pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I'm never sure when it is acceptable to "blame the victim." For example, if I leave $20 on the front seat in the car with the windows open on a busy street and it gets stolen, I'd hear is "It's your fault for leaving it there so accessible." On the other hand, when a woman is walking alone in Central Park wearing skimpy clothing and gets raped, saying she was basically asking for trouble is improperly blaming the victim. Yet, the same ones who call that blaming the victim will have no problem endorsing safety tips, such as don't walk in secluded areas alone (think about that: to protect yourself, you should not walk in secluded areas alone. However, if you chose to walk in secluded areas alone and get attacked, it's not your fault, despite the fact you were told not do it)
Similarly, in another thread right now, people are blaming the parents because their child was kidnapped. To paraphrase Pardalis, I'll be damned if I'm going to say the parents are responsible for their child being kidnapped. The kidnappers are. Right? Or not?
It's clear that is NOT just an issue of "it's his fault. no, its her fault." Actions come with consequences, and if you don't take actions without taking into account potential consequences, then yes, you do bear some responsibility. The question is, are your precautions equal to or greater than the risk? For example, leaving my money on the seat of the car with windows open is pretty risky on a busy street, but pretty safe if it is in my garage. Thus, parking my car on a busy street is a bigger risk than parking it in my garage, and I have to take different precautions.
Similarly, the US foreign policy in the middle east results in a bigger risk for terrorist attacks. OTOH, a different policy could raise a different risk, and that has to be taken into account as well. But in the end, it is still the case that the risk we face DOES depend on our own actions. We can always park the car in the garage and be safe. Of course, that means that we are always at home. Alternatively, we can take the car out, but that means it is going to be at higher risk. In the end, we may decide the risk is worth it, but it is still the case that we chose to do it. That is just the nature of things. What really matters is what we do to prepare for it.
Thus, it is not "blaming America" for saying that our mid east policies have increased the risk of terrorism, which is what Ron Paul is saying. Blaming America would be saying that the US did not take any precautions against the potential consequences that result from their middle east policy. I don't see anyone saying that.
No one is saying that we left our money on the seat with the windows open. Even though the car was parked in a high-traffic area, the windows were up, the doors were locked, and the money was in the glove compartment. We took precautions. Could we have done better? Of course. We could have unbreakable glass for windows. We could have a mace system set up to spray anyone who touched the door handles. Given that, we could have prevented our money from being stolen. Of course, that type of precaution is very extreme, and would cost an awful lot. Doable? yes. Reasonable? no.
Alternatively, it is still true that the money wouldn't have been stolen if we had parked somewhere safer.
Similarly, in another thread right now, people are blaming the parents because their child was kidnapped. To paraphrase Pardalis, I'll be damned if I'm going to say the parents are responsible for their child being kidnapped. The kidnappers are. Right? Or not?
It's clear that is NOT just an issue of "it's his fault. no, its her fault." Actions come with consequences, and if you don't take actions without taking into account potential consequences, then yes, you do bear some responsibility. The question is, are your precautions equal to or greater than the risk? For example, leaving my money on the seat of the car with windows open is pretty risky on a busy street, but pretty safe if it is in my garage. Thus, parking my car on a busy street is a bigger risk than parking it in my garage, and I have to take different precautions.
Similarly, the US foreign policy in the middle east results in a bigger risk for terrorist attacks. OTOH, a different policy could raise a different risk, and that has to be taken into account as well. But in the end, it is still the case that the risk we face DOES depend on our own actions. We can always park the car in the garage and be safe. Of course, that means that we are always at home. Alternatively, we can take the car out, but that means it is going to be at higher risk. In the end, we may decide the risk is worth it, but it is still the case that we chose to do it. That is just the nature of things. What really matters is what we do to prepare for it.
Thus, it is not "blaming America" for saying that our mid east policies have increased the risk of terrorism, which is what Ron Paul is saying. Blaming America would be saying that the US did not take any precautions against the potential consequences that result from their middle east policy. I don't see anyone saying that.
No one is saying that we left our money on the seat with the windows open. Even though the car was parked in a high-traffic area, the windows were up, the doors were locked, and the money was in the glove compartment. We took precautions. Could we have done better? Of course. We could have unbreakable glass for windows. We could have a mace system set up to spray anyone who touched the door handles. Given that, we could have prevented our money from being stolen. Of course, that type of precaution is very extreme, and would cost an awful lot. Doable? yes. Reasonable? no.
Alternatively, it is still true that the money wouldn't have been stolen if we had parked somewhere safer.
Last edited:
- That's the question I have.