Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube
I think you have to view through the lens of intent.
If the scenario plays out like this: "Guy in a bar is talking to / hitting on a woman in a wheelchair and they get into some type of argument / disagreement. She leaves and has to leave her wheelchair unattended for a moment, so he goes and pushes it down the stairs."
Paints a very different scenario than:
"Dumb hockey bro finds a random unattended wheelchair at the top of a staircase at a bar. Thinks it would be funny to push it down the stairs and does so."
We can see the difference, right? This guy obviously didn't set out to ruin someone's day / week / life and didn't even consider the potential results or implications. I'm not arguing against it being a very stupid and ignorant thing to do but trying to make it analogous with an assault or horrible crime is viewing it through a different lens vs. what actually happened.
|
And yet the impact is exactly the same.
As I said, you can either view it as a malicious act or an act so devoid of good judgement that the only conclusion you can make is that Briere is a complete idiot, and it doesn’t really matter. What do you, personally, win in ensuring everyone understands it’s one and not the other. Aren’t you the one losing the plot at this point if that’s what you think is important?
The broken legs analogy is victim-focused, not perpetrator focused, that’s why you and a couple others had trouble with it. Destroying a wheel chair for someone who requires a wheelchair restricts their mobility. It can be life changing in a negative way. They are expensive and if custom are difficult/time consuming to acquire.
Take yourself out of Briere’s shoes (not sure why you prefer to be in them in the first place) and put yourself in the victim’s. Now think about how this effects you.