Irony has a new name: Pippa Bacca

[Father Dagon]

This story says it all.

But I wonder what her mental age was. No 33-year old thinks that all you need is trust, right? But if her mental age really was 33, what went wrong then?

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Father Dagon

This story says it all.

But I wonder what her mental age was. No 33-year old thinks that all you need is trust, right? But if her mental age really was 33, what went wrong then?

She was a naif, pure and simple. Back in the 60s I had a girlfriend who had displayed a similar type of "trust." She'd been raped by a "friendly motorist" who'd given her a ride when she was hitchhiking. A few months with me brought her up to speed about such matters. She's now a militant skeptic.

M.

[shuize]

Her name, "Bacca," sounds just like the Japanese word "Baka" (idiot/fool).

One can only hope news of her death will prevent others from being so foolish.

[WildCat]

Does this qualify for a Darwin award?

[Zep]

Dreadfully sad, but the tragedy was in her naive beliefs in face of reality which was so obviously available to her if she but looked.

[Darth Rotor]

Stupid is as stupid does, but her heart was in the right place.

She has that going for her, which is nice, I think.

DR

[plumjam]

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.
So good on her.
The main error here was not hers; it belongs to the man who did her in.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.
So good on her.
The main error here was not hers; it belongs to the man who did her in.

Good on her? Are you ironic? Unless her killer is stabbed in prison, he is far better of than her. Not that I believe, but "trust in God, but keep you gunpowder dry" is a good rule for everyone (albeit modified for an atheistic POV.)

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Father Dagon

Good on her? Are you ironic? Unless her killer is stabbed in prison, he is far better of than her. Not that I believe, but "trust in God, but keep you gunpowder dry" is a good rule for everyone (albeit modified for an atheistic POV.)

No irony here, so yes, good on her for having trust in her fellow human beings. IMO it's a better approach to life than its opposite.
How do you know that her death occurred as a result of this trust? Plenty of people who are more distrustful of human nature than Miss/Mrs Bacca end up being murdered by strangers.

What was your intention in starting this thread?
Did it cross your mind that family/friends of herself might visit this forum?

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.
So good on her.

I'd prefer to live in a society where everyone was worthy of my trust, but I don't. 49 years of experience shows me it is better to at least be skeptical about trusting people, and to err on the side of caution.

Sorry. I've met too many right bastards to be that trusting, ever again. I don't want to walk about with "There's one born every minute, and here I am!" tattooed on my forehead.

Quote:

The main error here was not hers; it belongs to the man who did her in.

I really want to agree fully with that, I do. I think it's untrue, and just mean, to suggest it's her fault alone she was killed. But I also think the fact we have brains behooves us to use them as best we may. Of course he's responsible for her death, being the one who killed her. But. I don't think she's innocent, and that she certainly and unwisely put herself in harm's way. Actions have consequences. Sometimes, they're deadly.

Apparently, the world is not the way she wanted it to be.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by plumjam

No irony here, so yes, good on her for having trust in her fellow human beings. IMO it's a better approach to life than its opposite.

No, both extremes are equally worthless. Following either of the extremes makes it impossible to live on Earth. Most people are able to strike a balance between trust and distrust. That's beacuse if you never trust anyone, then you will have a hard time to make any profits. But if you never distrust anyone, then your losses will be epic.

And even in polite society where you are among your peers that hasn't anything to gain from hurting you, I guess that you even there are conservative with what kind of information about yourself you communicate. Everyone has some kind of "dirt" that is not even illegal, but isn't for everyone to hear. If I'm stuck at a dead-end job and are going to night school in order to be able to advance my career, it might be wise of me to think of it as "ultierior motives", lest I become fired for some made-up reason before I finish the night school. The strategy in this case should be to not only shut up about my evening activities, but also to never, ever bring any teaching material or notes from the night school to work (or at least not flaunt it.)

Originally Posted by plumjam

How do you know that her death occurred as a result of this trust? Plenty of people who are more distrustful of human nature than Miss/Mrs Bacca end up being murdered by strangers.

True. But she stated her philosopical POV for all the world to see on the internet. She choosed to hitchhike wearing really conspicious clothes in a country more violent than Italy.

It's also ironic that she's from a Mediterranean country. In the Mediterranean people are usually easy-going towards strangers (as strangers sometimes means opportunities) but they never let their guard down (as strangers sometimes means trouble.)

Originally Posted by plumjam

What was your intention in starting this thread?
Did it cross your mind that family/friends of herself might visit this forum?

No particular reason. We can discuss the WBC without considering all the friends and families that had the funerals of their beloved ruined by those morons, right?

Note that I didn't use Pippa Bacca's real name, so I guess that her friends and family has just a bit easier to distance themselves.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by slingblade

Sorry. I've met too many right bastards to be that trusting, ever again. I don't want to walk about with "There's one born every minute, and here I am!" tattooed on my forehead.

I wouldn't use the phrase "not innocent" there. She certainly hadn't committed a crime of any kind. I think it's entirely possible for an innocent person to be incautious or imprudent.

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.
So good on her.
The main error here was not hers; it belongs to the man who did her in.

"If I had to choose between two extremes..." <-- and therein lies the problem with your argument. Because you don't have to choose between two extremes. Not only that, it is a just plain stupid argument. If there were a man attacking my wife, and I had the means and opportunity to stop him, it would be the epitome of stupidity to choose the extreme that "I should trust everyone", and just leave him alone, trusting that he wouldn't do anything bad.

This is a woman who had very sincere and deep beliefs, no doubt.

But I see this as little different than if the same woman had come upon a dog that was foaming at the mouth, teeth bared, straining at its chain to try to attack her...and she walked up to it, assuming that all she needed to do was show some love to overcome its obvious anger. A well-intentioned sentiment, I'm sure -- but stupid, nonetheless.

"The main error here was not hers..." <-- Sorry, but she must bear much of the responsibility for a decision that placed her life in immediate, identifiable, and easily avoidable jeopardy. She could have chosen to travel with other people. She didn't. She could have chosen to travel in other, safer places. She didn't. She could have chosen to demonstrate her ideals in another, safer way. She didn't. She is the one who made the choices; and they were bad choices. To then try to argue that she somehow should have no responsibility for those choices just makes no sense to me.

People make bad choices all the time. I've made plenty of them in my own life. Some of those bad choices were made with the noblest of intentions and beliefs...but they were still bad choices. And I was the sole person responsible for making those choices, and living with the results. Neither naivety nor sincerity absolve you from responsibility for the choices you make, or the results thereof.

She made a bad choice. She paid the price. I'm not saying that "she deserved it"...far from that. No more than a person who chooses to have sex without a condom "deserves" to die of AIDS. But she still bears the responsibility for her choices, and her actions.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Father Dagon

No, both extremes are equally worthless. Following either of the extremes makes it impossible to live on Earth.

Well that's not true. All of us managed to survive to adulthood via toddlerhood and babyhood; a time where it's natural to trust anyone. It's certainly possible to live as an adult while trusting no-one. Some people go off into the Rockies, build a shack, and do so.
My point is that it's a poor attitude to life, which completely closes down an individual.

Quote:

Most people are able to strike a balance between trust and distrust.

Hey, we agree on something.

Quote:

That's beacuse if you never trust anyone, then you will have a hard time to make any profits. But if you never distrust anyone, then your losses will be epic.

So it's a matter of economics now?

Quote:

She choosed to hitchhike wearing really conspicious clothes in a country more violent than Italy.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend my sister do the same. But that's tangential to my main point.

Quote:

It's also ironic that she's from a Mediterranean country. In the Mediterranean people are usually easy-going towards strangers (as strangers sometimes means opportunities) but they never let their guard down (as strangers sometimes means trouble.)

I see that the advanced anthropology course is coming along just great

Quote:

No particular reason.

This is the part I doubt most. (But maybe I should be less mistrustful of people)

Quote:

We can discuss the WBC without considering all the friends and families that had the funerals of their beloved ruined by those morons, right?

Two entirely different topics.
But if you're going to bring in that analogy then maybe you'll see that what you did by starting the OP has some commonalities with what the Phelps clan do.
They make a point of mocking the deaths of people whose beliefs and activities they (the Phelps) believe to have been causally contributive to the demise of the deceased. The general message seems to be "hey, look how wrong and stupid these people's (servicemen) beliefs and activities were.. and look what happened to them as a consequence thanks to God's punishment.. hahaha, don't go doing that yourselves, will ya,..instead follow us and the True Way"

Yes, what the Phelps do by attending those funerals is absolutely despicable,
and I have trust that you are nothing like them in that way. But writing an OP about the recent death of a woman who had only good intentions, and pointing out how ironic it was, is itself a form of gloating which blames a person for their own death, and in your own way is saying "hey folks, look how wrong and stupid this person's beliefs and activities were, and look what happened to her as a consequence, thanks to man's punishment.. hahaha, don't go doing that yourselves, will ya,.. instead follow me and the Way of... whatever it is you believe in that regard, perhaps Automatic Mistrust of Your Fellow Man.

Quote:

Note that I didn't use Pippa Bacca's real name, so I guess that her friends and family has just a bit easier to distance themselves.

The BBC site you linked to says she was "known as Pippa Bacca". Are you saying her friends and family will take it easier because you used this form of address rather than her official name?

[Jekyll]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.
So good on her.

Sadly, she didn't have that choice. Instead, she had to choose between living her life, or trusting everybody.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

"If I had to choose between two extremes..." <-- and therein lies the problem with your argument. Because you don't have to choose between two extremes.

It was a mini thought-experiment used to illustrate my view that it's better, on the whole, to adopt a general attitude of trust in life, rather than a general attitude of mistrust.

Quote:

Not only that, it is a just plain stupid argument. If there were a man attacking my wife, and I had the means and opportunity to stop him, it would be the epitome of stupidity to choose the extreme that "I should trust everyone", and just leave him alone, trusting that he wouldn't do anything bad.

If there's a 'just plain stupid argument in this thread', I'm sorry, but it's this one. The man attacking your wife has, by attacking her, already shown that you have good reason to mistrust him.
A woman hitch-hiking on her own has no reason, simply from the fact that a car has stopped to give her a lift, to automatically mistrust the motives of the driver of that car.

Quote:

This is a woman who had very sincere and deep beliefs, no doubt.
But I see this as little different than if the same woman had come upon a dog that was foaming at the mouth, teeth bared, straining at its chain to try to attack her...and she walked up to it, assuming that all she needed to do was show some love to overcome its obvious anger. A well-intentioned sentiment, I'm sure -- but stupid, nonetheless.

There's a world of difference between hugging a rabid dog and going hitch-hiking.

Quote:

"The main error here was not hers..." <-- Sorry, but she must bear much of the responsibility for a decision that placed her life in immediate, identifiable, and easily avoidable jeopardy. She could have chosen to travel with other people. She didn't. She could have chosen to travel in other, safer places. She didn't. She could have chosen to demonstrate her ideals in another, safer way. She didn't. She is the one who made the choices; and they were bad choices. To then try to argue that she somehow should have no responsibility for those choices just makes no sense to me.

Where did I argue she should have no responsibility for the consequences of her actions?

Does she deserve to have her death gloated about on the internet?
Who is responsible for the gloating? Herself or the people actually doing it?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If there's a 'just plain stupid argument in this thread', I'm sorry, but it's this one. The man attacking your wife has, by attacking her, already shown that you have good reason to mistrust him.
A woman hitch-hiking on her own has no reason, simply from the fact that a car has stopped to give her a lift, to automatically mistrust the motives of the driver of that car.

Quote:

There's a world of difference between hugging a rabid dog and going hitch-hiking.

Sorry, but it wasn't just a decision to "go hitchhiking". It was a decision to go hitchhiking, by herself, in countries where it is known that violence towards women is common, that violent crime in general is frequent, and/or where threats of violence/murder against "westerners" are commonplace.

And I see no difference between choosing to ignore those facts, and choosing to ignore that a man is attacking your wife, or that a dog wants to attack you.

As to her name being all over the internet...I'm not "gloating". Nor are most other people that I can see. Nor more than I'd be "gloating" if someone died from AIDS after having unprotected sex, and their story was used to publicize the danger of unprotected sex. She made a bad decision -- but there are plenty of other people in the world who will have the same naive world view that she did. And perhaps this serves as a warning to them, and helps them avoid making the same stupid decisions.

Whereas arguing for some sort of 'nobility', or saying that what happened "was in no way her fault", rather fails to get that particular message across.

[plumjam]

[quote=Wolfman;3615303]

Quote:

Sorry, but it wasn't just a decision to "go hitchhiking". It was a decision to go hitchhiking, by herself, in countries where it is known that violence towards women is common, and/or where threats of violence/murder against "westerners" are commonplace.

Such vague statements could be applied to any nation on the planet. Do we know that lone western women hitch-hikers are at any more danger in Turkey than they are in, say, the USA?

Quote:

And I see no difference between choosing to ignore those facts, and choosing to ignore that a man is attacking your wife, or that a dog wants to attack you.

The facts of a man currently attacking your wife, and a rabid dog wanting to attack you are of a whole different nature and level of danger than the fact that hundreds of millions of motorised vehicles drive on roads all over the world ever day, that sometimes people solicit and are given lifts by the drivers of these vehicles, and that very occasionally a female hitch-hiker will be killed somewhere in the world, as a result of accepting one of these millions of lifts.

With the wife example a crime is already taking place, and the husband would be criminally negligent not to intervene in a way that expresses his mistrust of the man (at very least by calling the police). With a rabid dog, ..well I can see no reason why anyone would want to hug the dog, yet I can see plenty of reasons why some people might want to go hitch-hiking.

[I Am He]

So plumjam, when are you planning to go on your trip alone?


I Am He

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by I Am He

So plumjam, when are you planning to go on your trip alone?


I Am He

Well I trust you, so thanks for the offer of a lift from the UK to Israel. Be round my place about 7pm ok?
Cheers

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Such vague statements could be applied to any nation on the planet. Do we know that lone western women hitch-hikers are at any more danger in Turkey than they are in, say, the USA?

Really!!!?!?

Granted, hitchhiking in general is dangerous, no matter where you do it (which, again, argues for the stupidity of a woman who chose to ignore or dismiss that danger). But come on...you really can't see the difference?

Let's take a more neutral approach -- let's use me as an example. A white, Canadian, middle-aged male. I have three different choices as to where to go hitchhiking.

1) I can go hitchhiking in Canada. A country where crime rates (especially violent crime rates) are relatively low, where the law is fairly equally and adequately enforced, where there is no ongoing war or civil disruption, and where political or religious violence are relatively rare.

2) I can go hitchhiking in Bangladesh. A country where violent crime rates are fairly high, where poverty is abundant, where the law is inadequately enforced, and where I, as a white person of obvious greater affluence than the local people, make a very tempting target.

3) I can go hitchhiking in Pakistan. A country where violent crime rates are quite high, where political and religious violence are very common, where the law is inadequately enforced, where "westerners" are considered the "enemy" by many of the local people (and, in fact, violence against westerners is preached in many local mosques), and where I, as a white person, make a very obvious target.

Now, are you trying to argue that "just going hitchhiking" is the same decision in all three situations? If so...then I'd suggest you try reading this woman's story a little, and take a little bit more of the real world with you.

[plumjam]

[quote=Wolfman;3615303]

Quote:

As to her name being all over the internet...I'm not "gloating".

I know you aren't. You're better than that.
From others, however, we've had:
Irony has a new name: Pippa Bacca
I wonder what her mental age was
But if her mental age really was 33, what went wrong then?
Her name, "Bacca," sounds just like the Japanese word "Baka" (idiot/fool).
Does this qualify for a Darwin award?

Quote:

Nor are most other people that I can see. Nor more than I'd be "gloating" if someone died from AIDS after having unprotected sex, and their story was used to publicize the danger of unprotected sex. She made a bad decision -- but there are plenty of other people in the world who will have the same naive world view that she did. And perhaps this serves as a warning to them, and helps them avoid making the same stupid decisions.

There will be a lot more people (I believe) with that 'naive world view' who live a much enriched life thanks to it.. rather than the world view often represented in the media, which pushes the belief that we should be more or less frightened of our own shadows.

[I Am He]

Go with you?? You’re the one that thinks it's safe. So you say you're leaving?? Oh, 7:PM that's right, please keep in touch.


I Am He

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Really!!!?!?

Granted, hitchhiking in general is dangerous, no matter where you do it (which, again, argues for the stupidity of a woman who chose to ignore or dismiss that danger). But come on...you really can't see the difference?

Let's take a more neutral approach -- let's use me as an example. A white, Canadian, middle-aged male. I have three different choices as to where to go hitchhiking.

1) I can go hitchhiking in Canada. A country where crime rates (especially violent crime rates) are relatively low, where the law is fairly equally and adequately enforced, where there is no ongoing war or civil disruption, and where political or religious violence are relatively rare.

2) I can go hitchhiking in Bangladesh. A country where violent crime rates are fairly high, where poverty is abundant, where the law is inadequately enforced, and where I, as a white person of obvious greater affluence than the local people, make a very tempting target.

3) I can go hitchhiking in Pakistan. A country where violent crime rates are quite high, where political and religious violence are very common, where the law is inadequately enforced, where "westerners" are considered the "enemy" by many of the local people (and, in fact, violence against westerners is preached in many local mosques), and where I, as a white person, make a very obvious target.

Now, are you trying to argue that "just going hitchhiking" is the same decision in all three situations? If so...then I'd suggest you try reading this woman's story a little, and take a little bit more of the real world with you.

Your original statement was this:

Sorry, but it wasn't just a decision to "go hitchhiking". It was a decision to go hitchhiking, by herself, in countries where it is known that violence towards women is common, and/or where threats of violence/murder against "westerners" are commonplace.

My comment was that it was so vague as to be meaningless. Common and commonplace. You could apply any standard of that to any country in the world, and find what you'd like.
Personally, if I had a sister, I'd be happier with her hitching in Turkey than in the USA.

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by I Am He

Go with you?? You’re the one that thinks it's safe. So you say you're leaving?? Oh, 7:PM that's right, please keep in touch.

The forum can only get rid of me if you, I Am He, are prepared to trust me. It's a big call, and there's a lot resting on your shoulders.

[I Am He]

I'm sorry to pass on the bad news, but who are you?? I know who I Am, but as far as I know you could be on the up and up? But then again you could could be something else entirely. So as I see it you are nothing to me, so there's nothing on my shoulders. Now I hope you have safe trip meeting all those nice friendly people on your way.


I Am He

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by I Am He

I'm sorry to pass on the bad news, but who are you?? I know who I Am, but as far as I know you could be on the up and up? But then again you could could be something else entirely. So as I see it you are nothing to me, so there's nothing on my shoulders. Now I hope you have safe trip meeting all those nice friendly people on your way.


I Am He

We all know who you are. You Are He.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by plumjam

Well that's not true. All of us managed to survive to adulthood via toddlerhood and babyhood; a time where it's natural to trust anyone. It's certainly possible to live as an adult while trusting no-one. Some people go off into the Rockies, build a shack, and do so.
My point is that it's a poor attitude to life, which completely closes down an individual.

The reason that toddlers and kids can be so trusting is that they are protected by adults.

Originally Posted by plumjam

Hey, we agree on something.

Goody.

Originally Posted by plumjam

So it's a matter of economics now?

Yes. Beacuse profit and loss can describe actions and states in a non-momentary way. Think of death as ultimate loss.

Originally Posted by plumjam

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend my sister do the same. But that's tangential to my main point.

Why not? Why was it good enough for Pippa Bacca, but not your own sister?

Originally Posted by plumjam

I see that the advanced anthropology course is coming along just great

The Mediterranean isn't a monolith, but that's one general tendency.

Originally Posted by plumjam

This is the part I doubt most. (But maybe I should be less mistrustful of people)

Good. I wanted to make a point and start the thread before anyone else did.

Originally Posted by plumjam

Two entirely different topics.
But if you're going to bring in that analogy then maybe you'll see that what you did by starting the OP has some commonalities with what the Phelps clan do.
They make a point of mocking the deaths of people whose beliefs and activities they (the Phelps) believe to have been causally contributive to the demise of the deceased. The general message seems to be "hey, look how wrong and stupid these people's (servicemen) beliefs and activities were.. and look what happened to them as a consequence thanks to God's punishment.. hahaha, don't go doing that yourselves, will ya,..instead follow us and the True Way"

Yes, what the Phelps do by attending those funerals is absolutely despicable,
and I have trust that you are nothing like them in that way. But writing an OP about the recent death of a woman who had only good intentions, and pointing out how ironic it was, is itself a form of gloating which blames a person for their own death, and in your own way is saying "hey folks, look how wrong and stupid this person's beliefs and activities were, and look what happened to her as a consequence, thanks to man's punishment.. hahaha, don't go doing that yourselves, will ya,.. instead follow me and the Way of... whatever it is you believe in that regard, perhaps Automatic Mistrust of Your Fellow Man.

OK, I gloated. But why should just her family be "spared" from online discussions about their naïve daughter? She's already front page news.

The comparision with the WBC is relevant. You just have to say "WBC" and any grief-stricken friend or family might be reminded of the Phelps Clan.

I'm not promoting any special way other than keeping it real by doing your homework and checking your premises. But I gotta respect Pippa Bacca for following her own pilosophy to the bitter end, even if it killed her. Celebrities that spews the same pacifistic nonsense but surrounds themselves with a no-nonsense entourage deserves no respect at all.

Originally Posted by plumjam

The BBC site you linked to says she was "known as Pippa Bacca". Are you saying her friends and family will take it easier because you used this form of address rather than her official name?

Maybe you are right. But it should be easier for them to distance themselves from their own responsibility as it was "Pippa Bacca" that was on a mission to save the world.

Or they might be equally naïve as the political violence has never been something you can close your eyes for.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by plumjam

If I had to choose between the two extremes I'd prefer to live my life as someone who trusts everyone rather than as someone who trusts no-one.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

[Roadtoad]

I wouldn't say this is "ironic." I'd say the whole thing was one tragic miscalculation which didn't need to happen.

[Father Dagon]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I wouldn't say this is "ironic." I'd say the whole thing was one tragic miscalculation which didn't need to happen.

I don't think that she made any calculation at all. She must've thought that having the moral high ground makes you immune to lifes all little problems.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I wouldn't use the phrase "not innocent" there. She certainly hadn't committed a crime of any kind. I think it's entirely possible for an innocent person to be incautious or imprudent.

No matter what word I use, it's going to put some kind of onus of wrong or fault on her. I do get the connotation of "innocent" in this context, and I can agree it may be out of line.

So, I'll go along with the quibble and say "not blameless," or "not without responsibility" instead. But I am aware I'm trying to say her death was at least partly her fault. She wasn't just incautious. She put herself in harm's way, in a deliberate sense, to prove everyone is trustworthy.

The premise is extremely faulty and dangerous. Not everyone is trustworthy. It is no use of critical thinking or reason at all to try to live as if they are.

ETA: I'm having a hard time with my own argument, just so you know. I'm having trouble reconciling what I said with the old argument about provocatively-dressed women who are "just asking to be raped." I've grown up with the notion that we ought not blame the victim.

Yet I also know I should use my own brain and not dress in something meant to be sexually attractive and then put myself in a dangerous place, and expect to stay safe. I have some responsibility, don't I? I should exercise reasonable caution, shouldn't I?

To live under the premise "Everyone is worthy of my trust" is just...wrong. It's a flawed premise. Testing it in the uncontrolled conditions of every-day life is a dumb way to conduct such an "experiment."

I'm conflicted.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Does this qualify for a Darwin award?

Nope. Murders are disqualified even if the victim was dumb. But it does qualify for an irony meter.

She proved the opposite of what she set out to prove.

Quote:

She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.

[quixotecoyote]

Originally Posted by slingblade

No matter what word I use, it's going to put some kind of onus of wrong or fault on her. I do get the connotation of "innocent" in this context, and I can agree it may be out of line.

So, I'll go along with the quibble and say "not blameless," or "not without responsibility" instead. But I am aware I'm trying to say her death was at least partly her fault. She wasn't just incautious. She put herself in harm's way, in a deliberate sense, to prove everyone is trustworthy.

The premise is extremely faulty and dangerous. Not everyone is trustworthy. It is no use of critical thinking or reason at all to try to live as if they are.

ETA: I'm having a hard time with my own argument, just so you know. I'm having trouble reconciling what I said with the old argument about provocatively-dressed women who are "just asking to be raped." I've grown up with the notion that we ought not blame the victim.

Yet I also know I should use my own brain and not dress in something meant to be sexually attractive and then put myself in a dangerous place, and expect to stay safe. I have some responsibility, don't I? I should exercise reasonable caution, shouldn't I?

To live under the premise "Everyone is worthy of my trust" is just...wrong. It's a flawed premise. Testing it in the uncontrolled conditions of every-day life is a dumb way to conduct such an "experiment."

I'm conflicted.

I wondered if you'd edit your post

I would say that when someone commits an unprovoked crime against you, you bear no responsibility for their actions. Having said that, it is unwise not to take precautionary measures to prevent being victimized. Failing to do so does not make you responsible for the crimes, merely unwise and imprudent.

If I leave my wallet in the car and someone breaks in and steals it, am I responsible for the theft. Well, not in any legal sense I know of. The thief would face criminal and civil charges, not me. Neither am I responsible in a moral sense. I did not choose to commit a theft, only the thief did.

The only way I can see the 'victim's responsibility' argument working is if you hold that tempting someone to commit a crime trough being an unwitting unprepared victim is wrong in some moral sense. It's certainly pragmatically undesirable, but I think it's best if you leave it at that point.

[linusrichard]

Dr. Johnson said, "It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust."

So there's that for Plumjam.

On the other hand, he did say "sometimes cheated," not "raped and murdered and left naked in the bushes."

So there's that for everyone else.

Basically, I think I have to sort of agree with Plumjam, to a certain limited extent, but at the same time I feel that it's a ridonkulous thing to say in the context of what happened. That said, I think Plumjam's comments are less offensive than a Darwin award nomination, or pointing out that her pseudonym is homonymous with the Japanese for idiot.

What an awesome woman. What a terrible tragedy.

[BPSCG]

[Blanche_DuBois]
"Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
[/Blanche_DuBois]

[plumjam]

Originally Posted by linusrichard

Dr. Johnson said, "It is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and happier to be sometimes cheated than not to trust."

So there's that for Plumjam.

On the other hand, he did say "sometimes cheated," not "raped and murdered and left naked in the bushes."

So there's that for everyone else.

Basically, I think I have to sort of agree with Plumjam, to a certain limited extent, but at the same time I feel that it's a ridonkulous thing to say in the context of what happened. That said, I think Plumjam's comments are less offensive than a Darwin award nomination, or pointing out that her pseudonym is homonymous with the Japanese for idiot.

What an awesome woman. What a terrible tragedy.

Cheers Linus,
nice quote from Dr Johnson there too.

[BPSCG]

From the story:

Quote:

She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.

What was she trying to prove?

• That strangers could often be nice, helpful, generous, kind?

No one would seriously argue with that. It may even be true for an unaccompanied Christian woman in Gaza City.

• That strangers would always be nice, helpful, generous, kind?

No rational person would seriously claim that was true. The world is full of rapists, cutthroats, murderers, and other assorted nasty people, and anyone who disputes that needs to be led by the hand back to his or her bed and given a nice warm cup of milk.

• That she could somehow, by the purity of her innocence, make the world's rapists, cutthroats, murderers, and other assorted nasty people treat her with kindness?

Even Jesus Christ couldn't do that; he ended up pretty much as she did. About the same age, too, make of that what you will.

[Foolmewunz]

Well, she tried! Yeah, sure!

Sorry, but those arguing that her inherent "goodness" and trust is a positive message are just picking up one little piece of the issue.

She (any she, any person who this might happen to) is DEAD! Dead is kind of final, you know. So you'd rather live your life caring and trusting? The key word there is LIVE. She is no longer living. She is dead. She is dead because she had this ridiculous Polyanna-ish view of the world, and felt that her art was going to carry her through. Why does this remind me of the Children's Crusade?

I tried to read that article from the POV of just seeing it for the first time, with no tragic results. And you know what? My reaction in such a case would have been,.... "What an idiot!" Tragically, I would have been right.

[shuize]

I thought about this story again recently as I ran across one of the many mentally ill folks who just seem to roam loose on the streets of Japan with nothing better to do than scream at foreigners.

I wondered to myself if Ms. Bacca's naivete in trusting people unconditionally extended to the mentally ill and if that might not have been what got her killed.