[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

So let's try this from a different angle.

Another clarification...

The reason I did not address your argument is because we already talked about this, and I linked to my prior responses. I wanted to address the newer argument of opinion-as-tactic-to-diminish, so that's what I did.

Okay then...

RAH was among other things a huge proponent of personal responsibility, operating under an assumption that we are responsible for our lives, make choices that affect our lives, and must bear responsibility for the consequences of those choices.

So one of the underlying issues here is culpability.

Okay, so Heinlein is about culpability.

In this case, he makes the woman culpable for her own rape. A man forces himself upon her, against her will, against her protests, sometimes violently... and she is culpable, even fully culpable? Note the statement from Heinlein's character (and as I argue in previous posts, Heinlein himself):

"it's at least partly her own fault."

The wording here, "at least" partly, implies that sometimes it is fully her own fault. Otherwise, why would it be at least partly?

There are three possibilities here based no the wording. In terms of fault, it's either "not at all," "partly," or "fully." If it is "at least" partly, that rules out "not at all" (not at all is less than partly). If it is just partly, then why qualify that with "at least"? I read this as Heinlein suggesting that it sometimes fully the woman's fault.

Admittedly, I may be overanalyzing here, but Heinlein chose this wording, and if it was for a reason, that's what I come up with. And If he is actually saying that, it's fallacious beyond belief.

Still, let's just take it as "partly" ignoring the implication that it may even be fully the woman's fault.

I live in a major metropolitan area. In fact, it's one of the major metropolitan areas in the world. Like all such areas, it has good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. There are areas in my city where if I choose to walk around in them after dark, I can reasonably expect to be at least beaten and robbed, and possibly killed, if for no other reason than the fact that I will be seen as trespassing on a gang's turf. As a long time resident of my city, I am expected to know that.

So what happens if I do go wandering around in one of those bad neighborhoods and get beaten and robbed? My lack of common sense and poor judgement certainly doesn't excuse those who beat and robbed me, and all will hope they will be arrested, tried, convicted and punished. But I can't expect much real sympathy for my plight, as most others will assume I should have know better than to go there in the first place, and I was paying the price often exacted for stupidity. (And my likely reason for being in an area like that would be buying drugs, which would be another point against me.)

Am I a poor blameless victim, absolved of all fault for my plight, or am I in part responsible for my own difficulties? RAH would say I was, and I would agree with him. I should have known better, and got myself into trouble. I made a bad decision, and must bear the consequences.

This is basically the same argument made previously by Ralph Sir Edward.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=69

He applied a scale of percentage to "fault": from 0% to 100%.

Now apply the same reasoning to rape. It's heinous crime, and I have fairly draconian notions about the appropriate way to treat repeat rapists, along the lines of making it impossible for them to do it again by removing the equipment they use to commit it. But does a woman who is raped never bear any responsibility for what happened to her? Like me, she's expected to have some idea of where she is, what circumstances she's in, and how she ought to behave. There will be places she's expected to know better than to go to, and ways she's expected to know better than to act, because if she goes there and acts like that, there will be predators who see a convenient victim, and she will be preyed upon. What happens if she knows those things, and goes there and does that anyway? Is she in part responsible for her predicament? If your answer is "no", I'd love to know why.

I answered Ralph in this manner...

Originally Posted by EatingPie

This is a very easy question to answer.

Nine out of ten times is the quote in question. It is the assertion by Mr. Heinlein. Ninety percent of rapes are at least partly the woman's fault.

[Deleted 4 real rapes for brevity.]

My point. I cannot find it in me to say at all that the girl bears any blame in any of these situations. In at least one case, the guy wanted sex because the girl looked pretty. So we put blame on the girl for being beautiful? Or is she just the 1%?...

To address you, remember the word is fault. So, no the woman is not at fault, nor are you at fault when a crime is committed against you. If you were at fault, in any way, then the criminal could not be prosecuted.

LAWYER: "The victim knew better, he admitted it himself, therefore my client is not culpable for the crimes comitted against the victim. The victim is at fault."

This is a foolish argument, and no court would even hear it. But the reason you are not blamed for a crime against your own person is because you did not invite the crime. It was perpetrated against your will.

Sure, a woman may dress sexy, but that does not mean she invited a man to rape her. In order for there to be any fault, there most be an implicit or explicit invitation. If you can illustrate that occurring in a rape, then okay. But so far you have not done so.

But just as that assumption is demonstrably untrue, the reverse assumption - that the woman is never responsible for what happens to her, is equally untrue. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

This is not the assertion I have made, nor is it the opposite of Heinlein's assertion. People are resonsible for their own actions. The problem is, a rape is not the woman's action because (for one reason) the woman does not know ahead of time she will be raped. If she did, then she would bear some responsibility if she was deliberately provocative to the rapist knowing what the outcome would be -- she'd then be giving an implicit or explicit invitation.

As I said, the rape is not the woman's own action. It is an action perpetrated against her. So how do you take respsibility for an action perpetrated upon you and against your will?

The truth does not "lie somwhere in the middle" because rape is a crime perpetrated against the woman's will.

If you want to claim that Heinlein's female character overstated her case, and that there were many more circumstances than she might admit to where her view wouldn't apply, I'd agree. If you simply reject the entire statement out of hand, I don't.

And we obviously disagree. The character did not "overstate" anything, she (and Heinlien) was 100% wrong in her assertion.

I'm not quite sure I understand how you expect a discussion like this to proceed. I think the result you might like is for me and others to be swayed by your eloquence, convinced by your argument, and change our own opinions and admit to your superior moral stance and enlightened viewpoint.

As I already said, I linked to my previous points, and was addressing only the "new" argument about "opinion."

Also, I have never claimed a "Superior Moral Stance!" I am claiming to disagree with Heinlien, and that his moral pronouncement is 100% wrong. I'm not claiming to be "superior" to anyone, I am claiming that Heinlein is making a terrible, dangerous, and incorrect assertion.

Speaking personally, I don't see your moral stance as superior, or your view as more enlightened than mine. I have been attempting by example to illustrate how I see the issues. I hardly expect you to agree with me, and indeed, the best I really hope for is to clarify what our respective positions are.

Please stop stating that I claimed to be morally superior to you or anyone. That is an abject falsehood.

The rest, I have repeatedly responded to in this post and my previous.

But meanwhile, if you disagree with my argument, refute it. Respond, point by point, to what I said, and state where you believe me to be wrong.

In discussions like this if you don't do so, the usual assumption is that you haven't done so because you can't. And in that case, you're considered to have lost the argument by forfeit.

Nope, it was the other reason you didn't list.

Already had refuted it.

But since you were more specific here than Edward was previously, I did so again.

-Pie