Print

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

[Mlamlah]

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.

Maybe you should talk to a rape victim before you call that disproportionate, i assure you it is not.

[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.

Maybe you should talk to a rape victim before you call that disproportionate, i assure you it is not.

I'm sorry, but since when did rape become proportional to murder? The latter deprives one of one's life, the former does not.

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.

[Criptfeind]

Piff. You are talking as if life is the most important thing in the world.

Hint: It is not. Life is fairly worthless on it's own.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.

[lorb]

Piff. You are talking as if life is the most important thing in the world.

Hint: It is not. Life is fairly worthless on it's own.

Your definition of "worth" is very flawed. Not just in this post.
Could you please specify what in your eyes the concept of "worth" is? (When applied to life or a human being.)

If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.

So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?

[Criptfeind]

That's a interesting question. I can't think of a good answer. What is your definition of worth?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.

So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?

Yes, I never argued otherwise. No one will state their intent to kill you in a mugging, rape, or similar situation, but it can and does happen.

[lorb]

If someone is trying to rape you the amount of threat they pose to you is unknown. Rape-murders happen all the time. Hence, it is reasonable to respond with deadly force.

So your argument is that it is ok to defend yourself from rape with deadly force because the rape may turn into rape-murder. So rape is indeed a lesser crime than murder?

Yes, I never argued otherwise. No one will state their intent to kill you in a mugging, rape, or similar situation, but it can and does happen.

I just wanted to make sure that rape is the lesser crime than murder. I absolutely agree with your argument than.

edit:

That's a interesting question. I can't think of a good answer. What is your definition of worth?

You don't have an answer to what the worth of a human being/life is but you totally deny a rapist the same worth as other persons have (eg the victim)?

[Criptfeind]

Answer the question or admit you can't.

[Nadaka]

@da_nang

A rape victim suffers from the trauma of the attack long after it is done.

A murder victim does not.

A murder victims life and all its potential both good and bad ends.

The life of the rape victim may be made into a living nightmare with scars physical and mental that never truly heal.

Rape is a dehumanizing form of torture.

It is not clear which one is the worse crime from the victims perspective.


Stabbing someone in the leg does not have a high probability of ending the threat. The most certain way to end a threat is with the most debilitating attack (the most debilitating attacks are also the fatal attacks), and you do not relent in your active defense until the aggressor no longer poses a threat.

You are going past the extreme to make an absurd strawman: If the attacker is unconscious, he no longer poses a threat. If the attacker is crippled and you can escape, he is no longer a threat. If the attacker is dead, he is no longer a threat. No one except you and Reelya is saying to keep attacking once your attacker no longer poses a threat.

[lorb]

Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)

[Reelya]

With no concept of worth of human life, i can't see how you can objectively say rape is worth more than burglary, to say it's on a "whole other level". I'm sure there's at least 1 person who would prefer to be raped than have all their stuff stolen, probably a lot of people.

Would you choose to be raped vs lose the entirety of your possessions?

[JoshuaFH]

With no concept of worth of human life, i can't see how you can objectively say rape is worth more than burglary, to say it's on a "whole other level". I'm sure there's at least 1 person who would prefer to be raped than have all their stuff stolen, probably a lot of people.

Would you choose to be raped vs lose the entirety of your possessions?

Atleast you can buy insurance for your possessions...

[Criptfeind]

Answer the question or admit you can't.

For me this is easy. I would like to see you answer this question. (The worth of life is infinity. If you need hints as to why that may be I'll give them to you if you you give me your definition of "worth" that makes some lives have less worth than others.)

That's not a answer. Infinity what?

Also given infinity, that means that killing is not acceptable under any circumstances ever?

[da_nang]

A rape victim suffers from the trauma of the attack long after it is done.

A murder victim does not.

A dead giveaway, I'm sure. But even if the victim's dead, the damage has already been done. I don't think I can with good conscious say that death is less of a damage than lifelong trauma. At least that you can cope with.

The life of the rape victim may be made into a living nightmare with scars physical and mental that never truly heal.

A murder victim's wounds will never heal.

Rape is a dehumanizing form of torture.

And death is somehow better, how exactly? If you had to make the choice, would you rather be murdered or raped?

Stabbing someone in the leg does not have a high probability of ending the threat. The most certain way to end a threat is with the most debilitating attack (the most debilitating attacks are also the fatal attacks), and you do not relent in your active defense until the aggressor no longer poses a threat.

The point of self-defense is not to beat the aggressor into a bloody pulp and murder him. 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.
Remember that there are non-lethal ways to debilitate people long enough to make a retreat.

You are going past the extreme to make an absurd strawman: If the attacker is unconscious, he no longer poses a threat. If the attacker is crippled and you can escape, he is no longer a threat. If the attacker is dead, he is no longer a threat. No one except you and Reelya is saying to keep attacking once your attacker no longer poses a threat.

Strawman or not, it still proves the point. The aggressor was unconscious, thus the victim could have easily retreated. Instead, the victim started stabbing for various reasons. Revenge is one possibility. Whatever the reason is, the fact that the victim didn't retreat and instead started stabbing an unconscious aggressor is blatantly unjustifiable. The force used was thusly disproportionate.

And FWIW, I've never said that you should keep attacking if the attacker no longer poses a threat. I don't know where you got that from.