Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ...
5
13
14
15
16
17
... LastLast
  1. #281
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I know I said I was going to bow out of our back and forth, but I just saw this and I have to say, I completely agree with what you've said above. I would add, just to clarify, that it takes two to argue.
    Nothing to clarify there as no single person has said there was not an argument.

    Also, and I have to say, I'm not blaming the couple for their murder because of the argument. I'm just saying the couple was part of the argument initially. Shoot - I'm still not being as clear as I'd like to be here.
    Being part of an argument does not make you responsible for the actions of the other party.

    I'm not saying we agree, obviously we don't - lol - but I'm saying, I think, that we disagree on a very small part of this tragic encounter.
    If you still hold that the victims are responsible for the actions of their murderer...than, for my part, we disagree on a very large part.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  2. #282
    When im having a bad day im gonna think of this guy.

    "at least im not shooting my neighbours over a snow dispute"

    It really is the overeaction of the year award. It wasnt only the fact he killed them too but the WAY he did it. Going all kill mode and aiming a rifle right to their head without any hesitation. Dude was a ticking time bomb
    Suri Cruise and Katie Holmes are SP's.

  3. #283
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Nothing to clarify there as no single person has said there was not an argument.

    Being part of an argument does not make you responsible for the actions of the other party.

    If you still hold that the victims are responsible for the actions of their murderer...than, for my part, we disagree on a very large part.
    Wow - interesting, we agree. I guess it just needed an overnight break to percolate.

  4. #284
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    What EMB said.

    If this had turned into a slap-fight in the street with both parties slipping in the snow and falling down, it wouldn't be news. It would just be a bunch of assholes being assholes.

    When one of those assholes decides to step it way up and goes to get a gun, it stops being that. It starts being first-degree murder, and the victims have no part in the blame for that outcome. That they were being abusive dingdongs to the guy does not constitute reasonable provocation or any kind of threat that would warrant that response. They are blameless in that.

    That they may have shared blame in some other timeline for a much different outcome is really completely irrelevant.

    To repeat; the argument constitutes the motive for the murder.

    That does not mean the argument provoked the murder.
    In the last post of yours I quoted you said "I am flatly denying that those circumstances gave rise to this outcome." That reads as if you're saying the preceding circumstances (the argument) and the outcome (the murder) are totally separate and in no way connected.

    You seem to admit that the couple were being assholes/dingdongs, but will only say that if the outcome had been assault? If you can agree that what was going on prior to the murder was wrong, that doesn't change simply because a greater wrong followed. This isn't like wearing a sexy dress or flirting, which isn't wrong regardless of the outcome.

    Acknowledging that the argument was the motive for the murder is indeed the same as saying it was the cause of/led to/gave rise to/provoked the murder. That doesn't mean that the victim of the murder stops being a victim. The fact that provocation exists doesn't mean that it's reasonable provocation. That's just silly. Events happened, there was cause and effect, there was an escalation of an ongoing series of hostilities. That doesn't mean that the murder wasn't a murder, or that the victims weren't victims.

  5. #285
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Wow - interesting, we agree. I guess it just needed an overnight break to percolate.
    I would have you say your meaning clear.

    What, exactly, do you now believe we agree on...because yesterday it seemed our positions were quite far apart...and I have not moved from mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  6. #286
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    In the last post of yours I quoted you said "I am flatly denying that those circumstances gave rise to this outcome." That reads as if you're saying the preceding circumstances (the argument) and the outcome (the murder) are totally separate and in no way connected.
    There's a level of agency that you're denying.

    The circumstances in question did not inevitably cause the response of murder. It is not a case of cause-effect, the same way that hitting a glass vase with a baseball bat causes the vase to shatter.

    That the murderer used those circumstances as a motive to commit murder is something entirely different. Would we blame children for playing in a playground if a crazed serial killer hears their laughter and wants to kill them so he can eat that laughter? They're creating the circumstances (playing and laughing in earshot of the crazy guy) that "give rise to the outcome" of him kidnapping and murdering them. But we'd never place that blame. Because nothing about those kids' conduct would lead one to believe that outcome is what would result.

    Same applies here. Being a dick to your neighbour isn't something that naturally makes you think your neighbour is gonna shoot you.

    This is why victim-blaming is so awful. You're essentially denying the murderer here the agency over their own actions, and portraying it as a natural outcome from the circumstances created by others. That's just not the case. Just like it never is in these things.

    You seem to admit that the couple were being assholes/dingdongs, but will only say that if the outcome had been assault? If you can agree that what was going on prior to the murder was wrong, that doesn't change simply because a greater wrong followed. This isn't like wearing a sexy dress or flirting, which isn't wrong regardless of the outcome.
    This is why I amended my later examples to include some wrongdoing, like someone cheating on their spouse. Which is right up there with asshole behaviour, particularly as it's legally actionable as a contract violation (and in some cases, further civil violations).

    And no; that doesn't justify, even a little bit, any murder that follows.

    Acknowledging that the argument was the motive for the murder is indeed the same as saying it was the cause of/led to/gave rise to/provoked the murder. That doesn't mean that the victim of the murder stops being a victim. The fact that provocation exists doesn't mean that it's reasonable provocation. That's just silly. Events happened, there was cause and effect, there was an escalation of an ongoing series of hostilities. That doesn't mean that the murder wasn't a murder, or that the victims weren't victims.
    We're talking legal terminology, here. If an act is provoked, it's legally defensible, at least in part, in many cases. If you bait someone into taking a swing at you, they could use that provocation as a legal defense of their assault. For instance.

    This is why I really don't like the "give rise to/led to" terminology. It's too flimsy. See my child serial killer example; the kids actions are absolutely a trigger that leads to their deaths, but nobody would think to blame them for it. Or think of the child victims of a school shooting, and trying to blame them because they clearly weren't nice enough to the shooter or something.

    There's a conflation of "motive" and "justification" going on in cases like this, and it's irritating.

    This couple may have made their neighbour angry. Maybe even to the point of fisticuffs (and I'm using a silly word to make it clear I'm not talking about serious violence). Once he steps over that line and goes to get his gun, that's way off the damn table and provocation to that act simply does not exist.

  7. #287
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    I would have you say your meaning clear.

    What, exactly, do you now believe we agree on...because yesterday it seemed our positions were quite far apart...and I have not moved from mine.
    I agree with what you've said here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Nothing to clarify there as no single person has said there was not an argument.
    Not sure this needs to be clarified - there was an argument. Fact.

    Being part of an argument does not make you responsible for the actions of the other party.
    Agreed. Each party is responsible for their own actions.

    If you still hold that the victims are responsible for the actions of their murderer...than, for my part, we disagree on a very large part.
    The couple isn't responsible for the shooters actions. But the couple were part of the argument that led up to the shooting, which we agree on. It seems we are basically in agreement. I think our disagreement comes from the larger picture of victim blaming and re-escalation issues.

  8. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It's almost impossible to draw any analogy with this shooting and a rape. Rape, while violence, NEVER has a victim at fault. Which is why victim blaming is a term to use when people try and come back to defend the rapist.

    In our case, the best analogy is a bar fight. Both parties initiated and are responsible for the escalation, but nothing justifies the shooting. Others in this thread have done a better job of summarizing the distinction.
    So, basically you are incapable of discussing crimes dispassionately. To you there is "crime" and then there's CRIME. Please, do never even think about applying for judge. I can hear the emotions screaming inside you. Basically, yes, but THAT'S RAPE! THAT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE A WOMAN GOT FUCKING RAPED! That's what this comes across as. Yeah, it's rape. Deal with it. Get your emotions in check, and tell me how these situations are different:

    1. Woman cusses at dude, he rapes her.
    2. Woman cusses at dude, he shoots her in the face.

    According to your logic, saying the woman has partial responsibility is called victim blaming in the first case. Fair enough.
    But in the second instance, it's not victim blaming, that's just fucking common sense to you. What?

    You do not get to pick and choose your analogies until they match your argument. Cussing occurs, crime is committed. The only difference is, A WOMAN IS RAPED vs. a woman is shot in the face and dies. It's funny cos this kinda shows how twisted the culture is over there. Woman not dying but raped apparently changes the nature of everything such that fundamental ideas seem to get created just for that.
    Whereas a woman dead... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that's just life man, who cares?

    The correct answer... victim blaming is a term not exclusive to raping. It just has been used in rape prominently because of the importance to the concept of such cases, or the lack of understanding of what is going on. Up until recently, people thought it was fine to tell women to dress differently to avoid being raped, which is classic victim blaming, sure. But not the only situation where blaming the victim is not the correct move. Our little fun case here, with a three-asshole party involved is such a case. Especially when people go "well, they asked for it!"
    Last edited by Slant; 2021-02-09 at 07:21 PM.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  9. #289
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    So, basically you are incapable of discussing crimes dispassionately. To you there is "crime" and then there's CRIME. Please, do never even think about applying for judge. I can hear the emotions screaming inside you. Basically, yes, but THAT'S RAPE! THAT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE A WOMAN GOT FUCKING RAPED! That's what this comes across as. Yeah, it's rape. Deal with it. Get your emotions in check, and tell me how these situations are different:

    1. Woman cusses at dude, he rapes her.
    2. Woman cusses at dude, he shoots her in the face.

    According to your logic, saying the woman has partial responsibility is called victim blaming in the first case. Fair enough.
    But in the second instance, it's not victim blaming, that's just fucking common sense to you. What?

    You do not get to pick and choose your analogies until they match your argument. Cussing occurs, crime is committed. The only difference is, A WOMAN IS RAPED vs. a woman is shot in the face and dies. It's funny cos this kinda shows how twisted the culture is over there. Woman not dying but raped apparently changes the nature of everything such that fundamental ideas seem to get created just for that.
    Whereas a woman dead... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that's just life man, who cares?

    The correct answer... victim blaming is a term not exclusive to raping. It just has been used to rape because up until recently, people thought it was fine to tell women to dress differently to avoid being raped, which is classic victim blaming, sure. But not the only situation where blaming the victim is not the correct move. Our little fun case here, with a three-asshole party involved is such a case. Especially when people go "well, they asked for it!"
    Even with your snarky sarcasm, the answer is very easy.

    1. The rapist was always going to rape.
    2. The shooter was provoked, and wouldn't have shot without the cussing.

    Of course it's more complicated than that, as any legal issue would be.

  10. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Even with your snarky sarcasm, the answer is very easy.

    1. The rapist was always going to rape.
    2. The shooter was provoked, and wouldn't have shot without the cussing.

    Of course it's more complicated than that, as any legal issue would be.
    Jesus fucking christ... I'm putting it out on the proverbial silver platter. How are you still not getting it?

    CUSSING does not have the common result of DEATH. End of story. If you think that's a likely outcome for someone cussing, I've severely underestimated how messed up the place is you seem to live in.
    Last edited by Slant; 2021-02-09 at 07:28 PM.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  11. #291

    Alliance

    Gotta wonder how long this had been going on, and what else the couple had been doing, that drove him to this.

    As well, what else had been going on in his life? These sorts of things do not just happen over a few spats.

    The way he came back with a new weapon to execute them was chilling.

  12. #292
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    The couple isn't responsible for the shooters actions. But the couple were part of the argument that led up to the shooting, which we agree on. It seems we are basically in agreement. I think our disagreement comes from the larger picture of victim blaming and re-escalation issues.
    As far as "re-escalation" goes...you denied taking part in that conversation entirely...because it didn't suit your narrative at the time. You wanted to talk about how the couple took the first violent action...but ignore the intervening time between that "attack" and the murder.

    As far as Victim Blaming goes...I'm going to require more clarity from you.

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Exactly. The pushee is at fault, but the pusher takes some of the responsibility.
    I picked this statement of yours because of it's brevity. If need be, I can grab others as well...but I think this one sums up your position of yesterday rather succinctly.

    Statements such as this put at least part of the responsibility for the shooting on the victims...yet your above statement seems to state the opposite.

    So, I'm going to need you to be really clear

    In your opinion, are the couple, in whole or in part, responsible for their murder?

    Do not dance around the answer...state it clearly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  13. #293
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    Jesus fucking christ... I'm putting it out on the proverbial silver platter. How are you still not getting it?
    You indeed are, you're just wrong about who doesn't get it.

    Legal issues and crimes are always complicated. You seem to forget that. Just because one description fits a situation doesn't mean it will do so the next time, for a different situation. Different crimes have different issues - even basic non-legal minds understand that. And that is where we find ourselves with this problem.

    Victim blaming is about rape and race (separate instances), for the most part, and is continually misuse and misunderstood when taken out of those contexts. Like we've done here.

  14. #294
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Even with your snarky sarcasm, the answer is very easy.

    1. The rapist was always going to rape.
    2. The shooter was provoked, and wouldn't have shot without the cussing.

    Of course it's more complicated than that, as any legal issue would be.
    And this is wrong, because the shooter was always gonna end up shooting someone, it was just down to who gave them a reason to first.

    It's exactly the same as it is with a rapist.

  15. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post

    Victim blaming is about rape and race (separate instances), for the most part, and is continually misuse and misunderstood when taken out of those contexts. Like we've done here.
    Victim blaming is not confined to rape and race. It applies to any crime where responsibility is placed on the victims.

    You have created your own definition of the term and hold that definition as the overall standard...but it is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  16. #296
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    As far as "re-escalation" goes...you denied taking part in that conversation entirely...because it didn't suit your narrative at the time. You wanted to talk about how the couple took the first violent action...but ignore the intervening time between that "attack" and the murder.
    I didn't take part in that conversation - you can go back and check. I never brought it up or engaged that topic. Not making accusations, just clarifying here.

    As far as Victim Blaming goes...I'm going to require more clarity from you.
    Ok.

    I picked this statement of yours because of it's brevity. If need be, I can grab others as well...but I think this one sums up your position of yesterday rather succinctly.

    Statements such as this put at least part of the responsibility for the shooting on the victims...yet your above statement seems to state the opposite.

    So, I'm going to need you to be really clear

    In your opinion, are the couple, in whole or in part, responsible for their murder?

    Do not dance around the answer...state it clearly.
    No, they are not responsible for their murder. They are [partially] responsible for the argument that led up to it. But nothing the couple did justifies them getting shot. Is that clear enough?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And this is wrong, because the shooter was always gonna end up shooting someone, it was just down to who gave them a reason to first.

    It's exactly the same as it is with a rapist.
    It is not the same, at all. It is entirely different than the rapist. You are 100% wrong.

    Look up the psychology of rape and where it comes from, and how it's not about sex, and all the other stuff. @Slant accidentally gave the perfect example that illustrates the differences.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    Victim blaming is not confined to rape and race. It applies to any crime where responsibility is placed on the victims.

    You have created your own definition of the term and hold that definition as the overall standard...but it is not.
    No, it does not. The history of victim blaming comes from specific racial and sexual situations where there is no blame to be placed on the victim, but the aggressor and/or authorities decide to place blame on the victim regardless. Summarizing victim blaming in one or two sentences isn't appropriate.

  17. #297
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    It is not the same, at all. It is entirely different than the rapist. You are 100% wrong.

    Look up the psychology of rape and where it comes from, and how it's not about sex, and all the other stuff. @Slant accidentally gave the perfect example that illustrates the differences.
    I know rape is more about power than lust, dude. It isn't relevant to what we're talking about.

    There is no meaningful difference here, and you're essentially making a deeply emotion-based argument that really doesn't hold up. Victim-blaming in rape cases isn't wrong because of the psychology of rapists, it's wrong because it's wrong to blame victims, period. It comes up with regards to rape more often because there's been a historically long trend of misogynistic blaming of rape victims for their victimization. There still is, in some countries.

    But that isn't relevant to what victim blaming is, or why it's wrong. It's just the emotional basis for why you have a kneejerk response in the case of rape, specifically.

    Victim blaming is not unique to rape. That's something you are making up, and it doesn't have any rational basis in anything.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...laming/502661/
    https://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

    You're engaging in victim-blaming. By definition. And you're deflecting from taking responsibility for that with this nonsense claim that it's only victim-blaming if it's a rape victim, which is not how victim-blaming works.
    Last edited by Endus; 2021-02-09 at 07:43 PM.

  18. #298
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I didn't take part in that conversation - you can go back and check. I never brought it up or engaged that topic. Not making accusations, just clarifying here.
    i just said that you denied to take part in that conversation. I'm not sure what you think you are clarifying.

    No, they are not responsible for their murder. They are [partially] responsible for the argument that led up to it. But nothing the couple did justifies them getting shot. Is that clear enough?
    I didn't ask if you thought the shooting was justified. I said in the first reply I sent to you that i wasn't holding your position to mean you felt their shooting was justified. I said that your holding them responsible for their own shooting was a form of victim blaming. I hold to that position still.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    No, it does not. The history of victim blaming comes from specific racial and sexual situations where there is no blame to be placed on the victim, but the aggressor and/or authorities decide to place blame on the victim regardless. .
    That's incorrect. It may happen more with cases of rape...but that does not mean that is the only situation it applies to

    When someone robs your house and someone says "Why didn't you lock the doors?" - That's victim blaming.
    When someone steals your car "Well, you shouldn't have parked it in this neighbourhood" - Victim Blaming.
    For specific examples you can look to the thread about Kyle Rittenhouse...there is a lot of victim blaming going on by some regarding the people that he shot.

    Summarizing victim blaming in one or two sentences isn't appropriate
    It's actually a really easy concept. When you assign blame to the victim of a crime...you are blaming the victim. It doesn't matter what the crime is. You are attempting to draw a line...but it does not exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Midnight Bomber View Post
    We're gonna Godwin so much you might even get tired of Godwinning

  19. #299
    Well that video is horrific to say the least.

    And the couple has an Autistic son? poor kid.

  20. #300
    what the fuck...he shot a couple, over snow, in a state that has the death penalty for murder...is the snow shoveling supposed to lessen his sentence?..."but judge, you see, my hand was forced"
    Last edited by Ihavewaffles; 2021-02-09 at 08:12 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •