I've got a question

My kinda girl!

In reply to Datsun1500:

How do you know I'm bringing morals into a legal situation? I never said it is a legal situation. Maybe you're bringing legalities into a moral situation. I'm purposely being vague about this because I want a variety of answers, including religious answers. All I ask is that people offer their opinions without judging other's opinions, okay?

Our community is real good at taking things and running with them.

In reply to Datsun1500:

I think you have a problem with religion and following directions.

If a woman doesn't want to have sex, it is rape. There are no extenuating circumstances, a woman never "asks" to be raped or "has it coming". If you have sex with a woman against her will, be it through physical force, intimidation, threats, misdirection or because she is unable to make a clear, rational decision, then it is rape. Period. End of story. Full stop.

The dancing around naked argument is complete bullE36 M3. By that rationale, if you were in the public shower down at the gym, any other guy could have his way with you because you were obviously asking for it by prancing around naked. If you have to ask if something is rape, it probably is and you should probably question your life decisions for getting into a situation where you are wondering if you raped someone.

In reply to pinchvalve:

There is a difference between showering and my example, and the difference is implied intent. Merely showering doesn't show interest in sex. Dancing provocatively in front of a guy is very different than that. In any case, my example isn't bullE36M3, because I'm not saying it was right or wrong, it was part of the hypothetical example.
While I've learned a lot from this thread, I'm now wishing I had come up with a better example, because many of you are fixating on the rape, when what I wanted to talk about was personal responsibility in general when the situation isn't clear cut.
Let me say again, my real world situation has absolutely nothing to do with sex or rape, and it isn't a legal matter.

I think it is hard to not focus on rape, when rape is used as an analogy. Rape is a very touchy subject (pun not intended).

Perhaps you can offer a different scenario that will help explain your dilemma?

In reply to Datsun1500:

I agree.

In reply to EastCoastMojo:

I would have if I could have.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: I think you have a problem with religion and following directions.

Amen!

Okay, I'm not sure this is any better of an analogy, but say two people get in an argument. The first party is trying to hold their temper while attempting to solve the issue, while the second party is making inflammatory comments intended to make matters worse. The first party, knowing they are near their limit, tells the second party "One more word and I'm going to smash your windshield with this bat!". The second party then responds "Go ahead!!". The first party then is pushed over their limit, they lose their temper and smash the windshield. Whose to blame for the smashed windshield?

In that scenario I would say the person who could not remove themselves from a situation where they know they may cause harm is at fault. If you can voice that you are going to smash someones' windshield, then you also have the ability to just walk away. Telling someone that "if you say one more thing..." is just trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, when it is the bat holder that is being irresponsible.

//this actually happened and I saw it

A worker with a hot temper was on an assembly line as a technician. he was responsible for running engineering stuff through the normally production based surface mount equipment. This was messy. The builds were never the same, they never asked for the same level of involvement from the unionized labor, there never was proper planning time, nothing ever went to plan. Typical prototyping stuff.

One girl running one particular line did not like him at all. She always taunted him and gave no leniency towards any of that. The Union never fired anyone, so she took every attempt to walk off and tell her boss about some perceived slight based on a normal everyday prototyping teething issue (parts not to print, not everything ready on time, not enough notice, whatever) while virtually every other employee understood the importance of debugging new parts for future production work and worked well with him. She literally would call him names, yell at him, go get him in trouble with her boss and the union, and then laugh about it to his face. Often. This is over the period of maybe five years on a weekly or so basis.

This guy had a super temper. He should have known better. Sure. One time, on the line, she was letting him have it, as typical. I was behind her amongst other unionized workers. She would scream at him, and then turn around dramatically, and laugh towards the others, as proof that she was doing this completely on purpose. Lets say this was half hour or so worth. Finally he said "[redacted], if I ever catch you in a dark alley..." and then he stopped. he knew what he just did, and what it meant, and he quit and left right then.

Who's fault was it? Legally, 100% him. Morally? Yeah, not very much him, albeit certainly some.

There, is my real life analogy better than your rape one?

Rape is a terrible thing to use as analogy. Only Mel Brooks could get away with that sort of thing. No. I am not going to type the line from Blazing Saddles into a meme generator at work. You all know it anyway.

It is 100% the fault of the person who smashed the windshield that the windshield got smashed.

If the aforementioned taunting was happening in Tuna's example, the person who was doing the taunting was creating hostile working conditions, and breaking the law. As they did not get fired, it is 100% the responsibility of the other person to ignore them and remain professional.

so ... union's fault ....

Geez... so many people getting bent out of shape for nothing... BTW, just because a religious person says something, it doesn't mean it's a religious statement. It was actually derived from a reading one of JPII's philosophical works before he became the Pope, not a religious work. Anyways....

From what I've read so far, everyone agrees that the person who commits the primary act (smashing window, rape, whatever) is at fault for the primary act. I think most of the people who say that the taunter is guilty of something means that the taunting itself is what the taunter is guilty of. They see the taunting as an evil. So, there are evils committed by each party, but they are separate evils, and each is 100% responsible for his own evil act.

bravenrace wrote: Okay, I'm not sure this is any better of an analogy, but say two people get in an argument. The first party is trying to hold their temper while attempting to solve the issue, while the second party is making inflammatory comments intended to make matters worse. The first party, knowing they are near their limit, tells the second party "One more word and I'm going to smash your windshield with this bat!". The second party then responds "Go ahead!!". The first party then is pushed over their limit, they lose their temper and smash the windshield. Whose to blame for the smashed windshield?

The guy holding the bat. Cut & dry. And a chick can do waaaaaay more than just "tease" and sticking your member in her if she doesn't want it there is still 100% rape. Get it?

In reply to poopshovel:

Why do you think I'm arguing with you? I'm not.

This thread has now become "The Hypothetical Hypotheticals Thread".

I honestly don't know the point, but I do know its not working.

In reply to Datsun1500:

Okay, I guess it was a bad example. My "intent" was not to focus on the rape, but the distribution of personal responsibility, if that makes and sense and if it in fact exists.
Basically, when two people enter into a situation and both do things wrong but one crosses the line and does something inexcusable, my question was does the other person carry any of the responsibility if what they did or didn't do contributed to the outcome or could have changed the outcome. Let's add that the person that crossed the line has a problem with losing their temper that is well known to the other person, yet that person continues to bait the second person until they reach their limit and cross the line. I'm talking about personal responsibility, ethics, morals, etc.. I think we all know the answer in legal terms, and I wouldn't argue about that. But let's cut through the crap and look at this realistically. You know the old saying, "it takes two to have an argument"? Of course the person that crossed the line must take the blame. But is the other person absolutely, without a doubt, guilty of nothing? I'm having a hard time with that one.
If this post sounds at all contrary to my past posts, it's because I'm taking in everything you all have said.

Smasher.

No one can bait you if you remove yourself from the argument. If you are having a discussion and it devolves into an argument/baiting situation, then take the action necessary to deescalate. Continue the discussion at another time when emotions are not running wild.

Just because someone baits you doesn't mean E36 M3. Be an adult, find an adult way to handle the situation. If you suffer from rage, check your anger more often and if you feel it spiraling out of control that is the time to walk away.

In reply to EastCoastMojo:

Thanks. Those are good points. But tell me, what if the person walks away and the other follows them, continuing to scream inflammatory remarks? What if the person cannot physically remove themselves from the situation, and the other pushes them to their limits?

Call the cops? Get a hotel room for a night? Have someone else present when you will be talking to this person if you think it may escalate?