Malintent, Loren, and Jolly:
You are playing right into the OP's rhetorical game of saying this and the other cases are the same, by making unreasonable arguments to find some very unlikely scenario in which the guy's comments might not victim blaming.
That's just it, the other scenarios (like the judge) do not require imagining a scenario where her words aren't trying to blame the victim. In fact, they require ignoring her explicit words and actions that fully blame and punish the rapists, and making illogical leaps light years beyond her pointing out simple scientific facts with an obvious motive of caring about the victims and trying to help women reduce their odds of victimization motive to some hidden agenda.
You certainly can. A rational person will not buy it, but we are not buying this guy's victim blaming defense either.
Keep Talking is right, your argument is bogus. It is true that the law does not recognize a child's ability to ever consent to sex, or that science refutes the idea that a 4 year old could do so because they aren't capable of comprehending what they are consenting to (and thus also incapable of being "willing" since that presumes knowledge of what one if said to be "willing" to do).
But it is equally true that people can and many do disregard the law and science, so these facts in no way preclude a person from attempting to claim a 4 year old was willing and imply that should reduce either the moral or legal blame put upon themselves.
Given that he is the one deserving of all the blame, if he implied she was willing or anything beyond the directly observable facts that would typically factor into any moral or legal judgment of wrongdoing, then the only plausible motive for saying those things was to imply partial blame on her.
Is there some possible very rare scenario where a person in that situation could say what he said without intending toMaybe, but the odds of that being true here are about 1 in a billion. It is far more probable that he was implying partial blame on her to reduce his guilt in his own and others eyes.
Maybe more importantly than whether he was consciously trying to deflect blame, any reasonable observer would conclude that he is likely trying to shift blame away from himself. No, we cannot be certain, but only because we can never be rationally certain of anything. This is in stark contrast to the other case about the judge (and other cases discussed on this board) where reasonable people would NOT conclude the speaker was victim blaming because they lack the motive and their words and actions either don't even suggest it or often directly falsify such a baseless inference.