I’ve already said that I don’t care about “fault” and think John’s use in the title is confusing, provocative, and counterproductive.
Oh jeez it appears the answer is yes.
what the fuck are you talking about? Of course not.
“The rape wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t try to go to club in a skimpy dress” is an objective fact. You are equating that to it being her fault which is the conclusion that people who ask “but what was she wearing” are trying to draw.
I can’t believe I have to explain this.
Jesus christ, no. I’m saying that if someone says “the rape wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t try to go to club in a skimpy dress” that’s the same thing as saying it’s her fault. It is!
If you don’t care about “fault”, then you believe the US and the West has no moral culpability for the war in Ukraine, anyone who dies in it, and any future escalation beyond its current form?
It’s like the Treaty of Versailles being part of the cause of WW2. Are the French and Brits who pushed for the punitive terms responsible for WW2? Yes? No? Maybe? Who cares? It’s worse than a crime, it’s a mistake.
War is sometimes an acceptable consequence of a non-mistake.
It seems quite bold to, prior to the girl going out at night, say that her dress is not in fact an inevitable rape magnet, and then, after she gets raped, claim vindication of your theory that she would not have been raped had she not worn that dress.
1 Like
Really? So if you were having a discussion and someone said, “Well the rape wouldn’t have happened if she didn’t try to go to club in a skimpy dress. This seems factual and self-evident.” How would you respond?
I’d probably stop talking to him.
But this is what we were talking about and I have no idea why Louis brought up a bizarre rape analogy, seems like a weird tangent.
Ok will do
1 Like
keep me posted!
There is a difference between a conditio sine qua non and accountability.
You think that’s a meaningful difference? Someone who says the second thing obviously is implying the first.
People like Mearsheimer present the second as merely an objective fact and then jump to the first when the fault is still 100% with the rapist.
1 Like
I think I missed John’s rape takes so let’s get back to what he was actually talking about.
I’m saying that when he’s saying that “Ukraine is the West’s fault” he really means the second thing. He’s said in other conversations with him I’ve seen that terms like “blame” and “fault” are counterproductive when talking about foreign relations, and I agree with that. So I think that he might also agree that the language he used was not particularly helpful, but who knows.
I understand that you agree with him but he is very wrong so you shouldn’t.
He’s wrong about this?
“The Ukraine crisis and now war wouldn’t have happened if the West had not tried to get Ukraine into the western sphere of influence.”
OK, maybe, but that has nothing to do with my original point, which was that Alex said that the there’s a meaningful difference between that statement and what John means when he says “Ukraine is the West’s fault.”