These are claims about abuse that make assumptions about how abuse victims think and how abusers are formed.

Okay I see what you're saying. You quoted three things, let me go through them.

(1) was a probability (or tentative predictive) claim. I wasn't claiming that victims do in fact think like that, because I wasn't trying to overstate my case (nor do I have the merit to make that claim, or the research to evince that claim). However, I still don't find it farfetched to believe that if a victim is thinking about their state of affairs when they're actually experiencing abuse (I say "actually" not to play down any species of abuse- abuse is abuse- but because the abuse may have not started in the relationship yet), there probably often is some form of pro-con analysis that the victim engages in.

I don't think that because they are "choosing" to stay (if they make that choice) that they are responsible for that choice (unless we're talking about an extreme, outlying case that is irrelevant to discuss practically), and that's because, as you've noted, the abuser takes steps to mentally confining the person. The abuser bends (or even breaks) the victim's will by distorting and warping their thought processes, and compromises their ability to do what would be best for themselves. In short, the abuser violates the victim by taking away their ability to make unfettered, rational choices. It's not as simple as saying, "think like marth and you won't be a victim," nor is it the case that someone is to blame for all of their choices, because not all choices are made freely (with liberty).

The victim of abuse experiences a very real loss of liberty (though not necessarily physical, e.g. being chained down)- liberty being a component of what we use to determine [moral] responsibility, and thus, blameworthiness. (Generally speaking, it's not necessarily the case that if you share some responsibility for action x, that you are blameworthy for x).

So what I'm trying to say is that this is strictly not victim blaming. Children/teenagers often make terrible choices while still being under the tutelage of their parents, but I'd be one of the first in line to say that if the parents are not taking the appropriate steps to ensuring their children are making the right choices (or are actively working against the flourishing of their children in this regard), the bulk of responsibility (and thus, the blame) for those poor choices actually lies with the parents, whether or not the choices in question were made by their children. No unreasonable cult of responsibility here.

Similarly, when it comes to any victim under the willful influence of an abuser, there is a direct conflict with the victim's liberty (which I believe they have a right to). Not to mention, the stringency with which we treat abuse seems more congruent with the rights based approach over the consequentialist approach. There really can't be any actual "rights" within such systems, but it seems perfectly obvious that human beings have a right to their liberty, which is, among other things, what abuse infringes upon.

(2) Was strictly theoretical. It may not be de facto the case that a victim would have the liberty to think in such a way, given the psychological manipulation they experience. My claim is strictly:

"In theory (or, in a philosophically de jure sense), if you survey the deontological and consequentialist approaches vis a vis abuse scenarios, in principle, consequentialist thought does not prevent a victim from continuing an abusive relationship in the way that deontological thought would."

Speaking in a de facto sense, it's often the case that the victim is being psychologically manipulated in some manner, and regardless of whether they take a deontological or consequentialist approach (if they have the liberty to engage in analyzing their situation) to the issue, they often remain in the relationship by no choice of their own.

But like I've said, this whole conversation has been about (or revolved around) general principles of reasoning and a meta-analysis thereof. I really am not trying to overstep my boundaries from general theory to particular application.

(3) is not about how abusers are formed- if anything (besides what I've said already) it's about how abusive behavior has a higher probability of emerging out of certain material preconditions in a relationship (and it doesn't place the blame on the victim either).

Thinking further on the subject: for practical and philosophical reasons, I personally wouldn't want to go as far as dehumanizing the person and saying that they are an abuser, rather than a person who is engaging in unhealthy behavior which we refer to as abuse- behavior that not only violates the humanity of another person, but also violates themselves (given that they do assault their own humanity by engaging in abusive behavior). I'm not trying to "protect" persons who engage in that behavior by wording it this way, I'm just saying, these are persons too- I don't see vilification helping the issue at all, nor do I find it accurate to define someone by their behavior due to mental illness. And let's be honest here, anyone who engages in abuse is ill in a very real way- but that also doesn't mean that they're not responsible for their actions.

switch commercial

racing: if two persons start the same time, but one has knowledge of the track, what's the difference? the knowledge? memory? brain (neuron formation) structure? is memory (partly) replacing knowledge as a concept? or are they distinct in actuality?

if you discourage someone from joining your occupation because it's too difficult to get started, you got lucky.

do you have any idea what it's like to know that you were born the wrong sex? to know you'll never be what you pught to be.

or that ill persons (e.g., bullying, which is a species of abuse) can't hurt others.

It's uncontentious to say that we want these people to change- instead of making them internalize "the fact" that they are an abuser, it's probably more practical to treat them for their illness (that does not define them), by having them recognize their own humanity, and demonstrating why the behavior they are engaging in, whether chronic or not, is unhealthy for all participants in the relationship, including themselves.

abuse victim manipulated into telling an untruth. Is that lying?

Of course, the right to liberty doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. The right to liberty implies a reciprocity on one's own part.