But I haven't suggested it is.
Disasters often occur when people are expected to be able to do something that everyone knows is unreasonable. For example an operator using a machine that habitually sounds false alarms might get blamed for ignoring the alarm when a real fault arises. Everyone knows the story of the boy who cried wolf, but the operator gets scapegoated instead of fixing the alarm.
"He shouldn't have ignored the alarm" is substantially the same mindset as "people shouldn't judge by appearance". IE it is expecting something of the human mind that you already know is unrealistic, unreasonable, and unlikely to happen. Drivers are banned from using a phone at the wheel because it has been acknowledged that it's unrealistic to expect the human mind to pay attention to the road and a phone call at the same time. In other words, you don't just accuse a driver of not paying enough attention when you know it's not a fair expectation.
People who think that others aren't going to judge by appearance should read a little about how the mind actually works.
Ahh I see , well the thing about Mr Bruce's hair was a joke - I don't really expect it to cause an accident, nor a disaster
I should have flagged about that particular 'funny' I guess.
I think this train of conversation actually kicked off because I objected to someone suggesting that a woman with a tattoo lacked 'class' (and we can have different interpretations of that word, as we have discovered)
And might as well sit on a bench drinking cider.. Another disapproved of activity apparently.
My main objection to this assumption about women in particular, based on their appearance, or other stuff, is that it follows the line of thinking which definitely
has been brought up in courts before, most inappropriately imo.
Which has led to the victim, being blamed for her fate at the hands of others.
ie that a woman's appearance - her choice of clothing etc has in some way indicated that she is
asking to be molested, or that her 'character' can be judged by these choices.
So therefore, if she had chosen to dress differently, then she wouldn't have been attacked.
Rather than putting the onus on people to be respectful of others, whatever their choice of dress.
This is the main 'assumption' drawn from appearance, that I was taking issue with.
Then we wandered off to talk about people 'in general' and their personal choices of adornment.
Do you understand now??
