The victim is never at fault.
That being said, there's an important question to ask.

Why is is that the other women present that night were not attacked?

Is it because they traveled in pairs? Is it because they never left their drinks unattended?

Yeah, about that. That's a symptom of acute alcohol intoxication too. As far as I know, I have never been date raped but in my younger days, there were many nights that I don't remember how I got home.

LK

If they had such foresight in the first place, it seems like perhaps they wouldn't be in a position where someone they shouldn't trust could surreptitiously slip them drugs in their drinks.

I'm not "blaming the victim", mind you.

Actually, you are blaming the victim. Here's a common scenario: Guy that a woman knows buys her a drink. It doesn't need to be alcoholic. It could be soda. Or maybe it's alcoholic but the woman hasn't been drinking much. Either way, woman accepts the drink (since she knows the guy) and drinks it. Unbeknownst to her, though, the guy has been acting nice in hopes of getting her into bed and has decided to "speed things up" by spiking her drink. She passes out and wakes up having been raped.

Saying that it is this women's fault that she didn't have the "foresight" to "be in a position where someone they shouldn't trust could surreptitiously slip them drugs in their drinks" is blaming the victim. You might as well say "well, if she didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have worn that dress." It isn't always a woman turning her back on her drink for a long time and then drinking it. Often, the drink is spiked by someone the woman knows and trusts. You could definitely say that the trust was misplaced, but there is no way for the woman to know that beforehand.

I wouldn't give them the death penalty. That's too easy. Their victims need to suffer for years, why shouldn't the rapists.

I'm thinking a modified version of the old-time stocks. The rapists' head and arms would be stuck out and restrained while his rear would be obscured (no need to gross out everyone else). At random intervals, a device would "enter" his body in a forceful manner. He'd never know when this would happen just that it would happen. Extended periods of nothing wouldn't be relief, but would lead to an increasing anxiety of "is it coming now?!!!"

Sadly, this would never pass the "cruel and unusual punishment" test.

Combine this story with the "post ISIS videos on YouTube but put a Red Cross PSA in front of them" story and you get the beginning of the robot rebellion. At least they'll save our blood for donation purposes as they're killing us, though.

A lot of this discussion to me resembles the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Person A: "I'm a gamer because I spend an hour a day playing INSERT MOBILE GAME HERE in 15 minute chunks."

Person B: "No True Gamer plays Candy Crush. Also, No True Gamer spends only 15 minutes a day on games. They need to play at least 4 hours straight a day and those games need to be gory first person shooters. Also, the gamer needs to exclude HIS family and friends from HIS life until HE is alone in the basement playing games."

So you have to love games to the point that your friends and family are pushed away from you and you're left alone in a dark basement with your precious games?

When did gaming turn into The One Ring?

Why can't a gamer have an interest in gaming but only have a couple of hours to dedicate to it every week? I like many things but between work and family obligations, I can't spend 4 hours a every day pursuing those interests. I have a wife and kids and need to support them and that comes before playing Mario Kart 8 until I've unlocked everything. That's why I've turned to mobile games. I can play for 10-15 minutes when I get a chance to get my gaming fix and then continue with my work/home obligations.

I don't believe that anything about the building was specifically made to counter earthquakes. It was just a quirk of where I was in the building.

The let down feeling wasn't because my office didn't sustain damage (the earthquake wasn't strong enough to cause major damage) but because everyone else felt the earthquake and I didn't. It felt like I missed out on something. It was a minor disappointment, of course. I'd rather go through my life not having ever experienced and earthquake than being rattled during a big one. (I'll always have that time I ran out to get the mail during a hurricane.)

I live in upstate NY. We had one earthquake a few years ago and I missed out on it. While everyone else felt it (my wife was driving at the time and thought something was up with the car since it kept shaking), my building was apparently "earthquake proof" and I didn't feel any movement at all. What a let down.

I'd go with option #3: "You succeeded! I'm so proud!"

My son (age 11) loves video games and is always asking me if I'm proud of him due to random accomplishments he gets in the games. ("I won a race in Mario Kart 8 and unlocked this particular car. Are you proud of me for getting this particular car?") My response is always that I'm not proud of him for random quirks of a game, but for things that he did. When he comes home having aced yet another math test or when he stands up for himself despite people in positions of authority doing things he knows are wrong... THAT is when I'm proud of him. (And he has done plenty of things to make me proud.)

There are a lot of people who are brilliant in some ways and completely idiotic in other ways. So when you think about talking to "smart people", just remember that this person who might be highly intelligent might also not be too bright in other areas.

Also, if you find yourself looking down upon those who you judge to be not as smart as you, remember that there's always someone smarter than you. (Theoretically, there could be a "smartest person on Earth", but odds are this person isn't posting on Slashdot.) So, from the perspective of this person who is smarter than you, you aren't smart.

Finally, there's a difference between "not knowledgeable" and purposefully ignorant. People who aren't knowledgeable might not know something and might even recognize that they can't understand something (e.g. Quantum Physics), but they'll still try their best even if they get it completely wrong. That's admirable to me as they are at least making an effort. The latter group intentionally strives for ignorance and revels in it. (For example, the young earth creationists who insist that the world is around 10,000 years old and that all of the evidence to the contrary is just one giant test of God's.)

If he was black, the police would have just shot him.

LK

You're welcome. You earned it.

LK

Ambiguity: "Thou shalt not murder"? Well, is that killing I just did *really* murder, or just killing? What if it was an accident? What if he was trying to kill me? What if he just threatened to kill me? What if my property (dog) killed him? What if I told my dog to kill him?

Lawyers: Lawyers are multipliers of ambiguity.

Politicians: Politicians look like they're doing something by passing a law, even if it's a law that doesn't actually do what they hope or claim it will. When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Just wait until we mod up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.

Or even mentioning modding up for pointing out the proper use of an automobile analogy.

Well, that just makes sense. Sure, they cost the public billions and contributed to a vast economic melt down, but they didn't violate COPYRIGHT! Priorities, people!