You conveniently and dishonestly deleted the conclusion of that argument.
Are you denying that what could potentially be a lifetime of suffering may be worse than death? Every person who has ever committed suicide would likely disagree with you.
In the sense of damage done, yes. Damage being physical damage that can be somewhat quantified. Emotional and psychological trauma is pretty much impossible to quantify. Some more people are just more jaded, I guess.
There is no such thing as a non-lethal attack. A punch to the chest can be fatal, as can a careless shove, a tazer or a bit of pepper spray.
The point of self defense is to stop your aggressor and walk away unharmed or at least less harmed. The single fastest and most effective way to stop an aggressor is to cause trauma to the brain, spinal column, respiratory system or the core of the circulatory system. Anything less puts you at increased risk.
Right, because you could also just strap someone to a chair and leave him there for a week to die of dehydration. I meant non-lethal in the common sense variety. Less-lethal in Wikipedia sense.
Do you shoot to kill or shoot to debilitate? Two very different things.
But you know what? this does not matter at all to this discussion. because we a talking about a device that is most likely even less lethal than even a careless shove. And one that is comes into effect after all other forms of self defense have failed.
No, it does not prove a point because your straw man isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand.
The topic at hand is this one, since I chose to respond to it just like you may write a letter to the editor about a specific part you've read in an article. (call it a derailment, if you wish):
A woman is well within her right to kill a rapist in self defense as long as her attacker remains a clear and immediate threat.
The point of the "straw man" was to show there being a thing such as disproportionate use of violence in self-defense and where the line is drawn.
As for the device topic, I've already given my two cents on it.
here might be why:
or this one:
What. How the fuck is that telling someone that you should keep attacking? Where in those sentences do I even urge and incite anyone to keep attacking? All I'm doing is presenting a fully possible scenario where someone has crossed the line of what is acceptable in order to demonstrate where that line is drawn. That's not telling someone to keep attacking. That telling them to do the complete opposite! It's rhetorical!
If you're being raped and you have the option to stab someone in the leg or heart or abdomen in self-defense, you don't stab him in the heart or abdomen. Period. Those are vital areas that may kill him. You stab him in the leg to debilitate him long enough to make a hasty retreat and call for help. This is proportionate use.
Or to take it to the extreme: You manage to knock him unconscious and stab him multiple times. This is disproportionate use. We don't live in Tamriel where you can do whatever the fuck you want to someone as long as he delivers the first blow.
I want to be clear on your position here...
If the only option for self-defense is lethal force, do you think that it is immoral for a person to kill their assailant if it will prevent their rape?
If it was more likely that lethal force would result in their safety, do you think it is immoral for that person to opt for lethal force over non-lethal force which may not be adequate?
Let's do it a bit generally first. "You use only enough force so you can make a retreat and call for help. What's important is that the force you use does not exceed the aggressor's, for if you do then you're no better than him."
We'll assume this.
In order for lethal to be an option, the aggressor needs to use enough force. This can be e.g. pointing a gun at you (loaded or unloaded since the victim probably wouldn't know). At that point, you can (morally) use the lethal option. However, if he isn't pointing a gun or any other weapon at you, then you may not (morally) use the lethal option. This determines the "upper limit". The lower limit may be whatever you feel like.
So if you allow the dichotomy of "lethal" case and "non-lethal" case:
Second one: If "lethal", then yes, you may choose a lethal option. If "non-lethal", you may not.
First one: There are only two cases I can currently think of (at night) that could potentially necessitate lethal force to prevent rape. Either they're pointing a weapon at you or you're being physically restrained to the point of immobility (or both, but then the former takes precedence).
If the former, then you may choose lethal. The latter's a "special" case. Since you're being restrained to the point of immobility, only a third party could remove the aggressor. He, however is not restrained, thus he has also non-lethal options. And since it's not a "lethal" case, then the lethal option is out of the question.