Is a victim ever to blame? - spin off
Options
LUClEN
Members Posts: 20,559 ✭✭✭✭✭
When thinking about making oneself vulnerable to something I can not shake this idea that some personal responsibility must be had. To roam the planet with no caution and allow oneself to be vulnerable to all threats that exist is just stupid. But is a victim ever to blame, at all, even partially?
Comments
-
The victim is always to blame.
-
SuperstarCole wrote: »The victim is always to blame.
What makes you say this? -
-
So you consider any amount of carelessness excusable and justifiable?
-
Too general, need a specific case.
Rihanna might've been to blame for getting ? up if she started it (I don't know), people still call her a victim ? -
Get locked up and allow yourself to be ? ..see if your stance changes..
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »So you consider any amount of carelessness excusable and justifiable?
Of course not but in the end the victim isn't to blame the Perpetrator is because they commited the act and could have chosen not to follow through.
-
Get locked up and allow yourself to be ? ..see if your stance changes..
Shouldn't have spent extra time to wash the soap behind your ears. -
haha well in their head the victim always feels like they're to blame. Like why did I get in the car with that ? ?
but when you think back like a month later you realize you had no reason not to trust the dude.
i feel like theres a story here -
Too general, need a specific case.
Rihanna might've been to blame for getting ? up if she started (I don't know), people still call her a victim ?
In the thread this thread is a spin off of, posters on this forum (some who believe ? is unpreventable *facepalm*) say that blaming the victim is wrong. In most instances I agree. But if I were careless with some belongings of mine, say, I own a car without locks. If a theft occurs I would not feel sorry for myself for owning a vehicle that is so vulnerable to being violated. In the same sense, if someone behaves carelessly, at what point do they start to take blame?
If a ? victim has been ? 3 times the exact same way and did nothing differently each time to try and prevent it or curb the pattern do they still garner your sympathy? Would you say they hold no blame? -
Everyone that is about to get trampled will be a victim but they will be at fault also for being there. Even the Eli Manning looking guy thats sitting there like nothing is about to happen. Maybe he is blind? But he let someone take him there.
-
I don't know why people think it's impossible to blame both.
-
SuperstarCole wrote: »SuperstarCole wrote: »I don't know why people think it's impossible to blame both.
I agree with the idea that both hold some responsibility, but for obvious reasons a ? would hold the bigger piece. -
I'm going to go with yes it's possible. You gotta look at the specific situation.
I've seen posters blame motherfuckas who get profiled by cops, for doing some ? to cause them to get profiled - so using that logic, why not. -
This is not trolling at all - this is a legitimate philosophy question regarding conceptual analysis of blame and victimization. Apparently one can not be a victim and hold blame regarding that same victimization at the same time in a ? scenario - but does the same fly in all situations? How much carelessness does one have to exhibit before we say "Hey, that guy was an idiot and suffered repercussions."
-
i remember when they blamed Trayvon for getting shot, because he wore a hoody.
-
i remember when they blamed Trayvon for getting shot, because he wore a hoody.
Good analogy. Not sure I can defend that victim blaming at all. While we communicate with the clothing we choose to wear no outfit could ever say enough to justify a shooting.
