Drunk on responsibility

[mandalorian2298]

I admit I am confused by this article: Are they saying that intoxicated people are capable of making a choice and should accept responsibility of the consequences of their actions?

Subjectively speaking, I choose to perceive everything that happens to me as a consequence of my actions, not because of my God complex (which I am to perfect to suffer from), but simply because I see no benefit in telling myself that my fate is in the hands of other people when the only actions that I can directly control are my own. However, I recognize that other people are looking at their lives differently than I do, which I can understand as long as those views are coherent.

I understand that some people believe that intoxicated people are unable to make good decisions and should therefore bot be held accountable for the choices they make while intoxicated. On the other hand, there are people who hold that if the person willingly and knowingly chose to ingest alcohol in the amount sufficient to render them incapable of making good choices the bad choices that they make in this state are still the result of their initial decision to become intoxicated and that makes them as responsible for the consequences of their "drunk" choices as they are for those of their "sober" choices.

While I obviously agree with the second opinion and disagree with the first, both of those opinions can be seen as coherent. The article in the link above, however seems to posit that the drunk person who got convicted because he had sex with another drunk(er) person who, being drunk, could not give her consent, should not try to use the fact that he was drunk as an excuse for his actions.

Could someone expound this mystery to me? Are all drunks responsible for the consequences of their drinking or only some and, if so, how do we decide which ones? If the difference is that he wasn't drunk enough to be excused for his actions, would he be helping or hurting his case if, post coitus, he decided to ingest enough alcohol to become equally or perhaps even more incapacitated? Is it safer to only have sex when you are sober or to always make sure that you are drunker then your partner?

[mrswdk]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

[mrswdk]

#CISTA

[Serbia]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

[mrswdk]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

[mandalorian2298]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Zigackly my point!

Serbia, imagine if you will, a scenario in which a drunk girl is having sex with a sober guy WHILE she is driving a car which then plows into 4 pedestrians, killing them.

Is she a) a murderer; b) a victim of rape; c) both a) and b); or d) none of those things?

[william18]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Actually in most courts, if both people are drunk, the rape is dismissed, since the man could not consent either. But in this day and age of PC advocacy groups, and left wing social media, more and more of these cases are unfairly punishing men, to try and preserve the 'legitimacy' of future rape claims.

[william18]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Zigackly my point!

Serbia, imagine if you will, a scenario in which a drunk girl is having sex with a sober guy WHILE she is driving a car which then plows into 4 pedestrians, killing them.

Is she a) a murderer; b) a victim of rape; c) both a) and b); or d) none of those things?

Both. But she'll probably get off with reckless driving and manslaughter. Both at minimum sentences if she's attractive.

[Serbia]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Zigackly my point!

Serbia, imagine if you will, a scenario in which a drunk girl is having sex with a sober guy WHILE she is driving a car which then plows into 4 pedestrians, killing them.

Is she a) a murderer; b) a victim of rape; c) both a) and b); or d) none of those things?

That's quite the imaginative scenario Mandy. There also isn't enough information. But I'd imagine that the male passenger would be in some trouble as well for distracting the driver at the minimum.

As to mrswdk, there is a difference between a drunk driver and a drunk rape victim. One is an example of your actions causing others harm; the other is an example of someone else's actions causing you harm. Or are you suggesting that if we were to go out drinking, and you passed out, that if I gently stimulated your anus with a pipe that you'd be totes kewl with it, because you shouldn't have been so drunk in the first place?

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, this has always been a weird one of rme.

A few months ago John Kascich (was running for president, not any more) made a comment about how he would say girls shouldn't go to fraternity parties if they didn't want to get raped (I'm paraphrasing). People flipped the f*ck out. I told my wife that I will absolutely tell my daughter not to get drunk at fraternity parties and that advice has nothing to do with women's rights or whether a guy should take responsibility for his illegal actions (while drunk).

I read the Stanford victim's letter a couple of times. I would also like to read the defendant's truthful (ha) account of the incident. Obviously the victim made a mistake. In serbia's scenario, I suspect that mrsdwk would be upset that he/she got so drunk that he/she let a guy violate his/her ass with a lead pipe (although he, like the victim in the Stanford case, would not admit that). So... I kind of agree with John Kasich and certainly will give my daughter similar advice.

All that being said, the man made the first move here, full stop. He's the one that, whether drunk or sober, pulled a woman into an alley and proceeded to dry hump her until some dudes interrupted. I've never been blackout drunk (sidebar - it takes A LOT of booze to get me even close to drunk... I've had 8 beers in the last four hours tonight), so I admittedly don't know how drunk someone has to be to grab some about-to-pass-out girl from a fraternity party, drag her outside, rip off her pants, and dry hump her. But I feel like I wouldn't have done that.

Finally, yes, getting drunk should not be an excuse for future criminal activity. "Oh sorry I shot that dude, I was drunk."

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Zigackly my point!

Serbia, imagine if you will, a scenario in which a drunk girl is having sex with a sober guy WHILE she is driving a car which then plows into 4 pedestrians, killing them.

Is she a) a murderer; b) a victim of rape; c) both a) and b); or d) none of those things?

That's quite the imaginative scenario Mandy. There also isn't enough information. But I'd imagine that the male passenger would be in some trouble as well for distracting the driver at the minimum.

As to mrswdk, there is a difference between a drunk driver and a drunk rape victim. One is an example of your actions causing others harm; the other is an example of someone else's actions causing you harm. Or are you suggesting that if we were to go out drinking, and you passed out, that if I gently stimulated your anus with a pipe that you'd be totes kewl with it, because you shouldn't have been so drunk in the first place?

Just devil's advocate here, but I don't think any one is arguing the criminality of forcing oneself on an unconscious and inebriated woman. The point is here whether a woman gets tipsy, has sex (even initiates) and later claims rape because reasons. It's not unheard of.

-TG

[Serbia]

Just devil's advocate here, but I don't think any one is arguing the criminality of forcing oneself on an unconscious and inebriated woman.

Have you met mrswdk? That's exactly what she/he's arguing. Re-read the thread.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Just devil's advocate here, but I don't think any one is arguing the criminality of forcing oneself on an unconscious and inebriated woman.

Have you met mrswdk? That's exactly what she/he's arguing. Re-read the thread.

She said "gets drunk and sleeps with someone," not "passes out and is raped." I could have mistaken her position, but "sleep with" implies choice, as in whatever follows the verb is the object, not the woman.

-TG

[Serbia]

Just devil's advocate here, but I don't think any one is arguing the criminality of forcing oneself on an unconscious and inebriated woman.

Have you met mrswdk? That's exactly what she/he's arguing. Re-read the thread.

She said "gets drunk and sleeps with someone," not "passes out and is raped." I could have mistaken her position, but "sleep with" implies choice, as in whatever follows the verb is the object, not the woman.

-TG

You aren't familiar with her opinions then.

[mrswdk]

@MrsWDKthesexy there is a difference between a drunk driver and a drunk rape victim. One is an example of your actions causing others harm; the other is an example of someone else's actions causing you harm. Or are you suggesting that if we were to go out drinking, and you passed out, that if I gently stimulated your anus with a pipe that you'd be totes kewl with it, because you shouldn't have been so drunk in the first place?

They are different kinds of action, yes. But my point is, why does intoxication make someone incapable of being responsible for themselves in one scenario (consenting to sex) but is not enough for someone to be considered out of control in another scenario (getting behind the wheel of a car)? If a drunk cannot be considered to have consented to sex on account of their being drunk, then why is the drunk driver considered to be responsible for their decision to get behind the wheel of a car?

Although if williams is correct and drunkenly consenting is considered valid consent then the above is a moot point anyway, given that the story in OP is about a girl who was so drunk she was passed out cold.

A few months ago John Kascich (was running for president, not any more) made a comment about how he would say girls shouldn't go to fraternity parties if they didn't want to get raped (I'm paraphrasing). People flipped the f*ck out. I told my wife that I will absolutely tell my daughter not to get drunk at fraternity parties and that advice has nothing to do with women's rights or whether a guy should take responsibility for his illegal actions (while drunk).

It depends on the context in which he said it. 'Don't get drunk in a bar then walk home alone' is sensible advice for your daughter before she goes for a night out, but if it's your first response to a story about a drunk girl getting raped then that conveys the message that responsibility/blame/whatever lies primarily with the girl and not the girl's attacker.

Like, when your friend tells you he got mugged on the way home from work you'd probably say 'ah, that sucks, some people are such meanies, blah blah blah', not ask if they'd taken care to keep all their valuables hidden away.

[mandalorian2298]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

Zigackly my point!

Serbia, imagine if you will, a scenario in which a drunk girl is having sex with a sober guy WHILE she is driving a car which then plows into 4 pedestrians, killing them.

Is she a) a murderer; b) a victim of rape; c) both a) and b); or d) none of those things?

That's quite the imaginative scenario Mandy. There also isn't enough information. But I'd imagine that the male passenger would be in some trouble as well for distracting the driver at the minimum.

As to mrswdk, there is a difference between a drunk driver and a drunk rape victim. One is an example of your actions causing others harm; the other is an example of someone else's actions causing you harm. Or are you suggesting that if we were to go out drinking, and you passed out, that if I gently stimulated your anus with a pipe that you'd be totes kewl with it, because you shouldn't have been so drunk in the first place?

To clarify my point (or rather, to clarify what is not my point), I don't think that it's a admirable to try to have sex with someone who has drunk him/herself into passing out behind a dumpster nor to drink yourself into passing out behind a dumpster.
While I have never done the former, I can boast that, in my wild youth I had indeed managed to drink myself about 90% way to passing out (on a tram station, not behind a dumpster, but I feel that the two experiences are comparable). No one diddled with me while I was in this state (to the best of my knowledge), and had someone done so it would have probably indicate that he/she is not a very good person.
HOWEVER, looking back at the experience, I am completely certain that I had been 100% responsible for finding myself in that situation, given that I was the idiot who drank and drank and drank immediately before it happened and I would find it highly confusing if someone were to describe the situation as "Poor Mandy got so drunk so it's not his fault, we shouldn't blame him for what happened, he was the victim". Even if all the horny drunk-buggerers of the city swarmed the scene and had they evil way with me, that would have not changed the fact that I and and only I was the idiot who had put himself in this situation.

You say that there is a difference between the drunk who harms others and the one who harms him(her)self and this is true if we are talking about moral condemnation, but not when we are talking about responsibility. As surely as a drunk driver is responsible for puting himslef behind a wheel of a car in that condition, so is a drunk who passes out behind a dumpster.

I do not think that having sex with an unconscious, drunken person isn't rape, but I do believe that this person is reponsible for puting herself in this position and am baffled when people (who obviously have the good intention of preventing this sort sort of thing from occuring) start insisting that "victim has done nothing wrong". She has. That how she came to be the victim.

It is as absurd as a rapist (from the article in OP) who tries to blame the fact that he raped an unconscious person on alcohol.

[Serbia]

To clarify my point (or rather, to clarify what is not my point), I don't think that it's a admirable to try to have sex with someone who has drunk him/herself into passing out behind a dumpster nor to drink yourself into passing out behind a dumpster.
While I have never done the former, I can boast that, in my wild youth I had indeed managed to drink myself about 90% way to passing out (on a tram station, not behind a dumpster, but I feel that the two experiences are comparable). No one diddled with me while I was in this state (to the best of my knowledge), and had someone done so it would have probably indicate that he/she is not a very good person.
HOWEVER, looking back at the experience, I am completely certain that I had been 100% responsible for finding myself in that situation, given that I was the idiot who drank and drank and drank immediately before it happened and I would find it highly confusing if someone were to describe the situation as "Poor Mandy got so drunk so it's not his fault, we shouldn't blame him for what happened, he was the victim". Even if all the horny drunk-buggerers of the city swarmed the scene and had they evil way with me, that would have not changed the fact that I and and only I was the idiot who had put himself in this situation.

Yes, you'd need to take some responsibility for your actions. However, that doesn't excuse the actions of others. What if someone decided to take your wallet, find your bank card, and empty your account? What if someone decided to just kill the drunken bum, or hack off a few fingers, or tattoo "NAZI" on your forehead? You've put yourself in a position to be abused, but it's on the abuser to also take responsibility for THEIR actions.

And all these things can happen to people who aren't drunk as well. Some people are weak, physically and/or mentally, and can be abused by virtually anyone at anytime. Lacking the ability to stop the assault typically only makes the assault appear more heinous in the eyes of society, even when the impairment is self-inflicted; no one likes to be taken advantage of, and no one likes to feel helpless.

[thegreekdog]

A few months ago John Kascich (was running for president, not any more) made a comment about how he would say girls shouldn't go to fraternity parties if they didn't want to get raped (I'm paraphrasing). People flipped the f*ck out. I told my wife that I will absolutely tell my daughter not to get drunk at fraternity parties and that advice has nothing to do with women's rights or whether a guy should take responsibility for his illegal actions (while drunk).

It depends on the context in which he said it. 'Don't get drunk in a bar then walk home alone' is sensible advice for your daughter before she goes for a night out, but if it's your first response to a story about a drunk girl getting raped then that conveys the message that responsibility/blame/whatever lies primarily with the girl and not the girl's attacker.

Like, when your friend tells you he got mugged on the way home from work you'd probably say 'ah, that sucks, some people are such meanies, blah blah blah', not ask if they'd taken care to keep all their valuables hidden away.

The second thing I would ask is "Where were you?" which is roughly equivalent to asking "Why the f*ck were you in [insert dangerous place]?"

[Serbia]

A few months ago John Kascich (was running for president, not any more) made a comment about how he would say girls shouldn't go to fraternity parties if they didn't want to get raped (I'm paraphrasing). People flipped the f*ck out. I told my wife that I will absolutely tell my daughter not to get drunk at fraternity parties and that advice has nothing to do with women's rights or whether a guy should take responsibility for his illegal actions (while drunk).

It depends on the context in which he said it. 'Don't get drunk in a bar then walk home alone' is sensible advice for your daughter before she goes for a night out, but if it's your first response to a story about a drunk girl getting raped then that conveys the message that responsibility/blame/whatever lies primarily with the girl and not the girl's attacker.

Like, when your friend tells you he got mugged on the way home from work you'd probably say 'ah, that sucks, some people are such meanies, blah blah blah', not ask if they'd taken care to keep all their valuables hidden away.

The second thing I would ask is "Where were you?" which is roughly equivalent to asking "Why the f*ck were you in [insert dangerous place]?"

Way to butcher the quotes, bro.

[apey]

Fair question - if the girl being drunk means she is not in the mental state to make an informed decision, why is the man not excused his behavior if he can demonstrate that he was also incapacitated by alcohol? Surely he was just as mentally impaired as her?

Yeah! So next time some guy gets black out drunk, and gets behind the wheel of his car, then plows into a crowd of pedestrians, killing 4, he can be excused because he was incapacitated by alcohol. Such simple, yet beautiful, logic. We've come to expect no less from the social justice crusader known as mrswdk.

Well, what's the difference between the two people? If someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a care is punished because despite being drunk they should still have known better, why is someone who gets drunk and then sleeps with someone deemed to be completely non-responsible for their actions? Or, to flip it in order to address OP's question, if a woman who gets drunk is deemed so incapacitated that she cannot make reasonable decisions, why is the drunk who gets behind the wheel of a car deemed to have been in charge of his own actions and therefore liable?

if he could still get it up he obviously was capabl of thought (idk just a guess)

[mandalorian2298]

To clarify my point (or rather, to clarify what is not my point), I don't think that it's a admirable to try to have sex with someone who has drunk him/herself into passing out behind a dumpster nor to drink yourself into passing out behind a dumpster.
While I have never done the former, I can boast that, in my wild youth I had indeed managed to drink myself about 90% way to passing out (on a tram station, not behind a dumpster, but I feel that the two experiences are comparable). No one diddled with me while I was in this state (to the best of my knowledge), and had someone done so it would have probably indicate that he/she is not a very good person.
HOWEVER, looking back at the experience, I am completely certain that I had been 100% responsible for finding myself in that situation, given that I was the idiot who drank and drank and drank immediately before it happened and I would find it highly confusing if someone were to describe the situation as "Poor Mandy got so drunk so it's not his fault, we shouldn't blame him for what happened, he was the victim". Even if all the horny drunk-buggerers of the city swarmed the scene and had they evil way with me, that would have not changed the fact that I and and only I was the idiot who had put himself in this situation.

Yes, you'd need to take some responsibility for your actions. However, that doesn't excuse the actions of others. What if someone decided to take your wallet, find your bank card, and empty your account? What if someone decided to just kill the drunken bum, or hack off a few fingers, or tattoo "NAZI" on your forehead? You've put yourself in a position to be abused, but it's on the abuser to also take responsibility for THEIR actions.

And all these things can happen to people who aren't drunk as well. Some people are weak, physically and/or mentally, and can be abused by virtually anyone at anytime. Lacking the ability to stop the assault typically only makes the assault appear more heinous in the eyes of society, even when the impairment is self-inflicted; no one likes to be taken advantage of, and no one likes to feel helpless.

I was never trying to excuse the raper's actions. The whole point I'm trying to make is that all the people who are trying to fight the "rape culture" and in general decrease the number of rapes should complement the "we should blame the rapist not the victim" talk (which is true) with "you have responsibility to YOURSELF to take all reasonable precautions against finding yourself in a situation where you are being raped".

My whole point of using the article in OP is that, since people are generally speaking reasonable enough to understand that being drunk does not erase one's responsibility to do right by other people, was to show how illogical it is to keep insisting that being drunk is no excuse for not being reponsible towards one's self.

[Serbia]

Yes, I can agree with that. If you're drinking so much that you're blacking out, bad things can happen. Whether you're putting yourself in a position where someone can do something bad to you, or putting yourself in a position that you can accidentally cause yourself harm, you're over doing it, and do bear some responsibility. Even if you aren't injured, you're still doing yourself some harm by drinking to excess. So yes, I see your point, just because someone else does you harm, doesn't eliminate your own responsibility. Fair enough, and logical enough.

[Symmetry]

Yes, I can agree with that. If you're drinking so much that you're blacking out, bad things can happen. Whether you're putting yourself in a position where someone can do something bad to you, or putting yourself in a position that you can accidentally cause yourself harm, you're over doing it, and do bear some responsibility. Even if you aren't injured, you're still doing yourself some harm by drinking to excess. So yes, I see your point, just because someone else does you harm, doesn't eliminate your own responsibility. Fair enough, and logical enough.

Indeed, and if someone stabs you to death while you're asleep, that should mean that you're partially responsible for your own murder. After all, if you'd decided to stay awake, you might have stopped it.

It's a curious one this- attacking someone who's vulnerable being deemed partially the fault of the victim. Or, to rephrase, putting some of the blame on the victim.

Tends to be assaults on women, this.

Give me a shout if a bloke gets shot and there's a debate over his decision not to wear a bullet proof vest, or something similarly macho.

[Serbia]

A load of rubbish

Actually I have no idea what you wrote sym, I intentionally don't read what you write. If you'd like to converse with me, create a multi. Thanks.

[mandalorian2298]

A load of rubbish

Actually I have no idea what you wrote sym, I intentionally don't read what you write. If you'd like to converse with me, create a multi. Thanks.

He seems to be defending his right to sleep where he wants. I would suggest middle of the highway, since the driver who runs him over will be solely responsible.