That's why the line is there.
I have to wonder if the woman in question made it clear she didn't appreciate the attention? It could've just been an idiot who took her silence as implicit approval, playing coy, etc, causing him to escalate to naked pictures.
And I'm not saying it's her fault, but communication goes both ways. And like I said, he may have just been an idiot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
That's not what they said at all.
> > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
"And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault".
Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it.
So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?
Ignorance of the law is not a defence against it. That's right and proper.
If I believe you are happy with me taking money from your wallet, and so take some. Can you see that would be a different category morally to if I believed you would condemn such action and yet still took the money. Both situations might be theft, both might be judged morally wrong. But to me the moral character of the person in the two situations is different. And, that differences is worthy of note.
"her silence [...] causing him to escalate to naked pictures"
Don't blame the victim's silence for "causing" an "escalation" to sending naked pictures. He decided to do it of his own free will, she did not "cause" him to do that by being silent.
based upon your post I can understand why you find it difficult identifying such a thing, but there it is.
You're so blinded by your beliefs you've lost all sense of fairness and balance and mistake moderates as the being of the opposing faction.