It's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions for their own safety, man or woman. Some people aren't nice and will do bad things if presented with the opportunity. It's sad, but it's also true.
The use of the word duty is interesting in this case. It makes me wonder if the quote is in response to something else. For example, there are countries where the status quo cultural attitude is that it IS a woman's duty to not get attacked. Like countries where there are honor killings of women who were raped and the woman's family believes it was the woman's fault, and she brought shame on the family. Even when she clearly did nothing to invite or provoke the attack. There are cultures where people think this way. I think this statement might be spoken as a challenge to such beliefs.
"It's not a woman's duty to make sure she isn't assaulted when she leaves the house. It's your duty not to assault her."
I agree. How on earth is it a woman's duty to control the actions of another - someone who wants to harm her.
That's absolutely asinine.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
But it's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions to reduce the opportunity for others to do harm.
People shouldn't rob and steal--but most people lock their doors.
Well, that's just it. What is the "duty" to keep yourself safe when simply going out in public during the day?
For a day look, I like the sweater set with the all over 4 inch spikes.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
But it's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions to reduce the opportunity for others to do harm.
People shouldn't rob and steal--but most people lock their doors.
Well, that's just it. What is the "duty" to keep yourself safe when simply going out in public during the day?
Many things. Be aware of your surroundings. Lock your car. Avoid certain areas. Don't get blindingly drunk, especially if you are alone or need to drive home. Don't leave your drink unattended. Don't leave with people unknown to you--again, especially if you are alone.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
But it's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions to reduce the opportunity for others to do harm.
People shouldn't rob and steal--but most people lock their doors.
Well, that's just it. What is the "duty" to keep yourself safe when simply going out in public during the day?
Many things. Be aware of your surroundings. Lock your car. Avoid certain areas. Don't get blindingly drunk, especially if you are alone or need to drive home. Don't leave your drink unattended. Don't leave with people unknown to you--again, especially if you are alone.
Those are common sense things. Even if you do all of that - you cannot guarantee your safety. You can't control the acts of others. There are women everyday that do all of that and are stick attacked.
Making it a woman's "duty" to avoid the criminal actions of another makes us 3rd world.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
But it's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions to reduce the opportunity for others to do harm.
People shouldn't rob and steal--but most people lock their doors.
Well, that's just it. What is the "duty" to keep yourself safe when simply going out in public during the day?
Many things. Be aware of your surroundings. Lock your car. Avoid certain areas. Don't get blindingly drunk, especially if you are alone or need to drive home. Don't leave your drink unattended. Don't leave with people unknown to you--again, especially if you are alone.
Those are common sense things. Even if you do all of that - you cannot guarantee your safety. You can't control the acts of others. There are women everyday that do all of that and are stick attacked.
Making it a woman's "duty" to avoid the criminal actions of another makes us 3rd world.
I never said you can control the acts of others. But simply saying to criminals--don't commit crimes is obviously not sometting that works.
you can't control others--thats the point. You can only control yourself. Carrying a gun would be another measure you could take.
__________________
I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right.
Well, I could agree with you--but then we'd both be wrong.
But it's everyone's duty to take reasonable precautions to reduce the opportunity for others to do harm.
People shouldn't rob and steal--but most people lock their doors.
Well, that's just it. What is the "duty" to keep yourself safe when simply going out in public during the day?
Many things. Be aware of your surroundings. Lock your car. Avoid certain areas. Don't get blindingly drunk, especially if you are alone or need to drive home. Don't leave your drink unattended. Don't leave with people unknown to you--again, especially if you are alone.
Those are common sense things. Even if you do all of that - you cannot guarantee your safety. You can't control the acts of others. There are women everyday that do all of that and are stick attacked.
Making it a woman's "duty" to avoid the criminal actions of another makes us 3rd world.
I never said you can control the acts of others. But simply saying to criminals--don't commit crimes is obviously not sometting that works.
you can't control others--thats the point. You can only control yourself. Carrying a gun would be another measure you could take.
Not if the liberals have their way.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Paranoia? Do you even bother to listen to the candidates running? Hillary wants to get rid of the 2nd amendment. It's SCARY that a presidential candidate would even consider that.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
First - that was not the quote I was referring to.
Second - Snopes has become so liberally slanted that it has lost too much credibility to be the go-to source for this kind of thing, anymore. Fact checking sites need to remain neutral and snopes does a whole lot of creative interpreting to be able to label things true of false these days.
Last fall, Clinton declared that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” an obvious reference to D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own firearms. In response to this gaffe, Kiely quotes Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin, who wrote to FactCheck.org: Along with the vast majority of Americans, Clinton believes there are common sense steps we can take at the federal level to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the 2nd Amendment. She also believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe. Here is the problem with Clinton’s belief that Heller was “wrongly decided” because it prohibited states from making “common sense laws to keep their residents safe”: It is a lie. Heller prohibited no such thing: In fact, in the court’s majority opinion on Heller, the late Antonin Scalia explicitly allows that the Second Amendment is perfectly compatible with laws meant to keep residents safe from harm. “Like most rights,” Scalia wrote, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” Among the regulations permissible under Heller, according to Scalia, were “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” such as laws meant to protect public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
First - that was not the quote I was referring to.
Second - Snopes has become so liberally slanted that it has lost too much credibility to be the go-to source for this kind of thing, anymore. Fact checking sites need to remain neutral and snopes does a whole lot of creative interpreting to be able to label things true of false these days.
Last fall, Clinton declared that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” an obvious reference to D.C. v. Heller, which affirmed that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own firearms. In response to this gaffe, Kiely quotes Clinton campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin, who wrote to FactCheck.org: Along with the vast majority of Americans, Clinton believes there are common sense steps we can take at the federal level to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the 2nd Amendment. She also believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe. Here is the problem with Clinton’s belief that Heller was “wrongly decided” because it prohibited states from making “common sense laws to keep their residents safe”: It is a lie. Heller prohibited no such thing: In fact, in the court’s majority opinion on Heller, the late Antonin Scalia explicitly allows that the Second Amendment is perfectly compatible with laws meant to keep residents safe from harm. “Like most rights,” Scalia wrote, “the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.” Among the regulations permissible under Heller, according to Scalia, were “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” such as laws meant to protect public safety by keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals.
I was just about to post that. Funny how they like to tilt things their way when the truth is just a few keystrokes away...
__________________
America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...