[Bennett]

Your idea that a person cannot be, or rather, view themself as a victim of government unless it is something of an extreme nature doesn't make sense. Maybe I shouldn't have said that your definition was narrow, it's just wrong. Here are two definitions of a victim:
-One who is harmed by or made to suffer from an act, circumstance, agency, or condition: victims of war.
-A person who is tricked, swindled, or taken advantage of: the victim of a cruel hoax.

You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted, of course I trivialized this. Then you said that because they did not make their will known, they are not victims because it's their own fault. Maybe I should have said your definition was too broad. Regardless, it's wrong.

If a person believes that they fit into one of the definitions above, then they would consider themself a victim. Simple as that, it has nothing to do with fault or their inactions.

Don't take it personally, it's obvious that you don't think of yourself as a victim. It's obvious that you don't think that people should view themselves as victims. I guess that you don't think that there are people that view themselves as victims, either. Or would you never even wonder about that opinion because you aren't the thought police?

Look this isn't Sociology digest, and I'm simply stating an opinion. If the major disagreement between us is whether or not people see themselves as victims of the government, then I would say that I'm right in believing that there are people who see themselves as such as opposed to believing that this is an impossiblity.

Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual. The narrow definition of heterosexual is having intercourse with someone of the opposite sex. It's heterosexual without consent, but all this is beside the point.