dsayers

Just so you are aware, your title and opening post provide me no incentive to click on that link. I see no defining of terms. Also, goals are subjective and therefore cannot be universalized.

How do you feel about her putting words into your mouth? Words that would inject a divide into the relationship. As for your questions, a victim is responsible for the risks they take. An aggressor is responsible for their aggression. To be responsible for the actions of another person would mean they're not responsible. The two scenarios that come to mind is the parent-child relationship, and the relationship between captor and their prisoner. If somebody holds a gun to your head, they are taking away your ability to choose and therefore your responsibility.

First things first, I think you're doing the question a disservice by specifying genders where genders aren't relevant. "The victim is never responsible," if true, would be far more valuable than "women are never responsible" for example. There's always going to be things a victim could've done differently to reduce the risk of whatever they were victimized by. Just think of all the ways child abuse can effect the ways in which a person acts/thinks their entire lives. This isn't the same as being responsible. To answer the question, all you have to do is consider whether it is ever possible for person A to be more responsible for person B's action than person B is. If person B is capable of conceptualizing self, the other, formulating ideals, comparing behaviors to those ideals, and calculating consequences, then they are moral actors and responsible for their actions. Like with any moral consideration, the only factor that matters is was there consent?

Too true!

Wonder why my post isn't live after two attempts?

I was wondering why making fun of a stranger qualifies.

Your first line here inspired me to point out the second line here. But it's something you already agree with, so I'm not sure where the first line comes from.

Thanks for the support. Special thanks to the donor who gifted me an ebook that has been informative thus far. I read this one first and it was quite helpful. Thank you.

I think the answer is the same as with most things: the State. The force/threat of the State artificially culls competition, securing de facto monopolies, reducing competition, leading to inefficient pricing and service. Free market is self-correcting due to natural forces like competition and consequence. Using the State as a shield protects companies from both.

Here's one not yet on the list: Has cut out everybody she has ever known and can convincingly explain why.

This is just the worst. I'm old enough to remember a time when these things weren't so obvious. Which means I am able to look back on my own life and see how I went from an outgoing bloke trying to find my place in the world, to a docile, huddle in the corner and hope nobody notices heap of apathetic concession. It was awful. Thankfully, I'm past that now, or on the path to getting past that.

I see no curiosity in your words. Life finds a way. Biological imperative #1 across all species is to survive. The idea that this must be imparted by force is absurd. Likewise, language? How can you force somebody to learn language? You need language to teach... everything. The only way you can teach such things is by example, which isn't force at all.

Does anybody know of any good online resources regarding borderline personality disorder?

There wasn't any other people.

Such as asserting "overly sensitive" and "nitpicking" instead of having an honest conversation about your experience with another human being?

In what way is projecting one experience onto people not involved fair?

Well since you refuse to qualify how just remaining alive has a moral component, I guess that means we're even

Is it respectful to imply that people are not these things before they're even given the chance to speak? I've emailed three times and received no reply

The name January Schofield has haunted me since I first caught a documentary on her I think it was on the health channel. I remember watching, KNOWING that the parents were responsible. Yet the parents carried on like they were the victims, while the documentary made no effort to make the case to the contrary. It made me think about how people watch horror movies for entertainment while horrors like this are very real and far more frightening. And how alarming it is that we HAVE the answers now, yet they're not getting spread fast enough because the news would rather cover trivial shit X, Y, and Z instead. It's all so very disgusting.

Is this intellectual sloth? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how these two descriptors are mutually exclusive. Is this taking the piss? It doesn't appear as if you've made any effort to demonstrate how remaining alive has any moral component. Suppose you lock me in a basement. Clearly your behavior was both voluntary and binding upon another person.

Define your terms please. For moral consideration, a behavior has to be voluntary and binding upon another person. I did not choose to be born and my persistence is not binding upon anybody. It's also not transferable. So you'll have to explain how person X's life could be better lived by somebody else.

"I am not responsible for my actions" is always false. Because it would take knowledge of the same to understand the value of disconnecting from it.

Best compared to what? Getting ourselves to tomorrow is biological imperative #1. You will not be able to override it with rational thought/calculation.

Not being responsible for one's own risks/actions is not representative of the real world.

Without specifics, it seems as if "buying up all exporters" would raise the cost of operation to the point of being prohibitive. Thus raising the price of the good to the extent that the competitors employing more costly labor will still be able to satisfy demand for less.