Suppose Dr. Laura had made her comments in practical terms rather than in moral terms. For example, instead of saying "some wives share the blame for hubby's infidelity" she said "some wives' unreasonable witholding of affection contributes to hubby's later infidelity".
Would you still disagree? I guess what I'm getting at is:
Do you disagree with Dr. Laura's description of the possible *causes* of infidelity, or the way she assigns moral responsibility for infidelity?
Or do you disagree with both?
A murderer is responsible for shooting someone in the head, even if that person called them an ugly name.
A rapist is still a rapist, even if the victim wore a mini-skirt.
A molester is still a molester, even if the child's mama said it was OK.
An unfaithful spouse is still unfaithful not matter what they want to believe is the cause.
Laura is a woman who hates herself (for being a woman who broke up a marriage). The easiest way to assuage her guilt is to make life hell for other females AND blame the women who's hubbies were untrue....which in turn absolves her of all guilt in her hubbies ruined marriage.
What she said and what her detractors are trying to say she said are nowhere near each other.
Let’s say a cop says that a bank could have implemented certain procedures and policies that would have had a high likelihood of preventing a bank robbery.
Is the cop saying that it’s OK to rob the bank if they don’t? No.