For the sake of the person's safety that should be suggested, but where does one draw the line at such suggestions? College aged women are safer if they don't drink alcohol, so should that be the official statement of a university? What about saying that if they stay with a male guardian, they will be safer than if they don't? If that statement is true, should it be an official policy statement made to increase safety?
If they're under 21 probably, yeah. At 21 and above, like always, you have to be careful of what situations you put yourself in. That's not victim blaming, it's reality. Malicious people will always exist and women will always be at a physical disadvantage.
>What about saying that if they stay with a male guardian, they will be safer than if they don't? If that statement is true, should it be an official policy statement made to increase safety?
No, it should not be a rule because the government should not limit a woman's right to travel as they see fit. Don't you see the problem with this line of thinking? Safety at the cost of freedom is a mistake.
Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean for it to exist as an actual rule, just as an recommendation by the institution in question. Such as a campus police department giving out safety tips.
The actual details are nuanced and the general line is 'freedom to swing your arms ends at my face' from general reciprocity and sustainability - freedom to cause harm unilaterally (distinct from self-defense) damages overall freedom as well in the same sense that a power vacuum can lead to less freedom as the strong dominate.
http://nixle.us/AMTQ6?fbclid=IwAR1pRErR6-CuOjvULJWJDSSKLISJ_...
So far this person hasn't committed any violent acts and I'm willing to stipulate that his stated grievance is founded in fact, though it may or may not have been his actual motivation. Have his free speech rights been infringed?
I'm trying to figure out if you're suggesting that police be withdrawn from places likely to have crime. It certainly aligns with the idea that the police should ignore direct verbal or written threats to people's safety.
I have no idea how you arrived at that. The point is that we already have laws against violence and harassment. What is being successful is to limit freedom in an attempt to _proactively_ prevent such crime. That's where you get into trouble.
More harm than good comes from protecting people from the big bad world. History has shown time and time again that no one can be trusted with the power to control our thoughts and movements.
I would absolutely suggest that. I'd advise you right now not to e.g. take a trip to the south side of Chicago. What are you suggesting? That the government has an obligation to proactively prevent crime? How is that to be done? Martial law?
You can't have the freedoms you enjoy and complete safety. It's the price we pay, and it's worth it.