Hannah, you always make a convincing argument, and not only that, you're funny when you want to be, too, which is why I'm glad you contribute to this group. But let Capt. Analogy take another stab at this.
Say you're shopping and leave your credit card somewhere, and an unscrupulous fellow shopper picks it up and runs it up with a bunch of crap purchases. Say he fills up his 2005 Aspen green Camry and buys tickets to Bob Dylan on Saturday, for instance. Yes, this person is as guilty as if he had picked it directly from your pocket. But to some degree, you did fuck up. We live in a world in which you need to protect yourself, your loved ones who can't protect themselves, and your valuables. These are unfortunate and undeniable truths. If you don't do this, or worse, do the exact opposite, you have to bear a certain degree of responsibility. Whether it is naivete' or carelessness, society is unlikely to make concessions for you. The person who picked up your card saw an opportunity, and may not have had the intent to steal a card that day. But still, you're screwed. Now to Gene's remark about drunk driving vs. tax evasion. Okay, now I'm drunk at a bar. I have my car and I have my keys. I have the opportunity to sleep in my own bed, to be comforted by my own cats, to apply my own icepacks, steaks, cucumber slices, and do whatever I need to do in my own bathroom. There is no intent to harm anyone. The crime lies between the poor judgement, and the opportunity to drive to where I want to be. Tax evasion is a crime of intent. The repercussions about sucking up resources and depriving money that might have gone into social programs, blah blah won't get into that, particularly under this administration. Say you're walking by a parked convertible with the top down, and there's a $100 bill on the front seat. Most of us will think, this is a set up, ain't touching that thing. But we're special. What percentage of society do you think will grab that thing, compared to breaking into a locked car with a bill on the seat? A far greater percentage. You're basically an idiot for leaving a $100 in an open car. Only a real douchebag will break someone's window for a lousy $100. I think Gene thinks a crime of intent is worse than a crime of opportunity. So what I'm getting at is yes, your kids should not be walking home alone, especially if you have dressed them up as little freakin' whores. This ain't the garden of eden, there ain't no angels above. Things ain't what they used to be, and this ain't the summer of love. - Blue Oyster Cult --- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I should know better to throw a bomb into the middle of a thread and then > have to go back to work, so it looks like I'm not interested in responding. > Anyway, this line was the one I was reacting to in specific: > > So even though I don't think the parents did it, I still don't > think > > > they are off the hook because putting her in the pageants put her > at > > > risk for pedophiles. My 2c. > > Clearly, I HATE lines of reasoning like this where people apportion blame to > crime victims. I recognize that a lot of people are going to disagree with > me on this one basically along the lines of the TSTL (Too Stupid To Live) > principle. But when we apportion any responsibility whatsoever to people > who did not commit the crimes and are in fact victims, we negate part of the > responsibility that should wholly belong to the perpetrator. To my > understanding, violent crime is zero-sum. > > I also think people use this excuse as a crutch. We think, "It won't happen > to me because I'm not stupid," when that makes little difference (I did say > little). Plenty of children participate in these pageants and don't die, > and plenty of children are never anywhere near them and are abused by people > they know. People are raped, robbed, beaten and murdered all the time, in > all kinds of situations whether they were 'being smart' or not; and people > make it home safe and unharmed when they were being dumb as dirt. When we > talk about "You shouldn't have been in that situation," we're really trying > to say, "How do I make it so that doesn't happen to me?" Because we > identify with the victim and the thought of being powerless in the face of > physical threat is so frightening we end up blaming the victim which is also > making excuses for the murderer. Thatsort of reasoning is what I was > reacting to (albeit without explaining myself well). > > Should you sleep naked in Central Park or let your kid play alone with a > defrocked priest? I'm agreed, statistically unwise. But where is the > demarcation of responsibility? Should your kids never be allowed to walk > home alone? Should all women never get drunk in bars? Should all grown men > be kept away from small children? Where's the line where it stops being our > fault we 'got' mugged/raped/killed? > > > On 8/17/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm just repeating what I read in several places. Blaming the > > victim? No I'm not blaming the victim. I'm partially blaming beauty > > pageants for young children and the parents who think this is a good > > idea. These pageants have long been thought to objectify children as > > sex objects. I think you're jumping to conclusions. > > > > --- In [email protected]<weingartenchatters% 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Hannah Robinson" > > > > <hjrobinson@> wrote: > > > > > > You're just trying to send my blood pressure throught the roof, > > right? > > > Because when you blame the victim you realize you shift blame from > > the > > > perpetrators, right? > > > > > > I hope you're never on a rapist's jury. Clearly it would have been > > her > > > fault for being in the bar in the first place. > > > > > > > > > On 8/17/06, Ellen <ellengoodman6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I know this isn't funny, but I wonder whether the JonBenet > > case will > > > > cause parents to think twice about putting their kids in beauty > > > > pageants. As I said, I never thought the parents killed her, but > > at > > > > the same time I didn't think her being a child beauty queen was > > > > coincidental. Looks like her pageants caused the suspect to have > > > > pedophiliac attraction to her, which to be honest is not > > surprising. > > > > So even though I don't think the parents did it, I still don't > > think > > > > they are off the hook because putting her in the pageants put her > > at > > > > risk for pedophiles. My 2c. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weingartenchatters/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
