"I chose to trust a girl recently, she deceived me and was generally manipulative. I then stopped talking to to her. I had made an error in judgement in thinking that she was someone that I thought I would be happy to give emotional authority to. I can't undo the feelings I felt because of her, but I can change, and try to learn from the mistakes I made."

I think it's regrettable that you blame yourself for an error in judgement. It isn't your fault she behaved that way.

You make a decision based on the facts you have at the time. Some people are manipulative, violent, unkind, dishonest and, crucially, very good at hiding that fact. If they have the ability to present themselves in a good light, it's foolishness to imagine that you should somehow be able to detect their uglier traits.

Emotional abuse is particularly difficult because abusive individuals strip away their victim's ability to make rational judgements and to fight back. If a man reached out and slapped me, or insulted me on a first date, I would get up and leave. Of course I would! However, if I'd been happy with him for some time and was emotionally invested, then he started exhibiting those traits, suddenly he's displaying a side of himself I've never seen. That's neither my fault nor my responsibility. To argue that it is can lead abuse victims into blaming themselves which is self-destructive. I think on a smaller scale, it's what you're doing with the girl you mentioned.

I disagree, I think it's important to point out faults if only to learn from them. Of course the way we say things can be constructive or non-constructive.
If I make a mistake, learn from it, and someone gives me a hard time about it telling me how stupid I was, then yeah that's pretty non-constructive. If on the other hand I make a mistake and get given advice on how to stop the said thing from happening in the future, that's constructive.

With regards to self destructive behaviour I have to admit I have a history of telling myself things such as "I'm so stupid" "I'm an idiot" over and over again. I've done that for many years. It sparked from a lack of confidence at school to a bullying victim cycle so on so forth.
However for the past year I've not had such problems, largely because I view who I am as someone with faults, as I view everyone as someone with faults, but I try to take an active role in correcting what I view as my own faults.
Take this thread for example, there have been times where I haven't communicated my thoughts very well, which I view as a fault. I want to take a positive role however and improve my communication skills surrounding this subject (and in general).

Whilst emotional abuse is particular difficult, and I recognise the system you're talking about (both from personal experience, although definitely not on a physically abusive level, no where near. But at the same time I chose to give X authority over my emotions. And then chose not to take it back. I may not have been conscious that it was in my interests to take it back, but then I'd again put that down to a fault of my own.

One of the things that maybe I could phrase better is that usually everyone is at fault in some way with such situations. However that's different (in the context of how I'm using the word) to being in the wrong. In the rape situation for instance only the rapist is in the wrong (at least in the detail we've gone into, perhaps there's a situation where this isn't true, but yet again, I just can't imagine this being the case, and this is still based in the idea that liberty is good, right, correct, so on so forth).

One of the things that maybe I could phrase better is that usually everyone is at fault in some way with such situations. However that's different (in the context of how I'm using the word) to being in the wrong.

How you're using the word, as in "a way in which conveniently nobody else in the entire world understands"?

If you choose to employ a word in a non-standard way, define your terms before you start. "Fault" implies negativity, blame, passive negligence or active error. It is entirely inappropriate for this conversation.

In a court of law fault tends to mean "someone is in the wrong".
Out side of that it tends to mean "an error".
I'd say both fit into the standard, but I hadn't thought about it in a court of law context until the post I made before this one.

I didn't say you condone rape, I said I disagree with your statement that it's partially someone's own fault if he or she is raped.  Specifically, when you said, "It's your fault if you've put yourself in a position where they can do it. But not that they are trying to do it."  Period.  I'm not sure where I'm being unclear.

I also categorically disagree that being done wrong by somebody you trust represents a fault in judgment.  It means that the person sent signals which suggest, to any reasonable person, trustworthiness.  It is not the victim's fault that the other person hid or changed their true character.  That mentality is of no practical use or significance to anybody.

Finally, I think that these flightier philosophical and ethical arguments you invoke just aren't as important as the concrete realities of rape.  The attitudes you communicate, ethically/morally/philosophically perfect and consistent as you find them to be, do not invite a healthy attitude on behalf of others regarding empowering people against rape.  Attitudes shape behaviors.  And theory is not reality.  Go ahead and try saying to a rape victim, "Well, you made an error in judgment, and you have a personal fault, better correct that for next time!"  That just doesn't fly with me.  It's so wildly insensitive and inappropriate, in the same way that catski pointed out earlier.

I agree with Cat that you shouldn't invoke a legal or whatever other usage of the term "fault" when we are not deliberating in a court of law right now.  If you make yourself more easily understood, we could carry on with the discussion more efficiently rather than quibbling over semantics.  I've said it before, but there is no need to write as if for a doctoral thesis.  This is an informal discussion.  Make your words accessible and we can all have a more enjoyable time.

Toy said you found my attitude atrocious, but you didn't make clear what exactly in that you found atrocious. In that post I was trying to make it clear that I wasn't condoning rape, at which point you said my attitude was atrocious.

I've already put into context better what is meant by fault. If you don't know what someone is capable of and you think they're not capable of something that they are, I'm not sure anything but an error can have occurred. Where by I've put up a comparison to omnipotence.

I've not gone into how psychologically I think rape victims should be treated. So what you've put at the end is a straw-man. Clearly each victim is different, but I don't recall ever saying they should be told "well you should just learn from your mistakes". I'm saying I think a fault has been made, but I don't see how just saying that to a rape victim will help. There's going to be a lot of trauma involved and clearly the first thing they need in most cases will be protection. After that some form of trauma councilling may be necessary, some other form of councilling perhaps (if so linked in with the other).
Support from friends and family is obviously important.

Lastly I'm not writing as if this is for some form of doctrial thesis (if I was I'd be writing a few thousand words per point, in much more formal language, and I'd probably edit everything so it's much more neat). I'm simply having a little explore for faults and looking to play with the idea put forward. At the beginning of the thread I agree'd with it so adopted it. Now I'm reviewing it.

And I'm not invoking fault in the legal sense.

E.G. I had only been using it controversially in the to have a fault way, not a way that could for instance be adopted in another setting.

I've not gone into how psychologically I think rape victims should be treated. So what you've put at the end is a straw-man. Clearly each victim is different, but I don't recall ever saying they should be told "well you should just learn from your mistakes".

Nooo no no no no.  That is no straw man.  Right here:

If you harm me and I don't see it coming I have some fault with me, that I should try to correct.
However that does not mean that you should harm me, in-fact you shouldn't harm me (provided I'm right in thinking that liberty is good outside of me as a subject, intrinsically or not).

That's the part I find abhorrent and just false in this context.  Regardless of whether you say those words to a rape victim, it's outrageously insensitive and inappropriate to even hold that opinion, in any sense of the word, "fault."  What is this, the third time I've pinpointed that bit?  I'm done repeating myself.

You're right, philosophical contexts dictate entirely what I may do in a caring, sympathetic physiological context ::)
Saying that there is a fault to be corrected, and being insensitive about it to the victim, are entirely different things.

So yes to say that I'd say x to a victim is a straw man argument, because I've not said, nor do I hold, that view. Perhaps to some victims, if I know them, if we talk about such a topic. But each situation is different.

You might have said that to a victim in this very thread, or the friend of a victim, or the family member of a victim.  You don't who here has been a victim of sexual violence.  The statement itself is insensitive, in and of itself, not to just the ears of the victim.  I don't care who you are saying it to.

But clearly who I'm addressing and in which context is important.

I was a victim of sexual assault and I find some of these viewpoints and arguments to be appalling.  Typically I wouldn't just you know... come right out with this information, but I really hope it makes SOME PEOPLE think twice about posting philosophical bullshit about topics in which they have no experience or bearing.

Just as long as you know that I'm not blaming you for what happened to you, then I'm fine with you feeling their appalling.

Moral philosophy is something I personally don't consider to be bullshit (I'm not saying you do) so when I put things like this up, it's not without having thought about them a bit first.

asleep on a sunbeam:  maybe you should stop while you aren't ahead......

Maybe you should put up an actual criticism of what I've said instead of hinting at me to shut up 8-)