‘Rape victim’ defends besieged Australian cleric

[Crescent]

Re: ‘Rape victim’ defends besieged Australian cleric

@LegallyBrown

The only two females agreeing to his statement include a Dillusional Angel Eyes who is known for saying things that arent true and when asked to back 'em up doesnt come up with anything.

And UZ who despite the fact is a hijabn and all is begging the Male guppies in the Cafe to call her attractive and pretty.

Ok, we’ve established atleast one fact. This user definitely has no brains or else wouldn’t make such ridiculous comments. I mean I know its hard to believe that there are sane people out there, but jeez, didn’t have to attack them like that.

its ok, theres hope for you

@roadrunner

What you don’t seem to understand is that the onus is not on the woman to cover up, the onus is on the rapist not to rape. The only criminal there is the rapist, and all the responsibility lies with them. There is no shared responsibility.

That is what a lot of people object to in what he said. If I leave a piece of meat out for the dog with a sign clearly labelled “For dog to eat”, but the cat goes and eats it, then I would be at fault, because the cat cannot read and so does not know I left out the piece of meat for the dog. However this doesnt appy to human rape, because when someone rapes, they KNOW it is wrong to do this. Humans are not so low on the intelligence scale to be unable to decipher that rape is wrong. The onus therefore is still entirely on the rapist.

I don’t see girls today dressing immorally for their specific significant other.
Girls dress today for the sake of getting attention, and thats the same exact thing as leaving a meat out where you know cats and dogs exist.

If a girl is raped while dressed immorally, aside from the fact that rapist is at fault, you HAVE to, logically, ascribe fault to the girl for exposing herself like that. Which obviously triggered the rapist to attack her.

If the victim can realize this, why cant we.

Its a simple analogy. really.