How to refute the theory of victim guilt? How to refute the victim s guilt theory tells you what you

Victim guilt.

It can be refuted like this:

Those who believe in the "victim guilt theory" are overly superstitious about the so-called "causal relationship" and believe that the victim suffers malice because of his or her own "problem".

In reality, however, malice often comes without warning, and the perpetrator commits the crime only because of a problem with his own moral character, and is not directly related to the victim. The so-called "carelessness in making friends" and emotional disputes are not an excuse for the rationalization of crimes, so the "victim guilt theory" is actually an irrational theory.

First of all, it should be made clear that the victim guilt theory is unreasonable and inhumane and can be assessed from the risk.

to use this theory to be mean and extreme to alert yourself, but you should not fall into the logic of related crimes.

The nature of victim guilt

The idea of "victim guilt" will not only cause secondary harm to the victim and his family, but also lead to the blurring of the facts of the crime, giving the perpetrator and potential offenders a hint of luck.

To some extent, the "victim guilt theory" is to justify the perpetrator, and to believe in the "victim guilt theory" is to condone the crime. People should have the most basic concept of right and wrong and justice. Empathy.

And mercy should not be inflicted on the offender. Only by not letting go of the perpetrator and not empathizing with the perpetrator can we respect the justice of the law.

1. It can make them empathize with thoughts. For example: directly slap the other party, and then accuse the other party, although you were beaten, but you are not innocent, because you are right and wrong, black and white remarks have seriously hurt my beautiful feelings about the world.

2. Or change the slap to find fault with the language or text to attack the opponent's weakness first, and then enter the accusation process.

3. If the conditions are not good, simply point out that the other party has made the mistake of the victim's guilt theory, indicating that this mistake itself is playing for the tiger. It doesn't matter if the other person doesn't accept it for the time being, because his mistake may be bad or it may be the ignorance of the herd, and it takes time to change his mind. And if you say it, it's better than not saying it, and if you have the opportunity, you can spread this point of view, and it will naturally ferment slowly in the future.

4. If the conditions are worse, do not refute. But I usually make more such corrective remarks everywhere, or just support others' words, and change the public perception little by little. Don't be afraid of your own meager strength, as long as you keep sowing, the seeds will sprout and grow sooner or later.

"A slap doesn't make a sound, you have your own problems" replied, "I'll slap you to see if you make a sound, whether it rings or not is your own problem", tongue war group Confucianism? There's no need, because this kind of person is rotten on the street, can you control the stubbornness, ignorance and viciousness in other people's hearts? You can't control what others think and think, after all, it didn't happen to them (her) themselves, I said that there are too many men who are guilty of the victims of the moral and can account for ninety percent of the human race.

It's a waste of your time and energy, and you don't need to take care of things that can be blocked, just like I send idols**, I don't know a group of people scolding the world, and the most powerful scolding looks at those avatars, all of them are obscene middle-aged ugly men, and a small number of rural housewives with long hair and short knowledge, they all look like that, and they are estimated to have not finished junior high school, and they are not as good as a mother-in-law and a woman with a long tongue, and I also say that I love idols ugly, not as good as them (her), men are not men and women, and so on, Of course, I often meet now, some people who don't want to deal with it, who is who knows it in their hearts, I complain and I don't let you people see, comment, I used to be able to play basketball, play table tennis, skate, play wrestling, repair household appliances, and carry a bucket of water to the fifth floor, and now I can still do it, and I will not be wasted all my life has broken my hands and feet, without you my life will never be like this, as they said, women are universal, they are killed by capital, they don't know what they are, that's only a small part, most of the men are really popular, They are even more slaughtered by the feudal society of male superiority and female inferiority, thinking that the universe and the galaxy will revolve around them, they are God and the Creator, all the inventions on the earth are created by them, all the rights and fields are in their hands, and the women can't live without them, and if they don't squeeze them, they don't know what to do and vicious, and they take the inexplicable gender "advantage" to beat all kinds of contempt and suppress women, but they forget who gave birth to them, and they are delusional and dreaming.

You may have experienced such a phenomenon, whenever a car accident breaks out on the Internet, among the onlookers, there will always be someone who jumps out to express this opinion: There are many cars there, why don't you pay more attention?

Why after a malignant event? Will anyone jump out and blame innocent victims? This is the theory of a just world that is involved in a psychological concept that is very worthy of people's deep thought---.

The just world theory is an important concept in personality psychology and social psychology, which was first proposed by the American psychologist Lerner, which is a common belief that the world is just, and in this just world, people get what they deserve, and what they get is what they deserve. In the old Chinese saying, "sow melons and get melons, plant beans and get beans", "good will be rewarded, evil will be rewarded", and "if you do too much injustice, you will kill yourself".

These people believe that the world is just, they believe that malignant events cannot happen randomly, that there can be no other reason, that any malignant event can happen for a reason, and that they only agree to understand such a world. They don't violate theories that will only collapse their perception of the world, so that when they encounter something, they believe that if the victim doesn't go out alone or somewhere, the disaster won't happen.

After they find fault with the victim, they will comfort themselves that as long as they don't do this like the victim, they will definitely not encounter some bad things, and they can rest assured, they always feel that the victim was killed because they did something wrong. So take a good look at your past! Don't become a scum who aids and abets abuse, and is still complacent!

The victim guilt theory is based on the cognitive bias of human instinct, biased, irrational logic.

You can see it as a drawback to the development of the Buddhist doctrine of cause and effect.

The victim guilt doctrine refers to the fact that in a case, responsibility is often placed on the injured party. Because in the eyes of netizens, since they are victims, it is the perpetrators who contribute to the case after all.

The victim guilt theory refers to the fact that after the incident, the fault is blamed on the victim, such as a fly that does not bite a seamless egg. This is a kind of distorted values, just like many victims of school violence, the most asked sentence is why they don't bully others and bully you, this kind of remarks seem to be the victim is the guilty party, there are many similar incidents, and it has also caused a lot of heated discussions.

The victim guilt theory refers to the fact that when the victim encounters an incident, netizens do not blame the perpetrator, but blame the victim's behavior. The reason why it has sparked heated discussions is that netizens feel that this is unfair to the victims.

The victim guilt theory is a statement that holds that the victim was killed because he himself had problems. Because as the saying goes, a slap doesn't make a sound, and in many cases, it is impossible for a person to hurt another person for no reason, there must be a reason, and this reason is inseparable from the victim.

I think that the doctrine of victim innocence itself is very unobjective and detached from the facts. This concept is very subjective, the victim is not necessarily innocent, and each case has its particularities, and it cannot be stated alone that each victim is innocent and guilty, depending on the definition of the law and not whether he is a victim or not.

Here I can give an example to illustrate that the topic of victim innocence is very absurd, I saw a group of such ** news on the Internet, a village dog is frequently lost, the reason is that a group of dog thieves drove a van to commit crimes in the village, their modus operandi is to stun or poison the dog with an anesthetic needle or other poisons, and then pull it away with a car, the modus operandi is outrageous.

Later, the villagers worked together to catch this group of dog thieves, and punished them privately, beat them to the point that their heads were bleeding, unconscious, and tied the dogs with ropes and hung them around their necks.

After such an example comes out, you can see that the victim here is a dog thief or a villager whose dog was stolen, in fact, there is a change of role here, at the beginning the villagers are the victims of the loss of finances, but then their behavior becomes the perpetrator, even if the thief steals the dog is a crime, but the law has its own judgment, they will be punished by the law, and as a villager is not qualified to hit people.

The final disposition of this case is that the dog thief will be held accountable for the theft in accordance with the law, but the villagers who beat the dog thief also need to pay the corresponding price because they are deliberately hurting people. So who is the victim in this case? How should the doctrine of victim innocence be interpreted here?

Obviously, it doesn't make sense.

To sum up, the theory of victim's innocence does not exist, and the results are mainly objective based on the legal analysis based on the particularity of the case.

I personally feel that this statement is wrong, and in many cases, some of the victims themselves are also the initiators of the incident.

I think this view is fundamentally wrong, because things are not absolutely like this, but they are a bit sophistry.

Guilt and innocence have nothing to do with whether or not they are victims.

I think this point of view is particularly subjective, and judging whether a thing is correct or not should be carefully analyzed from the objective aspect.