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?
You conveniently and dishonestly deleted the conclusion of that argument.
It is not clear which one is the worse crime from the victims perspective.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, it does not prove a point because your straw man isn't even remotely related to the topic at hand.
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.
here might be why:
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.
or this one:
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.
Author
Topic: Calm and Cool Progressive Discussion Thread (Read 1286251 times)