Guilty Victims

[Wrangler]

In another thread, I explained how Satan uses adjective-noun combinations to deceive.

Words of Satan

The inspiration for this is a coworker who observed ‘they’ play all these word games, trying to change the meaning of words. We all know Jesus is known as the word of God, the truth, the light and the way. There are those of us who can readily discern his voice, his words, his truth. In this...

www.christianityboard.com

I thought this one is so important, it deserves it's own thread. The expression 'innocent victim' is so frequently thrown at us, it is easy to equate one with the other. But this is false. The existence of the expression 'innocent victims' implies the existence of other kinds of victims; namely, guilty victims.

Just another assault on developing people with high moral character. Take away the virtue of prudence and you have a society filled with 'victims.' To make them feel better about themselves, associate their victim status with a group who supposes they function with impunity, the innocent.

God's word is that there is not innocent, apart from him through Jesus. Thoughts?

 

[lforrest]

In another thread, I explained how Satan uses adjective-noun combinations to deceive.

Words of Satan

The inspiration for this is a coworker who observed ‘they’ play all these word games, trying to change the meaning of words. We all know Jesus is known as the word of God, the truth, the light and the way. There are those of us who can readily discern his voice, his words, his truth. In this...

www.christianityboard.com

I thought this one is so important, it deserves it's own thread. The expression 'innocent victim' is so frequently thrown at us, it is easy to equate one with the other. But this is false. The existence of the expression 'innocent victims' implies the existence of other kinds of victims; namely, guilty victims.

Just another assault on developing people with high moral character. Take away the virtue of prudence and you have a society filled with 'victims.' To make them feel better about themselves, associate their victim status with a group who supposes they function with impunity, the innocent.

God's word is that there is not innocent, apart from him through Jesus. Thoughts?

For a moment on my small screen I thought you wrote "virtue of prejudice." And thought yes this self/group victimization assumes some external guilty party. Therefore these promote prejudice towards other groups.

However you said "prudence" which makes me wrong about your intentions for the discussion.

One's own foolish actions or lack thereof account for our relative misfortune.

I would argue that there are also elements outside our control, such as fluid intelligence, mental health, and initial wealth. Some factors are imposed by group favoritism, but I do not believe this is a main component in success. Generally speaking we are still well off compared to a hundred years ago.

It would help if people were not envious of their neighbors. But this is based human nature. Perhaps people wouldn't care so much about material things if they lived for God. But alas the world is forgetting about God, and madness ensues.

 

[Wrangler]

I would argue that there are also elements outside our control, such as fluid intelligence, mental health, and initial wealth.

Sure. Of course, there are such a thing as elements outside of our control. I'm not denying that. It just seems that the push is to deny guilty victims. The horror people have in reaction is often to lament and express contempt for 'blame the victim.' I suppose that book ends Satanic words on this score.

The wrong implication is no one should ever 'blame the victim.' One word I do no like in application is "accident" when it comes to driving a car in bad weather. No one intends to get into an "accident" but when you throw caution to the wind, when you play stupid games, you ought to expect to win stupid prizes.

On another forum, I asked several years ago the provocative question, "Is it prudent to sexually solicit a rapist?" Few even wanted to answer. I submit the refusal to answer is rooted in the Satanic mantra of innocent victim, coupled with don't blame the victim.

 

[lforrest]

Sure. Of course, there are such a thing as elements outside of our control. I'm not denying that. It just seems that the push is to deny guilty victims. The horror people have in reaction is often to lament and express contempt for 'blame the victim.' I suppose that book ends Satanic words on this score.

The wrong implication is no one should ever 'blame the victim.' One word I do no like in application is "accident" when it comes to driving a car in bad weather. No one intends to get into an "accident" but when you throw caution to the wind, when you play stupid games, you ought to expect to win stupid prizes.

On another forum, I asked several years ago the provocative question, "Is it prudent to sexually solicit a rapist?" Few even wanted to answer. I submit the refusal to answer is rooted in the Satanic mantra of innocent victim, coupled with don't blame the victim.

Often our expectations are not rooted in reality, or we more likely don't give something a second thought. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

The line I would draw is according to law, as it should always be expected that people obey the law even when we know they wont. When people do not it creates victims out of others.

Therefore soliciting, (legal), a rapist (illegal) would still make the former a victim.

 

[Wrangler]

Therefore soliciting, (legal), a rapist (illegal) would still make the former a victim.

That was not my question. My question is it prudent to sexually solicit a rapist?

 

[lforrest]

That was not my question. My question is it prudent to sexually solicit a rapist?

It is not prudent. Where do you stop with this line of reasoning to ascribe guilt or innocence to a victim for their imprudence? In some situations an action may be prudent, and others the same action imprudent. Instead of soliciting suppose she:

• Was dressing provocatively?
• Was not walking with a friend?
• looked like she was lost?
• Lived in a bad neighborhood?
• Lived in the wrong country.
• Left her house without full hijab?
• Left her house without her husband?
• Was homeless?
• Was inebriated?
• Was not carrying a weapon for self defense?
• Was threatened?
• Was a certain race or ethnicity that the racist rapist associated with a more desirable target?

 

[Wrangler]

Where do you stop with this line of reasoning to ascribe guilt or innocence to a victim for their imprudence?

Why is your focus on stopping this line of reasoning? Fact is, there is such a thing as guilty victims. We'd be better off with a return to prudence. My focus is on starting this line of reasoning. While God is ultimately in control of our lives, we have a lot more control than society expects of us.

• Don't drive out in the snow and ice.
• Take an umbrella when it rains.
• Allow relationships time to build trust.
• Don't sexually solicite rapists.
• Don't antagonize someone or something capable of killing you.
• Be situationally aware.
• When your gut tells you something is wrong, follow your gut instincts.
• Live within your means.
• If something is too good to be true, it probably is.
• Trust but verify.
• Don't want to get pregnant, use protection.
• Don't go out of bounds of safety.
• To avoid stupid prizes, avoid playing stupid games.

'coronavirus challenge' licking toilet seats and doorknobs​

A couple of weeks ago, my stepson got engaged. Big emerald ring. Last week he needed to borrow money to pay January's bills.


The prudent sees danger and hides himself,
but the simple go on and suffer for it
Proverbs 27:12