Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community
babs135

Exaggerated or Not?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

You have just mischaracterized everything that was said.  Which is about par for your course.

No. No I havent.

 

The evidence is all there to be seen and reviewed.

 

My conscience is absolutely clear on this thread, and no amount of back tracking, or worse, still trying to somehow justify she was the maker of her own downfall, will change that.

 

But hey, you crack on.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Just consider this:  do you think it at all possible that if other 15 year old girls were aware of the story they might not be as likely to spend their afternoon the same way?

 

What the hell has that got to do with the sexual assault by this paedo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I think it takes a university education to get so far away from common sense as to think that racheting up risk factors doesn't affect your risk.  People without that university education just know that naturally.  Because they understand the difference between the world as they want it to be and the world as it actually is.

or it could be that we all know there are dodgepots out there, and people shouldnt put themselves at risk, but so what?

 

This girl got drunk, on a cruise ship.

 

The only criminal is the attacker, And death is too good for him.

 

She made a huge mistake getting drunk. Still doesnt mean she was in any way responsible for the attack. Not one bit.

 

I didnt go to University. I just know right from wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DarrenM You say in post #178 "The only criminal is the attacker". This thread started because there is pending litigation against the cruise line. The litigation has been brought by the victim/her family. Do you believe based on the highlighted assertion, that Royal Caribbean then bears no responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

@DarrenM You say in post #178 "The only criminal is the attacker". This thread started because there is pending litigation against the cruise line. The litigation has been brought by the victim/her family. Do you believe based on the highlighted assertion, that Royal Caribbean then bears no responsibility?

 

I agree with DarrenM that the only criminal is the attacker.  Do I feel the cruise line has some culpability?  Maybe, if the story is to be believed as told.  But regardless, the cruise line's act is not criminal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I dont believe the cruise line did anything wrong. Except not throwing the attacker overboard weighed down with concrete.

 

Unless the attacker was a crew member?

 

But we live in a world now of litigation, and someone seems to get blamed for everything.

 

I hate this litigation mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I can understand the victims familys anger. Its just not aimed in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Aquahound I didn't mean to imply that the cruise line is being, or should be, held criminally responsible. I realize my wording was not the most accurate.

Edited by JennyB1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, DarrenM said:

or it could be that we all know there are dodgepots out there, and people shouldnt put themselves at risk, but so what?

 

This girl got drunk, on a cruise ship.

 

The only criminal is the attacker, And death is too good for him.

 

She made a huge mistake getting drunk. Still doesnt mean she was in any way responsible for the attack. Not one bit.

 

I didnt go to University. I just know right from wrong.

 Yes, the only criminal is the arracker (I do not think anyone has claimed that the girl committed a crime by drinking).

 

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?: “ By saying that “She made a huge mistake getting drunk” you are clearly acknowledging that she “ made a huge mistake” —- which undeniably contributed to the situation where she was attacked.  If she had not sat down with them, if she had not gotten drunk, if she had not gone with them to whatever place the attack took place - the outcome would surely have been different. 

 

It it is undeniable that her irresponsible behavior set the stage.

 

Don’t get me wrong: as a father of two daughters and a grandfather of seven girls, I would argue that castration should be a minimal part of the penalty applied for rape.

 

But refusing to acknowledge that irresponsible behavior on the part of a victim can actually contribute to future comparable situations:  if it is acknowledged that young girls have no obligation to behave responsibly, you are excusing, in advance, the sort of stupid behavior that can contribute to situations such as this.

 

I am not excusing the attackers in any way - but trying to claim that the conduct of the victim should not be considered is simply not acceptable.

 

Perhaps if you had received more education you might be better able to consider cause and effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you cant resist a little personal attack can you?

 

My education level allows me to know that matter how much the girls behaviour was questionable, there is no excuse for what then happened.

 

And that is the point you seem to be ignoring.

 

I dont have any daughters or grand daughters, yet I seem to have more empathy with the victim than you do.

 

And I know you are not excusing the attacker, but you are giving them an excuse.

 

"I am not excusing the attacker, but......................."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that closes the case for the prosecution..............or am I the defence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

 Yes, the only criminal is the arracker (I do not think anyone has claimed that the girl committed a crime by drinking).

 

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?: “ By saying that “She made a huge mistake getting drunk” you are clearly acknowledging that she “ made a huge mistake” —- which undeniably contributed to the situation where she was attacked.  If she had not sat down with them, if she had not gotten drunk, if she had not gone with them to whatever place the attack took place - the outcome would surely have been different. 

 

It it is undeniable that her irresponsible behavior set the stage.

 

Don’t get me wrong: as a father of two daughters and a grandfather of seven girls, I would argue that castration should be a minimal part of the penalty applied for rape.

 

But refusing to acknowledge that irresponsible behavior on the part of a victim can actually contribute to future comparable situations:  if it is acknowledged that young girls have no obligation to behave responsibly, you are excusing, in advance, the sort of stupid behavior that can contribute to situations such as this.

 

I am not excusing the attackers in any way - but trying to claim that the conduct of the victim should not be considered is simply not acceptable.

 

Perhaps if you had received more education you might be better able to consider cause and effect.

 

 

One thing that will get my blood boiling is victim blaming and navy you are doing a great job of doing it. 

 

Did the young girl do something silly even stupid, yes she did, but I remember making stupid mistakes when I was younger. Due to having good friends around me nothing bad happened. This young girl did NOTHING to deserve what happened. Maybe you were perfect navy and never did anything wrong. 

 

The attitude of some comments here are why rape is under reported. Because somehow the victim is to blame as well. "Her dress was too short", "She was drunk and vulnerable", "She was a known prostitute" etc, etc...

 

None of this warrants sexual assault. 

 

Should the cruise line be blamed, I don't know the full story so I won't comment. But the young girl should not be condemned and vilified.

 

Julie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

my contention that if he had not been drunk but had  taken a taxi back to his shop he might not have lost his money?

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, frantic36 said:

 

Should the cruise line be blamed, I don't know the full story so I won't comment. But the young girl should not be condemned and vilified.

 

Julie

 

Condemned and vilified?  Dramatize much?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I call it as I see it. You can disagree if you wish.

Edited by frantic36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

There is never any such thing as sure thing, but someone who puts himself in harm’s way is far more likely to be harmed than someone who does not.

 

There sure as hell is a link (causal or not is immaterial)  - a girl who gets drunk and wanders off with some guys is far more likely to have interaction with those guys than a girl who does not get drunk and wander off with them.

 

Of course there is one of your “many possibilities” which might have changed things  — a tsunami might have made everyone seasick enough to go back to their cabins to sleep it off —— but let’s try not to be stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

If, as you say, “people shouldn’t put themselves at risk”  , aren’t you acknowledging that the girl did something she should not have done ?:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, frantic36 said:

One thing that will get my blood boiling is victim blaming and navy you are doing a great job of doing it. 

 

 I totally agree. A 15 year old girl has had her life changed in a horrible way and all some can do is point out her wrong doing. I wish I could say I was surprised but it’s par for the course with him. Some people just don’t know when opinions are better left unsaid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

If you really believe that the girl did not do something she should not have done, there is no point in further discussion.  No one has suggested that she was to blame - or that the creeps were less guilty because of her undeniably stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior.

 

Trying to ignore her stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior as an expression of your disgust at the actions of the creeps does not accomplish anything other than failing to warn others of the perils of stupid, reckless and irresponsible behavior.

 

Equating the risk factors assumed by a 15 year old getting drunk with strangers  and wandering off with them with the day-to-day risks of eating breakfast or slipping in a bathtub represents a mind-set incapable of rational discussion. 

 

Have a a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, calliopecruiser said:

Sure, he might not have lost his money if he hadn't been drunk and taken instead taken a taxi back........but then again, he might have still been pick-pocketed; lots of people are.   And he might have  been drunk and yet not lost his money; lots of people are.

 

Too many possibilities, and no causal link between anything the victim did and what happened to her. 

 

Exactly, getting drunk doesn't equal getting raped. Lots of people get drunk and don't get raped. The only variable is a person making a conscious decision to commit a crime. 

 

There is an insane assumption that if we all behaved "appropriately" crime would just disappear. As if criminals wouldn't find another way to commit a crime. This is why the focus on the victim's behaviour is so inappropriate as it takes away the responsibility for the crime from the criminal onto the victim and that results in lenient sentencing. Any time you give a criminal a "but the victim..." you lessen the severity of the crime and send the message that the victim's behaviour outweighs in importance to the perpetrators. And after four pages of arguing over the victims behaviour that message has well and truly set in. 

 

If you want to send the message crime is inexcusable how about using some of the biting social commentary on the perpetrators instead of the victim for a change? Because rape is still widely considered not to be a serious crime and the constant victim blaming by the media and the public only solidifies that assumption. It does not make society a safer place if anything it emboldens people to commit crimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to totally back off wanting this thread to be locked.  It has NOTHING to do with cruising but if even one person "gets it" it will be worth it.  There are some very cogent replies here and I especially like @ilikeanswers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, calliopecruiser said:

No.  That's a non-sequitor.  I hope.

 

Everybody puts themselves at risk frequently......are you saying that a person should never put themselves at risk?  Do you know how often I do something every day that risks my life?  I have about a 1:500 chance of dying in a car crash, whether I'm a driver, passenger, or even a pedestrian.  I have a 1:3000 chance of dying from choking every time I put food in my mouth.   I could fall in the bathroom and hit my head......more falls happen in the bathroom than anywhere else.

You get the idea.

 

And there are ways to minimize risk and ways to maximize risk.  Which would you say happened in this case?

And, frankly, I put most of the blame for the risk being maximized on the 'responsible' adults who allowed her to roam free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

 

 I totally agree. A 15 year old girl has had her life changed in a horrible way and all some can do is point out her wrong doing. I wish I could say I was surprised but it’s par for the course with him. Some people just don’t know when opinions are better left unsaid. 

 

Because heaven forbid some other 15 year old girl reads about it and figures out that she DOESN'T want her life to be changed in a horrible way and adjusts her behavior accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • SAIL-AWAY GIVEAWAY - Enter for a chance to win a $3,000 Norwegian Cruise Line Gift Card
      • Forum Assistance
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Member Cruise Reviews
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...