Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I say your behavior is foolish, you can turn around and say it wasn't foolish. And so long as the definition of foolish-behavior is subjective, no one can prove anyone is right, and no one can prove anyone is wrong.
If that is the way you want to play it, then I'll play it that way. But I promise you, if I was giving advice to my daughter, I would tell her to be careful when drinking, and I wouldn't want her in skimpy clothes out walking the streets at night(hell I wouldn't want her in skimpy clothes at all).
You can scream to high-heaven about how unfair it is, or that it is sexist because I'm not telling my son the same things. But frankly, I just don't care.
Again, you can call it victim-blaming. I'll call it reality. And since I live in the real world, instead of some utopian fantasy-land, I am far less-likely to be a victim than the people who cry about victim-blaming. And when they do something I think is stupid, I'm going to scream to everyone I know just how stupid it was, in the hopes that they won't do the same thing.
This. Way back in the late 90s when I still smoked, I went to a convenience store near my house to buy cigarettes. It was snowing like crazy and hardly anyone was able to get out, and the city was basically abandoned. I arrived at the convenience store wearing sweats with huge muddy dog prints all over them, courtesy of my two Great Danes' enthusiastic displays of affection.
I went inside intending to just buy the smokes and check out and received persistent unwanted attention from a stranger who was determined to find a warm hook up. I could not have been dressed less attractively had I tried. After saying no nicely failed, it took raising my voice and a few choice words to get him to stop.
Maybe he surmised by your appearance that you had low self esteem and would be more receptive to his attention?
Walking across the street is an exercise in free will. Buying a car is an exercise in free well that involves a consensual agreement with another party. If I want to buy a car that explodes 99% of the time for $1 as opposed to a car that never blows up for a penny more that's my right. I have free will. And as long as that info is divulged to me (otherwise that would be fraud...a violation of the NAP) it is perfectly logical and moral.
The pinto was just a reference to the safety of a small/cheap car relative to the safety of a Mack Truck. Basically we know that some things are safer than other things. And if the actual goal of everyone was to reduce their possibility of being harmed as close to zero as possible, they could do many things to protect themselves.
There are about 40,000 people who die in automobile-related accidents every year, and many more than that get seriously-injured. Everyone knows it is less safe to be drive a car than sit in a house. But yet, you still get in your car and drive it all over the place.
Hell, because of the existence of cars, it is less-safe for me to just be outside. I have seen countless videos of people standing on the sidewalk and getting smashed by a car. I have seen car/truck tires come off and barrel down a road and kill someone who didn't even see it coming. I have seen videos of cars running into restaurants/offices/and other buildings, killing people.
If we got rid of cars tomorrow, literally tens of thousands of lives would be saved every year, and many more serious injuries would have been prevented. But it would come at a cost. And the vast-majority of people are simply unwilling to pay that cost.
Women know that going to a bar is less safe than staying at home. Women know that drinking excessively puts them in greater danger than staying sober. And everyone realizes that behaving a certain way, or dressing a certain way, increases your odds that something bad might happen to you.
So why do they do it? Because just as in the case of the Pinto, even if they know the danger is higher, they would still rather take the risk.
What irritates me is when they know the risk and they do it anyway, then they turn around and cry because what they knew might happen, did happen.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 10-05-2018 at 01:41 PM..
Not only "be careful who you invite to your house", but be careful whose house you enter! Not only that, but keep firmly fixed in your mind WHY you were invited to go home with that person. Do you really think you were invited home to drink apple cider and play chess, Yahtzee or canasta?
"Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly."
Don't be the fly!
The bottom line is; common sense and self defense is, first and foremost, the responsibility of the individual
Well put. Don't act consistent with someone engaging in a sexual encounter then wonder why others might doubt you did not want a sexual encounter to happen. If I go out drinking and playing the field, I'll end up in a sexual encounter with a woman I did not want to almost every time lol. Sometimes you kind of rape yourself.
You're a bit off with Uncle Milton and the Pinto example.
Walking across the street is an exercise in free will. Buying a car is an exercise in free well that involves a consensual agreement with another party. If I want to buy a car that explodes 99% of the time for $1 as opposed to a car that never blows up for a penny more that's my right. I have free will. And as long as that info is divulged to me (otherwise that would be fraud...a violation of the NAP) it is perfectly logical and moral.
When you are the victim of any kind of violence your natural rights have been violated though.
I do agree with you to a large extent, but it never really was divulged to buyers. If you even found out about the information eventually, which Ford knew even before approving the Pinto for production, from an independent source Ford and dealers would deny and downplay it.
Libertarianism seems to oversimplify things and seems very naïve and theoretical .
Can you imagine? Boys and men going out in groups, going to the bathroom with a buddy, watching each other to make sure none of them slip a tab into someone's drink, checking in every 30 minutes if separated to make sure nobody is hurting anyone, making sure not to leave wherever you are until all buddies can be accounted for and an inventory of actions is taken?
Wouldn't happen because most men would love to have female's problem and all kinds of attention from women. No woman would have to resort to questionable means because men would freely supply their demand.
In a true role reversal, many good looking nice women would be totally invisible and ignored or rejected all the days of their lonely lives.
It’s not your - or anyone’s - job to judge whether a woman’s no is capricious. Why on earth do you think that you have the right to define for another human being whether they have sufficient rational grounds to say no?
It's my right even duty to judge anything and everything under the sun the way I see it.
I don't have to respect or agree with anyone's decision. I do honor their right to their decision though .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
