10-02-2015, 03:10 PM
(10-02-2015, 03:06 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: lol. Your ability to grasp irony is about as good as your ability to understand football.
You were using extremism to try and prove a point that a woman shouldn't be held responsible for her actions.
A rich person who is driving through a crime infested neighborhood and is carjacked wouldn't be given any sympathy. So why should anyone feel sympathy for some woman that decided to walk home in a crime infested neighborhood?
Let me ask you, do you think Bergdahl was blameless for his capture?
Ummm...no. I was making a point that women shouldn't be held responsible when they get sexually assaulted. Holy shit, "their actions", are you serious right now???
I was asking a real question. Fred brought up some good points and I was elaborating, I wanted to know how exactly you want to walk the line of what a woman should/shouldn't do to avoid being raped, so I asked a simple question that should have been able to have a simple answer.
Should a woman avoid walking on streets where rape has previously occurred in the last year? What about 3 years? Where's the line?
This is an honest question, no need to go full douche mode, bub.
Also, do you still not know what a generalization is? Or are you still completely lost on that one? You keep saying that I have no idea about irony, but there's absolutely nothing ironic about any of this on my end. Are you completely not understanding yet another word?
