My 54 year old sister has always been attracted to “Bad Boys.” I swear, the longer their rap sheet is, the more attracted she is to the guy. Not surprisingly, she seems to have a new boyfriend every couple of months, and there are many stories of abuse and whatnot. According to her, she a victim of each and every one of them. Perhaps so, but I can’t help but wonder if her situation would change if she didn’t insist on dating career criminals.
I suspect she may have a bit of angel complex in her - wanting to be a savior and angel for troubled men. The feeling that you can fix someone and be what ails them, can really appeal to certain types.
Some men are like that too, wanting to be an angel for homeless or ex-felon women. I used to do prison ministry and I heard that some women in prison would be bombarded with mail by men from the outside (that is, if the woman had posted her profile and photo on those write-a-prisoner websites).
I was told that in some states that is illegal, and you can blame people for breaking a law.
Depends on the why. Why did they do the thing, put themselves in that position, etc. We might assume people are victims when they don’t.
For Truth Social investors, you need to know why they invested. Not everything is a straight up long term hold. Maybe they are day traders and don’t have a position anymore. Maybe they thought they would help Trump by investing and don’t expect their money back. Maybe it was their first stock and they just thought it was fun (like buying a lottery ticket is a bit about the “what if we won”). None of those people are even victims even if they lost their investment money.
Even them, not sure it’s my place to blame a victim.
Well sure, it’s illegal and immoral to steal, even if the car is sitting there with the doors unlocked and the keys are in the ignition.
But the owner could largely have prevented it by doing some elementary things like locking the doors and taking the keys with them.
Look at it this way… if someone’s house burns down, and they didn’t have smoke detectors, it’s not their fault that it burned down, but they likely could have mitigated it and made sure everyone was out safely.
I feel like maybe the owners in both cases are partially culpable for the damages/consequences, even if they’re not responsible for whoever/whatever caused the theft or fire.
That this even needs to be said is a demonstration of the sexism of the justice system back then (and I’m not saying it isn’t sexist now.) I doubt many defense attorneys for car thieves would try to get their client off by trying to convince a jury that the open car made them do it.
“Gentlemen (ahem) if the jury, you can’t blame my client being aroused by that woman dressed in that flimsly burnoose.” (To quote Firesign Theatre for the first time in easily a decade.)
This is why it’s prudent to carry insurance.
Now when you take chances with your car and don’t get it insured, first off you’re illegally driving it, second you are to blame. Not for the theft but for not protecting yourself.
There are ways to mitigate property damage, theft and losses there. IMO
The only required insurance is liability to protect the people you crash into. Carrying theft or collision repair insurance is totally optional. If you’ve got a car loan the lender may want you to have it, but there’s no legal requirement.
I suspect that most folks who’re uninsured are 100% uninsured for everything. But lots of people who drive paid-for cars are wasting money if they’re still paying for antitheft and collision repair insurance.
Well, yeah. I understand that. But my newer car is paid for. I carry full coverage.
It’s a matter of your own needs. I wouldn’t carry it on a 1990 Ford ???.
If it was stolen I could afford to lose it. It would be a trivial loss by that point. You need to decide how much of a victim you can afford to be. In the case if property loss.
Same with fire insurance on your home. You have to make the choices that fit what you need.
If you’re desperately poor and lose your home and contents to fire I would absolutely feel sorry for you. And maybe even donate to help you.
But average people with a home should have some coverage. Fire, storms, break ins, accidents. Flood if you can. It’s just smart.
And lessens your chance of being a victim.
In the civil context, most states have done away with the old rule that if the victim is at fault, the tortfeasor gets off scot-free. In such jurisdictions the victim has his or her award reduced by a percentage commensurate with his or her own blame in the matter. Sometimes if the victim is 50 or 51% responsible for his own injury, he gets nothing.
For example, if you are (stupidly) treading water right under a diving board, and someone negligently dives off the board without checking for people underneath, thus injuring you, your award might be reduced significantly in a personal lawsuit. The way it works is the jury is first asked to decide whether the defendant was negligent, yes or no, then it is asked how much money to make the plaintiff (victim) whole, then it is asked what percentage of responsibility to assign. (Then it is sent away to make the decisions on all three questions at the same time…)
But this only applies in cases of negligence. If that person wanted to hurt you, it doesn’t matter how stupid you were for swimming under the diving board. Separate from your personal lawsuit, the state might even try to fine or imprison the perpetrator for the crime of battery.
There was a case about a man (here in Florida, of course) who had paid for a “full contact” experience with a mature leopard. Maybe it was a panther. Anyways he wanted to rub its tummy and give it hugs, but he ended up getting mauled and (stupidly) tried to sue the keeper. He didn’t win that lawsuit, however, the state still gets to fine the keeper since that sort of deal is illegal. For good reason.
Really if you think about what a crime is, it is an offense against the state and public order. We don’t have victims prosecute crimes (any more), we have agents of the state do the prosecution. The victim usually doesn’t get a cent from a criminal prosecution. Even if the victim puts himself into a situation where crime is likely, that doesn’t somehow make the crime any less offensive to the state, and it doesn’t nullify the state’s interests in prosecuting a crime.
~Max
I thought it was clear. Huh. I was advocating prudence and it sounded like I was saying that everyone should have my aversion to risk-taking, no more, no less. (I was actually calling for mindfulness about risk taking, but that wasn’t clear initially.) It would be narrow-minded of me to say flat out that nobody should climb mountains or ride motorcycles (things I don’t do - though scuba diving and martial arts are acceptable since I’ve done those activities. Me, me, me!!!) It would be small minded to impose my habits on others.
I’d take things separate. If anybody hits your sister, that’s on them. If your sister is attracted to men likely to hit her, and she acts on those attractions over and over again, that’s on her. It doesn’t mean she deserves to be hit, or is even partially responsible to it. Making mistakes is fine, but making the same mistakes over and over reflects a limited consciousness.
There is one exception to this take. I apply consequential ethics to myself. So if ill-chosen words by myself make a hothead lose their temper that’s mostly on them, but partly on me. Because I could have prevented it with greater mindfulness. (In other cases, somebody might go ballistic and I have absolutely no idea how I could have done better. Then it’s (almost) all on them, generally speaking. I do want to be open to learning better interpersonal skills.)
It seems it’s less likely you can shut a loud mouth bully up any more these days. No matter how calm and reasonable you are.
People are so mad. And no one remembers the golden rules. Antiquated as they are.
Do unto others…is still a better way, I think.
Making a small mistake by bumping into someone can get you beat up. Cutting someone off in traffic you are subjected to road rage. People are screaming at restaurants and parks. It’s shameful.
I totally know who’s to blame for this. No reasoning with these people tho’.
I just try to stay in my little spot and out of the way.
Yes. Said sister sounds like she’s creating a moral harm to herself by continuously placing herself in situations where abuse is predictable. Wait, you’re blaming the victim! No, her “sin” is placing herself in the situation, and it’s a “sin” even if nothing bad occurs.
When that guy hits her? That is completely on him. Once a crime has been committed, any practical decisions the victim could have made are completely immaterial.
The automakers!
That’s why I said it wasn’t the classiest thing to do.
Mostly though, I was thinking of discussions surrounding news stories, where it’s unlikely that the discussion participants will ever encounter the victim personally. You know, like “only in Florida” stories and such.
I wouldn’t want to live in a world where gloating over “only in Florida” stories is off-limits.
To the surprise of no one, Monday has given us “victims” who are 100% at fault: This morning there are a number of stories about fools - who despite all warnings not to - looked directly at the sun without eye protection during the eclipse and are now complaining about vision problems. I don’t begrudge them seeking and finding medical help, but I have zero sympathy for the plight of any adult who did this.
Behavior like this is the genesis of the phrase “fucked around and found out.”
Sometimes you don’t escape the consequences of your life lessons, and it’s no one’s fault but your own.
Yesterday was my first total eclipse. I marveled at how bright the sun was even when 98% of it was blocked by the moon. I wasn’t able to look at the eclipse without eye protection until it was 100% covered and put my glasses back on as soon as it started peeking out from behind the moon again. Who the hell needs a warning not to stare at the sun?
Now you tell me. 
As members of generation something or other like to say: “It’s those intrusive thoughts that made 'em do it!” 