Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Necroshea wrote:
Oh noooooo I've been undone! Whatever shall I do now?

Look like a fool until we lose interest is my best estimation.

 Necroshea wrote:
True, I made a guess at what happened in that situation.

Not really, for reasons that have already been amply explained.

 Necroshea wrote:
In this situation, I'm remaining neutral. Perhaps I'm doing it to spite you lot and your frothing tantrums.

Thank you for at least admitting that you're trolling a thread about the rape of a high schooler.

 Necroshea wrote:
I'm being neutral about this situation and there's not a damn thing ya'll can do about it! Suck on that!

I'll let this stand as a testament to the value that I now ascribe to your posts.

Some of you think that the girl is a saint who can do no wrong and the boys are scum, while some like myself believe both parties are in the wrong to some degree or another.

You're missing a really, really big thing. The girl did something inadvisable. Something foolish that placed herself and no-one else in peril.

Whereas as the boys raped someone. What they did wasn't a foolish risk to themselves, but a gross violation of another person.

Talking about each act in the same sentence is deeply, deeply crazy.

Here's something to think about, what if the girl IS lying about the rape?

That's why there are courts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Necroshea wrote:
Sure it doesn't matter to criminal trials, but you're still stupid for doing it.

Yes, stupid for doing it. And, as shocking as this may be to you, most teenagers will do something stupid sooner or later.

Whereas not everyone commits rape. It is many, many times more serious.

And yet here in this thread we have you trying to make a point about a stupid thing a teenager did, as if it has any meaningful relevance to the act of rape.

 sebster wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
If being an ass means assessing both parties and finding legitimately issues with their choice of activities, then I'll be an ass all day err day, and happily.

"This guy cut the victim's head off with a rusty blade, but the victim was wearing white shoes after Labor Day."

Seriously though, some people take a look at things from a neutral point of view. Being overly sympathetic or vindictive to either party obscures your view from the greater picture,

One party got too drunk at a party. The other party committed rape.

I am actually beginning to see that you can't actually see the difference in these things, and that is incredible.


Honestly, the people you meet on the internet, they beggar belief.

Beggar belief is right! Did you notice the "seriously though"? I mean you quoted it after all, surely you must have. Guess not. Well, that was a jab at humor, but I guess the time for such things has passed, so I'll go all serious mode now. I promise.

If, after reading my posts in this thread, you still assume that I think the act of raping someone and the act of blacking out due to alcohol are on the same scale, then you're not beginning to see anything, you're just getting more delusional.

But, for the sake of clarification, and so I can just quote myself and shut down the next time someone brings this up, I'll make a nice little chart.
I think the girl was irresponsible for lying to her parents about where she was going and getting so drunk she passed out around less than trustworthy people.
I think the boys were vile for raping the girl.
I find raping someone a worse decision than getting drunk

I think that about covers it.

 Necroshea wrote:
If, after reading my posts in this thread, you still assume that I think the act of raping someone and the act of blacking out due to alcohol are on the same scale, then you're not beginning to see anything, you're just getting more delusional.

Spitting those words out when challenged on the issue doesn't really work, when we've all read what other stuff you've posted.

But, for the sake of clarification, and so I can just quote myself and shut down the next time someone brings this up, I'll make a nice little chart.
I think the girl was irresponsible for lying to her parents about where she was going and getting so drunk she passed out around less than trustworthy people.
I think the boys were vile for raping the girl.
I find raping someone a worse decision than getting drunk

I think that about covers it.

You know, this is a text medium. One of the features of that is that stuff doesn't disappear, we can all go back and look at what you first posted;
"I guess I'm just growing more indifferent as the days go on, but the fate of people who feel the urge to get so drunk they black out at a party just doesn't really bother me anymore."

So if you want to back away from that and go with what you typed above, then good. But don't pretend we were just making a big deal pretending you said horrible stuff.

 sebster wrote:
You know, this is a text medium. One of the features of that is that stuff doesn't disappear, we can all go back and look at what you first posted;
"I guess I'm just growing more indifferent as the days go on, but the fate of people who feel the urge to get so drunk they black out at a party just doesn't really bother me anymore."

So if you want to back away from that and go with what you typed above, then good. But don't pretend we were just making a big deal pretending you said horrible stuff.

So being unconcerned with something means I can't find it good or evil? Or are you saying because I find it evil I should be more concerned?

"Not being concerned" wasn't the issue. It's still gakky, but it's not what has people on your case in this thread.

Actively blaming the victim was the point of contention as far as I can tell.

Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

 Necroshea wrote:
So being unconcerned with something means I can't find it good or evil? Or are you saying because I find it evil I should be more concerned?

If a person finds one person to be 'irresponsible' for 'getting drunk around , and some other people to be 'vile for raping the girl', and those ideas are clear and obvious in their heads, then they're not going to be inclined to say 'the fate of people who feel the urge to get so drunk they black out at a party just doesn't really bother me anymore'. Functioning, sane human beings don't dismiss vile acts because the victim was irresponsible.

Now, it's pretty clear what's happened here is that you've been challenged on your original claim, and that's caused you to think a fair bit more about the issue, and made things a lot clearer. And so you've backed well away from that original claim. Which is good, people rethinking snap judgements and forming more considered ideas is basically the best thing that can happen in internet conversation.

But instead of just being happy that you've got a better idea on this, you've chosen to pretend you thought like that all along, and complain that we were being mean to you. But that doesn't work, because we know what you originally posted.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

So it all boils down to people assuming I think they're both equal because I didn't outright say they weren't?

 Necroshea wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

So it all boils down to people assuming I think they're both equal because I didn't outright say they weren't?

I think placing them next to each other implies some kind of comparison...

 purplefood wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

So it all boils down to people assuming I think they're both equal because I didn't outright say they weren't?

I think placing them next to each other implies some kind of comparison...

But it's still just an assumption. I didn't say they weren't equal, just as I didn't say they were. Instead of making an accusation of one why not simply ask which? It's like expecting the worst in people and just going with that.

 Necroshea wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

So it all boils down to people assuming I think they're both equal because I didn't outright say they weren't?

I think placing them next to each other implies some kind of comparison...

But it's still just an assumption. I didn't say they weren't equal, just as I didn't say they were. Instead of making an accusation of one why not simply ask which? It's like expecting the worst in people and just going with that.

Like I said.
Placing them next to each other implies a comparison.
Like this:
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
My housemate drank the last of the milk.

Now those are obviously not equal but the act of placing them next to each other implies it...
There's lots of things that you can do which will imply things...

 purplefood wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Also equivocating a stupid, self-endangering act with an evil, violating-another-human being act.

So it all boils down to people assuming I think they're both equal because I didn't outright say they weren't?

I think placing them next to each other implies some kind of comparison...

But it's still just an assumption. I didn't say they weren't equal, just as I didn't say they were. Instead of making an accusation of one why not simply ask which? It's like expecting the worst in people and just going with that.

Like I said.
Placing them next to each other implies a comparison.
Like this:
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
My housemate drank the last of the milk.

Now those are obviously not equal but the act of placing them next to each other implies it...
There's lots of things that you can do which will imply things...

While I personally don't really think I would normally interpret things that way, I understand what you're saying. Kudos on clearing up something others had trouble managing.

So I guess that makes you Morgan Freeman.

I think i'm finished here.

 purplefood wrote:
Like I said.
Placing them next to each other implies a comparison.
Like this:
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
My housemate drank the last of the milk.

Now those are obviously not equal but the act of placing them next to each other implies it...
There's lots of things that you can do which will imply things...

Except in this case what we've actually got is Necroshea saying 'I find it really hard to care for fate of all those killed in Stalin's gulags, when one of them drank the last of my milk'.

Followed, five pages later, but some very disingenuous claims that, oh yes, rape is very vile indeed... just apparently not vile enough to justify him feeling anything for the victim.

 sebster wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
Like I said.
Placing them next to each other implies a comparison.
Like this:
Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions of people.
My housemate drank the last of the milk.

Now those are obviously not equal but the act of placing them next to each other implies it...
There's lots of things that you can do which will imply things...

Except in this case what we've actually got is Necroshea saying 'I find it really hard to care for fate of all those killed in Stalin's gulags, when one of them drank the last of my milk'.

Followed, five pages later, but some very disingenuous claims that, oh yes, rape is very vile indeed... just apparently not vile enough to justify him feeling anything for the victim.

We've got that discussion wrapped up, you can stop now.

 Necroshea wrote:
We've got that discussion wrapped up, you can stop now.

No, we haven't. You're still pretending what happened here wasn't the result of the ridiculous comments you made at the start of the thread.

Man up. Admit you posted some stupid bs that you've since backed off from. People won't think less of you for doing it, they'll think more of you.

 sebster wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
We've got that discussion wrapped up, you can stop now.

No, we haven't. You're still pretending what happened here wasn't the result of the ridiculous comments you made at the start of the thread.

Man up. Admit you posted some stupid bs that you've since backed off from. People won't think less of you for doing it, they'll think more of you.

I stand by everything I've said in this thread, especially the part about the discussion being finished. You won't get another reply from me.

 Necroshea wrote:
I stand by everything I've said in this thread, especially the part about the discussion being finished. You won't get another reply from me.

Whatever. You don't want to take the chance to explain why you're not really a hateful nut who thinks it is hard to care for a girl who got raped because she acted irresponsibly, then I'm not going to make you.

If her being drunk is so little a stupid act as the rape, why do these threads always do the same way with the preoccupation with what the victim drank or wore. It's not advisable to get drunk with people you don't know but I still think its not unreasonable to assume the worst that'll happen is that they draw on your face not that they'll rape you. But once the offence is committed, then going back again and again to the stupidity of her being drunk isn't constructive.

I think a bit of victim blaming comes from a desire to think 'it couldn't happen to me'. The idea that an act of random violence could befall you for no apparent reason frightens people, that's why people fear child molesters snatching their child off the street, or some random crazy taking a rifle into a school. It's much more comforting to find something the victim did and say 'I wouldn't ever do that so it won't happen to me'.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If her being drunk is so little a stupid act as the rape, why do these threads always do the same way with the preoccupation with what the victim drank or wore. It's not advisable to get drunk with people you don't know but I still think its not unreasonable to assume the worst that'll happen is that they draw on your face not that they'll rape you. But once the offence is committed, then going back again and again to the stupidity of her being drunk isn't constructive.

I think a bit of victim blaming comes from a desire to think 'it couldn't happen to me'. The idea that an act of random violence could befall you for no apparent reason frightens people, that's why people fear child molesters snatching their child off the street, or some random crazy taking a rifle into a school. It's much more comforting to find something the victim did and say 'I wouldn't ever do that so it won't happen to me'.

Yeah, well said.

On why they do it, I agree that in a lot of cases it's likely about coming up with a reason why it couldn't happen to them. But given most people on this site are men, I don't think that really works as a motivation in this instance (or any of the other dozens of times this issue has come up). I think it's probably because lots of people, guys and girls, seem to really love having a go at women for being sluts who drink to much. I don't know why... people are kind of fethed up, I guess.

Necroshea wrote:I think both parties did something stupid. Some of you think that the girl is a saint who can do no wrong and the boys are scum, while some like myself believe both parties are in the wrong to some degree or another. In ...
...

The point is that the penalty for getting drunk is a hangover, not rape.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Necroshea wrote:I think both parties did something stupid. Some of you think that the girl is a saint who can do no wrong and the boys are scum, while some like myself believe both parties are in the wrong to some degree or another. In ...
...

The point is that the penalty for getting drunk is a hangover, not rape.

In a perfect world, yes. However it seems in this case that her getting blackout drunk prevented her from preventing this. Which is not the same as saying "It's her fault for being raped".

dogma wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

So she's an innocent who made a dumbass decision. I guess where I come from people that do dumbass things are also called stupid.

Do you think that blaming the victim, in this thread, is smart?

Sure why not.

Alfndrate wrote:Victim Blaming is actually a serious thing, but on Dakka it holds a more special meaning...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/319627.page#1983259

I don't know if that really says that blame the victim has a special place on Dakka, or that one guy has a bruised ego and is quick to take offense, stoop to insults, and then spread them from his "attacker" to the mods and the whole forum...and then pretend to be a victim which kind of proves the point of a lot of those of us who "blame the victim" by pointing out actions have consequences.

Monster Rain wrote:Well, the Dakka OT has handled this subject with the class and intelligence that I have come to expect.

Here I was hoping to be surprised.

At least we managed to blame the victim.

Oh you, haven't you done enough? Driving a perfectly good victim insane resulting in his permaban?

But seriously how are we still talking about this?
Drinking until you pass out: sheer genius.
Videotaping a rape: sheer genius
Victim=Stupid
Rapist=Guilty
Good luck Dakka.

BLAME THE VICTIM only holds a special place in Dakka's heart because of Gailbreathe's epic meltdown. It almost always winds up in some thread involving sensitive issues like this, much like Monster Rain's comment about seeing that the victim has been blamed.

 AustonT wrote:
But seriously how are we still talking about this?
Drinking until you pass out: sheer genius.
Videotaping a rape: sheer genius
Victim=Stupid
Rapist=Guilty
Good luck Dakka.

Ayup

/peaceout

G-baby has a long and illustrious career of being "victimized", in which the fact that I took exception with his dickery here was a minor footnote.

If nothing else, reading you guys on this subject has helped me understand how Nancy Grace stays on the air.

Mattman154 wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
But seriously how are we still talking about this?
Drinking until you pass out: sheer genius.
Videotaping a rape: sheer genius
Victim=Stupid
Rapist=Guilty
Good luck Dakka.

Ayup

/peaceout

Same, I'll see you guys in the next thread about stupid victims and the people that take advantage of them.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Victim Blaming is actually a serious thing, but on Dakka it holds a more special meaning...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/390/319627.page#1983259

The best part if the funniest sentence from any post ever.

I hope you all get cancer and die

Damn. That's F'ing hardcore!

Edit: Sweet Jesus. I just read that thread from start to finish for the first time ever. Holy hell that was awesome. BOOM! Out of fething no where! flying rodent gak crazy!