We’re at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We’re at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We’re at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We’re at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We’re at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.
So cede to your position even though I disagree, with good reason? Almost all those things you ask for are things I’ve never denied or refuted. Perhaps you should have asked to confirm your assumptions before continuing to argue against things I never argued for.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that’s clear.
What?
You said yes, any amount of force is acceptable.
Not quite. You shortened the phrase. You dropped five critical words that were present in the original phrase:
Further, you’re dishonestly relying on a colloquial definition of “harm”, rather than a legal one. “Rejection” does not qualify.
I used what was necessary for the reference, I assumed you didn’t need the entire quote.
Are we at the ‘define your terms’ stage of the conversation, then, or are you starting to probe with the plausibly deniable personal attacks?
We’re at the point of the conversation where you recognize her actions in these specific circumstances were at least understandable, if not reasonable and rational. We’re at the point of the conversation where you acknowledge she was the victim. We’re at the point in the conversation where you acknowledge the school failed to properly supervise her and her harasser on the bus, and erred greatly in their disciplinary action.
We’re at the point where you point out that violence is not acceptable, but that given his actions and the multiple failures of the school pushed her to do something that she would not normally do, and should not have been punished for.
We’re at the point in the conversation where you recognize you have been improperly assigning excessive blame to the victim, and decide to delete, or at least amend your previous arguments to portray yourself as a reasonable person.
So cede to your position even though I disagree, with good reason? Almost all those things you ask for are things I’ve never denied or refuted. Perhaps you should have asked to confirm your assumptions before continuing to argue against things I never argued for.
Perhaps you should stop blaming the victim.
Why would we not blame someone for the things they did?