Aliothemage #fundie

Aliothemage #fundie youtube.com

Regarding a Young Turks video where a woman was denied health insurance because the fact se was raped was classified as a "pre existing condition".

"maybe she shouldn't have worn a short skirt!"

Maybe she shouldn't be getting drunk with men she doesn't know, maybe she shouldn't be walking alone at night in the wrong part of town, all of that. It doesn't? excuse her attacker but rape victims often were doing something that put them in a riskier situation than they might have been. Should the more careful be forced to pay for the crimes and the recklessness of others?

62 comments

old comment by Nyssa of Aachen

Re: Katie 5000's post
Personally, I wish that Aliothemage be forceably restrained in a chair, & forced to listen to the 1984 song The Boiler on auto repeat, until his brains turn to mush or explode, whichever happens first...
(Somewhat unlikely, but I can dream, can't I...?)
The Boiler is a song about how a date ends up, with the woman in the song being raped, by her date, after she refuses his advances, as told by the victim...
The song itself, ends with the victim screaming for help, as the rapist drags her into a boiler room, where she is raped next to said boiler.
The last words of the song are "And then he raped me...", before suddenly ending in silence...
The song was released as the A-side of a single in the U.K, where it reached No40 in the U.K record charts, but was banned in the U.S, before it was released, due to the song's nature...

old comment by Aliothemage

Hey guys! I was made aware of this little out of context comment by some horrified youtuber. I had to laugh a little bit, apparently I've become infamous!

Anyhow, I just thought it appropriate to explain myself a bit. I was in a heated debate about insurance when I wrote this and my point was that some people do things such as walk in dark alleys in bad parts of the city and some get drunk around bad people, and others speed when driving. These are all risky things to do and although when something bad happens to them do to these habits the fault isn't entirely theirs it is also party their fault and it isn't wrong for insurance companies to do something such as raising their rates for their risky behavior. After all, why should women who don't ever put themselves in dangerous situations be forced to subsidize those that do? Why should we be forced to subsidize speeders by paying the same rates as them despite their higher tendency for accidents?

Rape was only brought up because it is an emotional topic that can be used to blemish any argument it can be associated with. The person who quoted me didn't bother also including that I believed that in the case of rape it would be rather appropriate for the guilty party to pay at least the difference in the insurance rates or what ever medical bills come from the result of the crime.

Also, it should be pointed out that the rape was not considered a "pre-existing condition". The pre-existing condition was a possible HIV infection. The woman had bought HIV medicine and the insurance company found out when she tried to buy their service. They even said they would sell her insurance once she proved she didn't have HIV. They weren't denying her over rape at all. She tried to get them to giver her insurance without proving she was healthy by claiming that she had been raped. No one was even arrested though, so who knows about the truth of that?

Her story was that she had gone drinking on a bar on an Army base (which is a pretty damn bad idea if you don't want to have sex). She says some one put something in her drink and that she woke up in the morning believing she had been raped. Might be true, might not be, but in either case it had nothing to do with her getting insurance coverage or not.

old comment by BobsOldSocks

@Aliothemage

Do you really think your pathetic attempt to justify your position makes you look anything other than a misogynistic bigot? The *sole* responsibility for any act of rape lies with the rapist, the behaviour of the woman, what she wears, who she associates with, is utterly irrelevant.

"Her story was that she had gone drinking on a bar on an Army base (which is a pretty damn bad idea if you don't want to have sex)."

So, you're saying anyone who goes drinking on an army base is asking for it? Fair game? Really? They have no right to say no, to decide for themselves where and with whom they have sex? Do you really hate women that much? And male soldiers have no self-control, no decency, no humanity? Really? You hate the military that much?

Please slime back under your rock.

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

The majority of rapes are carried out by someone the woman knows, dipshit. For all you know, she could have been in her home, with someone she had good reason to trust, and been raped by them.

Even in cases where the woman was out at night or wearing a short skirt, the blame belongs entirely on the rapist. We females can wear whatever the fuck we want to wear and go where ever the fuck we want to go whenever the fuck we want -- we shouldn't have to keep ourselves locked in a bubble in order to prevent sick fucks from raping us.

I fucking hate rape apologists, especially those who would actually seek to PUNISH the victim.

Edit:

Aliothemage, a woman going to a bar is NOT "risky behavior". What the hell is wrong with you? I realize you think you're being reasonable, but your statements are incredibly offensive to women everywhere.

old comment by Pule Thamex

There is a class of criminal that doesn't consider rape to be a crime. These dim-witted, low-lifes think that if the circumstances are favourable then rape is the natural conclusion. They think rape is just an uncontrolled response to the sight of a woman wearing a short skirt all alone in a dark alley. Of course, the rapist was just casually picking his nose and minding his own business in the dark alley when this interfering woman set about activating a chain of responses in him, over which the poor clod had no control.

Or are they just brutal clods who like to exercise control over those who are physically weaker than them because they are pathetic wankers?

old comment by Aliothemage

@BobsOldSocks

You are misrepresenting my position. I am not excusing her attacker, but isn't it reasonable to charge a person more for insurance if they take more risks? If a person regularly swims with sharks that person shouldn't be upset when their insurance rate goes up because they are putting themselves in risky situations.

"You hate the military that much?"

I'm in the military. It's not about hating it, it's just that I know what happens when you put stressed out sex deprived young males together with alcohol and women.

"you're saying anyone who goes drinking on an army base is asking for it? Fair game? Really?"

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if you put yourself into risky situations like that you shouldn't be upset if your insurance rates go up do to it. If I go drinking in a den of thieves it might not be my "fault" when I get robbed but I certainly wasn't watching out for my own welfare.
@Mihangel apYrs

The original quote read "It doesn't excuse her attacker" I don't know where that question mark came from.

@Mrs Antichrist

"For all you know, she could have been in her home, with someone she had good reason to trust"

Not according to her own story. there isn't even any proof that she was raped, she didn't even charge anyone.

"a woman going to a bar is NOT "risky behavior"

This wasn't just any bar. It was a bar where there is almost exclusively very desperate young males who are TRAINED in violence and where some almost certainly are suffering from PTSD. I can't think of a place MORE likely for something bad to happen in the US to a female.

I don't see what the problem is. Insurance rates should rise if person A makes more risks than person B.

That doesn't make rape ok or excuse those guilty of it. It is not a principle that hates women. It is just the way insurance works and its pretty fair because the people with few risks really should not be forced to subsidize the riskier people.

Finally, I just want to stress once more that I did not post the original comment here on this website. It was pulled out of context from a debate I was having.

old comment by Aliothemage

@Berny

"The American health care systems sucks balls for this very reason. Denying health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That's just horseshit."

If this is logical than it should also apply to car insurance too then, right? So people can crash their cars and THEN demand car insurance? Not a chance. Insurance is way for individuals to mitigate risk and expenses not get everyone else to pay for their misfortune. Insurance was never intended to be a form of welfare system.

@ Shadoboy:

"So you blame the woman for the fact she was raped?"

No, I don't. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

People, the entire point of my comment was the last line of it:

"Should the more careful be forced to pay for the crimes and the recklessness of others?"

Do anyone of you believe that they should?

I didn't think so.

old comment by Aliothemage

@Berny

"The American health care systems sucks balls for this very reason. Denying health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. That's just horseshit."

@ Shadoboy:

"So you blame the woman for the fact she was raped?"

No, I don't. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

People, the entire point of my comment was the last line of it:

"Should the more careful be forced to pay for the crimes and the recklessness of others?"

Do anyone of you believe that they should?

I didn't think so.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

That is a completely separate issue *eyeroll*.

Depends on your mindset. From your point of view, which seems entirely and exclusively concerned with your own wellbeing, it may well be irrelevant. From the point of view of the overall health of society, it's a very closely related issue.

At least we agree that the responsible shouldn't be forced to pay for risk takers through insurance, right?

Since it's a private organisation, if they decide that's the way they want to run their business then they're perfectly entitled to. If all of the insurers do that, then I suppose you would be forced to comply, in the sense that it would be your only option other than to go without insurance altogether. That's the thing about private organisations - if they all decide to run their business in a particular way that just happens to fuck you over because it maximises their profit, you can't do anything; at least with government welfare, you and every other citizen are supposed to have a fair say in how it's done, even if in the current implementation it doesn't work very well.

old comment by BobsOldSocks

"I am not excusing her attacker, but isn't it reasonable to charge a person more for insurance if they take more risks? If a person regularly swims with sharks that person shouldn't be upset when their insurance rate goes up because they are putting themselves in risky situations."

You *are* excusing her attacker! To paraphrase, "she shouldn't have put herself in a risky situation". She could have walked through the base stark naked and she still would not be to blame if some drooling Neanderthal attacked her! She should have been able to rely upon the fact that adults in any civilised society are supposed to know how to behave, how to control themselves. Saying she was partly to blame is indefensible. She was a *victim*.

"I'm in the military. It's not about hating it, it's just that I know what happens when you put stressed out sex deprived young males together with alcohol and women."

And there you go again, making excuses for her attacker! You're also suggesting that young males are unable to control themselves when around women and alcohol which I know to be untrue, having been a young male at one point. If there is something in your military's training that creates mindless, brutish thugs with no impulse control and no sense of right and wrong then they should be kept away from women and alcohol.

"I'm saying that if you put yourself into risky situations like that you shouldn't be upset if your insurance rates go up do to it."

Yet again you're blaming the victim. Shameful.

"If I go drinking in a den of thieves it might not be my "fault" when I get robbed but I certainly wasn't watching out for my own welfare."

Right, so you're saying that to go drinking on an army base is to to enter a den of rapists? If that's the case shouldn't there be warning signs put up, a country-wide information campaign to warn women of the dangers of young soldiers? That's not saying much for those young men or the army, now is it? And I'm sure there are many young men in your military who would be outraged at such a suggestion.

old comment by laughingcow

Oh that guy was shot, maybe he shouldn't have worked as a prosecutor convicting mobsters.
Oh that woman was killed, maybe she should have known better then to move into a white town in the south. Or maybe those people who died should have known better then to enlist in the army. After all they were in riskier situations right? Isn't it the same exact thing? Maybe that man shouldn't have been a firefighter either or that doctor who gets stuck by a needle should have let the people die. As a human being I take responsibility for my choices and accept the consequences. But in return I expect others to accept the consequences for theirs. If I kill someone it is my fault, I may have had a reason but I still killed the person. If you rape someone then you raped them. There is no she was asking for it since rape is forced. It is impossible to ask for rape. Yes there are things that a person can do to make it less likely but it is not someone fault even if they stand naked on a city street. The rapist chose to commit an act of violence and is responsible for their actions. The woman did not ask to be a victim. Just like if you leave your door open and are robbed, yes it was stupid but it is still not your fault that you were robbed.

Aliothemage #fundie youtube.com

62 comments

Confused?