What would you have done?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is exactly what I’m saying. Plenty of people have had negative experiences, which is one thing, but how often does anyone find themselves in the circumstances in the opening post? I suspect the answer is almost never, and yet here they are imagining that they wouldn’t help because of the possibility of negative outcomes for themselves! Most people will still help someone out in spite of the possibility of negative outcomes. It’s equally irrational, but it’s because we observe someone in a bad way and it makes us uncomfortable.

Err.. I wouldn't be too sure about that.. many of us don't live in areas with small populations. I live in a rather large city (9 million), and in the areas where the bars/clubs/etc are in, it's quite common to see similar examples to what the OP described, but then, that's abroad.

In my hometown though, on a Saturday night, it wouldn't be rare to see men/women come out of the two crappy nightclubs, completely hosed out of their minds, and then decide to stagger the 2-3 miles home, stopping at one of the chippers, and eventually, collapsing against a wall in a funk. I've encountered such sitting outside my parents home, early in the morning, still hammered from the night before...

I know all about lifeguard training too, but mine was memorable for all the wrong reasons - I hadn’t foreseen the outcome of carrying a girl on my hip up the length of the pool, and I begged her to give me a few minutes before she hauled me out of the water when it was her turn to perform CPR, but she was having none of it. Everyone was horrified, I was mortified. That negative experience then still wouldn’t put me off jumping into water to rescue a girl who was drowning now. I just wouldn’t do it wearing speedos :pac:

I get that. but our experiences affect us all differently.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If a person has experience of being accused by girls of improper behaviour on numerous occasions when their intent was to offer assistance, then I could understand why they might be reluctant to offer assistance to someone who they assess is in genuine need of assistance. .

Well.. I'm iffy about it because it's a common enough scam in Asia, where the person will claim some injury caused by you (while you were helping them), produce a witness, and it'll be settled out of court with some kind of monetary settlement. It hasn't happened to me, but I know two western guys it has happened to. I've heard of similar cases from friends living in Eastern Europe, so I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it has made its way over here too.

In any case, in terms of Ireland, I'll stick to deciding based on the circumstances, rather than making some claim that I would or wouldn't. TBH I really don't know how I'd react, because I've generally felt differently (due to experiences) even when faced with problems I've encountered before.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Based on what? Social media? Terrible metric in my experience.

I've never seen this sort of mentality outside Twitter/Facebook and those are the only two I bother with. Even working at two universities and having attended another two I've never come across this.

I'm not on twitter or facebook. The only social media I use would be boards, or wechat (when I'm in China).

I was basing it on boards, firstly (It's a common attitude on CA), and secondly, I have encountered it in University discussions. I've also worked at a variety of universities, including when coming back here as a visiting lecturer.

Still, I should have worded the paragraph better. I didn't mean it was widespread in society, except in certain areas/groups. Sorry.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But sure that’s where this whole “personal responsibility” argument comes up - when someone is the victim of someone else’s actions, it’s the victims actions are questioned as though they are responsible for someone else’s actions.

What I referred to was personal responsibility. Not shifting any blame away from the aggressor on to the victim.

This is something I've noticed whenever these discussions start. Someone feels the need to shift the attention away from personal responsibility (while acknowledging it's importance), and instead focus on the aggressor (and if there's no aggressor, then introduce one). And then, the references to victim blaming begin, even when the original reference is simply about our own responsibility to watch our surroundings, be careful who we're with, not to get drunk without friends nearby, etc.

Any case, though, I didn't seek to pass any blame from one person to another, so you're heading off on a different tangent than mine.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s pretty simple to demonstrate by way of example -

Someone’s walking home drunk and they walk into a wall, saying “who put that wall there?” is pretty stupid, they’re personally responsible in those circumstances for their own misfortune.

Someone’s walking home drunk and they get attacked by another person, saying “I’m not responsible for that person choosing to attack me”, is an astute observation.

Although, they would be responsible for getting drunk and choosing to walk home, as opposed to getting a taxi home instead. They're not to blame for being attacked.

In any case, the original post of the thread, was about whether to help someone who was walking around drunk late at night, or something similar. Where there was no aggressor involved... hence the reference to personal responsibility.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a moot point about personal responsibility if nothing happens to them though?

Not sure the relevance of that, though.

The point only ever comes up when people look to apportion blame and other people point out that the victim is not to blame for someone else’s actions.

Blame. Responsibility. Being responsible for themselves, and their own behavior. Being a victim due to their own actions, choices, etc... as opposed to becoming a victim solely due to an external force, ie, an aggressor.

There are plenty of posters here have said they wouldn’t help someone in those circumstances because they might be accused of something, yet they’re the person has already formed the idea in their head that the other person could have ill intentions towards them, but they have no personal responsibility for their own thoughts, it’s because of someone else’s actions that they won’t help the person in front of them.

They're taking responsibility for their own thoughts, because they're placing a priority on their own safety. Which is reasonable. To assess the possible risks before committing yourself to an action. Especially, if others depend on them (parent, carer, etc), then it would be irresponsible to blindly jump into situations, which might cause trouble.

How does that work? Because from where I’m sitting it’s pretty convenient for them. And that’s fine btw, I don’t judge anyone for choosing not to offer someone in distress assistance, they have their reasons. But if their reason means putting responsibility on a completely innocent stranger for their thoughts... that’s odd, is the kindest way I can put it.

So, it's fine for you to assume someone else's innocence (and lack of any possible threat/risk) but not okay for someone else to assume a risk from a situation? After all, we're talking about situations which incur increased risk.. ie,. late at night, the other person being drunk/drugged (and so is likely to be unpredictable), etc.

You see, in Asia, women are often used as bait to attract men, for all manner of scams. And after living here for many years, that affects my perception of risk, regardless of where I am. Just as I have learned to be careful of groups of males (adults/teens) in the evening/night, and I will be far more careful near them, even to the point of crossing the road to avoid close contact. (as I have been mugged before, or simply beaten up by complete strangers for the "fun" of it)

We experience situations in many places, we learn, and we adapt. I would love for Ireland to have remained the incredibly safe country it was (in comparison to other countries) when I was a child/teen, but it hasn't stayed that way. With immigration comes other ideas, and values, some positive, some negative.. just as society has changed due to the internet, social media, and movies. Crime in Ireland has changed, and it's not the very safe country it used to be. Which is why we should be considering what else has changed, before we, ourselves, become victims to that change.

When I see someone in some kind of distress, experience has taught me to consider the risks and assess possible threats, before stepping in to help. So, yes, personal responsibility for my own safety is important.

Kraftwerk wrote: »

So you complain that "any mention of personal responsibility is victim blaming" and now "she's not a lady if she's drunk".

You're operating on the same wavelength as Bill OReilly when he said "what do they expect walking home alone in short skirts".

Oh, I get it. We disagree. I feel that a woman shouldn't place herself in a position of danger, just as a man shouldn't. A woman, typically, being weaker and more vulnerable needs to be more aware of her surroundings, and who she's with.

And yes, a woman wearing sexy/revealing clothing in an obviously dangerous area, would be idiotic. In my opinion. That's not to say that I excuse any aggressors. I'm not. However, I do feel that the woman would be responsible for placing herself in that position. Now, doing so, in any normal areas, or situations, then, no... I don't feel that she would be lacking in personal responsibility for what happens. It entirely depends on the individual circumstances.

Just as I have placed myself in danger by being drunk in areas which were known to be dangerous, and I did have trouble. The responsibility is shared.

But I get it. A victim is completely blameless (including her own personal responsibility for her own safety)... and I've had this conversation on boards hundreds of times. I know how it goes, and I have no interest in repeating it.