10 ms·

I'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'

• madmountaingoat 3y ago
  And 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 ago
      Correct, 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.