How can one be a victim when his/her own choices create the situations him/her experienced?
If a woman didn't step out to the store, the rapist wouldn't have the chance to rape her along the path. Furthermore, if she chose to step out to the store, then she is responsible for not taking preventative measures (weapons for self-defense, martial arts, anti-rape insertions).
How about one who is sick? Most illnesses, diseases are the result of poor dieting, exposure to chemicals, and lack of exercise. Genetic-predisposition does not entail imminent cancer. There are diseases with 100% genetic-predisposition but then the parents are at fault for not getting genetically-screened or procreating despite knowing the consequences. So basically, almost everyone is responsible for causing their own sickness.
There are countless examples of this. The poor are not victims. The people who die in natural disasters are not victims. One is responsible for the choice and for not taking preventative measures.
Know any examples of genuine victims? Or am I wrong entirely?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Responsibility is essentially the acceptance of what and who you are, and of what befalls you.
Although unforeseeable events occur constantly, and this is what is called Flux, or, to simplify, it is called LIFE, when one accepts the world one accepts his own participation in it. This participation is (inter)active, as on being lives in a bubble. This participation includes all that is known and unknown. Therefore, when one considers an event, and its positive and negative possibilities - in regards to the individual himself - one considers his own actions, first and foremost, and then his assessments and choices, before he considers anything else.
In the case of a natural event, a chance event - called chance because a mind could not consider all of its parameters, and so could not predict it - the healthy mind first considers the possibility that he could have foreseen, or deduced, the probability of the event occurring, and then accepts the outcome as being a part of existing...even if he concludes that the event was unforeseeable. Any personal culpability acts as a lesson informing all future actions, choices, decisions. This is called experience.
If it were not the case, then everyone would expect the world to be as he or she preferred or wanted or dreamed or hoped it would be, in his/her naive inexperienced state, and would demand nothing of himself/herself. He or she would be the eternal victim, blind, naive, innocent, because (s)he refuses to take on responsibility even if it is the acceptance of another's whims which had not been understood correctly. There would be no growth, because the blame would be placed on the other, completely, and it would be (s)he who had to adjust to the individual's expectations. Everything that happed to the individual would be totally the other's fault...and so the individual would never have to change, or learn, or grow. (S)He would stagnate.
If the event was the result of an other's willful actions, choices, decisions, then the healthy mind considers its own culpability in knowing, and understanding this other, before he considers the culpability and responsibility of the other.
To then seek retribution is not irrational, for to do so is to prevent or to decrease the probability, that it will repeat itself.
Fate can be divided into two categories.
1- The fate suffered due to a non-willful event - a natural disaster, a phenomenon, an illness etc.
In this case one must accept it as a natural part of being alive, and must either learn from it to prepare for any similar event in the future, or make decisions that will decrease the probabiltiy of suffering due to similar events.
To be alive is an aggressive activity. To live entails constant violence, struggle, fighting...agon. Simply taking up space is an act of force. When I breath in, I deny this breathe to another. That oxygen is abundant - still - makes us forget this fact. Place two men in a airtight box. Then this fact reveals itself. When we get a job, w deny it to another. When we eat, some living organism must die. When we buy a cheep show some poor sap is making it for peanuts in some third-world country. When I drive my car, some family had to be killed to ensure the rights over an oil-field.
2- The fate suffered due to willful events. This inlcudes the choices, actions, decisions of another and of yourself.
If, for example, I'm a girl who chooses to go out to a bar, at night, populated by strangers, amongst whom are males, wearing nothing but a bra and panties; flaunting my sexuality, expressing myself as I will, then suffering the consequence of another who also wishes to express his sexuality, is to be taken as a probable repercussion. If I feel invulnerable because feel protected by an overseeing Will, expecting others to tolerate my displays, while I do not have to fear suffering any probable consequences, then I must admit this fact.
If, for example, I decide to swim in the Great Barrier Reef wearing nothing but meat strapped to my ass, expecting the police to stop me before the inevitable, or the probable, occurs, then my choice should be considered MY responsibility. Whether I am protected from my own bad judgment, my own ignorance, my own stupidity, does not factor in. Ignorance is not an excuse.
If, I choose to live beyond my means and then I lose my job, forcing me to go bankrupt and lose everything, my ignorance is not an excuse. If I am sold on materialism and given loans by banks I can barely afford then, as the one buying, I am the one responsible for my purchases. The seller is simply soliciting me, trying to seduce me...manipulating me using my weaknesses.
Being naive, inexperienced, or stupid, or weak, or ignorant is not a way of avoiding responsibility.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
It is used as an indication of guilt, shame, in relation to a human code: law, morality, etiquette. There is no guilt in nature, there are only actions and reactions, resulting in positive and negative results...negative/positive being a subjective interpretation of an outcome. A man can be held accountable for his actions in relation to an institutionalized rule of conduct....or a rule imposing a limit, via an external Will, upon the activities of the individual.
In order to judge the "guilt" of the individual one must begin by judging the judging standard.
Another way the term innocent is used is as a replacement for the term "ignorant." A child is considered innocent because it has no clue; it is unaware of what the world is or how it works. We protect such ignorance, such weakness, so as to allow it to mature.
But when this protective umbrella of excuses, is maintained for a longer period of time, then the mind is retained in a state of childishness....infancy. Under the premise that it is ignorant, it is excused form all liability.
The weakness of ignorance is used as a reason to maintain it...to protect it, to stunt it, so that it does not face the harsh reality of adapt or die.
In a way we are all innocent, as we all do not choose to exist and we are all ignorant, to one degree or another. Under the moral code of protecting the weak, we must all be protected form our ignorance, helping us remain infantile forever...because infants are more easily manipulated and controlled.
But, again, nature cares not for human innocence. If a man does not know there's a shark in the waters and enters them only to be devoured, is the shark guilty? Is the man a poor innocent? Does nature give a shit?
No, but man does...because man can project himself and he can place himself in the place of that victim of ignorance, pitying himself through the other. Being, then, filled with anxiety, towards a world he can never fully know, the mind reacts in resentment, in hatred....declaring himself a poor, innocent that should be protected. Protected from himself, first and foremost.
Enter God...the Divine Protector.
The famous "Yes" saying to life means this acceptance of all fates, foreseeable or not...
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 49 Location : Exile
Here's a website where the contributors seem to feel that they are genuine victims, and that they exist in some vacuum of innocence from which they alone can perceive societies terrible 'injustices'.
They seem to persist without gender, sexual orientation, race, disability, class... minus physical bodies in fact.
No, but man does...because man can project himself and he can place himself in the place of that victim of ignorance, pitying himself through the other.
Isn't it bullshit for one to take pity on an innocent man while simultaneously accepting who and what he/she is and what befalls him/her?
It's hypocritical and shows no genuine acceptance. no?
How can one be a victim when his/her own choices create the situations him/her experienced?
If a woman didn't step out to the store, the rapist wouldn't have the chance to rape her along the path.
Hmm, I recall reading somewhere that most rape statistics aren't the typical sensationalised stories you read or hear about. Most rape victims are actually fit, attractive, and young. According to the article I read, most women who are raped are raped not because of issues of control or dominance, but merely because the woman is attractive and desirable. Most of them are not easy targets either, because they aren't obese, disfigured, or handicapped...again, they are fit, which means the men who raped them knew a struggle would ensue. If a man wanted someone who was easy to target, he would go for a woman with no self-esteem, weak, physically weak or deformed/handicapped in some way, and in most cases, the article claimed this just doesn't happen overall.
So how does this change the entire victim ideology? These girls/women weren't really victims in the first place, they were confident, beautiful, and physically fit for their age and size -- yet they were targeted merely for being beautiful and attractive. I'm going to take a different stance today and state that somehow, it doesn't seem fair to blame someone for being beautiful, and female, to be raped as a consequence. Maybe women should just wear burkas? What do you think?
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
which means the men who raped them knew a struggle would ensue.
I disagree. Elevated hormones trumps reason and/or boosts confidence, making a rapist audacious.
schwarzstein wrote:
If a man wanted someone who was easy to target, he would go for a woman with no self-esteem, weak, physically weak or deformed/handicapped
These girls/women weren't really victims in the first place, they were confident, beautiful, and physically fit for their age and size -- yet they were targeted merely for being beautiful and attractive.
Based on these two sentences, you're implying that strength, emotions, and beauty defines victimhood which seems to have lead you to the next quoted statement...
schwarzstein wrote:
I'm going to take a different stance today and state that somehow, it doesn't seem fair to blame someone for being beautiful, and female, to be raped as a consequence. Maybe women should just wear burkas? What do you think?
No one is blaming the "victims" for their strength, emotions, and beauty. They're being blamed for their choices, actions and not taking the appropriate measure for reactions.
The "victim" decided (choice) to go to the store (action). The rapist rapes her along the path (reaction). The "victim" got herself in that situation because of her choice. If she didn't make that choice, the rapist wouldn't have her there to rape. Also, since the "victim" chose, she is at fault for not preparing for what satyr calls flux. Why didn't she understand the impact her beauty has on men and why didn't she prepare for possible reactions (rape)?
Most things are the repetition of the past. Rape, weapons, fighting is nothing new. You might not know when it strikes, but you can prepare for it. Any excuse such as "I didn't earn enough money to buy it" or "I don't have the time to learn or practice" will be met with the same type of questioning (blaming the one). Why didn't you make stronger efforts to make money? Why didn't you invest it properly? Why didn't you educate yourself to make money with less effort and not get yourself manipulated around every corner? Etc.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
The animals are caged, calm, well-fed...some are trained. On many occasions I'm invited by the trainers to play with the bears. I become comfortable with interacting with this beast. It eats honey from my palm, never once scratching me. Under the trainer's gaze I can command the beast....toy with it....taunt it, if I wish. This makes me confident. I begin to think of myself as a beast tamer.
One night, while the trainer is asleep, I feel restless. I want to experience my own beastly side, but without the trainer watching over me. I sneak into the zoo, find the bear's cage, and I enter. The bear senses my presence, it exits its cave.
I am, at first apprehensive, shy. I've not strutted my stuff without an overlooking trainer before. The bear behaves as he did all the other times. I become calmer, more daring.
To experience my wildness I take off my clothes and begin running around with the bear. The bear hasn't eaten since yesterday and it is becoming excited with all this running around; its blood is flowing, as is mine. I wrestle with the bear, slapping its head about, taunting it....when my finger accidentally enters its eye...causing the bear pain. The bear goes mad, and tears me to pieces.
What an innocent boy I was, surrounded by fences, cages, playing whit trained bears, expecting them to be fair. How cruel the bear was. How evil.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
reasonvemotion
Gender : Posts : 681 Join date : 2013-01-09 Location : The Female Spirit
An idea(l), concept, held within an ordering mind. Nature cares not, of course.
It's not fair that a woman is raped - it is aesthetically unpleasant to many humans, ordering agents, because the woman physically had less means to defend herself than a typically male attacker.
In the middle-east you see women wearing clothes to hide their attractiveness. It is not fair to males for them to be tested by a woman's beauty. The body makes them think of the worldly, sex, and so a woman, by exposing herself, must be responsible and intentional in making the male feel desire for her.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
An idea(l), concept, held within an ordering mind. Nature cares not, of course.
It's not fair that a woman is raped - it is aesthetically unpleasant to many humans, ordering agents, because the woman physically had less means to defend herself than a typically male attacker.
In the middle-east you see women wearing clothes to hide their attractiveness. It is not fair to males for them to be tested by a woman's beauty. The body makes them think of the worldly, sex, and so a woman, by exposing herself, must be responsible and intentional in making the male feel desire for her.
What attractiveness?
I wonder if this practice stems from a lack of self-appreciation of their own beauty. Some people(Europeans) can be so beautiful physically, that even though they are sexually attractive, their overall beauty/form becomes something more attractive, something to be appreciated(divinely).
Arabs lack the physical beauty of Europeans so maybe all they have to "work with" for spiritual growth, is baser sexual stimulation, or the control and restraint of it.
Slaughtz
Gender : Posts : 2593 Join date : 2012-04-28 Age : 33 Location : A stone.
A middle-eastern person is attracted to certain characteristics like a peacock is to specific ones. Europeans have their own as well. There is no objective definition for beauty. Just because I can acknowledge there are differences in tastes and standards from one species to another doesn't mean I share those tastes.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
"This all exemplifies a situation which has now become general, in which inoffensive and impotent intellectuals exchange their woes for those of the wretched, each supporting the other in a kind of perverse contract -- exactly as the political class and civil society exchange their respective woes today, the one serving up its corruption and scandals, the other its artificial convulsions and inertia. Thus we saw Bourdieu and the Abbé Pierre offering themselves up in televisual sacrifice, exchanging between them the pathos-laden language and sociological metalanguage of wretchedness. And so, also, our whole society is embarking on the path of commiseration in the literal sense, under cover of ecumenical pathos. It is almost as though, in a moment of intense repentance among intellectuals and politicians, related to the panic-stricken state of history and the twilight of values, we had to replenish the stocks of values, the referential reserves, by appealing to that lowest common denominator that is human misery, as though we had to restock the hunting grounds with artificial game. A victim society. I suppose all it is doing is expressing its own disappointment and remorse at the impossibility of perpetrating violence upon itself.
The New Intellectual Order everywhere follows the paths opened up by the New World Order. The misfortune, wretchedness and suffering of others have everywhere become the raw material and the primal scene. Victimhood, accompanied by Human Rights as its sole funerary ideology. Those who do not exploit it directly and in their own name do so by proxy. There is no lack of middlemen, who take their financial or symbolic cut in the process. Deficit and misfortune, like the international debt, are traded and sold on in the speculative market -- in this case the politico- intellectual market, which is quite the equal of the late, unlamented military--industrial complex. Now, all commiseration is part of the logic of misfortune [malheur]. To refer to misfortune, if only to combat it, is to give it a base for its objective reproduction in perpetuity. When fighting anything whatever, we have to start out -- fully aware of what we are doing -- from evil, never from misfortune." [The Perfect Crime]
"Victim society as the easiest, most trivial form of otherness. Resurrection of the Other as calamity, as victim, as alibi -- and of ourselves as unhappy consciousnesses extracting from this necrological mirror an identity which is itself wretched. We explore the multiple signs of misfortune to prove God by Evil, as we explore the wretchedness of others to prove our existence a contrario. The new identity is the victim's identity. Everything is organized around the deprived, frustrated, handicapped subject, and the victim strategy is that of his acknowledgement as such. Every difference is asserted in the victimal mode of recrimination (of the reparation of a crime); others are called on only for purposes of recognition. This is the social sphere as human rights therapy, as surgery for the mending of identities. An effective strategy, this, the strategy of cashing in one's debt, trading on one's losses -- negative blackmail. A defective strategy, one to parallel the strategies of weakness and disbandment. A minimalist, victimalist, humanitarian strategy, characteristic of emotional and promotional societies. Hands off my difference!
Rights as universal reference, as underwriting all differences. A hegemony which has little to do with public affairs and the collective institution, but much to do with that kind of contract that indiscriminately sanctions the loss of natural qualities -- as, for example, when the right to existence sanctions the loss of the most precious thing obtained without our having a right to it: life. Or when the right to pure air substitutes for asphyxia, the right to freedom for the exercise of freedom, or right itself for desire in the form of the right to desire, and so on. Rights are what mobilize the energies of an enervated social body. Weak value of an existence under guarantee -- a formal, insurance-minded, risk-free society.
The assumption of human suffering into the heaven of the media and the mental space of advertising is accompanied by its irruption into political and sociological metadiscourse. This is because politics and sociology are themselves faced with their own destitution. Together, therefore, they have struck a pact with social destitution on the basis of commiseration. Sociologists speak wretchedly, and the wretched set about expressing themselves sociologically. So we move into a situation of the celebration of one's deficit, one's misfortune, one's personal insignificance -- with the intellectual and media discourse, by its simultaneously sadistic and sentimental takeover of these matters, sanctioning people's right to their own suffering, their consecration as victims and the loss of their natural defences. The victims themselvesl do not complain, since they get the benefit of confessing their misery. Foucault argued that a whole culture was at one time engaged in the confession of sex. It has now gone over to the confession of wretchedness.
Atonement, expiation, laundering, prophylaxis, promotion and rehabilitation -- it is difficult to put a name to all the various nuances of this general commiseration which is the product of a profound indifference and is accompanied by a fierce strategy of blackmail, of the political takeover of all these negative passions. It is the `politically correct' in all its effects -- an enterprise of laundering and mental prophylaxis, beginning with the prophylactic treatment of language. Black people, the handicapped, the blind and prostitutes become `people of colour', `the disabled', `the visually impaired', and `sex workers': they have to be laundered like dirty money. Every negative destiny has to be cleaned up by a doctoring even more obscene than what it is trying to hide." [The Perfect Crime]
"Euphemistic language, the struggle against sexual harassment -- all this protective and protectionist masquerade is of the same order as the use of the condom. Its mental use, of course -- that is, the prophylactic use of ideas and concepts. Soon we shall think only when we are sheathed in latex. And the data suit of Virtual Reality already slips on like a condom.
Today, the contraceptive sheath is used for seduction. `He seeks to seduce her, she resists, he brings out his condom, she falls into his arms.' She would, in the past, have been seduced by the erection; now, she is seduced by the protection. A step further, and being HIV positive [séropositif] will be seductive in itself (`This product can damage your health' serves almost as an advertising slogan). We have seen on our walls and our buses: `I'm HIV positive -- will you come to the dining hall with me? (say yes!)'; `Im a mongol -- will you come and play with me?`; Sero is beautiful. The direst thing becomes an advertising statement. A new moral order, a new conviviality based on this marvellous legitimacy of difference, even when it is the difference of the negative and the lack of living.
The AIDS obsession doubtless arises from the fact that the exceptional destiny of the sufferers gives them what others cruelly lack today: a strong, impregnable identity, a sacrificial identity -- the privilege of illness, around which, in other cultures, the entire group once gravitated, and which we have abolished almost everywhere today by the enterprise of therapeutic eradication of Evil [le Mal]. But in another way, the whole strategy of the prevention of illness merely shifts the problem [le mal] from the biological to the social body. All the anti-AIDS campaigns, playing on solidarity and fear --
`Your AIDS interests me' -- give rise to an emotional contagion as noxious as the biological. The promotional infectiousness of information is just as obscene and dangerous as that of the virus. If
AIDS destroys biological immunities, then the collective theatricalization and brainwashing, the blackmailing into responsibility and mobilization, are playing their part in propagating the epidemic of information and, as a side-effect, in reinforcing the social body's immunodeficiency -- a process that is already far advanced -- and in promoting that other mental AIDS that is the Aids-athon, the Telethon and other assorted Thanatons -- expiation and atonement of the collective bad conscience, pornographic orchestration of national unity.
AIDS itself ends up looking like a side-effect of this demagogic virulence. Politicians and advertisers have understood that the key to democratic government -- perhaps even the essence of the political? -- is to take general stupidity for granted: `Your idiocy, your resentment, interest us!' Behind which lurks an even more suspect discourse: `Your rights, your destitution, your freedom, interest us!' Democratic souls have been trained to swallow all the horrors, scandals, bluff, brainwashing and misery, and to launder these themselves. Behind the condescending interest there always lurks the voracious countenance of the vampire." [The Perfect Crime]
"In this same way, on the pretext of unconditional respect for life (what could be more politically correct?), we have heard the following humanitarian profession of faith pronounced: no idea in the world is worth killing for (nor, doubtless, worth dying for). No human being deserves to be killed for anything whatsoever. A final acknowledgement of insignificance: both of ideas and of people. This statement, which actually seeks to show the greatest respect for life, attests only to a contempt and an indifference for ideas and for life. Worse than the desire to destroy life is this refusal to risk it -- nothing being worth the trouble of being sacrificed. This is truly the worst offence, the worst affront possible. It is the fundamental proposition of nihilism." [The Perfect Crime]
How can one be a victim when his/her own choices create the situations him/her experienced?
If a woman didn't step out to the store, the rapist wouldn't have the chance to rape her along the path. Furthermore, if she chose to step out to the store, then she is responsible for not taking preventative measures (weapons for self-defense, martial arts, anti-rape insertions).
How about one who is sick? Most illnesses, diseases are the result of poor dieting, exposure to chemicals, and lack of exercise. Genetic-predisposition does not entail imminent cancer. There are diseases with 100% genetic-predisposition but then the parents are at fault for not getting genetically-screened or procreating despite knowing the consequences. So basically, almost everyone is responsible for causing their own sickness.
There are countless examples of this. The poor are not victims. The people who die in natural disasters are not victims. One is responsible for the choice and for not taking preventative measures.
Know any examples of genuine victims? Or am I wrong entirely?
One is not an intentional victim by their own selves when they have nothing to do with creating the paradigm that they exist in that causes their victimization to begin with.
Understanding causality is crucial here.
How can one be responsible for the very environment that they randomly happened to be born and thrown into? An environment that they themselves have no control or influence over.
Doesn't make any sense at all.
People in control of the paradigm like this sort of reasoning because the individual becomes accountable for their entire lives while they themselves are left off the hook for everything where they can conveniently have no responsibility or accountability for anything at all including over others.
Make all problems individuals face internal ones where anything that has to do with exterior factors are left off the hook and ignored altogether.
The bear goes mad because he realises what he has never had.
The bear doesn't go mad, it reverts back to its nature because its trainer wasn't there to keep it in check, and it was provoked beyond its capacity to control itself like it was trained to. It's nature is much more simpler than you're thinking, its nature is to feed. Satyr is saying something like, if a woman gets drunk, walks into a bar topless, and cavorts with manimals, she should, bear, some responsibility, she should not be protected from her ignorance and stupidity, or the whole world will wind up ignorant and stupid. He's saying that ignorance and stupidity is just as much of an offense as violence, even that they're a kind of violence, that needs to be culled. In other words, he's against the whole liberal/libertarian paradigm. He's justifying rape... in some cases. This justification, may also be an excuse. I suspect he has raped several women, and men in the past, perhaps dozens, and could do so again.
Last edited by Divergense on Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
How can one be a victim when his/her own choices create the situations him/her experienced?
Right off it is not binary. There can be degrees of victimhood/lack of self care. Further, rarely do people create the entire situation. Other people are creating those situations also. Unless someone goes into the woods, tries to climb a rock face with no skills and falls from a great height. But many situations where the word victim is useful other people had varying degrees of control of the environment and of course themselves.
Quote :
If a woman didn't step out to the store, the rapist wouldn't have the chance to rape her along the path. Furthermore, if she chose to step out to the store, then she is responsible for not taking preventative measures (weapons for self-defense, martial arts, anti-rape insertions).
Gee, well, if my Mom went to the store and got raped, I would consider her a victim. If she was rushing up to strange, dangerous men and screaming that they probably can't get it up and flashing her genitals, well, alright she is moving into non-victim areas. Of course people should take precautions, no wandering down alleyways at night and so on. But there are home intrusion rapes and I really don't think one has to have a bear trap in their vagina to be able to say they are a victim. Just as if you were on the way to the store and three guys jumped you, or one shot you in the face. Sure, I know, you are a black belt and carry and Uzi, safety off and have a little rear view mirror on your baseball cap, but most people are not so well prepared, yet nevertheless can be victims.
Quote :
How about one who is sick? Most illnesses, diseases are the result of poor dieting, exposure to chemicals,
Exposure to chemicals is often NOT the result of one's own choices. And for kids, their diets are often not their choices. But an adult who continues to eat shit, sure, they move out of the victim category fast. Exposure to chemicals, however, can only partially be controlled.
Quote :
There are countless examples of this. The poor are not victims. The people who die in natural disasters are not victims. One is responsible for the choice and for not taking preventative measures.
So like people killed in a flood are responsible, earthquakes. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to move to a region with no natural disasters possible, build a bunker and stay hunkered down underground armed to the teeth.
Quote :
Know any examples of genuine victims? Or am I wrong entirely?
You're not entirely wrong. A lot of people who claim to be victims are not. But you seem to be overcompensating by blaming people for things that are not in their control and also suggesting that if one does not always prepare for the worst one is to blame. Perhaps you personally are somehow impervious, or if people broke into your home and they happened to be better with their weapons than your are with your weapons, you would say, well, that was my fault. Hell, you would probably ask the judge to set them free since they would not have gained entry and managed to shoot you and take your stuff if you had spent more time at the shooting range, had a larger dog who they shot, and hired several body guards.
Take the wars that came out of the decommunizing of Yugoslavia. There were many victims. How could a village prepare for an invading, professional army, an army that had orders to kill all the males and rape all the women?
Many people were born poor, perhaps you were, but if you were not, it is likely rather facile to assume they should make all the perfect choices to get out of poverty when perhaps you yourself would not have. That they may be to some degree victims does not entail, necessarily, any responsibility for you or the government to fix their problems, but to some degree many poor people are victims of shitty luck of birth.
Governments and other large agents have the power and use to fuck people up. To say anyone who gets on the wrong end of a government, mafia, corporation, etc. cannot be a victim is just strange. Oh, you should have been planing from early childhood....and so on. And even if the person in question might have done this or that better, that doesn't mean they are not to some degree victims. Being a victim does not mean you suddely have the right to expect everyone to sacrifice for you or that you suddenly have power over others. It just a term recognizing that shit happens and not all of that shit is under our control.
Last edited by Kovacs on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
Still....responsibility means that even the unforeseen factors are to be accepted as something you should have, and you could have foreseen. Existing is a an act of asserting your presence, and this assertion is what you must account for.
I'm nowhere close to being noble, but I've heard that taking responsibility for your own fate means you accept the repercussions of each and every one of your choices....because those choices placed you in the situation where the unforeseen, by you, became possible.
You had no choice in being born - that choice being made for you - but, still, if you are noble, and not a stupid, cunt, coward, like me, then you accept this inherited burden as your own. Someone told me that "Know Thyself" means knowing, understanding, and accepting your past...and this includes all the choices made without your consent. But she was a dumb bitch, named Lyssa, so I wouldn't pay attention.
That's what men do, I've heard, because she told me...but I wouldn't know, being that I'm emasculated and close to being a homosexual who likes taking it up his rectum. If you are a coward, like me, then you can say "I didn't know" and find in naivete and innocence - which only means ignorance - a saving grace.
It really hurts me when they ignore me, being that I'm a narcissist and shit. But then when they do notice me and hurt me, I tend to pretend they aren't there.
That'll teach'em.
This world, as it is in the west, and that some call "modern" is amazing.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
Still....responsibility means that even the unforeseen are to be taken upon you as something you should have and could have foreseen.
WEll, I don't think everything is foreseeable. But the core of this point I agree with. To me they are separate issues. If one's only reaction is to pout and not move and not learn, that's, well, that's a bad choice. At the same time recognizing that someone or oneself could not have controlled everything, and yes, you might have chosen to walk down this other street and the bank robbers would not have come out while you were passing and a stray shot...etc., but then on the other street that car that rammed up on the sidewalk might have....It seems to me one can do what you are saying but also recognize that some things simply happen. A meteor may hit you in the next half an hour and instead of posting here you could be building a metal plate to roof your room.
Quote :
I'm nowhere close to being noble, but I've heard that taking responsibility of your own fate means you accept the repercussions of each and every one of your choices....because those choices placed you in the situation where the unforeseen, by you, became possible.
And whatever your choice it will put you where the unforseen can happen. Even the bunker scenario I mentioned in my other post might, for example, draw an ATF raid. Unless one expects godlike powers, shit can happen regardless. One must accept that the shit that comes is real, will not go away because it seems unfair, and potentially can be learned from, even, in the specific prevented from happening again.
Quote :
But, if you are a coward, like me, then you can say "I didn't know" and find in naivete and innocence - which only means ignorance, a saving grace. That's what men do, I've heard...but I wouldn't know, being that I'm emasculated and close to being a homosexual.
Yah, this seems, again, like a false dilemma. You have the victim worshippers who love the stasis of victimhood, and you have the godlike who pretend to take responsibility for everything. But strawmen can be soothing.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 39672 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
WEll, I don't think everything is foreseeable. But the core of this point I agree with. To me they are separate issues. If one's only reaction is to pout and not move and not learn, that's, well, that's a bad choice.
I agree. My recent, obvious, and clear shaming taught me a lesson I will not soon forget.
Kovacs wrote:
At the same time recognizing that someone or oneself could not have controlled everything, and yes, you might have chosen to walk down this other street and the bank robbers would not have come out while you were passing and a stray shot...etc., but then on the other street that car that rammed up on the sidewalk might have....It seems to me one can do what you are saying but also recognize that some things simply happen. A meteor may hit you in the next half an hour and instead of posting here you could be building a metal plate to roof your room.
I love the imagery. It gets my heart pumping and makes me excited. You are a great writer. You should write a script like the "Expendables". It's right up your....alley.
Kovacs wrote:
And whatever your choice it will put you where the unforseen can happen. Even the bunker scenario I mentioned in my other post might, for example, draw an ATF raid. Unless one expects godlike powers, shit can happen regardless. One must accept that the shit that comes is real, will not go away because it seems unfair, and potentially can be learned from, even, in the specific prevented from happening again.
Man-o-man...and all these years I've been saying the opposite.
Kovacs wrote:
Yah, this seems, again, like a false dilemma. You have the victim worshippers who love the stasis of victimhood, and you have the godlike who pretend to take responsibility for everything. But strawmen can be soothing.
True....in which case you can teach us the middle-way....the perfect balance between being a narcissist, and being a coward, cunt, pseudo-intellectual, like me.
I'll await your training seminars...where you draw your line, and we must follow.
I, being a coward, dream of being noble.... This means I accept my faith, come what may. You, being healthy and well-balanced, have found that middle-ground of mediocrity
Then you can be a victim any time you feel like it, and then brave the rest of the time.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Last edited by Satyr on Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
