Are date rape drugs an urban myth?

[Martinus]

In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.

Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk.  Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it.  If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else.  It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage.  The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.

That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.

So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

[Valmy]

"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

In the context of drawing a cartoon of Muhammed why isn't it? Pretty sure everybody who has done this knew exactly what kind of people they were provoking. That was precisely the entire point of the exercise.

[Razgovory]

In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.

Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk.  Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it.  If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else.  It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage.  The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.

That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.

So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

Could you clarify this moral and legal reasoning of an intervening autonomous act?  For instance, in the case the actor is law enforcement?  That is, "if you rape someone you go to jail".

[Malthus]

In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.

Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk.  Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it.  If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else.  It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage.  The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.

That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.

So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

No-one is arguing moral or legal responsibility though. They are arguing safety tips.

"Install a better lock on your house - a kid could easily force that one" isn't the same thing as "you are legally and morally to blame if you get burglarized". Even if you left your door totally unlocked all the time, the moral and legal blame is wholly on the burglar, not on you: they made the culpable decision to be a thief. They cannot lessen their responsibility by claiming 'well, you made it so easy for me, who wouldn't steal your shit?'. 

Doesn't stop it from being risky though. 

[Josquius]

Why leave it at girls?  Why not give the advice to gays as well?  No gay man may approach another gay man if the one of the parties is drunk.

OMG "backs against the wall boys" isn't homophobic.  It's victim blaming

[Barrister]

In both cases your logic is that the girl is making herself a target.

Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk.  Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it.  If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else.  It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage.  The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.

That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.

So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

While I fully support the rights of cartoonists to draw offensive cartoons of Mohammed, I have said in the past and will say now that doing so is really fucking pointless and stupid.  There's no great artistic point being made - it's only purpose is to be offensive and provoke a response.

To quote the great statesman the President of the United Federation of Planets, "just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing."

[The Brain]

I'm shocked that BB hates freedom.

[Martinus]

I'm shocked that BB hates freedom.

Yeah, at least he is consistent, isn't he?

[frunk]

Don't think of it as making her/he/it a target, thinking of it as taking a risk.  Smoking increases risk for lung cancer, but people still do it.  If they get cancer they'll get treatment the same as anyone else.  It may not be wise behavior to get wasted on drugs in public without someone to watch out for you, but in no way does it excuse the actions of anybody that takes advantage.  The perpetrators are fully to blame and should be prosecuted the same.

That's a bad analogy. It is a pretty much universally accepted principle in legal and moral reasoning that an intervening autonomous act of a third party breaks the chain of causality.

So, "if you smoke, you get lung cancer" is an acceptable chain of logic.
"If you draw a cartoon of Muhammed, you get killed" or "If you get drunk in public, you get raped" is not - either morally or legally, and arguing that way - even if done with best intentions in mind - serves to deprive the actual culprit of some of the blame and places it on the victim.

Hmm, what part of "The perpetrators are fully to blame" did you not understand, and how can the perpetrators be fully to blame and the victim still share some of the blame?  To me risk does not imply blame, everybody takes all sorts of risks every day and they don't carry with them blame.  To say a particular behavior has an increased risk of something happening doesn't mean the victims are blamed when that something happens.  At least it doesn't to me.

[Jacob]

And personally, if I girl wants to play all coy - I am not into that at all.  Baby, I will do almost anything you want me to do, but you have to tell me you want it.  Maybe even tell me how much you want it. 

You're so smooth 

Et tu, Jacob?  I assumed I'd get some shots from others, but surely you'd support my stance that explicit consent in the bedroom is kind of sexy.

I'm sorry that I don't find you sexy

... but if it makes you feel better, I have no problem with the principle of obtaining explicit consent even if I think your narration of a specific scenario is kind of dorky sounding