(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
This is an argument? I thought it was a discussion.
I think my comment was justified given that I literally wrote "blaming anyone except the rapist is wrong", and you replied saying "All I seem to be getting from you is that the woman is mainly at fault and the rapist is a consequence". I mean, that is literally the complete opposite of what I wrote.
The reason why I brought up the woman having insufficient money as a contributory factor is that if
you believe the bus driver's actions were a major contributory factor, you'd surely, if you were being consistent, have to acknowledge that the woman's were as well?
As I don't
believe the bus driver's actions were wrong (hindsight etc etc etc), then I don't
believe the woman was in the wrong in any way.
But as you do
seem to be suggesting that the bus driver was wrong, I am confused as to why you don't
seem to be suggested that equally, the woman not having enough money was wrong. As you say, if they had given her 20p she wouldn't have been attacked. But equally, if she'd brought the 20p herself, she wouldn't have been attacked.
I personally do not
believe the woman's lack of money was to blame; the reason why I kept mentioning it in my quotes to you was that if
you are focussing on the driver and passengers not letting her on (which I personally am not
), I think, in the interests of being consistent, you
should be focussing on her lack of money. It seemed a lack of consistency on your part.
(Sorry for overuse of italics)