Why wont people answer this question?

Question

many people have answered my questions about is a person responisble if they knowingly put them selves in danger. But only one has answered the question " Why is a women an exception to the maxim " you are reasponsible if you put yourself in danger"
examples a guy is responsible if he puts himself in physical danger by pushing over hells angels bikes

but a girl is not responisble if she goes scantely clad to the same hells angels rooms who are drunk and horny and is raped Why is the guy responsible and not her why does the maxim apply to him and not her

WHY WONT PEOPLE ANSWER THIS PHILOSOPHICCAL QUESTION

Answer 1

Provocation is wrong and nasty but not a crime...even tho it provokes one. The onus is always on the do-er because his actions are.
Why? Temptation is not a crime, you have free will and the response or outcome must be controlled. If you know the story of Adam and Eve you must know that. Now, does that do it for you?

Answer 2

Unless you believe that a woman IS an exception to the maxim you wouldn't have an answer for that direct question. Myself being a woman does not believe that ANY person is an exception. If you do something knowing the risks no matter how horrible they may be, then you are obviously putting yourself in danger. Other answers have included people stating that rape is not the same as getting your *** kicked...it may not be, but it was just an example. To men one of the worst things that can happen to you and totally mess with your dignity is getting your *** kicked. And for women it's rape. So, really the person asking the question was just giving worst case scenarios. I think that alot of people do things on a day to day basis that they knowingly put themselves in danger. When there is a higher chance that something may actually happen you shouldn't do it. For example if a woman knows that every friday night a group of guys hangs out at the mcdonald's on the corner and they have been known to harrass women...that woman shouldn't go there. Regardless of whether or not she should be "able" to and things not happen, is here nor there. We need to protect ourselves...no one else will.

Answer 3

well really
neither the man nor the woman should be in danger

it is entirely the responsibility of the hells angels to be mature and follow the values of our culture and society

although there is a difference between actively pushing over some bikes
and wearing what you want
i understand your point

both people should be sensible and mature about their actions
however both must be uneducated and not too bright to see actions like these as particulary sensible

can you blame a uneducated person for a stupid decision?
well there is certainly a limitation upon the blame that can be attached, same as a child or a person of lesser mental capabilities

especially when they should not have to fear physical danger from any action they make towards others, as a fundamental assumption of our socienty

to apply that maxim
you must prove a conscious and intelligent awareness of danger
you must prove intent
you must prove that there it is not reasonable under the values and laws of our culture to be safe from physical assult due to an action

there is a degree of responsability yes
but it is of a much lesser degree than the hells angels
and is dependent upon many factors, as well as being more to do with stupidity and ignorance, as the action of wearing what you like does not directly impact upon another person, and the responsibility is to yourself and therefore not legally recognised as a responsibility to the society or others

where as the responsability of the hells angels is black and white and not excusable in any sense, and constitutes a responsibility to others and to society

Answer 4

The difference in your scenario is that the man actually does something to create a dangerous situation for himself - damage someone else's bike - while the woman is simply present in what might be a dangerous situation. Both show may have shown poor judgment but poor judgment is not the same as being responsible.

Answer 5

Since time immemorial the women have been treated like 2nd citizen in all social systems till some reforms took place and Govts took initiatives to protect women rights.

This has changed not very long ago.

Therefore more weightage/ emphasis was given to protect rights of the woman while drafting and evolving legal system.

Thats why an incidence like you have quoted can occure without indicating any fault of a woman.

It is in the psyche of law that a woman can not commit a crime related to sex.

So bear it my friend till it changes.

Answer 6

Sorry Mary but the young lady that went into a den of Hell's Angels scantely clad acted totally irresponsibile. The Hell"s Angels merely took advantage of the situation. They would have been irresponsibile had they acted otherwise.

And women are not generally the exception to this maxim!

Sorry about that!

Answer 7

There are multiple ways to look at this question, all depending on your own moral values and understanding. I am a firm beleiver in self control and discipline, a taunt, desires, ignorance, situation, and legal crime is no excuse to do wrong.

Every human being has the means to think, to think of what is right to do and what is wrong to do. Either of your situations involve two wrongs, the first act and the reaction. Two mistakes don't make a right do they? You also neglect certain society fault elements that make these things possible.

Say If I put a cookie in front of you, you have a cookie at home, but you take my cookie anyway because you think I shouldn't have it because of the way I look, do you think that moral value is exceptable?

The question implys a racism to others, immediately judgeing them on appearence, the need to do evil on that person, a failure to admit what your doing to that person is wrong just because of the assumption they had it coming, and then the acceptance of that person being judged and punished in a non-judicial matter.

The act of scantly dressing is outwieghed by the violation of the body. If the person wasn't scantily clad and thought respectable would it be allright? A rapist is a rapist in my mind, there is no tolerance for evil doing, the rapist had a choice of doing right and looking away, instead the person submits to darker sins than scantly dressing and forces penitration on that women in a evil way.

Evil is evil, you rape someone it is evil, no matter what justification you try to make, it was the rapeists lust for sex that made that happen, you put that same women in front of people who do not lust for sex and she wouldn't have been raped.

Just becuase you think someone is evil and needs to be punished, doesn't mean that person is evil, you would end up punishing someone good, making you the evil person.

I find it hard to beleive about religous people, that god gave you choice yet you fail to let people make those choices. Most religions want to take away the god given right of choice by forcing others to submit to what is deemed correct. God gave every person choices, it is a god given right whether you agree with others choices or not.

If a person want to dress differently that was there choice, a person had a choice to not rape someone and chose, who's choice is worse when it comes to committing violence on a human being. Was it really the person dressed differently than everyone else, or the person committing violence on others? You can see that flaw in religous logic throughout the entire world. Religous people to busy looking at everyone else and how they don't follow god's word to understand how much they themselves fail to follow god's word. Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife, but where was the thou shall not dress scantly?

Answer 8

The difference is that the guy in your example attacked the property of someone else. He victimized someone by damaging their property. That doesnt make vigilante justice ok, the victims should call the police, not take the law into their own hands. But it is still a different situation than your other example. The woman in your example victimized nobody. If she is raped, she is a victim, not a victimizer.

Were you raised by religous nuts? I sort of feel sorry for you.

Answer 9

He made the decision to push the bikes over. She didn't make the decision to get raped. She is not asking to be raped. By the standards u put out every girl at the beach is responsible if they get raped along with strippers and for that matter Hooter girls. I understand that people should be held accountable for their actions I don't see how you could say she was asking for it. Girls who make stupid mistakes don't deserved to be held down and assaulted.

Answer 10

hei.....
i think that people don't answer you question bcz most of them can't...
i don't mean physically,but they just don't know,there are a lot of people that live for fun and don't even think about such issues bcz they don't care.
and for the other Q...
girls_or females in general_were _from the beginning of life_not having that much responsibility,they just raise kids,and clean, and cook.men are the responsible person in the house,he works and provides money for the family.the problem is that this belief has not developed with time like females did,and bcz people just think so,this is the situation they live in.(public opinion)..
i hope this answers your philosophiccal question.
(just do what you want to do since you think it is the right thing...)
.......Good Luck...........
bye...