Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
I picked that analogy just to show how narrow-minded I feel Drole's logic is. It is so black and white. There are reasons behind why things happen, and understanding the reason helps to understand the why.
|
Do you think you're in the grey area because you are talking about victims sharing the blame? You aren't just talking about understanding why things happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
I just don't think this incident would have ever happened if the gay guy just did not show up.
|
It is obvious that incident wouldn't have happened with that particular guy if he had not been there. Got it. What isn't obvious is the overstating of that obvious and the "share some of the blame" aspect of it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
To the bold: that has been my whole point!
|
No, it wasn't. And if you felt a EUREKA moment when you read that in my post, you REALLY haven't been reading my posts.
Re-read my posts about the difference between analyzing victim precipitation (which researchers and practitioners do everyday) and victim blame (which is what you were doing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
Well, that is a fair question. Because I would want to know too. How much did you know, and when?
|
Thus the difference between what you were saying and what I was saying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigmadiva
I agree.
|
If you agree with that then you are contradicting yourself. You went from saying the fraternity guys were wrong (which we all agree about) to saying this "gay guy" should've known better. If you understand that the "gay guy" didn't put the fraternity guys at equal risk of victimization (he was outnumbered even if he was being annoying), you understand how the blame cannot be shared. The same logic applies to rape. Rape victims do not place the rapists at equal risk of victimization--there's no competition to see who can rape whom first.