Does this government advert blame the victim?

[frederick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ

Thoughts please.

[MrCheerful]

On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

It gives advice to the person that is most likely to be injured if they
continue in that situation. What is wrong with that?

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

Just because someone comes off worse in an altercation, it doesn't
automatically make them a blameless victim.

In the first snippet the cyclist is going faster than the lorry. The
cyclist is undertaking, on the immediate approach to a junction -
that's a dumb thing to do, and making people aware of that is no bad
thing.

How about this - is this victim blaming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[frederick]

On 26/09/16 20:50, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>
>> Thoughts please.
>
> Just because someone comes off worse in an altercation, it doesn't
> automatically make them a blameless victim.
>
> In the first snippet the cyclist is going faster than the lorry. The
> cyclist is undertaking, on the immediate approach to a junction -
> that's a dumb thing to do, and making people aware of that is no bad
> thing.
>

Funny because to me it looks like the lorry overtook the cyclist, then
swerved left into the rider.

> How about this - is this victim blaming?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw

I couldn't tell you fosho.

>
> regards, Ian SMith
>

[asfas...@asdfasdfasd.org]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

yes

if the truck has passed the cyclist, he's observed &
knows where the cyclist is

best to hang back though, because they're all idiots

[TMS320]

On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

For artistic reasons, the two moving shots look like two separate takes.
In the first, the cyclist is going faster, has reached the cab and would
have got well ahead before the turn. In the second, the lorry is faster
and the cyclist is alongside (meaning the cyclist had not got there by
design) as the lorry starts to turn.

A waste of effort.

[Peter Keller]

On 27.09.2016 07:57, frederick wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

Yes.
However it is utterly stupid to ride up the inside of a lorry. For
God's sake stay behind the lorry and keep its rear vision mirror in view!

[Peter Keller]

Agreed

[Jude]

From frederick <fake...@gmail.com>:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
>Thoughts please.

I don't see that government advert blaming anyone.

When a bicycle collides with a lorry it's always the cyclist who is the victim
regardless of who is to blame. Although cyclists can be at fault, many
fatalities are not caused by cyclists undertaking lorries, but by drivers
manoeuvring their lorry into a position that puts the cyclist at risk.

It's essential cyclists know how to not put themselves at risk unnecessarily
and also to know how to stay out of danger when lorry drivers put them in a
dangerous position.

[Nick]

On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
they do not.

In terms of accident numbers the most dangerous lorries are the short
wheel base ones, like garbage trucks, cement mixers, etc. This is
clearly not because they are bigger or have more turning problems that
other lorries. It is because the drivers throw them about like they were
driving a car. They accelerate quicker and turn more quickly and
unpredictably. This suggests it is driving style that is the biggest
factor in accidents. Adverts like this give those drivers the idea that
they are entitled to drive dangerously.

We also see the same thing with cars. If you present a narrative that
pedestrians should avoid accidents car drivers then start to think it is
not their responsibility to avoid collisions, that "there was nothing
they code do".

Indeed the last pedestrian are saw hit by a car was a disorientated old
man. After the collision the driver of the car behind the one involved
in the collision consoled the driver with the comment that there "was
nothing he could have done". I though it a strange comment given that I
was driving in the opposite direction had seen the man's behaviour and
stopped.

[soup]

On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
> Thoughts please.

See else thread for the multiple shots cut together for artistic
reasons as to the reasoning behind not really knowing who was at fault.

I do not see this advert as blaming anyone it is 'merely' stating that
no one should find themselves between a left turning lorry and
the pavement.

It seems to me the equivalent of telling pretty young girls (or ugly
old ones I'm not fussy :O) ) not to go down dark alleys wearing short
skirts . Some see it as being sensible others see it as blaming the
victim for "asking for it".

Ongoing education of some lorry drivers (and lets be honest some
cyclists) is a must. The information is already covered when they learn
to drive a truck (just like men are already taught it is wrong to
rape), but it needs to be continuously reinforced.

IT doesn't matter if the cyclist is right and the truck driver is in
the wrong it is still the more vulnerable bike rider who comes of worst.

STAY AWAY FROM THE 'INSIDE' OF LORRIES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ofpj6L6nxg
sort of shows the lorry drivers do have a lot to deal with and it is
only sensible for a cyclist to stay out of the 'no go area'


From the Oldie but Goodie cupboard:-
"No blind spots" . hah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE

[Peter Parry]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:28:55 +0100, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>
>> Thoughts please.
>
>Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
>collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
>they do not.

It is every road users responsibility to drive defensively and avoid
collisions no matter who may be to blame for the potential for one to
occur. "I had the right of way" is a singularly pathetic inscription
for your gravestone. Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.

>In terms of accident numbers the most dangerous lorries are the short
>wheel base ones, like garbage trucks, cement mixers, etc. This is
>clearly not because they are bigger or have more turning problems that
>other lorries. It is because the drivers throw them about like they were
>driving a car. They accelerate quicker and turn more quickly and
>unpredictably. This suggests it is driving style that is the biggest
>factor in accidents. Adverts like this give those drivers the idea that
>they are entitled to drive dangerously.

I frequently see push bike riders trying to squeeze past on the left
of HGV's at traffic lights and give way signs. Many are male
aggressive riders going at speed and intent at stopping for no one.
The other large group are women who will try to use one foot on the
ground to creep past. These are probably the ones more at risk, they
are in the danger zone for longer and are incapable of getting out of
it quickly. Some time ago such a rider was trying to pass on the
left queuing traffic at lights. She was going slowly past an
articulated lorry when she caught her pedal on the high pavement edge
and together with her bike went under the trailer ending up with her
head inches from the rear wheel. Had it not been for a very quick
thinking pedestrian who saw this happen and who jumped in front of the
HGV stopping the driver from moving as the lights changed she would
have been dead.

Telling push bike riders to avoid ending up to the left of large
vehicles is nothing more than very sensible advice.

[Alycidon]

On Tuesday, 27 September 2016 12:01:44 UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote:
Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
> unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.

Spot on as usual.

http://bit.ly/2dgn1K3

[Nick]

On 27/09/2016 12:01, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:28:55 +0100, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>>
>>> Thoughts please.
>>
>> Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
>> collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
>> they do not.
>
> It is every road users responsibility to drive defensively and avoid
> collisions no matter who may be to blame for the potential for one to
> occur. "I had the right of way" is a singularly pathetic inscription
> for your gravestone. Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
> unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.

The "duty" is to avoid damaging others. I don't see how any reasonable
person could compare the duty of a lorry driver not to damage a cyclist
with the duty of a cyclist not to damage a lorry driver.

People who do not assert their rights in the face of intimidation from
thugs often find those rights disappear. A reasonable legal system will
recognise this and seek to support such people and deter intimidation.

>
>> In terms of accident numbers the most dangerous lorries are the short
>> wheel base ones, like garbage trucks, cement mixers, etc. This is
>> clearly not because they are bigger or have more turning problems that
>> other lorries. It is because the drivers throw them about like they were
>> driving a car. They accelerate quicker and turn more quickly and
>> unpredictably. This suggests it is driving style that is the biggest
>> factor in accidents. Adverts like this give those drivers the idea that
>> they are entitled to drive dangerously.
>
> I frequently see push bike riders trying to squeeze past on the left
> of HGV's at traffic lights and give way signs. Many are male
> aggressive riders going at speed and intent at stopping for no one.
> The other large group are women who will try to use one foot on the
> ground to creep past. These are probably the ones more at risk, they
> are in the danger zone for longer and are incapable of getting out of
> it quickly. Some time ago such a rider was trying to pass on the
> left queuing traffic at lights. She was going slowly past an
> articulated lorry when she caught her pedal on the high pavement edge
> and together with her bike went under the trailer ending up with her
> head inches from the rear wheel. Had it not been for a very quick
> thinking pedestrian who saw this happen and who jumped in front of the
> HGV stopping the driver from moving as the lights changed she would
> have been dead.
>
> Telling push bike riders to avoid ending up to the left of large
> vehicles is nothing more than very sensible advice.
>

You may have invented a narrative that blames the victims. Hopefully
society in general is moving away from this type of attitude. Just as it
did with rape and girls in short skirts.

Messages emphasising that cyclists should avoid putting themselves into
situations where another road user's lack of care may harm them has the
unfortunate side effect that it lessens the feeling of responsibility
that other road users have to avoid damaging cyclists.



>
>

[Peter Parry]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:12:42 +0100, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>

wrote:

>On 27/09/2016 12:01, Peter Parry wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:28:55 +0100, Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts please.
>>>
>>> Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
>>> collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
>>> they do not.
>>
>> It is every road users responsibility to drive defensively and avoid
>> collisions no matter who may be to blame for the potential for one to
>> occur. "I had the right of way" is a singularly pathetic inscription
>> for your gravestone. Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
>> unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.
>
>The "duty" is to avoid damaging others. I don't see how any reasonable
>person could compare the duty of a lorry driver not to damage a cyclist
>with the duty of a cyclist not to damage a lorry driver.

The duty is to avoid accidents. That requires both parties to
drive/ride defensively and both to be mindful of other road users and
take whatever action is required to avoid conflict. A push bike rider
choosing to pass large vehicles on the left is carrying out a
ridiculously unsafe manoeuvre for no good purpose. It is asinine to
suggest the HGV driver has the _sole_ responsibility to avoid any
push bike rider who chooses to act in such a foolish way.

In the example I mentioned (and observed) the driver of the vehicle
involved could not possibly have known the lady was underneath his
vehicle unless he had been looking in the correct mirror at the exact
second she fell. She was entirely the author of her own misfortune.

>People who do not assert their rights in the face of intimidation from
>thugs often find those rights disappear. A reasonable legal system will
>recognise this and seek to support such people and deter intimidation.

This combat approach to cycling is one reason it is in the doldrums.
No sensible utility cyclist approaches the road with such silly
preconceptions - but they are now a virtually extinct breed. Pushbike
riding is currently the domain of arrogant men in Lycra with their
permanent snarls, silly clothes and aggressive attitudes.

>> Telling push bike riders to avoid ending up to the left of large
>> vehicles is nothing more than very sensible advice.

>You may have invented a narrative that blames the victims. Hopefully
>society in general is moving away from this type of attitude. Just as it
>did with rape and girls in short skirts.

Shocking though it may be for you drivers of HGV's don't actually wake
each morning wondering how many cyclists they can kill today.

>Messages emphasising that cyclists should avoid putting themselves into
>situations where another road user's lack of care may harm them has the
>unfortunate side effect that it lessens the feeling of responsibility
>that other road users have to avoid damaging cyclists.

Anyone with a grain of common sense will avoid putting themselves into
situations where others lack of care may harm them. "I'm a push bike
rider and can ride as and where I like - it is everyone else's job to
avoid me" is unfortunately the mantra of many snarling MAMILs.

Cycling on the road requires no pre-training or knowledge of the
Highway Code. It doesn't require any education about avoidable risks.
To remind its adherents that riding to the left of HGV's is stupid
and potentially deadly is nothing more than sensible advice.

[JNugent]

On 28-Sep-16 1:12 PM, Nick wrote:

> On 27/09/2016 12:01, Peter Parry wrote:
>> Nick <Nick...@Yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2016 19:57, frederick wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
>>>> Thoughts please.
>
>>> Yes. The more you spread the message that cyclists should avoid
>>> collisions the more you spread the message that it is their fault if
>>> they do not.
>
>> It is every road users responsibility to drive defensively and avoid
>> collisions no matter who may be to blame for the potential for one to
>> occur. "I had the right of way" is a singularly pathetic inscription
>> for your gravestone. Trying to assert your "rights" when on a fragile
>> unstable vehicle is particularly stupid.
>
> The "duty" is to avoid damaging others. I don't see how any reasonable
> person could compare the duty of a lorry driver not to damage a cyclist
> with the duty of a cyclist not to damage a lorry driver.

Define "damage".

> People who do not assert their rights in the face of intimidation from
> thugs often find those rights disappear. A reasonable legal system will
> recognise this and seek to support such people and deter intimidation.

Oh... while you're at it, define "intimidation" (and try to show that
cyclists don't do it - as well as causing damage in its wider sense -
regularly, frequently and in large portions).
[ ... ]

>> Telling push bike riders to avoid ending up to the left of large
>> vehicles is nothing more than very sensible advice.
>
> You may have invented a narrative that blames the victims. Hopefully
> society in general is moving away from this type of attitude. Just as it
> did with rape and girls in short skirts.
>
> Messages emphasising that cyclists should avoid putting themselves into
> situations where another road user's lack of care may harm them has the
> unfortunate side effect that it lessens the feeling of responsibility
> that other road users have to avoid damaging cyclists.

It is not at all difficult to envisage a fatal collision between a
bicycle and a lorry in which the survivor driver is in fact the victim.
Is it?

The victim is the one who broke no law, obeyed the Highway Code and
acted reasonably.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>
> Thoughts please.

How can you call a fuckwit who undertakes then gets squashed a victim?

--
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet -- Napoleon Bonaparte

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Lorry drivers are the most sensible folk on the road.

--
An e-mail computer virus has swept across the globe that automatically opens pornographic websites on the victim's screen.
Authorities intend to track down the hackers responsible for the virus just as soon as somebody complains.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Why are police appealing for anything? It's obvious the driver was not to blame.

--
Today's woman puts on wigs, fake eyelashes, false fingernails, sixteen pounds of assorted make-up/shadows/blushes/creams, living bras, various pads that would make a linebacker envious, has implants and assorted other surgeries, then complains that she cannot find a "real" man.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 22:39:38 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

>
> Lorry drivers are the most sensible folk on the road.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-37204050

[James Wilkinson Sword]

You've quoted one. Now show statistics of how many lorries crash per mile vs cars. You must have one of those graphs somewhere, like your chances of death one.

--
How do you play Iraqi bingo?
B-52...F-16...B-2

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>
>> Thoughts please.
>
>How can you call a fuckwit who undertakes then gets squashed a victim?

A victim is a person (even if they happen to be a fuckwit cyclist) "harmed,
injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"
- (Oxford Dictionary).

[Alycidon]

Which is what happened to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5acTuJm58zg

[Jude]

From Alycidon <swld...@gmail.com>:

That looks extra scary on video because viewing it we can't see the traffic
lights controlling the junction. Had they been showing green to you and the
lorry I don't think you would have attempted that bit of filtering.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 29 September 2016 18:02:16 UTC+1, Jude wrote:

> >
> >Which is what happened to me.
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5acTuJm58zg
>
> That looks extra scary on video because viewing it we can't see the traffic
> lights controlling the junction. Had they been showing green to you and the
> lorry I don't think you would have attempted that bit of filtering.

I could see with my own eyes that the road on the left was at green and when it went to red, I was ready to cycle off before he even moved.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

If I jump off a cliff and die, I'm not a victim. A victim requires someone else to be at fault.

--
Her voice had that tense grating quality, like a first-generation thermal paper fax machine that needed a band tightened.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:50:30 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts please.
>>>
>>> How can you call a fuckwit who undertakes then gets squashed a victim?
>>
>> A victim is a person (even if they happen to be a fuckwit cyclist) "harmed,
>> injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"
>> - (Oxford Dictionary).
>
>If I jump off a cliff and die, I'm not a victim.

If you did it deliberately: you're a victim of a suicide. If you did it
accidentally: you're a victim of an accident.

>A victim requires someone else to be at fault.

Nah: not necessarily, it could be your own fault (deliberate or accidental).
Like if you jump off a cliff and die.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Then I'm not a victim. A victim has to have another person causing the problem.

--
We used to mock the Americans' litigiousness, political correctness, health & safety obsessions and the like.
Now Britain is full of lazy lard buckets who'll sue for everything they can get if they even stub their toe on something.
I need to find a new country to live in.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:33:06 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:50:30 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:57:58 +0100, frederick <fake...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7lBvN80JaQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts please.
>>>>>
>>>>> How can you call a fuckwit who undertakes then gets squashed a victim?
>>>>
>>>> A victim is a person (even if they happen to be a fuckwit cyclist) "harmed,
>>>> injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"
>>>> - (Oxford Dictionary).
>>>
>>> If I jump off a cliff and die, I'm not a victim.
>>
>> If you did it deliberately: you're a victim of a suicide. If you did it
>> accidentally: you're a victim of an accident.
>>
>>> A victim requires someone else to be at fault.
>>
>> Nah: not necessarily, it could be your own fault (deliberate or accidental).
>> Like if you jump off a cliff and die.
>
>Then I'm not a victim. A victim has to have another person causing the problem.

So you can't understand the meaning of "victim blaming" either, then.

A good dictionary always comes in handy. When I was a kid my dad bought me a
pocket-size Collins English Dictionary. The damn thing would only fit in
pockets that had been specially designed.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Nobody uses the word victim unless someone caused the accident. Mind you, "someone" could be bad weather.

--
Don't take life so seriously, it's not permanent.

[JNugent]

On Wednesday, 28 September 2016 22:39:38 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword
wrote:
>
>> Lorry drivers are the most sensible folk on the road.

Not many people would concur with that, but they'd probably agree that
most lorry-drivers are at least more knowledgeable, more careful and
more courteous than most cyclists.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Lorry drivers are also more knowledgeable, more careful and more courteous than most car drivers. They do it for a living, they don't want to lose their job, and they have a big heavy load they don't want to damage or tip over.

--
British Rail Customer: "How much does it cost to Bath on the train?"
Operator: "If you can get your feet in the sink, then it's free".

[Alycidon]

On Friday, 30 September 2016 22:43:57 UTC+1, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

>
> Lorry drivers are also more knowledgeable, more careful and more courteous than most car drivers. They do it for a living, they don't want to lose their job, and they have a big heavy load they don't want to damage or tip over.

HAHAHAHAHA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3527753/Going-going-gone-Dramatic-moment-lorry-topples-smashes-lamppost-high-winds-bridge.html

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Quoting one example proves nothing. Car drivers fuck up way more often. I could quote someone called Simon Mason who deliberately drove while tired and crashed into a barrier.

--
Marital Status: Not Good
Wife's Name: Plaintiff

[Alycidon]

My wife's fault as I told you - have you got Alzheimer's?

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Your wife forced you to drive did she? Driver's decision, you should have been given a 2 year ban.

--
I don't know how many of you have tasted authentic English Beer.
Once in London, I was asked what I thought of a particular brew.
I told my host that it really should be poured back into the horse.

[Jude]

You're going off on more tangents, again. All you need do is face up to the
fact that your idea of what the word victim means does not conform to word's
meaning in the English language... that's all.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

It's not "my idea", it's what I've observed others using it for.

--
From an unknown aircraft waiting in a very long takeoff queue: "I'm fucking bored!"
Ground Traffic Control: "Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!"
Unknown aircraft: "I said I was fucking bored, not fucking stupid!"

[Jude]

You've observed that a victim has to have another person (or thing) causing
the problem. Well, you're almost there. A victim is anyone who has been harmed
by some event they have gone through (as our dictionaries tell us). So, to
make yourself a victim blamer, all you have to say to that someone is that the
harm they have suffered was their own fault. Have you never observed that?

And what about an insult than goes along the lines of: "You're a victim of
your own stupidity"? The point is, you can harm yourself and be solely to
blame (i.e. you are the victim and you are to blame).

[James Wilkinson Sword]

WTF is a "victim blamer"?

> all you have to say to that someone is that the
> harm they have suffered was their own fault. Have you never observed that?

I've never heard of an accident which affected only the person who caused it have the word "victim" used.

> And what about an insult than goes along the lines of: "You're a victim of
> your own stupidity"? The point is, you can harm yourself and be solely to
> blame (i.e. you are the victim and you are to blame).

That's just one of those silly phrases, making the person be counted as two seperate people, to show how stupid they were in their actions.

--
Little Sally came home from school with a smile on her face, and told her mother, "Frankie Brown showed me his penis today at the playground!" Before the mother could raise a concern, "Sally went on to say, "It reminded me of a peanut." Relaxing with a hidden smile, Sally's mum asked, "Really small, was it?" Sally replied, "No, salty." Mum fainted.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>WTF is a "victim blamer"?

A person who engages in victim blaming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

>> all you have to say to that someone is that the
>> harm they have suffered was their own fault. Have you never observed that?
>
>I've never heard of an accident which affected only the person who caused it have the word "victim" used.

That needn't stop anyone from correctly using the word "victim" in such an
accident if they so chose.

>> And what about an insult than goes along the lines of: "You're a victim of
>> your own stupidity"? The point is, you can harm yourself and be solely to
>> blame (i.e. you are the victim and you are to blame).
>
>That's just one of those silly phrases, making the person be counted as two seperate people, to show how stupid they were in their actions.

Common things occur commonly, I have often been the victim of my own
stupidity: I think I'm being played right now, for example.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:

> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>
>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>
> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.

And I see far more of the opposite, some stupid idiot falls over and tries to blame someone else for it.

>>> all you have to say to that someone is that the
>>> harm they have suffered was their own fault. Have you never observed that?
>>
>> I've never heard of an accident which affected only the person who caused it have the word "victim" used.
>
> That needn't stop anyone from correctly using the word "victim" in such an
> accident if they so chose.

Not in modern English.

>>> And what about an insult than goes along the lines of: "You're a victim of
>>> your own stupidity"? The point is, you can harm yourself and be solely to
>>> blame (i.e. you are the victim and you are to blame).
>>
>> That's just one of those silly phrases, making the person be counted as two seperate people, to show how stupid they were in their actions.
>
> Common things occur commonly, I have often been the victim of my own
> stupidity: I think I'm being played right now, for example.

You're not actually a victim, it's just a saying.

--
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."

[Mr Pounder Esquire]

Yes you are.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>
>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>
>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>
>I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.

Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
or otherwise.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:05:05 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:

> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>
>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>
>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>
>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>
> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
> or otherwise.

No, they brought it on themselves. Are you seriously suggesting it's not their fault if they get cancer from chain-smoking? You're a fucking idiot.

--
Top Tip. If someone shoves your feet in a fire, quickly put your head in a bucket of iced water. On average, you will be pretty comfortable.

[JNugent]

On 02/10/2016 01:05, Jude wrote:
> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>
>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>
>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>
>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>
>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>
> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
> or otherwise.

You would see the wearing of a short skirt as the same as 30 years of
smoking 40 Capstan Full Strength a day, would you?

If such a person ss the latter does not engineer their own troubles, who
does engineer them?

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:05:05 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>>
>>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>>
>>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>>
>> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
>> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
>> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
>> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
>> or otherwise.
>
>No, they brought it on themselves. Are you seriously suggesting it's not their fault if they get cancer from chain-smoking?

No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm saying (for the nth time) it doesn't
matter whether you perceive a cancer sufferer to be at fault for their
condition or not, the fact remains they are still a victim of cancer. By way
of proof, if you look up the word 'victim' in the OED (presuming you are
capable of doing that) you will be able to see the following definition: "c.
One who perishes or suffers in health, etc., from some enterprise or pursuit
voluntarily undertaken."

>You're a fucking idiot.

Ha! Now you're showing your true colours. You mean, I'm a victim of my own
stupidity? You are the one whose understanding of the word 'victim' does not
conform to word's current meaning as defined in the English language. Get that
right first and then you can move on to the concept of 'victim blaming'.

[Jude]

From JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>:

Of course not. I was using rape and cancer victims as examples because they
are among the people who are often subject to victim blaming.

>If such a person ss the latter does not engineer their own troubles, who
>does engineer them?

Quite, some victims certainly do engineer their own troubles more than others.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Yet you think they shouldn't be blamed?!

--
A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 10:59:40 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:

> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:05:05 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>>>
>>>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>>>
>>>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>>>
>>> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
>>> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
>>> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
>>> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
>>> or otherwise.
>>
>> No, they brought it on themselves. Are you seriously suggesting it's not their fault if they get cancer from chain-smoking?
>
> No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm saying (for the nth time) it doesn't
> matter whether you perceive a cancer sufferer to be at fault for their
> condition or not, the fact remains they are still a victim of cancer. By way
> of proof, if you look up the word 'victim' in the OED (presuming you are
> capable of doing that) you will be able to see the following definition: "c.
> One who perishes or suffers in health, etc., from some enterprise or pursuit
> voluntarily undertaken."

No, they're not a victim if they brought it on themselves, end of story.

>> You're a fucking idiot.
>
> Ha! Now you're showing your true colours. You mean, I'm a victim of my own
> stupidity? You are the one whose understanding of the word 'victim' does not
> conform to word's current meaning as defined in the English language. Get that
> right first and then you can move on to the concept of 'victim blaming'.

It conforms to the everyday use of the word.

--
She was as easy as the Daily Star crossword.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 10:59:40 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>
>>> On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:05:05 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>>>>
>>>>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
>>>> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
>>>> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
>>>> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
>>>> or otherwise.
>>>
>>> No, they brought it on themselves. Are you seriously suggesting it's not their fault if they get cancer from chain-smoking?
>>
>> No, I am not suggesting that at all. I'm saying (for the nth time) it doesn't
>> matter whether you perceive a cancer sufferer to be at fault for their
>> condition or not, the fact remains they are still a victim of cancer. By way
>> of proof, if you look up the word 'victim' in the OED (presuming you are
>> capable of doing that) you will be able to see the following definition: "c.
>> One who perishes or suffers in health, etc., from some enterprise or pursuit
>> voluntarily undertaken."
>

>No, they're not a victim if they brought it on themselves...

Can you give a cite for that assertion, please? Something with the authority
of the OED which contradicts your assertion, preferably.

[Jude]

From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 11:55:15 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> From JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>:
>>
>>> On 02/10/2016 01:05, Jude wrote:
>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 01 Oct 2016 20:06:07 +0100, Jude <noti...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From "James Wilkinson Sword" <inv...@something.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTF is a "victim blamer"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A person who engages in victim blaming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
>>>>>
>>>>> I see, but they aren't a victim if it's deemed to be their fault.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that how some people justify telling the likes of, for example, short
>>>> skirt wearing rape victims and heavy drinking/smoking cancer victims that they
>>>> brought it on themselves (i.e. victim blaming)? Fault doesn't change anything:
>>>> if someone is raped or has cancer, they are victims regardless of their blame
>>>> or otherwise.
>>>
>>> You would see the wearing of a short skirt as the same as 30 years of
>>> smoking 40 Capstan Full Strength a day, would you?
>>
>> Of course not. I was using rape and cancer victims as examples because they
>> are among the people who are often subject to victim blaming.
>>
>>> If such a person ss the latter does not engineer their own troubles, who
>>> does engineer them?
>>
>> Quite, some victims certainly do engineer their own troubles more than others.
>
>Yet you think they shouldn't be blamed?!

Give me strength! I don't think that at all. Anyway, according to you, if they
are to blame then they can't be a victim. So, according to you, there can not
even be any such a thing as 'victim blaming' as the two words are mutually
exclusive (according to you, that is).

[James Wilkinson Sword]

So why the obsession with "victim blaming"?

> Anyway, according to you, if they
> are to blame then they can't be a victim. So, according to you, there can not
> even be any such a thing as 'victim blaming' as the two words are mutually
> exclusive (according to you, that is).

When there is disagreement as to whether they are to blame or not, then you can refer to them as a victim.

--
Dijon vu: the same mustard as before.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I prefer real life.

--
The scientific name for an animal that doesn't either run from or fight its enemies is "Lunch."