Do you believe this?

Continued from my last reply;
You are obviously trying to claim that destiny or fate exists. I see no reason to believe in destiny or fate. I do see plenty of reasons to believe in chance. 'Chance' (Ancient Greek concept)

Ancient Greek philosophy had two concepts of chance, both causes of effects that happen incidentally, but differentiated in the second book of Aristotle's Physics as follows:
Tyche (or "luck") operates in the mind.
Automaton (or "chance") operates in the realm of nature.
To many earlier Greek philosophers chance did not exist. One of the surviving fragments of Leucippus says: "Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity". To the atomists the world was completely deterministic. However, Democritus also claimed that chance (automaton) caused the original creation of "the heavenly spheres and all the worlds", i.e. that existence itself has no prior or determining cause, although everything that has happened since is deterministic.
To Aristotle on the other hand, both tyche (luck) and automaton (chance) are everyday phenomena. However, for Aristotle chance events were not uncaused, they were simply the effect of the concurrence of two causal sequences. Thus a stone falling that happens to hit a tree is a chance event, although the falling of the stone and the growing of the tree are both determined events.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chance-randomness/

 

Yes, she has a right to wear what she wants as long as she maintains decency.

Yes agree, the old order changeth yielding place to new.

 

No body disagree with your point so please calm down. As a reminder, the victim's apparel was the primary motivation for the jury to make her a culprit. Do not be surprised if some of us will comment that it should have no bearing on the legal case in view of the original question. This is a discussion board and we're discussing about a rape victim and the convict who acquitted . Why the convict acquitted ? why did the jury decided that the women's dress incited the convict to abduct and rape her? This is the theme of this discussion, so please present some arguments instead of shouting.

 

Why did you say she could have been naked? That's why I added few more steps forward...

However, the way she dressed may have made her more of a target, whether it make her more attractive as a target or makes the rapist think "hey, maybe since she's dressed that way, an idiotic jury won't convict me".

The person, who wants to cross the road and steps out in front of the moving cars just because he's seen a green light is "in the right" as well. It's still a stupid thing to do.

It does draw attention. And unfortunately, that attention drawing factor endangers any potential victim. It also (and quite prejudicially) is perceived by the potential assailant as a message of "I am easy to get" or "I want it". So where did I justify rape? Presenting examples or trying to think and reply on which ground the jury had decided to acquit the convict, is not justifying rape !! sorry Yen sir.

Change your thinking and you'll see why said so.

 

In order to prevent crime, we the people have to prevent 'people' from committing it, and that means figuring out what leads them to do so and changing it....usually a society-wide problem.