Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

...I misread that post completely. Or did you do one of those quick-edits that don't show up as "edited"? Then again, it as you wrote it in the quote in my post as well... Anyway, I thought you meant that the Rapex is retribution, but that cutting out an eye would be excessive retribution, but when I look at it now it's pretty obviously not what it says. My apologies for the mistake.

The lot of you are sorta' strawmanning. According to the article, the device is designed, specifically, to not mangle. Cause pain, yes, and constructed in such a way that getting it off without assistance is apparently extremely difficult, but the thing was specifically stated to not break skin.

Once it lodges, only a doctor can remove it — a procedure Ehlers hopes will be done with authorities on standby to make an arrest. "It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it's on," she said. "If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter ... however, it doesn't break the skin, and there's no danger of fluid exposure."

So, maybe pull that bit of emphasis back a bit? Or at least divorce that bit of hyperbole from the actual device?

Well, that completely removes all my objections to it. My only hesitation was about it maybe causing permanent damage, but if it won't, then I'm okay with it.

The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.

Ah okay, I see where you're coming from then. Allow me to clarify:

When I said "overkill" in this scenario, I wasn't comparing the rape to the penis mangling, but the penis mangling to other forms of rape prevention. My comparison to booby traps was intended to convey that there are more reasonable ways to protect yourself. In the case of home invasion, regular ol' security alarms. In the case of rape prevention... well actually I'll just quote myself from earlier:

Ultimately I'd probably find it acceptable if all the other good practices for rape prevention are in place and it's just an added layer of protection.

I can be overkill. I can be acceptable. It's kinda on the border for me, and I'd consider the situation of the person fearing being raped before really saying one way or the other (and if you force me to make a generalized statement I'd probably say it's fine).

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.

Well it's a booby trap. A good one wouldn't be noticed beforehand, maybe even by a gynecologist.

You figure anyone going to a gynecologist would take it out beforehand.

[Reelya]

But you're explicit argument was the is no such thing as overkill.

The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.

Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.

Before you refer to the "rapex doesn't break the skin" point, which has been correctly brought up.
You had no objection before to the concept of "penis mangling" as a prevention to rape.

[kaijyuu]

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.

That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

[Nadaka]

Obviously, if the woman left the rapex in and it injured her gynecologist, she'd be at fault. The same as if the homeowner's booby-trap injured a police officer by mistake. The main difference you've stated is the likeliness of collateral harm.

But the basis of the rapex being legitimate, is that we have a legal right to booby-trap things in such a way that potential criminals will be physically harmed if they attempt to commit the crime.  Your only criteria given so far is that the booby-trap be discriminating enough to almost only ever harm criminals.

Given that you could booby-trap your house in some discerning way, how much harm would be acceptable to inflict on a burglar?

No... The basis is not based on a booby trap. The basis is based on self defense. Its no different that biting the offending member, there is a reason this type of thing has been called a dentata in the past.

A booby trap is left alone without your supervision and again, is indiscriminate. A rapex isn't much of a deterrent if you are not present to supervise it. The rapex is a passive defense, like a bullet resistant vest.

Overkill does not enter into the equation. 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.

[scriver]

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.

That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

Well, it's like a colour bomb which also hurts and prevents you from peeing and needs a doctor to remove, but still.

[Scelly9]

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.

That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

Yeah, I don't really think that it would work. Except on people with a very specific penis size.

It's not supposed to harm. It's like a booby trap exploding blue paint on a burglar.

That makes me question its purported effectiveness even more xD

Well, it's like a colour bomb which also hurts and prevents you from peeing and needs a doctor to remove, but still.

Does it really need a doctor to remove though? It doesn't seem all that menacing.

[kaijyuu]

Overkill does not enter into the equation. 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.

I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.

[Reelya]

Please Criptfiend, keep the debate about points and stop using Ad Hominem attacks, it's very annoying.

Throwing personal jibes is still trying to goad or belittle the other person even if you try and do it subtly.

[Frumple]

Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.

If it helps the discussion any, legally, there is. Excessive reaction can affect the legal status of a self-defense case, though I don't know the details of it and it varies of place to place. There's been a few flare-ups about castle laws in the last while, iirc, which is basically what that's concerning -- the point that self-defense becomes excessive.

There's a bit of leeway, but you don't get to skin a person and salt the wounds for trying to mug you and suchlike. Permanently damaging a rapist's genitalia in the heat of the moment is probably not going too far, but knocking out the rapist and then carving up their nethers would be. Couldn't say where a device actually intended to mangle would fit in that spectrum.

[Criptfeind]

...I misread that post completely. Or did you do one of those quick-edits that don't show up as "edited"?

I have been doing a lot of quick edits. It would not surprise me to learn that I said something wrong, you saw it, and then I fixed it before it past the point where it time stamps it.

But you're explicit argument was the is no such thing as overkill.

Not in hideous terrifying unjustifiable black and white crimes.

Is there such a thing as overkill? I'm saying there is a level at which what you do to prevent an action becomes overkill.

I don't think there is overkill in preventing crimes like rape.

Please don't take that to mean that I advocate killing everyone or something stupid. But the point is, I don't think there is a action that harms a aggressor that can not be justified as a preventative measure.

Please Criptfiend, keep the debate about points and stop using Ad Hominem attacks, it's very annoying.

Throwing personal jibes is still trying to goad or belittle the other person even if you try and do it subtly.

Piff. I'm setting a standard for reasonable discourse here. I don't have a issue identifying and avoiding idiots. It's not my job to educate people on my views. I do this for fun.

Edit: I'm not calling you a idiot. Just saying, you need to be reasonable or you are not worth my time.

[da_nang]

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.

Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.

[kaijyuu]

Rape and killing are pretty damn close on the "horrifying" scale, so you might be arguing an uphill battle if you want to claim rape is the lesser.

[Nadaka]

Overkill does not enter into the equation. 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.

I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.

This isn't a case where it is not necessary. If the Rapex gets used, it is most likely means that all other means of defense have failed.

[Criptfeind]

Um, no. Disproportionate use of violence in the name of self-defense is not an excuse and in some cases can turn the case against the victim.

What about when the attacker is a clear and immediate threat still. I dunno. I just think that using lethal force is justified when you need to use lethal force.

[kaijyuu]

Overkill does not enter into the equation. 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.

I'll agree here... assuming killing the rapist is necessary to stop them/get away. But what of situations where it is not? I'd call that overkill.

This isn't a case where it is not necessary. If the Rapex gets used, it is most likely means that all other means of defense have failed.

True. But assuming it works and the rapist gets incapacitated, I wouldn't say that the victim picking up a knife and attacking back would be justified.

...I realize now I'm going back into the "retribution vs prevention" thing. My bad. Killing someone in self defense (when it comes to rape) is grey area enough that I wouldn't judge them for it, so yes, I agree with you.