For context this is an Andrew tate meatrider on twitter
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
230 points (92.9% liked)
Facepalm
2639 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Where exactly did I even suggest that this would excuse rape?
You're doing what I wrote: assuming that anything but the extreme position is a justification of rape.
So, your mates know that any time you're passed out drunk, they're free to stick their dicks up your arse because it's your own damn fault for putting yourself at risk?
You have not even begun to think this through. Read more, spout less nonsense.
How about reading my comment? I stated something like 20 times already that I don't justify the crime.
Maybe getting drunk 5000 times like you stated in the other comment wasn't the best idea in terms of reading comprehension.
Worm.
Very good argument.
it's an accurate description
Nobody cares about winning an argument with a rape apologist.
Where did I apologize or justify anything?
You're exactly the problem. You don't even try to engage with the argument, you don't even read it. You just react to some buzzwords and decide on some gut feeling.
Because there is no situation where a rape victim is to be blamed. Full stop. Just like there's no situation where a murder victim would be blamed. Or a theft victim (again, insurance payouts aren't criminal charges).
Blame and responsibility are something different.
Insurance payouts are actually a good example, because it's exactly not about criminal charges. It's about the acknowledgement that you might not take proper precautions in a very obviously dangerous situation. That doesn't mean it's my theft. And this point seems to absolutely go over your head. The crime itself is not affected by the responsibility or care or whatever you want to call it, by the victim.
Oh okay I totally get it now. You just like blaming victims and want to make sure they're aware they put themselves in a position to be raped. Thanks for clearing that up!
I mean… your whole post is a justification for a line of thinking indicating that assessing a risk scenario is the responsibility of a would be victim; the logical extension of this argument is that victims are at least partially complicit in their victimhood.
I am flatly refuting that. Victims are victims, full stop. It flat out does not matter that someone has put themselves into a risky situation, because the choice to exploit that situation is entirely the responsibility of one party.
Would you apply that logic to any other crime?
You can't tell me, that you never thought "well, that's kind of what you can expect to happen".
Yes, I would apply that logic to any other crime.
Scamming people out of their life savings can only be done because the victim fell for a ruse; it’s easy to say afterwards “well that never would have happened if you were just more careful” and dismiss it as their own fault.
That is, however, bullshit; because one person making a mistake never, ever excuses another person from exploiting it.
Even in scenarios where I myself could easily say “well sure that was bound to happen” it still doesn’t make the victim complicit in their victimhood because at no point did they actively consent to being victimized.
That’s the whole sticking point for me here: the logic of “well they put themselves into that position” is effectively tantamount to arguing that they asked to be exploited, which is utter nonsense.