Are women who wear short skirts responsible for being raped?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Religion is not a crime.

Religion may be used to judge people, but that is different.

It certainly has historic overtones and it certainly blames the victim

It fits your question

You must agree on that, as its then based on the arbitrary view point on that religion.

Like for example, the Abrahamic concept of original sin, with eve.

It has to be the worst illogical view point

A god creates a man and a woman, both with the intellect of Toddlers, not knowing right from wrong and then blames the woman. For listening to the serpent. Who was right, that if she eats from the fruit, her eyes will be open. The snake was right and yet God condemns the woman, who before eating, had no conception of right and wrong. Where because of this, the whole Christian belief system, is based on this original sin. Where by this, and because of this, women have wrongly been seen as inferior and a bad influence.

That has to be the most classic example of blaming a victim, as what crime did Eve commit?

None

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is your opinion of the law?

How long do you think someone should spend in jail for leaving their keys in the car?

I reckon the proposed law goes too far...

It should only be a minor misdemeanour --  treated like some other minor traffic infringements or local ordinance infringements..

Jail time shouldn't even come into it.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


It certainly has historic overtones and it certainly blames the victim

It fits your question

You must agree on that, as its then based on the arbitrary view point on that religion.

Like for example, the Abrahamic concept of original sin, with eve.

It has to be the worst illogical view point

A god creates a man and a woman, both with the intellect of Toddlers, not knowing right from wrong and then blames the woman. For listening to the serpent. Who was right, that if she eats from the fruit, her eyes will be open. The snake was right and yet God condemns the woman, who before eating, had no conception of right and wrong. Where because of this, the whole Christian belief system, is based on this original sin. Where by this, and because of this, women have wrongly been seen as inferior and a bad influence.

That has to be the most classic example of blaming a victim, as what crime did Eve commit?

None

It's not a crime.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not a crime.

I agree, its not a crime, but historically  and even today, its seen as a crime. To the point people are seen to be born with this sin and need baptism, to remove this fake crime

You wanted an answer, there it is

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I agree, its not a crime, but historically  and even today, its seen as a crime. To the point people are seen to be born with this sin and need baptism, to remove this fake crime

You wanted an answer, there it is

I wanted a crime. You know, where person x does something against the law and harms person y. Then the state tries person x.

I'm not asking about ancient belief systems and their application.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I reckon the proposed law goes too far...

It should only be a minor misdemeanour --  treated like some other minor traffic infringements or local ordinance infringements..

Jail time shouldn't even come into it.

Why should there be any punishment?

Why punish a victim of theft?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why should there be any punishment?

Why punish a victim of theft?

Insurance companies can often refuse to pay out on a stolen vehicle, if they find that it was left unattended out in the open, on the street with the keys in the ignition...

And if a vehicle is left unlocked and unattended on a public street, with the keys in plain sight, that could be considered an "open invitation" to the type of opportunistic car thief who always has their eyes open for just such a chance..

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Insurance companies can often refuse to pay out on a stolen vehicle, if they find that it was left unattended out in the open, on the street with the keys in the ignition...

And if a vehicle is left unlocked and unattended on a public street, with the keys in plain sight, that could be considered an "open invitation" to the type of opportunistic car thief who always has their eyes open for just such a chance..

I'm perfectly fine with insurance companies raising rates based on behavior. That's different than the government punishing you. You can change insurance companies if you don't like their service.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm perfectly fine with insurance companies raising rates based on behavior. That's different than the government punishing you. You can change insurance companies if you don't like their service.

Can you not change governements also, with elections?

Granted you have to wait a cycle of years, but is it not the same?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Can you not change governements also, with elections?

Granted you have to wait a cycle of years, but is it not the same?

Well, I can't. Not as an individual. Collectively governments can be changed, but then again, I may not like what the majority likes.

With an insurance company, I can choose to use a company that very few people like. Can you do the same with small governments?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, I can't. Not as an individual. Collectively governments can be changed, but then again, I may not like what the majority likes.

With an insurance company, I can choose to use a company that very few people like. Can you do the same with small governments?

Can you do the same with small governments?

I agree in that you may not like what the majority likes

Can you do the same with small governments and change them?

Ask Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

They did.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Can you do the same with small governments?

I agree in that you may not like what the majority likes

Can you do the same with small governments and change them?

Ask Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

They did.

Yes you can, but you can't do it from your mobile phone while sitting in traffic.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, I can't. Not as an individual. Collectively governments can be changed, but then again, I may not like what the majority likes.

With an insurance company, I can choose to use a company that very few people like. Can you do the same with small governments?

Can you do the same with small governments?

I agree in that you may not like what the majority likes

Can you do the same with small governments and change them?

Ask Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

They did.

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:


Can you do the same with small governments?

I agree in that you may not like what the majority likes

Can you do the same with small governments and change them?

Ask Ghandi and Martin Luther King?

They did.

IT’S GANDHI
I’m sorry Didge. I can’t help it. It drives me nuts.

Thankyouandgoodnight

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

IT’S GANDHI
I’m sorry Didge. I can’t help it. It drives me nuts.

Thankyouandgoodnight

I do not mind your perfection, its endearing.

The point is though, why should it bother you?

Is it like a nails on a chalk board?

My grammar is poor and spelling, but historically, I can wipe the floor of most people with reason

I take that from my father.

He said a fine thing to me on English

"you can be a smartarse on copycat learning, but have you then truly read anything. As you have only truly learnt, when  you have come to learn how that person felt and lived"

So grammar means nothing to me, sorry

x

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

That makes absolute zero sense Eddie

If short skirts are nothing to do with how and why people are raped, how then is the comparrisons the same?

As opportunists do see how they can steal a car easier, if the door is unlocked

To be fair I've just read that back didge and I'm not sure what I meant Hahahahahaha
I sort of knew what I meant at the time though? Okay I'll shut up now

I love how batty you are at times Eddie  

In the best possible way..

I think I grasp where you were coming from, more to the point Maddog was making on how he did not agree with the law. Not on his comparrison

I think that is fair to say

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:


I do not mind your perfection, its endearing.

The point is though, why should it bother you?

Is it like a nails on a chalk board?

My grammar is poor and spelling, but historically, I can wipe the floor of most people with reason

I take that from my father.

He said a fine thing to me on English

"you can be a smartarse on copycat learning, but have you then truly read anything. As you have only truly learnt, when  you have come to learn how that person felt and lived"

So grammar means nothing to me, sorry

x

Heehee...weird but true story. 2 weeks ago I had a patron who wanted to watch GANDHI but nobody could find it in the system which I’m like hmmm. So I asked a staff person who looked how they spelt it. When I head banged the desk after they answered, they were like well you’re british so you know these kinds of things...

I myself suffer from FFS...fat finger syndrome, especially on my phone keyboard.

Just pulling yer leg

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:

I love how batty you are at times Eddie  

In the best possible way..

I think I grasp where you were coming from, more to the point Maddog was making on how he did not agree with the law. Not on his comparrison

I think that is fair to say

Hahahahaa listen didge, I will always admit when I'm doing fuckeries.

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

Heehee...weird but true story. 2 weeks ago I had a patron who wanted to watch GANDHI but nobody could find it in the system which I’m like hmmm. So I asked a staff person who looked how they spelt it. When I head banged the desk after they answered, they were like well you’re british so you know these kinds of things...

I myself suffer from FFS...fat finger syndrome, especially on my phone keyboard.

Just pulling yer leg

Ha ha ha ha

That made me laugh and I know you love to bust me balls

I deserve it how, when I do this to many.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes you can, but you can't do it from your mobile phone while sitting in traffic.  

Then you will always be a defeatist.

As you provide an excuse not to bring about change or do something to make change for the better.

You just bitch about it. You will join a long line of people who have done that.

It takes people of action to bring about change, ones that put everyone else above themelves.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then you will always be a defeatist.

As you provide an excuse not to bring about change or do something to make change for the better.

You just bitch about it. You will join a long line of people who have done that.

It takes people of action to bring about change, ones that put everyone else above themelves.

Well thank God there are people like you to make great changes in government.  

Meanwhile, you're missing the point entirely.

Cass wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ha ha ha ha

That made me laugh and I know you love to bust me balls

I deserve it how, when I do this to many.

Night. Full of cold thanks to my patrons but they have to work tomorrow. AND we have tickets to Last Jedi so need an early night. X

Ben Reilly wrote:MD, I get your point as well, it's just as bullshit to blame a theft victim (let alone punish them for it) as it is to blame a rape victim.

Ideally, preventative measures would never be needed, because people wouldn't commit crimes (or acts of aggression if you prefer).

I hope you understand that while I support having a government, that doesn't mean that I support having a government that does stupid shit like this.

And you reminded me of a really fucked-up meme that comes to us courtesy of the Manosphere:



Yeah, we actually do teach drivers not to hit people. You don't really deserve to be hospitalized or dead just because you crossed the street at the wrong time. Just as you don't deserve to be raped for dressing sexy, and you don't deserve to be punished if your unlocked car was stolen.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What is your opinion of the law?

How long do you think someone should spend in jail for leaving their keys in the car?

I reckon the proposed law goes too far...

It should only be a minor misdemeanour --  treated like some other minor traffic infringements or local ordinance infringements..

Jail time shouldn't even come into it.

Why should there be any punishment?

Why punish a victim of theft?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well thank God there are people like you to make great changes in government.  

Meanwhile, you're missing the point entirely.

What point?

So one where you are a person that whines in the background doing very little about anything?

Didge wrote:

Cass wrote:

Night. Full of cold thanks to my patrons but they have to work tomorrow. AND we have tickets to Last Jedi so need an early night. X

We have tickets to the "Last Jedi"?



And you only now tell me?

How am I supposed to get a plane ticket at this late notice and come over?





Hope you feel better soon...
xx

nicko wrote:Better ban Kilts then,   very provocative !

Lord Foul wrote:Dont the states have "attractive nuisance laws"??

wouldnt a vehicle with keys in be considered an "attractive nuisance" rendering the owner at least guilty of a civil offence???

Lord Foul wrote:that depends Didge (and speaking from a lawyers POV) IF it could be shown that you could have reasonably forseen someone doing that (perhaps a bar brawl in progress) and you left it there in sight, I think you could be held as negligent, however that would be a civil offense, unless again it was shown you deliberately left it there for one of the protagonists to obtain...(that of course would land you with "joint enterprise" )

however If it was just some random, in an otherwise normally peaceful area you would not be guilty of anything

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:that depends Didge (and speaking from a lawyers POV) IF it could be shown that you could have reasonably forseen someone doing that (perhaps a bar brawl in progress) and you left it there in sight, I think you could be held as negligent, however that would be a civil offense, unless again it was shown you deliberately left it there for one of the protagonists to obtain...(that of course would land you with "joint enterprise" )

however If it was just some random, in an otherwise normally peaceful area you would not be guilty of anything

So what if i left my pint glass or bottle of beer and its then smashed over a persons head and the broken end parts shoved into a persons throat Victor?

How about then if at a meal and my fork is used to stab someone in the throat or a knife shoved into someones eye, instantly killing them?

Do you see how it always going to be a poor argument to blame someone else, for what someone else then ends up doing?

I see what you are trying to say BUT the above 2 are irrelevant, vis... the glass and cutlery are part of the "environment" in the restaurant and they are not "yours" moreover this is an important part of "tort" law....the nature of the environment matters...had you left your baseball bat in a place where baseball bats are commonly left, say on your bag in a locker room, then that would reduce your liability .


I mean look it this way. You are in a rush and forget to take your keys. Its stupid, but are you then to blame for a teenager then stealing the car and crashing killing people? Granted you will not gain any money ffrom the insurance and neither should you, but are you then criminally responsible for the actions of others?

you are not responsible for the actions of the thief in killing someone, however you ARE responsible for making it easy for him to steal your vehicle, that much responsibility YOU DO bear. how this may later be related to any deaths/ injuries caused is again down to the "reasonably forseeable" requirements.



I mean, its a sad state of affairs, that someone should be blamed for human imperfections

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:

So what if i left my pint glass or bottle of beer and its then smashed over a persons head and the broken end parts shoved into a persons throat Victor?

How about then if at a meal and my fork is used to stab someone in the throat or a knife shoved into someones eye, instantly killing them?

Do you see how it always going to be a poor argument to blame someone else, for what someone else then ends up doing?

I see what you are trying to say BUT the above 2 are irrelevant, vis... the glass and cutlery are part of the "environment" in the restaurant and they are not "yours" moreover this is an important part of "tort" law....the nature of the environment matters...had you left your baseball bat in a place where baseball bats are commonly left, say on your bag in a locker room, then that would reduce your liability .


I mean look it this way. You are in a rush and forget to take your keys. Its stupid, but are you then to blame for a teenager then stealing the car and crashing killing people? Granted you will not gain any money ffrom the insurance and neither should you, but are you then criminally responsible for the actions of others?

you are not responsible for the actions of the thief in killing someone, however you ARE responsible for making it easy for him to steal your vehicle, that much responsibility YOU DO bear. how this may later be related to any deaths/ injuries caused is again down to the "reasonably forseeable" requirements.



I mean, its a sad state of affairs, that someone should be blamed for human imperfections

Is it reasonable to forsee that if you dont lock your car it may well be stolen..YES
Is it reasonable to forsee that the vehicle will then end up in an RTA......less so, but still not that "un reasonable" given the nature of car thieves

interesting isnt it when "moral" responsibility and legal responsibility collide...

as I have said before...the law is not necessarily based on anything remotely based in the real world......

Lord Foul wrote:ahh didge...we again come up against that probelm of how YOU think it should be
and how the LAW actually sees things,,,

those points I made are not some random POV plucked out of thin air as to how I want it to be...

they are potential lines of judicial thought....

one wrong answer in court and you're screwed

"Now Mr Didge, is it not reasonable to suppose that, given you left your vehicle unlocked and the keys in it, that you should have forseen the possibility it might well be stolen"

"Further, Mr Didge, given that you COULD indeed forsee it may be stolen, is it not within the bounds of possibility that you could have forseen that theft , by a reckless and feckless youth, would result in a fatal RTA, given the nature of car theives in general"

"yes or no Mr didge"

"Mr Didge I do not ask for a 20 page dissertation....YES OR NO"

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:ahh didge...we again come up against that probelm of how YOU think it should be
and how the LAW actually sees things,,,

those points I made are not some random POV plucked out of thin air as to how I want it to be...

they are potential lines of judicial thought....

one wrong answer in court and you're screwed

"Now Mr Didge, is it not reasonable to suppose that, given you left your vehicle unlocked and the keys in it, that you should have forseen the possibility it might well be stolen"

"Further, Mr Didge, given that you COULD indeed forsee it may be stolen, is it not within the bounds of possibility that you could have forseen that theft , by a reckless and feckless youth, would result in a fatal RTA, given the nature of car theives in general"

"yes or no Mr didge"

"Mr Didge I do not ask for a 20 page dissertation....YES OR NO"

1) Because you now are saying a law is right? Do you want me to go down that route based on legal aspects on this? That basically was a copout answer mate.

2) Of course there is potential lines, but are they at all relevant?

3) And?

4) Should have forseen?

Eh?

Come again?

Many cars are stolen again based on the premise the theif has no conception if that car has the keys in or not. The reality is these thives know how to break into a car without keys and to start them. Hence moot point. All you have done is made their job easier. If they are going to steal your car, they have targeted it whether you have left the keys inside or not. 

that has some validity...but then again...knowing that perhaps you should install further security...if it takes more that 3 mins to get a car mobile they wont stop to bother with it....they will fins an easier target (apparantly)

5) But its abritary, that you are expecting people in daily lives to remember, that their car could be stolen. Sometimes, people have other things on their minds. In fact their mind could be effected by low or high blood sugar. They are tired, they have a headache. So how are you going to then come to a dcecision, when there is a multitude of reasons to provide why someone could easily forget and leave their car keys in the car.

cop out reply.....if they are affected by high/low blodd sugar sufficient to impair their memory then they most definitely should not be driving...in fact advance THAT as an excuse and you would lose your licence instantly. If that are THAT tired they cant remember to lock the vehicle...what are they doing behind the wheel ?? same with that headache...if its THAT severe ??????? in fact all thoise reasons are highly suspect and indicative of a negligent frame of mind. 

What happens when they drop them on the ground when leaving the car in a rush, as happens?

thats an interesting point....I wouldnt...for 2 reasons.....1 I'm never in a rush...its called being (semi) organised and 2 I'm paranoid about key security....I lock my car ..listen for the clunk of the latches, listen for the beep and look for the lights flashing....then I put keys away...then I try the vehicle doors, the I check the keys are where I put them then i walk away.....then I check the keys are where they should be.........twitch twitch.......

You see how arbitrary that would end up being?

6) So why you even forsee such a theft and eventual fatal accident? Are you seriously claiming, this is what goes through the mindset of people on a day to day bases?

So to your answer it is "no", as at the time, who would forsee, when your argument is based on hindsight

I think you will find, nobody would foresee, such an eventuality happenning.

Again , this is not on the mind of people on a daily bases.

Lord Foul wrote:
that has some validity...but then again...knowing that perhaps you should install further security...if it takes more that 3 mins to get a car mobile they wont stop to bother with it....they will fins an easier target (apparantly)  :::

Didge wrote:So why is it then the responsibility of the owner, when you could easily argue at the failings of the car manufactuer in not making that car should be thief proof? 

Of which they could with finger print recognition?
Do you see how, it could always be seen as placving this back at the maufacturer, that no owner should then even need keys to operate and open their cars

cop out reply.....if they are affected by high/low blodd sugar sufficient to impair their memory then they most definitely should not be driving...in fact advance THAT as an excuse and you would lose your licence instantly. If that are THAT tired they cant remember to lock the vehicle...what are they doing behind the wheel ?? same with that headache...if its THAT severe ???????  in fact all thoise reasons are highly suspect and indicative of a negligent frame of mind.

Didge wrote:Far from a copout

So you are saying that all diabetics should be banned from driving, being that an a hyper or hypo can come on at any time?

So by your reasoning, all diabetics should be banned from driving?
This is based on routine with diabetics and even then, a few minutes late can result in any of them suffering such an attack.

Having even said that, there is a multitude of reasons people could provide as to why they forgot their keys.

The worst part of your argument, is that you and the lawyer is trying to base this on how people should be on such a situation, again neglecting that people are human, in that they make do forget. As the reality is, no matter a health problem. You cannot blame the victim of car theft. Its the criminal who has targetted them

thats an interesting point....I wouldnt...for 2 reasons.....1 I'm never in a rush...its called being (semi) organised and 2 I'm paranoid about key security....I lock my car ..listen for the clunk of the latches, listen for the beep and look for the lights flashing....then I put keys away...then I try the vehicle doors, the I check the keys are where I put them then i walk away.....then I check the keys are where they should be.........twitch twitch.......

Lord Foul wrote:I want being patronising Didge....I KNOW you

Lord Foul wrote:Dont the states have "attractive nuisance laws"??

wouldnt a vehicle with keys in be considered an "attractive nuisance" rendering the owner at least guilty of a civil offence???

Lord Foul wrote:Diabetics ARE banned from driving...if on insulin.....untill they can show a number of blood sugar readings that are consistantly "within the boundaries" over I think ist 6 months.....

I "think" though not sure that the number is 1000 , thats about 6 tests per day showing your blood levels are stable and controlled and that you have got your dosing right.
those on diet and tablet control are not considered the same risk as those on insulin becasue its very very rare for diet or tablets to cause a low or come to that for a dangerous high to happen (unless you are plain bum stupid)

Lord Foul wrote:and yes that WAS a good typo wasnt it