3 ms·
> If I left a million dollars out on my front porch, and someone stole it, that would not be my fault in any sort of way It's possible for multiple people to s
by RHSeeger 3y ago
> If I left a million dollars out on my front porch, and someone stole it, that would not be my fault in any sort of way
It's possible for multiple people to share the blame for something. You _are_ the victim. The person who stole it _is_ the bad guy / criminal. But you _both_ share the blame, because you did something to put yourself at risk when you had better options.
If I'm out late at night, wearing expensive jewelry and have 2 ways home; one longer but down a well lit road, the other shorter but through a dark alley in a crime ridden neighborhood; and I chose the dark alley and got mugged... I would be the victim AND be partially to blame for making a stupid choice.
Making choices that put yourself at risk by ignoring the realities of the world, when you don't need to, mean you share the blame.
- madmountaingoat 3y ago[flagged]
- the_optimist 3y agoA strongly held opinion here seems to be that clothes manufacturers are to blame.
- elzbardico 3y agoapparently, only on dark alleys at night.
- electriclove 3y agoExactly! The people holding these views are unable to see their hypocrisy.
- pierat 3y ago[flagged]
- RHSeeger 3y agoI'm saying that it's possible to both be the victim and to have made a stupid choice that made you winding up as the victim more likely. And, clearly, that it's possible for you to be unable to understand such subtleties.
- madmountaingoat 3y agoAnd I'm pointing out that responsibility and blame are not the same things and that conflating the terms leads to positions that are hard to defend. A person may be responsible for their own actions but not to blame for someone else's.
- RHSeeger 3y ago> responsible for their own actions but not to blame for someone else's. You're changing the target of the actions mid sentence. Said person is responsible for their own actions _and_ to blame for their own actions. They are not responsible for someone else's actions nor to blame for someone else's actions. If a person knowingly takes actions that put them at greater risk, then they are to blame for putting themselves at greater risk.
- madmountaingoat 3y agoCorrect, two people: the victim and the criminal. Going back to your example, a victim who gets mugged after choosing to walk down a dark alley is still the victim. They do not share responsibility or fault for the crime. They share responsibility for being in the same place at the same time. The victim making a choice that puts them in the wrong place at the wrong time is not at fault for that crime. I believe you are using the word blame in a broad sense that encompasses both the criminal action and the poor choice. But by using the word in the two senses and then equating them, you end up equating the actions, intentionally or not.