Fortigurn wrote:They are not necessarily responsible for the consequences of their decision. They are completely responsible for the decision they took to take the risk. If I am driving correctly, and a drunk driver runs into me, I am not responsible for him running into me. I am responsible only for deciding to drive, fully aware that I am taking the risk that a drunk driver may run into me. This does not mean 'absolutely nothing'.
On the other hand, if I am the drunk driver and I made the decision to drive regardless of the fact that I was aware of my drunken state, then I am fully responsible for the crash which results from my decision.
What if the other guy saw you coming, knew you were drunk, but figured you'd stop, so he didn't brake or turn?
That's his decision, the responsibility for taking the risk is his.
And if you get in the car with a guy who's driving drunk?
That's your decision, for which you are responsible. The responsibility for taking the risk is yours.
He's not "hardwired" to crash his car, but it's inevitable that it'll happen at some point.
No it isn't inevitable.
If you hop in the front seat with him because he seems like a nice guy and he crashes, are you going to get indignant with everyone for asking why you got in the car in the first place?
Well of course not. If you make the decision to take the risk, then you've made yourself responsible for increasing your personal risk of harm.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Elder Scott addresses levels of resistance to rape. He says that people should do all they can to stop it, but sometimes people don't do anything to stop it, like the person who sees the drunk guy coming but figures he'll stop so he doesn't change his course. This is how I see Elder Scott's statement.
maklelan wrote:Elder Scott addresses levels of resistance to rape. He says that people should do all they can to stop it, but sometimes people don't do anything to stop it, like the person who sees the drunk guy coming but figures he'll stop so he doesn't change his course. This is how I see Elder Scott's statement.
I don't think that Elder Scott is even discussing rape. He's discussing abuse in more general terms. Yes, obviously rape would fall under its' umbrella, but he's speaking in much more general terms.
I think that his reference is to decreasing risk in placing yourself in that type of situation.
I also think that the main point of his address is about how the victim can help him/herself. Instead of wallowing in hurt, it's important to get help, and move beyond the incident. That's the only way the victim can truly heal.
I think it is undeniable, whether or not this was their intent (and given their generation it probably was their intent) the statements of church leaders were interpreted by members to mean that raped women were somehow damaged goods, and death would have been preferable. I say it is undeniable because when I was at BYU in the late seventies and early eighties, there was a rash of sexual predators (flashing, voyeurism, and outright rape). I can't remember who organized it, but I'm fairly certain it was my branch somehow, but a female police officer came to talk to the girls in our ward about the problem. She emphasized that the idea that death was preferable to being sexually violated was baloney, no matter who taught it, and that being a victim of a sexual predator did NOT make the victim "dirty" or damaged goods. I believe that the need existed for women like her to speak out, and even our branch leaders recognized the need, because of the past teachings which had generally been interpreted in the damaging fashion described in this thread.
I certainly hope that today's church leaders are a bit more cautious in how they phrase their comments in this regard.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:...nd that being a victim of a sexual predator did NOT make the victim "dirty" or damaged goods.
Did she have that talk to the guys as well? If she didn't, then alas she only did half the job necessary.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|