FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: THE most politically incorrect article EVER by Conrad Black's wife
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And how does that justify what was done to her?
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And if one did, despite your best efforts, you'd just say 'Well, boys will be boys. She deserved what she got'? You should be ashamed of calling yourself a man since you obviously don't deserve the honour.
Please understand the difference between CONSEQUENCE and PUNISHMENT.  For example, we often here police criticized if pursuit of a teenage car thief results in a crash and his death.  The "victim's" family (yeah...the thief is a victim apparently) screams about how he didn't "deserve" to die for stealing a car (and fleeing police - they always forget that little part).  In other words the death is seen as an unjust punishment.  In fact, however, it is nothing more than a natural and preventable CONSEQUENCE of one really bad, criminal decision made freely by the deceased after another.  Like a coal miner dying in a cave in...no one says he was "punished" for mining, right?  It's just a consequence of engaging in a high risk task or occupation. 

Now police, whose duties include preventing crime, see all crimes as part of the crime formula:

VICTIM + CRIMINAL = CRIME

Now, to prevent crime, it only makes good sense to attack both of the elements that go into making a crime: the victim and the criminal.  To reduce criminals we try to arrest them and convince the courts to lock them up.  But we also go after victims and try to reduce the number of victims by getting people to not engage in behaviours that place them at high risk of becoming victims.  And this is where police and others can take a lot of heat.  People see this as "blaming the victim" and accuse us of saying the victim is partly responsible, blah blah. 

Well I'm sorry that the math offends you but it is an absolute irrefutable truth that the victim is always a necessary element of a crime, and that if they had not been a victim thee would have been no crime.  For example, people who leave the family jewels and their cash and wallets sitting on their dashboard with the car window open in an in observed area while they're away are not being "blamed" or labeled as "at fault" for the subsequent theft, except in an acknowledgement that maybe they shouldn't have done such a stupid thing that placed them at high risk of becoming a victim.  Most people upon learning the facts would likely say or feel that the victim here was partly to blame, or that they were stupid and I'm sure a few would even say they "got what they deserved" or it was "lesson to them" etc.

But when you apply exactly the same flawless logic to a rape case, the screaming banshees come out and hit the spin cycle.  Wearing provocative clothing, getting drunk in a strange place with drunk teenage males, behaving in a sexually provocative manner, not being with sober friends watching you and so on can have an entirely preventable CONSEQUENCE you may have wished to (but didn't) avoid.  Again, it's just math.

But it is an exceedingly difficult conversation to have in today's highly political environment where common sense can appear to cross some kind of line.  The bottom line? The girl should not have been raped.  Likewise, in our earlier example, the family jewels should not have been stolen.  Nothing in these facts gave either perpetrator the "right" to do what they did. But we need some real world acknowledgement that risky behaviour and poor choices bring an essential element of the crime formula to the table - and that part of the equation was entirely within the victim's control and did NOT need to have happened.

So the criminal is still the criminal and gets punished.  But that doesn't mean the victim didn't contribute to the crime because they simply (and mathematically) did.  And that's on them - even if they're so blinded by political correctness that they lose the ability to do basic arithmetic.   
(03-27-2013, 10:46 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And how does that justify what was done to her?

And the above remark is EXACTLY what I'm talking about - a total and complete failure to acknowledge the simple math or calculus of this crime.  It is NOT a question of "justify" - such a word implies "deserved" etc. when we are speaking only of CONSEQUENCE. 

Liberal brains just work differently I guess because police understand this very easily. 
(03-27-2013, 11:37 PM)Allan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:46 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And how does that justify what was done to her?

And the above remark is EXACTLY what I'm talking about - a total and complete failure to acknowledge the simple math or calculus of this crime.  It is NOT a question of "justify" - such a word implies "deserved" etc. when we are speaking only of CONSEQUENCE. 

Liberal brains just work differently I guess because police understand this very easily. 

There's nothing liberal about wanting rapists to be punished, whether their victims were stupid or not. Two of the boys raped the girl; they deserve prison. And others at the parties knew of the rape and her getting pissed on, etc., and thought it was just highlarious. Whether or not she was stupid (or roofied) is another matter. What is being discussed here is an attitude of a Catholic male who is excusing the behaviors or rapists who raped a girl who may or may not have acted stupidly -- a question of fact that doesn't affect their culpability in the least -- at least not in this case since she was completely unconscious. If she was stupid, then hopefully she will have learned a lesson. If she wasn't, then she wasn't. But again, what role she may have played in allowing herself to become victimized isn't what's being discussed, and in either case, rapists need to go to prison.  If a fool leaves a wallet in an unlocked car and it get stolen, we can all agree he did a stupid thing. But the punk thieves who took the wallet still deserve jail, and that's the issue being discussed.

(03-27-2013, 11:37 PM)Allan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:46 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And how does that justify what was done to her?

And the above remark is EXACTLY what I'm talking about - a total and complete failure to acknowledge the simple math or calculus of this crime.  It is NOT a question of "justify" - such a word implies "deserved" etc. when we are speaking only of CONSEQUENCE. 

Liberal brains just work differently I guess because police understand this very easily. 

First of all, not all "victims" do the things you describe above (leaving precious things in plain sight, leaving your door unlocked).  Now i can understand dressing immodestly as similar to ostentatiously displaying all your belongings for thieves to see... perhaps it increases your chances of being victimized but to say it is her fault is not compassionate at all.

for me, I was brutally tortured and raped while a cardiac patient at a "good" hospital that gets "good" press.  He wasn't particularly strong but it didn't take much, since I was on a ventilator.  I was wearing a hospital gown and probably smelled like someone who hadn't bathed in a few weeks.  And it happened.  Why?  I don't know.  The criminal was a staff member.  he since has lost his job and is serving a measly sentence.  

Would you say I was "part of" the equation because I was there minding my own business?

There are some real freaks out there with no empathy.  They believe they are entitled to everything they see and they stop at nothing to get it.  Being "there" and being incapacitated doesn't mean that having everything taken from you is a mere "consequence."
(03-28-2013, 12:10 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 11:37 PM)Allan Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:46 PM)Chestertonian Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 10:36 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]I would hope the women in my life would not be sexually active as teenagers, get drunk out of their minds, dress like prostitutes, and go to house parties with jocks and the cast of American Pie to begin with.   

And how does that justify what was done to her?

And the above remark is EXACTLY what I'm talking about - a total and complete failure to acknowledge the simple math or calculus of this crime.  It is NOT a question of "justify" - such a word implies "deserved" etc. when we are speaking only of CONSEQUENCE. 

Liberal brains just work differently I guess because police understand this very easily. 

There's nothing liberal about wanting rapists to be punished, whether their victims were stupid or not. Two of the boys raped the girl; they deserve prison. And others at the parties knew of the rape and her getting pissed on, etc., and thought it was just highlarious. Whether or not she was stupid (or roofied) is another matter. What is being discussed here is an attitude of a Catholic male who is excusing the behaviors or rapists who raped a girl who may or may not have acted stupidly -- a question of fact that doesn't affect their culpability in the least -- at least not in this case since she was completely unconscious. If she was stupid, then hopefully she will have learned a lesson. If she wasn't, then she wasn't. But again, what role she may have played in allowing herself to become victimized isn't what's being discussed, and in either case, rapists need to go to prison.   If a fool leaves a wallet in an unlocked car and it get stolen, we can all agree he did a stupid thing. But the punk thieves who took the wallet still deserve jail, and that's the issue being discussed.

You are continuing to misrepresent the facts of the case.  There is no evidence that she was pissed on, "roofied", or completely unconcious throughout the ordeal.  In reality, the girl was flirting with and touching the guys while gradually getting intoxicated at the house party.  This ended up in out and out drunkeness and sexual touching, which the defendants claim was consensual.  The fact that this was done in front of dozens of eye witnesses who did not believe it was a crime at the time, corroborates this.  It's not a simple case of assaulting someone against their will.  When this became public however and the girl was shamed, the rape accusations came. 
(03-27-2013, 08:33 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 05:40 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-27-2013, 05:01 PM)PeterII Wrote: [ -> ]If drunk 16 year olds who grope other drunk 16 year olds at a house party are rapists, than half the American population are rapists, at least from what I recall of high school.

This story had leaked photos which sensationalized it.  What was not reported was the number of 16 year olds that got abortions that day.  Any pics of that?

Did you listen to the video? They didn't "grope" her. They entered the body of a totally unconscious woman, pissed all over her, took pictures of her and posted them on the internet, even called the whole ordeal "RAPE" themselves, and laughed about it the whole time. It was sick and ugly and criminal.

Michael Nodianos, the kid in the video, was not one of the perpetrators.  He was not even a witness as the trial showed.  He was just a kid making crude jokes in front of his friends after seeing the group of teens leave.  The whole case was blown out of proportion by an internet lynch mob. 

This. Also Michael Nodianos is obviously extremely high. Perhaps the rest of you haven't ever spent time around stoners...
Sigh. I wish people could discuss facts and leave their own baggage out of it.

Vox - NOTHING in anything I said means or implies that the guilt of the criminal is diminished or that it follows that their punishment should be lessened because of anything the victim brought to the table by way of imprudent behaviour.  The criminal gets theirs all the same regardless.  The two variables in the equation are independent. 

Chestertonian - in the facts of the case you mention the victim part of the equation was brought to the table not by the victim but by those in control of the availability of the victim - to wit hospital staff, procedures etc that failed to protect you.  Think of a child victim of some crime: this child is not responsible for the victim variable - the parents are etc. 

Also - there are varying degrees of imprudence on the victim side, right? Parents etc can do everything the could have but a crime will still happen not because of imprudence but mere chance.  The goal here in crime prevention is to minimize the overall number of crimes by disrupting as many equations as possible (ie preventing crimes), but acknowledging that some criminals will always find victims.

Think people think....don't react.  Do not confuse the existing of a variable as always implying some moral failure or imprudence.  Sometimes it does, or not. 
Pages: 1 2 3