Mayor blames 4 year old for her own molestation

[Loren Pechtel]

A 4 year old can be willing to play a game.

The rapist did not say the 4-year-old child was "willing to play a game". The sick bastard said she "initiated it". He was clearly trying to shift responsibility/blame to her. That is victim-blaming, plain and simple.

A 4 year old can want to play a game. This isn't victim-blaming, all it's showing is that there was a previous wrongful act--teaching her the game in the first place as a 4 year old isn't going to come up with a sexual game in the first place.

One, his victim-blaming was NOT only in context of "therapy". He said that shit to anyone who would listen. That's why we know about it.

Two, he was not at all describing "the situation accurately".

There. More than adequately addressed and thoroughly debunked.

The second article said he said it to the therapist. The first article wasn't of good quality. You have a third?

 

[Arctish]

He had three possible courses of action at that point:

1) Describe the situation accurately, aka "Victim-blame"

2) Stay silent

3) Lie

Remember, this is in the context of therapy, #2 and #3 aren't good answers. He's basically left with #1.

Reminder: Nobody has adequately addressed this.

I did. You can find my post here:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10753-Mayor-blames-4-year-old-for-her-own-molestation&p=398789&viewfull=1#post398789

That's not an adequate answer. You're asking him to jump through hoops to avoid the word "willing".

What hoops?

He could have said "she complied". That's something he could know for a fact, whereas her willingness was merely assumed and asserted. It also avoids the obvious error of claiming the 4 year old had agency in the sex acts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, the grammatical errors really are the worst part about pedophiles.

 

[laughing dog]

A 4 year old can be willing to play a game.

The adult is responsible for saying that game shouldn't be played.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is clear that you refuse to see reality

1) This arose in a therapy context, not a courtroom.

Immaterial, and you have been told this repeatedly by several people, which means that you are willfully ignoring anything that doesn't support your erroneous position

I have been told it by several people who aren't looking at it clearly. You're so fixated on blame-shifting that you don't see that that's not what's happening!

He had three possible courses of action at that point:

1) Describe the situation accurately, aka "Victim-blame"

2) Stay silent

3) Lie

Remember, this is in the context of therapy, #2 and #3 aren't good answers. He's basically left with #1.

Reminder: Nobody has adequately addressed this.

I did. You can find my post here:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10753-Mayor-blames-4-year-old-for-her-own-molestation&p=398789&viewfull=1#post398789

That's not an adequate answer. You're asking him to jump through hoops to avoid the word "willing".

Look how effortless it is for you to jump through these self-made ridiculous hoops. And the rapist has no hoops to jump through if he or she does not want to blame the victim. So what is your problem again?

 

[KeepTalking]

Wrong. Discussing the behavior of a victim to take the blame off of the accused is necessarily shifting some of that blame to the victim. It is victim blaming, plain and simple.

Hi KeepTalking, this is the quote I was referring to above.

Discussing the behavior of a victim to take the blame off of the accuse is NOT necessarily shifting any of that blame to the victim.

Yes, it is necessarily shifting the blame to the victim. When you shift blame from yourself by discussing the behavior of the victim, there is nowhere else to shift the blame to other than the victim

See above for my thoughts and examples to the contrary.

I have already addressed those examples, so please see my previous response.

There are many ways somebody may mention the behavior of the victim that do not blame the victim.

Yes, but when you are doing it to shift blame from yourself, when you are to blame, it is necessarily victim blaming.

If you intentionally rear end my car, then yes, you would be engaging in victim blaming. If it really was accidental, then both persons are victims of the accident, and though you may be at fault, you are not to blame. I would not say that you are victim blaming in that situation.

There's the example of victim blaming then where you may agree it isn't always bad.

Then you apparently missed my point, as I noted that the example provided was not a case of victim blaming. When all parties are victims of an accident, then no one is the victim of another person, so no one will be trying to shift blame from a perpetrator, ergo no victim blaming.

If I intentionally ram your car from behind, with the intent of injuring you, I can be charged criminally, and you can also bring a civil suit against me for damages for the personal injury. I can then victim blame you, pointing out you weren't wearing your seatbelt and didn't have your car maintained so the airbag would protect you, and if I am right, your damages I have to pay will be reduced. That is the current state of the law. Is it wrong?

If you intentionally ram my car from behind, then what you are doing there would be victim blaming. I seriously doubt that either in the criminal case, or the civil suit, that your blame or damages would be reduced in that case, as you purposefully caused the accident, and you are entirely to blame. Find a real world example where that happened: where a person intentionally caused an accident, admitted to that fact, and had their sentence or damages reduced because of victim blaming, and I will concede that you have a point.

- - - Updated - - -

A 4 year old can be willing to play a game.

The adult is responsible for saying that game shouldn't be played.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, it is clear that you refuse to see reality

1) This arose in a therapy context, not a courtroom.

Immaterial, and you have been told this repeatedly by several people, which means that you are willfully ignoring anything that doesn't support your erroneous position

I have been told it by several people who aren't looking at it clearly. You're so fixated on blame-shifting that you don't see that that's not what's happening!

He had three possible courses of action at that point:

1) Describe the situation accurately, aka "Victim-blame"

2) Stay silent

3) Lie

Remember, this is in the context of therapy, #2 and #3 aren't good answers. He's basically left with #1.

Reminder: Nobody has adequately addressed this.

I did. You can find my post here:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?10753-Mayor-blames-4-year-old-for-her-own-molestation&p=398789&viewfull=1#post398789

That's not an adequate answer. You're asking him to jump through hoops to avoid the word "willing".

No. I am asking him to stick to the facts, and to not ascribe motivation or state of mind to the victim, which he could not possibly know as a fact.

 

[ronburgundy]

Hi KeepTalking, this is the quote I was referring to above.

Discussing the behavior of a victim to take the blame off of the accuse is NOT necessarily shifting any of that blame to the victim.

Yes, it is necessarily shifting the blame to the victim. When you shift blame from yourself by discussing the behavior of the victim, there is nowhere else to shift the blame to other than the victim

Uh oh, we disagree again

You are making an untenable assumption that blame has some objective finite quantity that always exists and thus can never be reduced for one person without being increased for another. It doesn't work that way. In fact, negative acts where people are harmed can entail anywhere from zero blame on anyone to infinite blame on everyone, and that quantity can change constantly because it is nothing but a figment of human feeling.
IOW, blame does not need to be "shifted" it can be eliminated just as easily as it was created in the first place.

A victim could do or say something that is perfectly legal and fine, but due to various contextual factors the perp might misinterpret it, leading them to do something that caused harm to the victim. If that were the case, then act that caused the harm was the result of a misunderstanding and was an accident, which while it might still be negligence by the perp is lesser than a deliberate intent to cause harm (i.e., less "blame" on the perp, but no increase of blame on the victim or anyone else).

Imagine a guy from a sexually repressive culture where the only time women ever show their breasts is to a man as a invitation to sex. This guy goes to New Orleans during Mardi Gras not knowing about the local traditions. A woman walks up to him, exposes her breasts and smiles at him flirtatiously. Given his faulty assumptions, he honestly thinks she is willing to let him touch her breast, but when he does that is sexual assault. All of those facts, including her actions are relevant to the degree of immorality and criminality of his actions, because both are all about intentions not just outcomes. Yet these facts do not shift any blame to the woman. According to the local culture, women showing their breast could be morally and legal acceptable, meaning she did nothing wrong, and yet what she did happened to play a causal role in why the man did what he did and combined with his faulty assumptions makes it reckless mistake on his part rather than a knowing act of criminal assault. Most reasonable people would judge the man less harshly than they would a man from within the culture who just walked up to a fully clothed women on the street, reached under her shirt and grabbed her breast.

IOW, some of what a victim does or says are part of the total context in which the perp did what they did, and context always matters for morality. So even when there is nothing wrong with what the victim did and there is no expectation they should have acted differently, their actions can still be contextual factors that play a role in the perps state of mind and intentions, and thus blame.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

IOW, some of what a victim does or says are part of the total context in which the perp did what they did, and context always matters for morality. So even when there is nothing wrong with what the victim did and there is no expectation they should have acted differently, their actions can still be contextual factors that play a role in the perps state of mind and intentions, and thus blame.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[laughing dog]

IOW, some of what a victim does or says are part of the total context in which the perp did what they did, and context always matters for morality. So even when there is nothing wrong with what the victim did and there is no expectation they should have acted differently, their actions can still be contextual factors that play a role in the perps state of mind and intentions, and thus blame.

Exactly. Well said.

Blaming the victim is an attempt to attach rmoral responsibility to the victim when the victim did nothing worthy of blame. The contextual matters in the mind of the perp may explain the perps actions but that is independent of the blaming of the victim.

 

[ronburgundy]

IOW, some of what a victim does or says are part of the total context in which the perp did what they did, and context always matters for morality. So even when there is nothing wrong with what the victim did and there is no expectation they should have acted differently, their actions can still be contextual factors that play a role in the perps state of mind and intentions, and thus blame.

Exactly. Well said.

Thanks, but to be clear, the odds of that applying to this particular case are almost zero. And even if a person says "I blame the victim!" it's possible they are joking, making certainty impossible. So, just because there is a non-zero possibility he wasn't trying to blame her, the reasonable position is that he almost certainly was.

I just don't think efforts to find a sliver or room for doubt in this case helps to clarify the issue of when noting facts related to the victim is an effort to alter blame vs. merely to understand/predict/prevent such events.

 

[ronburgundy]

Exactly. Well said.

Blaming the victim is an attempt to attach rmoral responsibility to the victim when the victim did nothing worthy of blame. The contextual matters in the mind of the perp may explain the perps actions but that is independent of the blaming of the victim.

Exactly! Which is why pointing out those contextual factors, even those related to the victims actions, is NOT victim blaming, unless a clear motive to shift blame is the only plausible reason for noting those contextual factors.

 

[laughing dog]

Blaming the victim is an attempt to attach rmoral responsibility to the victim when the victim did nothing worthy of blame. The contextual matters in the mind of the perp may explain the perps actions but that is independent of the blaming of the victim.

Exactly! Which is why pointing out those contextual factors, even those related to the victims actions, is NOT victim blaming, unless a clear motive to shift blame is the only plausible reason for noting those contextual factors.

In the absence of explicit contextual factors, it is victim-blaming. Using your example, when asked why he assaulted the woman, if he says "Because she showed me her breasts" - that is victim blaming. There is nothing in the reply that indicates the man is accepting the responsibility of his actions. If he replies "In my culture, when a woman exposes her breasts, it is an invitation to sex. Clearly I misread the situation here" then that is not victim blaming.

 

[KeepTalking]

Exactly! Which is why pointing out those contextual factors, even those related to the victims actions, is NOT victim blaming, unless a clear motive to shift blame is the only plausible reason for noting those contextual factors.

In the absence of explicit contextual factors, it is victim-blaming. Using your example, when asked why he assaulted the woman, if he says "Because she showed me her breasts" - that is victim blaming. There is nothing in the reply that indicates the man is accepting the responsibility of his actions. If he replies "In my culture, when a woman exposes her breasts, it is an invitation to sex. Clearly I misread the situation here" then that is not victim blaming.

^This. Sums up my thoughts on the matter nicely.

 

[ronburgundy]

In the absence of explicit contextual factors, it is victim-blaming.

IOW, in the absence of evidence that favors one conclusion over the others, you will blindly leap to the conclusion that most supports your dogma.

Using your example, when asked why he assaulted the woman, if he says "Because she showed me her breasts" - that is victim blaming.

No, it isn't. It is nothing more than stating what he thinks led to his desire and action. It implies nothing about whether he thinks those factors alter who is the blame.

There is nothing in the reply that indicates the man is accepting the responsibility of his actions.

And there is nothing in the reply that indicates he is deflecting responsibility or placing any of it on her. IOW, you have zero evidence either way and yet you are accepting one conclusion and rejecting all alternatives, which is the epitome of close-minded dogmatism.

If he replies "In my culture, when a woman exposes her breasts, it is an invitation to sex. Clearly I misread the situation here" then that is not victim blaming.

If he says this, then you know for near certain that is isn't victim blaming. If he doesn't say that then you don't know either way.
If says this but leaves out the last part I striked-through then it's unclear but favors explanation over victim blaming.
Note that this example I gave only applies to when it is the perp themselves talking about the victim. Because we know that most perps do try to reduce their blame, it makes the probability that any mention of the victim being an attempt at blaming higher. I was merely pointing out that even though it is the more probable interpretation, more evidence is needed.

But whenever the victim is mentioned by someone other than the perp or someone with direct ties to them, then the probability of blaming vs. merely explaining becomes much lower, and the evidence needed to infer blaming becomes greater, and the effort like yours to leap to blaming without such evidence even more irrational.

 

[laughing dog]

IOW, in the absence of evidence that favors one conclusion over the others, you will blindly leap to the conclusion that most supports your dogma.

As usual, you are wrong. You are posturing over what constitutes sufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion. That has nothing to do with "dogma".

No, it isn't. It is nothing more than stating what he thinks led to his desire and action. It implies nothing about whether he thinks those factors alter who is the blame.

Wrong again. If that is his only statement, the absence of remorse or acceptance of responsibility can certainly be taken into account when drawing a conclusion.

And there is nothing in the reply that indicates he is deflecting responsibility or placing any of it on her.

Wrong again. Of course there is. See above.

IOW, you have zero evidence either way and yet you are accepting one conclusion and rejecting all alternatives, which is the epitome of close-minded dogmatism.

I am not rejecting all alternatives. I am rejecting your poorly reasoned alternative. On the otherhand, your response is the epitome of close-minded dogmatism.

If he says this, then you know for near certain that is isn't victim blaming. If he doesn't say that then you don't know either way.
If says this but leaves out the last part I striked-through then it's unclear but favors explanation over victim blaming.
Note that this example I gave only applies to when it is the perp themselves talking about the victim. Because we know that most perps do try to reduce their blame, it makes the probability that any mention of the victim being an attempt at blaming higher. I was merely pointing out that even though it is the more probable interpretation, more evidence is needed.

Since this is not a court of law and since we cannot know for certainty about what is in anyone's mind, your objections literally mean that there could never be sufficient evidence. In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence in these cases - especially in this specific case - to come to such a conclusion.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes. Again, It is possible to refer to actions of the victim (or other third parties) even to take blame off of the accused, without shifting blame onto the victim (or other third party). This shouldn't be difficult to accept.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. Again, It is possible to refer to actions of the victim (or other third parties) even to take blame off of the accused, without shifting blame onto the victim (or other third party). This shouldn't be difficult to accept.

All of this arose out that in this particular case, the rapist's claims that the 4 year old child initiated sex and the claim that the 4 yr old victim was a willing participant were not victim blaming. It should not be difficult to accept that claim is absurd.

 

[RavenSky]

The rapist did not say the 4-year-old child was "willing to play a game". The sick bastard said she "initiated it". He was clearly trying to shift responsibility/blame to her. That is victim-blaming, plain and simple.

A 4 year old can want to play a game. This isn't victim-blaming, all it's showing is that there was a previous wrongful act--teaching her the game in the first place as a 4 year old isn't going to come up with a sexual game in the first place.

No. This isn't victim-blaming, because this is actually you making crap up. Nowhere anywhere has there been any suggestion that the little girl wanted to "play a game" or was taught "the game" or accused of initiating a game.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid admitting that this rapist engaged in victim-blaming that you have resorted to making up bullshit.

One, his victim-blaming was NOT only in context of "therapy". He said that shit to anyone who would listen. That's why we know about it.

Two, he was not at all describing "the situation accurately".

There. More than adequately addressed and thoroughly debunked.

The second article said he said it to the therapist. The first article wasn't of good quality. You have a third?

Yep. And quoted it. Just goes to show that you are not actually considered any argument but your own - very wrong - position.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He could have said "she complied". That's something he could know for a fact, whereas her willingness was merely assumed and asserted. It also avoids the obvious error of claiming the 4 year old had agency in the sex acts.

"Complied" is not the same as "willing".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Imagine a guy from a sexually repressive culture where the only time women ever show their breasts is to a man as a invitation to sex. This guy goes to New Orleans during Mardi Gras not knowing about the local traditions. A woman walks up to him, exposes her breasts and smiles at him flirtatiously. Given his faulty assumptions, he honestly thinks she is willing to let him touch her breast, but when he does that is sexual assault. All of those facts, including her actions are relevant to the degree of immorality and criminality of his actions, because both are all about intentions not just outcomes. Yet these facts do not shift any blame to the woman. According to the local culture, women showing their breast could be morally and legal acceptable, meaning she did nothing wrong, and yet what she did happened to play a causal role in why the man did what he did and combined with his faulty assumptions makes it reckless mistake on his part rather than a knowing act of criminal assault. Most reasonable people would judge the man less harshly than they would a man from within the culture who just walked up to a fully clothed women on the street, reached under her shirt and grabbed her breast.

Good point, although I'm not sure I would let him off the hook here as it should be obvious that the others aren't touching exhibited breasts.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly! Which is why pointing out those contextual factors, even those related to the victims actions, is NOT victim blaming, unless a clear motive to shift blame is the only plausible reason for noting those contextual factors.

In the absence of explicit contextual factors, it is victim-blaming. Using your example, when asked why he assaulted the woman, if he says "Because she showed me her breasts" - that is victim blaming. There is nothing in the reply that indicates the man is accepting the responsibility of his actions. If he replies "In my culture, when a woman exposes her breasts, it is an invitation to sex. Clearly I misread the situation here" then that is not victim blaming.

Until he knows the true situation the first answer is correct, he would have no way of coming up with the second.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A 4 year old can want to play a game. This isn't victim-blaming, all it's showing is that there was a previous wrongful act--teaching her the game in the first place as a 4 year old isn't going to come up with a sexual game in the first place.

No. This isn't victim-blaming, because this is actually you making crap up. Nowhere anywhere has there been any suggestion that the little girl wanted to "play a game" or was taught "the game" or accused of initiating a game.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to avoid admitting that this rapist engaged in victim-blaming that you have resorted to making up bullshit.

One, his victim-blaming was NOT only in context of "therapy". He said that shit to anyone who would listen. That's why we know about it.

Two, he was not at all describing "the situation accurately".

There. More than adequately addressed and thoroughly debunked.

The second article said he said it to the therapist. The first article wasn't of good quality. You have a third?

Yep. And quoted it. Just goes to show that you are not actually considered any argument but your own - very wrong - position.

I was going with what had been suggested earlier---that making it into a game is a way that she could have "initiated sex".

The only way this would shift the blame one iota is if he wasn't the one to teach her the game--and in that case it would be shifting it to the teacher, not to the girl.

What you don't seem to get is that a discussion of the actions of the victim does not have to be shifting the blame to the victim. It can simply be a better understanding of the situation.