When weasels pretend to be wise

Some lovely sleight-of-hand courtesy of KillJuliet at The Not-So-Invisible Man:

Haha. Yes, I’m compensating for your lack of intelligence. The only reason I even highlighted your spelling errors was to demonstrate how you are attacking acpatriot for sounding like a 5-year-old, yet you don’t spell any better than a person of that age.

I know this may sound too logical for you, but by saying that a person is “partially responsible” for being raped, you are partially removing some guilt from the perpetrator. Anyone who believes this may say to him/herself, “Well, she didn’t take the proper precautions to prevent the rape, so it’s kind of her fault that she was raped.” This example brings me to my next point: by claiming a person is “partially responsible” for being raped, you are suggesting that he/she is partially at fault for the rape — which implies that he/she partially deserved to be raped. Using this logic, Vox implied that women deserved to be raped because they could have decreased their chances of being assaulted in the first place.

No, that’s not even close to being “too logical”. First, we have the common failure to grasp the absence of a zero-sum situation. As I have now had to state at least three times, responsibility attaching to one party does not remove guilt from the other party.

Responsibility and guilt are two different concepts. They can overlap, but they are not synonymous. If I run over a man who crosses against a red light, I am obviously RESPONSIBLE for his death – he wouldn’t be dead if I didn’t run over him – but I am not GUILTY as I clearly had no intention of killing him. KillJuliet relies on the weasel word “implied” in a vain attempt to hide the fact that she is drawing a false conclusion that I have already explicitly rejected.

I note that no one has yet seriously attempted to build a non-Judeo-Christian case against rape. Ironically, KillJuliet even attempts to draw upon it as a particularly ill-conceived base from which to launch an attack.