UK JFemale Judge Condemned for "Victim Blaming" Drunk Women

[Jimmy Higgins]

This must be an English issue. You said reckless behavior has consequences. Consequences are a result of an action. If a person willfully commits to an action with consequences, then they are guilty of those consequences. You seem to want to blame the woman for their actions, but don't want to be honest about it.

None of these things follow, and it is quite ironic that you are accusing someone else of not understanding English. If a person commits an action which has a high probability of negative consequences, then they are guilty of being reckless.

Exactly. You are blaming the person for their actions. That doesn't mean you blame them for being raped, but you are blaming them for being drunk.

 

[blastula]

You can be jailed for reckless behavior, the law can fault you for being reckless.

 

[TSwizzle]

Are you, or are you not defending the judge who suggested that the rape was the victim's fault for being drink?

The judge made no such suggestion.

 

[J842P]

None of these things follow, and it is quite ironic that you are accusing someone else of not understanding English. If a person commits an action which has a high probability of negative consequences, then they are guilty of being reckless.

Exactly. You are blaming the person for their actions. That doesn't mean you blame them for being raped, but you are blaming them for being drunk.

So, we agree that being drunk can be reckless? I honestly don't see what you are getting at.

- - - Updated - - -

You can be jailed for reckless behavior, the law can fault you for being reckless.

Generally, you can only suffer legal consequences for being reckless with regards to other people. For example, maybe you are an alcoholic, and you drive very drunk with your kids. You can get charged with reckless endangerment.

 

[Underseer]

Are you, or are you not defending the judge who suggested that the rape was the victim's fault for being drink?

Are you or are you not angry that feminists have criticized the judge for doing so?

If you get drunk and a gay man happens upon you and tapes you, is the rape your fault because you were drunk?

I see that you are entirely incapable of actually addressing a person's argument, and rather prefer to put words in people's mouths to tilt at windmills.

But no, the rape is not fundamentally "your fault," since you did not commit it. But you are potentially acting recklessly by getting drunk. The fault fundamentally lies with the man that raped you.

Then why are you blaming the victim for her own rape?

Fine. I'll play your word games.

If you get drunk and a gay man rapes you, you are the one who should be criticized for being drunk, but it is not your "fault," it's just that the gay man would not have raped you had you not made the mistake of getting drunk. But we mustn't use the word "fault" for some reason because that would be a straw man.

You should be criticized for getting drunk, and perhaps the gay man can use your intoxication in a criminal court case to get out of the rape charge, but if I use the word "fault," I am constructing a straw man because you didn't actually use the word fault. You just blamed the victim for her own rape and got your panties in a wad because people criticized you for doing so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked for a number. Give me a number. What BAC level means a woman has become "reckless" to the point it needs to be brought up at her rape trial? This shouldn't be real hard. If being real drunk means she is being reckless, you can put a number to it.

I know what you asked, but your request is silly. How does it being reckless mean that I can put a number on it?

Because being drunk is a physical thing. People seem to want to mention a person was drunk when they were raped. That the victim was reckless. But these same people can't put a number on drunkenness to help women know when they need to stop drinking.

Maybe I'm not an expert on the physiology of alcohol, I don't really know what these numbers mean, but nevertheless, I can recognize someone who is very drunk?

Wait... so are we saying only people who are "very drunk" are being reckless or are we including "drunk" people as well?

I think this is important. If we feel the need to remind a victim of how reckless they were right around the time they were assaulted, it'd be best to give a warning level of BAC so they can know when they should stop drinking and won't become a victim of their reckless behavior.

 

[J842P]

I see that you are entirely incapable of actually addressing a person's argument, and rather prefer to put words in people's mouths to tilt at windmills.

But no, the rape is not fundamentally "your fault," since you did not commit it. But you are potentially acting recklessly by getting drunk. The fault fundamentally lies with the man that raped you.

Then why are you blaming the victim for her own rape?

Fine. I'll play your word games.

If you get drunk and a gay man takes you, you are the one who should be criticized for being drunk, but it is not your "fault," is just that the gay man would not have raped you had you not made the mistake of getting drunk. But we mustn't use the word "fault" for some reason because that would be a straw man.

You should be criticized for getting drunk, and perhaps the gay man can use your intoxication in a criminal court case to get out of the rape charge, but if I use the word "fault," I am constructing a straw man because you didn't actually use the word fault. You just blamed the victim for her own rape.

So, it's hard to parse what you say since you cannot help but put words in people's mouths e.g. maybe a criminal can get out of rape charge because you were drunk. And more generally, it seems you cannot reason outside of a framework provided for you by your political in-group, but do you or do you not agree that getting drunk can be reckless?

 

[J842P]

I know what you asked, but your request is silly. How does it being reckless mean that I can put a number on it?

Because being drunk is a physical thing. People seem to want to mention a person was drunk when they were raped. That the victim was reckless. But these same people can't put a number on drunkenness to help women know when they need to stop drinking.

Maybe I'm not an expert on the physiology of alcohol, I don't really know what these numbers mean, but nevertheless, I can recognize someone who is very drunk?

Wait... so are we saying only people who are "very drunk" are being reckless or are we including "drunk" people as well?

I think this is important. If we feel the need to remind a victim of how reckless they were right around the time they were assaulted, it'd be best to give a warning level of BAC so they can know when they should stop drinking and won't become a victim of their reckless behavior.

Well, I *don't* think it's important because normal people can judge just fine whether or not someone is drunk. To be fair, it is harder to judge when you are drunk if you are not a frequent drinker, but that is likely more reasonable to rely on than on some physiological statistic you won't have access to.

But really, you are just trying to make an argument. A poor one. But you don't actually care, you just think you've constructed some sort of "gotcha."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the judge was calling for caution for drunk people can be easy targets for attacks of all sorts. No doubt a few Femi-Nazis got a bit excited over this.

Yeah. There are a lot of people on the left that go bonkers over any hint of personal responsibility.

Most of the time these things turn out to be nothing but normal safety advice about not making yourself a target.

 

[Angry Floof]

Then why are you blaming the victim for her own rape?

Fine. I'll play your word games.

If you get drunk and a gay man takes you, you are the one who should be criticized for being drunk, but it is not your "fault," is just that the gay man would not have raped you had you not made the mistake of getting drunk. But we mustn't use the word "fault" for some reason because that would be a straw man.

You should be criticized for getting drunk, and perhaps the gay man can use your intoxication in a criminal court case to get out of the rape charge, but if I use the word "fault," I am constructing a straw man because you didn't actually use the word fault. You just blamed the victim for her own rape.

So, it's hard to parse what you say since you cannot help but put words in people's mouths e.g. maybe a criminal can get out of rape charge because you were drunk. And more generally, it seems you cannot reason outside of a framework provided for you by your political in-group, but do you or do you not agree that getting drunk can reckless?

"You shouldn't have provoked him." Talk about trouble parsing! How literal and artificially unassociated do you need such words and sentences to be in order to try to make it seem a matter of reading comprehension as you completely miss the obvious subtext?

You don't catch the nuance of underlying shame and blaming implied in such a statement? Do you ever notice implications of any statements without resorting to the most literal, mechanical use of language in favor of pretending there's no implication or that the implications have no meaning or effect on human beings? This is how you think we humans operate? As long as you can complain that people use words you don't like to describe the views you express, you're safe from having to having to question your established beliefs?

The subtext is there for anyone who has been targeted by entitled bigots, or has been brutalized, or has lived in our culture as anything but a rich white man, or who knows what it's like to be helpless against injustice. The subtext is worked into the substrate of our culture. Only male dominance zealots would suddenly pretend these attitudes and statements have no implications.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, getting really drunk is *not* reckless? People should not avoid getting really drunk, or at least, shouldn't avoid it because it is reckless?

I asked for a number. Give me a number. What BAC level means a woman has become "reckless" to the point it needs to be brought up at her rape trial? This shouldn't be real hard. If being real drunk means she is being reckless, you can put a number to it.

It's not a binary state. The more you drink the higher the risk.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Classic strawman. Nobody said this and you know it.



A plowing of the fields of straw.

Are you, or are you not defending the judge who suggested that the rape was the victim's fault for being drink?

The judge didn't say it is anyone's fault for being drink, or for being drunk. The judge did not blame the victim, nor have I, and nor has anybody here.

Are you or are you not angry that feminists have criticized the judge for doing so?

No. Why would I be? Where are you getting this from? I'm merely pointed out your poor reasoning.

If you get drunk and a gay man happens upon you and tapes you, is the rape your fault because you were drunk?

If he rapes me, no that wouldnt be my fault. It also wouldn't be my fault if I got mugged in a dark alley carrying a bag overflowing with money and shouting out how I am so very wealthy.

 

[TSwizzle]

"You shouldn't have provoked him." Talk about trouble parsing! How literal and artificially unassociated do you need such words and sentences to be in order to try to make it seem a matter of reading comprehension as you completely miss the obvious subtext?

You don't catch the nuance of underlying shame and blaming implied in such a statement? Do you ever notice implications of any statements without resorting to the most literal, mechanical use of language in favor of pretending there's no implication or that the implications have no meaning or effect on human beings? This is how you think we humans operate? As long as you can complain that people use words you don't like to describe the views you express, you're safe from having to having to question your established beliefs?

The subtext is there for anyone who has been targeted by entitled bigots, or has been brutalized, or has lived in our culture as anything but a rich white man, or who knows what it's like to be helpless against injustice. The subtext is worked into the substrate of our culture. Only male dominance zealots would suddenly pretend these attitudes and statements have no implications.

You really have lost the plot. The vagina hat must be on too tight.

 

[laughing dog]

It is not her job to lecture the victims from the bench when she is supposed to be sentencing the convicted rapist

If she wanted to write an op-ed piece for the paper - fine. She'd still be victim-blaming, but it wouldn't have been as wildly inappropriate as what she actually did. At face-value, she blamed the victim while sentencing the convicted rapist. Not cool. She deserves the backlash she is getting.

To be fair, Judges quite frequently use the bench to give us their opinions, as if we should care what they think about anything other than legal matters. It's hardly unique to this case.

That does not make it appropriate or wise.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I asked for a number. Give me a number. What BAC level means a woman has become "reckless" to the point it needs to be brought up at her rape trial? This shouldn't be real hard. If being real drunk means she is being reckless, you can put a number to it.

It's not a binary state. The more you drink the higher the risk.

Oh, I'd certainly agree with that. So one beer, she is 15% reckless then? Or is having a few beers near people with wangs the reckless part?

 

[laughing dog]

I asked for a number. Give me a number. What BAC level means a woman has become "reckless" to the point it needs to be brought up at her rape trial? This shouldn't be real hard. If being real drunk means she is being reckless, you can put a number to it.

It's not a binary state. The more you drink the higher the risk.

The question is asking for when does this become "reckless" as opposed to being "not reckless". For example. does having a BAC of 0.001 mean a woman is engaging in drinking leads to recklessness? Or does 0.05? Without some sort of a standard for what constitutes "reckless", the entire concept is pointless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because being drunk is a physical thing. People seem to want to mention a person was drunk when they were raped. That the victim was reckless. But these same people can't put a number on drunkenness to help women know when they need to stop drinking.

Maybe I'm not an expert on the physiology of alcohol, I don't really know what these numbers mean, but nevertheless, I can recognize someone who is very drunk?

Wait... so are we saying only people who are "very drunk" are being reckless or are we including "drunk" people as well?

I think this is important. If we feel the need to remind a victim of how reckless they were right around the time they were assaulted, it'd be best to give a warning level of BAC so they can know when they should stop drinking and won't become a victim of their reckless behavior.

Well, I *don't* think it's important because normal people can judge just fine whether or not someone is drunk.

True, the rapist is definitely in that position.

To be fair, it is harder to judge when you are drunk if you are not a frequent drinker, but that is likely more reasonable to rely on than on some physiological statistic you won't have access to.

So if an infrequent drinker less reckless due to lack of experience?

But really, you are just trying to make an argument. A poor one. But you don't actually care, you just think you've constructed some sort of "gotcha."

No, I'm trying to find out how intoxicated a woman must be for it to be brought up in the rape trial of the fucking defendant, not the victim!

 

[Underseer]

Then why are you blaming the victim for her own rape?

Fine. I'll play your word games.

If you get drunk and a gay man takes you, you are the one who should be criticized for being drunk, but it is not your "fault," is just that the gay man would not have raped you had you not made the mistake of getting drunk. But we mustn't use the word "fault" for some reason because that would be a straw man.

You should be criticized for getting drunk, and perhaps the gay man can use your intoxication in a criminal court case to get out of the rape charge, but if I use the word "fault," I am constructing a straw man because you didn't actually use the word fault. You just blamed the victim for her own rape.

So, it's hard to parse what you say since you cannot help but put words in people's mouths e.g. maybe a criminal can get out of rape charge because you were drunk. And more generally, it seems you cannot reason outside of a framework provided for you by your political in-group, but do you or do you not agree that getting drunk can be reckless?

If a gay man rapes you, and you happen to be drunk at the time of the rape, you should be criticized for being "reckless"?

But we're not "blaming" you. We are simply pointing out how reckless you were for being drunk and getting raped by the gay man. But it's not your "fault." If we use the word "fault," we are constructing a straw man. But shame on you for being so reckless as to get drunk. You probably would not have been raped if you weren't drunk, not that we are saying it's your "fault." That would be a straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it with conservatives and confusion about what a straw man fallacy is?

Example:

"Straw man! Straw man! Trump is nothing like Hitler because he doesn't even have a mustache, therefore you are constructing a straw man when you compare him to Hitler! Straw man! Straw man!"

 

[RavenSky]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i8nJ-nyfqs[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TSwizzle]

If a gay man rapes you, and you happen to be drunk at the time of the rape, you should be criticized for being "reckless"?

You obviously won't admit that sometimes there are undesirable consequences to reckless behavior.