Crystallized in logical terms
Two statements:
(A) Everyone has a moral responsibility to society to not victimize others.
(B) Everyone has a moral responsibility to themselves to not become a victim.
Now, two fallacious arguments based on these statements:
(C) A lapse in (A) is excused by someone else's lapse in (B).
(D) A lapse in (B) is excused by someone else's lapse in (A).
Both of these arguments are a form of tu quoque fallacy. Argument (C) has often been used to defend criminals, with varying success. Argument (D) is seldom heard, unless the type of victimization is sexual assault. Then (D) is viciously defended, and (B) is rejected or deemed inapplicable. Further, many people seem to think that, in cases of sexual assault, you must accept one of (C) or (D). Criticize the popular acceptance of (D), and people attack you as if you were advocating (C).
The logical position is to accept (A) and (B), and reject (C) and (D), for all types of victimization.
(A) Everyone has a moral responsibility to society to not victimize others.
(B) Everyone has a moral responsibility to themselves to not become a victim.
Now, two fallacious arguments based on these statements:
(C) A lapse in (A) is excused by someone else's lapse in (B).
(D) A lapse in (B) is excused by someone else's lapse in (A).
Both of these arguments are a form of tu quoque fallacy. Argument (C) has often been used to defend criminals, with varying success. Argument (D) is seldom heard, unless the type of victimization is sexual assault. Then (D) is viciously defended, and (B) is rejected or deemed inapplicable. Further, many people seem to think that, in cases of sexual assault, you must accept one of (C) or (D). Criticize the popular acceptance of (D), and people attack you as if you were advocating (C).
The logical position is to accept (A) and (B), and reject (C) and (D), for all types of victimization.