Bigtree
Oct 3, 02:58 PM
Taken from a wall in an alley
fel10
Apr 8, 08:03 PM
Got a link for that?
Cheers :)
There you go
http://wallbase.cc/wallpaper/728612
Cheers :)
There you go
http://wallbase.cc/wallpaper/728612
John444
Mar 1, 09:16 AM
I was just curious to see some cool javascript codes. Preferably something for the background of a web page.
8CoreWhore
Apr 21, 03:55 AM
...I can't wait that long!
more...
AussieSusan
Nov 29, 04:33 PM
Don't the movie studios operate as commercial businesses? Don't they make a profit (overall - some movies flop I know)?
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
wesrk
Feb 19, 05:41 PM
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9653/desksx.jpg
Beauty.
Do it like that, it's better for the readers.
Beauty.
Do it like that, it's better for the readers.
more...
lamerlizer
Oct 25, 10:11 PM
i'm buying on saturday though... my email is lamerlizer@yahoo.com.sg, add me on msn
mr.steevo
Apr 7, 01:54 PM
This must be the William Hung of game Apps.
Everyone knows it stinks but they buy it anyway...
Everyone knows it stinks but they buy it anyway...
more...
Sogo
Nov 10, 11:04 PM
:( I am unable to install wiretap. when I try to unstuff it, it asks to save some preinstall thing in a folder but it says that it already exists. I naturally say save, all three documents. It unpacks, but when i click on it, it tells me that it was unable to locate files. So i am lost at the moment.
zbarsky
Apr 7, 12:47 PM
Looks like the developer put a lot of thought into the touch controls, rather than just slap on a standard touch d-pad design for each game. Good job!
more...
AcesHigh87
Apr 26, 10:29 PM
I might just be the playback but not actually skip in the final product. The intro for my youtube videos always skips when I playback in iMovie but it doesn't when I export the finished video.
I'd say test export a short section containing the part that skips. If it doesn't skip in that then don't worry about it.
I'd say test export a short section containing the part that skips. If it doesn't skip in that then don't worry about it.
Musubi
Feb 7, 12:19 PM
February desktop (Tokyo Sky Tree as of late 2010):
more...
boxingtom
Apr 28, 06:41 AM
well i was wondering to download lord of the ring on my :apple:pple imac but will it run on it???:confused:
tpavur
Apr 5, 08:21 AM
If I hold a business licence is it ok to offer repair services on craigslist? I am not certified by Apple to do so. Can I get in any legal trouble for this or is it simply that Apple will no longer warranty the product?
more...
generik
Dec 18, 07:11 PM
Maybe you connected the monitor incorrectly?
Lynxpro
Jul 27, 04:23 PM
A High Court in the UK has ordered SONY to disolve its merger with BMG. Fighting this could cost valuable resources.
If they lose, the cost of breakup could well put SONY under. Remember BETAMAX. Yes, I know SONY/BMG is the music arm of the company-but it will be a drain on the whole company.
Dude, seriously give it a rest. You've just shot down your credibility because SonyBMG is a separate division that Sony Corp. itself owns a 50% stake in with Bertlesman(n) owning the other 50%. That ruling has no effect on Sony Corp. itself. You citing this on a forum is as lame as the many people on Digg or Slashdot who rush to any thread concerning Sony and post about RootKits when again, it was SonyBMG that did that and not any other SonyCorp. division. Point is, any negative ruling against SonyBMG has no impact at all on Blu-Ray development nor will it give any traction to HD-DVD.
Plus, a UK High Court does not have the power to dissolve SonyBMG. Perhaps for the UK subsidiary division but not for the entire worldwide operations of SonyBMG. The only way SonyBMG would be forced to break up would be if the European Commission or the U.S. Justice Department took action and won in their respective court systems.
The chipmakers for the PSP3 are having a bitch of a time making any that are worth using in the player-they have a 1 out of 5-6 usable chip ratio. The rest get used in other less demanding hardware, or get tossed out-. SONY still pays for them-good or not-talk about bleeding. They are very expensive.
First off, you mean the PS3. Are you a Microsoft shill? The chipmaker is IBM. IBM, Sony, and Toshiba all have vested interests in making the Cell chip a success (although Toshiba would rather not see the PS3 a success because it would wipe out HD-DVD's chance at success). Failure rates will not have an impact on the MSRP of any Sony product for the consumer because they will want the PS3 to obliterate the Microsoft Xbox360 and the HD-DVD platforms all at once.
Poor PQ reviews, the lack of BR2 (yes folks youve been had-the current discs -or BR1- are not the 'final' version, those COULD be out by November, optimistically-they were rushed out so they could say "Were first!" They are said to be 'fine tuning' the "real" BR2 disc spec and manufacture. Translation-it isnt working very well, like the PSP chips.
First off, it was HD-DVD that jumped the gun and shipped first in a desperate attempt to solidify itself before Blu-Ray (and later, the PS3) shipped, not the other way around.
Now with that having been said, get some perspective. The original DVD platform didn't reach maturity or success until the 3rd Generation players were brought out. Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray decks currently are on their first generation, and both are showing signs of quality issues. The Toshiba HD-DVD deck had to have a firmware update to keep it from crashing due to Microsoft's usual software krappiness in the form of the iHD software. Both the current HD-DVD and Blu-Ray machines aren't using the greatest chip decoders which are causing both to not truly output at 1080i, let alone 1080p. This will be corrected when the second generation decks from both platforms ship with the new Sigma Designs decoders in the next couple of months. While it is true that Sony is shipping titles in MPEG2 until they bring out their own hardware, once that happens, the encoding in H.264 will be noticibily better than the HD-DVD titles that will continue to ship in Microsoft's inferior VC-1 (ahem, Windows Media 9) codec because Microsoft in truth is supporting HD-DVD simply because it uses the Microsoft iHD software instead of Java (like Blu-Ray does) and thus earns royalities with each HD-DVD deck shipped and every VC-1 encoded movie title also shipped. While Blu-Ray spec wise supports VC-1 (in addition to H.264 MPEG4 and MPEG2), it will be a very cold day in Hell when Sony decides to ship a Blu-Ray disc encoded in VC-1.
The moral of the story is to pick up a Blu-Ray deck when the second (or third) generation hits, and only buy discs encoded in the H.264 codec instead of the current MPEG2 versions. At that time, HD-DVD will be as useful as a Philips CD-i deck or a Circuit City DIVX player.
Briefly king of the world, suddenly things dont bode well for SONY or the BR disc.
Right. I bet you are anxiously awaiting the Microsoft Zune.
If they lose, the cost of breakup could well put SONY under. Remember BETAMAX. Yes, I know SONY/BMG is the music arm of the company-but it will be a drain on the whole company.
Dude, seriously give it a rest. You've just shot down your credibility because SonyBMG is a separate division that Sony Corp. itself owns a 50% stake in with Bertlesman(n) owning the other 50%. That ruling has no effect on Sony Corp. itself. You citing this on a forum is as lame as the many people on Digg or Slashdot who rush to any thread concerning Sony and post about RootKits when again, it was SonyBMG that did that and not any other SonyCorp. division. Point is, any negative ruling against SonyBMG has no impact at all on Blu-Ray development nor will it give any traction to HD-DVD.
Plus, a UK High Court does not have the power to dissolve SonyBMG. Perhaps for the UK subsidiary division but not for the entire worldwide operations of SonyBMG. The only way SonyBMG would be forced to break up would be if the European Commission or the U.S. Justice Department took action and won in their respective court systems.
The chipmakers for the PSP3 are having a bitch of a time making any that are worth using in the player-they have a 1 out of 5-6 usable chip ratio. The rest get used in other less demanding hardware, or get tossed out-. SONY still pays for them-good or not-talk about bleeding. They are very expensive.
First off, you mean the PS3. Are you a Microsoft shill? The chipmaker is IBM. IBM, Sony, and Toshiba all have vested interests in making the Cell chip a success (although Toshiba would rather not see the PS3 a success because it would wipe out HD-DVD's chance at success). Failure rates will not have an impact on the MSRP of any Sony product for the consumer because they will want the PS3 to obliterate the Microsoft Xbox360 and the HD-DVD platforms all at once.
Poor PQ reviews, the lack of BR2 (yes folks youve been had-the current discs -or BR1- are not the 'final' version, those COULD be out by November, optimistically-they were rushed out so they could say "Were first!" They are said to be 'fine tuning' the "real" BR2 disc spec and manufacture. Translation-it isnt working very well, like the PSP chips.
First off, it was HD-DVD that jumped the gun and shipped first in a desperate attempt to solidify itself before Blu-Ray (and later, the PS3) shipped, not the other way around.
Now with that having been said, get some perspective. The original DVD platform didn't reach maturity or success until the 3rd Generation players were brought out. Both the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray decks currently are on their first generation, and both are showing signs of quality issues. The Toshiba HD-DVD deck had to have a firmware update to keep it from crashing due to Microsoft's usual software krappiness in the form of the iHD software. Both the current HD-DVD and Blu-Ray machines aren't using the greatest chip decoders which are causing both to not truly output at 1080i, let alone 1080p. This will be corrected when the second generation decks from both platforms ship with the new Sigma Designs decoders in the next couple of months. While it is true that Sony is shipping titles in MPEG2 until they bring out their own hardware, once that happens, the encoding in H.264 will be noticibily better than the HD-DVD titles that will continue to ship in Microsoft's inferior VC-1 (ahem, Windows Media 9) codec because Microsoft in truth is supporting HD-DVD simply because it uses the Microsoft iHD software instead of Java (like Blu-Ray does) and thus earns royalities with each HD-DVD deck shipped and every VC-1 encoded movie title also shipped. While Blu-Ray spec wise supports VC-1 (in addition to H.264 MPEG4 and MPEG2), it will be a very cold day in Hell when Sony decides to ship a Blu-Ray disc encoded in VC-1.
The moral of the story is to pick up a Blu-Ray deck when the second (or third) generation hits, and only buy discs encoded in the H.264 codec instead of the current MPEG2 versions. At that time, HD-DVD will be as useful as a Philips CD-i deck or a Circuit City DIVX player.
Briefly king of the world, suddenly things dont bode well for SONY or the BR disc.
Right. I bet you are anxiously awaiting the Microsoft Zune.
more...
Peterkro
Feb 14, 12:33 PM
mymemory thin ice interface Ahoy. :D
namanhams
Apr 3, 05:53 AM
Hi,
I rotate my UIView using the 'transform' property. However, the border looks very ugly. I google around and people say that they add 1 pixel transparent border, but so far i can not find any code on this.
Please help. Thanks.
I rotate my UIView using the 'transform' property. However, the border looks very ugly. I google around and people say that they add 1 pixel transparent border, but so far i can not find any code on this.
Please help. Thanks.
Dreadnought
Jan 26, 01:41 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
Welcome back twoodcc!!
Also, just saw that I'm the #16 folder of the team, always nice to know! :)
Willbe going for the #10 spot in the next couple of days, so be warned :):)
Welcome back twoodcc!!
Also, just saw that I'm the #16 folder of the team, always nice to know! :)
Willbe going for the #10 spot in the next couple of days, so be warned :):)
Chundles
Oct 31, 10:18 AM
I think the free 38 character engraving is one of the things that makes this product so special. Buying one without it seems to devalue it's significance to me. :rolleyes: :confused: :eek:
Examples of cool engravings would be:
Reward 4 Return 555.555.6789 Taylor B.
Frank Ford 555.555.6789 Please Return
Always in my thoughts. Love, Fred
Always in my thoughts. Love, Claudia
When you speak, it's music to my ears.
Always listen carefully. Love, Charles
Ahh Multi, always so enthused by the little things...
How about:
"Happy Birthday, you're adopted!"
"My alcoholism = no nano for you"
"Merom will double your battery life"
:D
Examples of cool engravings would be:
Reward 4 Return 555.555.6789 Taylor B.
Frank Ford 555.555.6789 Please Return
Always in my thoughts. Love, Fred
Always in my thoughts. Love, Claudia
When you speak, it's music to my ears.
Always listen carefully. Love, Charles
Ahh Multi, always so enthused by the little things...
How about:
"Happy Birthday, you're adopted!"
"My alcoholism = no nano for you"
"Merom will double your battery life"
:D
seatbeltboy
Jun 19, 11:46 AM
Anyone going to be at the Mayfair Mall Apple Store this Thursday?
I plan on being there around 5/5:30.
I plan on being there around 5/5:30.
fel10
Oct 8, 12:50 AM
Where can I find this wallpaper? Thanks!
There you go
http://skougard.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/wallpaper-1080p/wallpaper_1080p_01_fhdr.jpg
There you go
http://skougard.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/wallpaper-1080p/wallpaper_1080p_01_fhdr.jpg
hayesk
Apr 4, 11:23 AM
You are obviously missing the point. Apple's new subscription model is preventing choice from coming to it's customers. How is that not a bad thing?
What are you talking about? It's enabling choice. Customers have a choice to send their personal data to FT. Before, they did not. What choice is Apple taking away from customers?
Apple says: "give choice to customers."
FT says: "no choice for customers."
And you have the nerve to call people Apple fanboys. That term should nullify your point right then and there.
What are you talking about? It's enabling choice. Customers have a choice to send their personal data to FT. Before, they did not. What choice is Apple taking away from customers?
Apple says: "give choice to customers."
FT says: "no choice for customers."
And you have the nerve to call people Apple fanboys. That term should nullify your point right then and there.
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar