the moment.
1. He's not responsible for being hit, anymore than the rape victim is responsible for being raped. Yet, like the rape victim, who dresses provocatively or is in an area where she is more likely to be raped, the guy made the choices that led to his being in that place where he got hit. But, I can say that he is LESS responsible than the typical rape victim whose choices were much more likely to result in being raped, than did the man's choice of deciding where and when to walk before getting hit by the chunk of concrete.
2. " Your hypothetical doesn't address why the concrete fell."
That doesn't matter nearly as much as why the guy was walking where he could be hit by the concrete. We have warnings at train tracks and people still manage to get hit by trains, even without intending to. The real question here is what did the individual do to that led to being a victim of whatever misfortune befell him/her? Clearly a choice was made and that choice played a role in the outcome suffered.
3. Certainly, but then that person parallels the rapist, while the person hit equates to the rape victim. The question of the victim's choices leading to being in that situation still apply and responsibility for those choices remain the victim's alone.
"You are suggesting that if someone makes an unconscious decision to walk near the curb and gets hit by a bus, that the pedestrian, bears all of the responsibility for the outcome."
Actually, I'm stating the victim of misfortune bears responsibility for the choices the victim made that made him a victim. Again, there are two sides of this issue that are separate despite the two sides coming together in the scenario on the table. In this latest one, the bus driver is responsible for safe operation of his vehicle and whatever negative consequences that might occur. As a truck driver, there is a term "preventable accidents". When one truly thinks of the term, are there really any other kind? This response aligns with my position here. It's similar to the notion that there's no such thing as an accident at all. Every action taken before an "accident" can be scrutinized severely. "Why didn't you do this?" "Why didn't you do that?" While it might seem over the top, it isn't completely without some merit. Again, that doesn't indicate malicious intent or criminal negligence or even something over which we should beat ourselves up. But the responsibility for the choices and actions we take must be our own, if for no other reason but for future reference so as to hopefully avoid a similar situation.
"Further, if mental impairment is a mitigating factor (as you suggest), then isn't inebriation (at least for an addict) mitigation of responsibility to some degree."
No, and I think most laws concur, that one is responsible because one chose to get inebriated, or at least didn't choose to avoid getting so.
I don't know that any line needs to be drawn. In the original discussion, there is no line that the victim can cross that doesn't make the rapist worthy of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Even in Dan's goofy "totally naked" hypothetical, the rapist is still not excused.
I don't think I added this point with which I intended to conclude:
A woman can't force a man to rape her, because then it's totally consent on her part. So, putting that scenario aside, the rapist is acting totally on his own volition and by his own conscious choice regardless of the behavior of the woman. He's guilty of rape, even if she's guilty of arousing him.
While it may be hopeless, I’m going to try one more question. This question (which will be ignored like all of the others, I'm sure) is in the nature of a hypothetical and does not refer to any actual human beings who actually exist. It's not about any real people.
Dan, if your grand daughter announced that she was going to adopt a strict nudist lifestyle, how would you respond?
A) Tell her go go ahead and wholeheartedly encourage her to go naked under any and all conditions.
B) Suggest to her that she might want to consider some potential negative consequences of her decision and help her dispassionately weigh the pros and cons of that decision.
There, by modifying the question to refere to a hypothetical person who doesn't have a real life analog, this should solve the problem, while still making my point.
Post a Comment