New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

Zillah

tororosso wrote: »

I have read the thread and you are basically justifying killing an individual because he is carrying out the crime of rape. I didnt miss your points. I abhor rape but your position is entrenched and emotional and irrational.

And yet you felt the need to make a strawman of my argument. I talk about self defense and you jump to lynch mobs.

You attacked the character of another poster because his opinion was completely opposed to your own.

Well excuse me if I find it odd that someone comes furiously to the defense of rapists everywhere.

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In Zillah's defence, i think it's pretty clear she was just exagerating to make a point, not actually accusing anyone of being a rapist!

still absolutely disgusting to even hint at it imo.

tororosso wrote: »

I have read the thread and you are basically justifying killing an individual because he is carrying out the crime of rape. I didnt miss your points. I abhor rape but your position is entrenched and emotional and irrational. You attacked the character of another poster because his opinion was completely opposed to your own.

zillah says that killing the rapist intentionally is wrong. if you kill the rapist in an act of self defense ie, trying to stop the rapist, then that is not murder.

Zillah

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In Zillah's defence, i think it's pretty clear she was just exagerating to make a point, not actually accusing anyone of being a rapist!

I'm a he, for the record.

sbsquarepants

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

still absolutely disgusting to even hint at it imo.QUOTE]

It was a bit strong alright!
But then again, so was what Pete said!

pwd

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

It was a bit strong alright!
But then again, so was what Pete said!

what pete said? he has said alot, nothing disgusting. did he insinuate that zillah is a rapist? no, he didn't.

--LOS--

biko wrote: »

If I was a woman in South Africa I'd like to have one of these. While my attacker was wincing with pain it'd give me some time to run slash his bloody neck.

OutlawPete wrote: »

So you believe the punishment for rape should be murder?

Or indeed, that it is okay for a woman to kill a man if she is being raped.

Zillah wrote: »

You're really not listening to me.

Let's do it in big letters, because this has to be the third of fourth time I've said this:

Killing a rapist is justified if it prevents or interrupts the rape. Killing him after the fact is vindictive.

Should I bold it? Underscore?

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

well, i can't speak for pete tbh, we'll just have to wait and see what he says.

can i ask you, do you think it would be justified if the victim of rape managed to free themselves and then turned on the rapist and killed them intentionally?

personally i wouldn't do it, don't think it would be justified either, not if had the option of running away.

Zillah wrote: »

If we're confident that the victim can make a clear getaway, sure. They should just get the hell out. If there was a very real chance of their attacker simply catching them again I could forgive them giving a kick to the balls before they run.

If the attacker were on the ground and the victim turned and slashed their throat, yes, that would be going too far.

Sounds like you're both on the same page.

Pete took offence to murder as a punishment for rape which is totally different than self defence, what don't you agree with about that Zillah? Coz as it stands it just sounds like you read too much into his description of rape for what it is.

Zillah

--LOS-- wrote: »

Sounds like you're both on the same page.

Pete took offence to murder as a punishment for rape which is totally different than self defence, what don't you agree with about that Zillah? Coz as it stands it just sounds like you read too much into his description of rape for what it is.

Uhh... one of your quotes says

OutlawPete wrote: »

Or indeed, that it is okay for a woman to kill a man if she is being raped.

This is the point we're disagreeing about. Pete insists that if a woman kills her rapist while he is raping her, she is a murderer.

--LOS--

Zillah wrote: »

This is the point we're disagreeing about. Pete insists that if a woman kills her rapist while he is raping her, she is a murderer.

tbh he didn't say that explicitly and I would have to disagree with you that killing a rapist is justified if it prevents the rape, how can you say it's ok to kill someone coz they almost raped you.

OutlawPete

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How is this even a point? She's being raped, the rapist hardly has her best interests at heart now does he! Of course she is in fear for her life.

That is just simply not true, I honestly cannot believe the amount of people in agreement with some of the nonsense be spouted on this thread.

First of all, when you say: "Of course she is..", you are dismissing 10% of rape victims which are men.

Secondly, even if you said: "Of course they are in fear of their lives.."

That would imply that you are talking about strangers who rape their victims.

Did you know that only 2% of rape victims are actually raped by strangers?

Did you know that 98% of rape victims actually know the rapist?

So, how many victims are afraid that their husbands or their boyfriends or even one of their close friends are going to kill them?

I wouldn't say too many.

I would say acquaintances and ex-boyfriends would be the highest, as one being not too well known and the other holding somewhat of a grudge.

So, to say or imply that ALL rape victims are in fear of there lives is rubbish. The vast majority know they are being raped and that is all.

If they then kill that person raping them, it is to stop a rape and nothing more.

This is why I believe that MURDER is not a proportionate response to a non-violent rape.

Just because a man or woman refuses to take no for an answer, does not mean he or she deserves to be murdered.

We have a court system to decide what should happen after that.

It wasn't me!

To be fair, that's bollocks. Once they've crossed the line by initiating a forced sexual encounter, their behaviour ceases to be predictable. I'm guessing the victims in these cases didn't expect to be raped either, so why would they now be so confident that they're not in more serious danger, since that previous supposition has been proven wrong? Besides, a huge number of murders are personal too, so familiarity doesn't imply safety either.

Actually, let's be really blunt. Do you consider any violent defence or resistance appropriate in rape cases?

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

jesus pete :mad:

Hi ..

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

if i was being raped, i would do anything to escape, if i clobbered the rapist over the head to stop him and he died, i don't see that i intentionally killed him, i just wanted him to stop.

i don't believe that you would see me as unjustified for hitting him over the head with something to make him stop.

if i was being raped, and i managed to stop the rapist and he was fine, i would fcuking leg it. i'm not gonna hang around and try to kill the bastard.

That would be manslaughter though, my reaction was too all the peacocking and chest beating saying that rapists deserve to be murdered.

God forbid anything like that every happened to you but if it does, phone me, I'll come over and we'll find they guy.

I'll have a Gimp ala Pulp Fiction that we can unleash on him

Then we'll take to guy to the police station and hopefully justice will be served.

OutlawPete

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Do you consider any violent defence or resistance appropriate in rape cases?

Read the thread.

It wasn't me!

I did. I want a clear and unambiguous statement now, because I'm going somewhere with this. Do you consider a violent defence appropriate against a rapist? Not quantifying anything here. This is a question of first principles

OutlawPete

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I did.

Clearly not.

OutlawPete wrote: »

It is my belief that unless a woman is in fear of her life then murder is not justified, hence the HERE and NOW argument.

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Hi ..

you've been a very naughty boy :mad:

That would be manslaughter though, my reaction was too all the peacocking and chest beating saying that rapists deserve to be murdered.

God forbid anything like that every happened to you but if it does, phone me, I'll come over and we'll find they guy.

I'll have a Gimp ala Pulp Fiction that we can unleash on him

Then we'll take to guy to the police station and hopefully justice will be served.

so you do not have a problem with me trying to stop the rapist by hitting him across the head and as a result him dying?

It wasn't me!

OutlawPete wrote: »

Clearly not.

That's not a response to what I asked you.

You said it's not alright for her to kill her assailant, unless her life is demonstrably endangered.

I asked whether a violent defence is appropriate if one is being raped. Those are not the same thing. So, is the use of force as a defence appropriate against a rapist? Again, I stress that I'm not quantifying the force, because we're still dealing with first principles.

--LOS--

Some people sound very trigger happy on here, imagine if we had armed gardai with the mentality of some people on here. As for the sadist who came up with that device, does it really do anything to prevent rape, the victim is still going to be assaulted, be put at risk of STIs, possibly put themselves at more risk of violence from the rapist, all it does is support violence and is perhaps a crude method of contraception.

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

so you do not have a problem with me trying to stop the rapist by hitting him across the head and as a result him dying?

Nope, once you don't shoot him, knife him in the chest etc.

In other words, once you don't deliberately MURDER him, do whatever you can to get the bastard off you.

If he dies from a blow to the head, that's his tough shit.

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

Some people sound very trigger happy on here, imagine if we had armed gardai with the mentality of some people on here. As for the sadist who came up with that device, does it really do anything to prevent rape, the victim is still going to be assaulted, be put at risk of STIs, possibly put themselves at more risk of violence from the rapist, all it does is support violence and is perhaps a crude method of contraception.

as a woman with a vagina, i am entitled to wear whatever i want up my vagina.

if someone tried to rape me, whilst i was wearing the "RapeAxe" - tough fcuking titties! :mad: stay out of my vagina if i say so, if not, get your dick stuck in my RapeAxe.

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Nope, once you don't shoot him, knife him in the chest etc.

In other words, once you don't deliberately MURDER him, do whatever you can to get the bastard off you.

If he dies from a blow to the head, that's his tough shit.

hmm, but what if the closest thing to hand was a knife?

i've been attacked before, the closest thing to hand was a giant mug.

i used it.

there was a hammer about two inches further away.

if the hammer was closer, i would have used the hammer.

OutlawPete

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

hmm, but what if the closest thing to hand was a knife?

i've been attacked before, the closest thing to hand was a giant mug.

i used it.

there was a hammer about two inches further away.

if the hammer was closer, i would have used the hammer.

No SHARP TOOLS or FIRE :mad:

No .. wait now .. sorry, wrong thread

Stick the knife in his arse, his leg .. just don't cut his throat.

Disproportionate response if you did, in my view.

AckwelFoley

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

looks like a silly idea to me tbh...

What does a dad say to his 15 year old daughter..

"Here love put this in your flower garden before you head out tonight and wear this sign around your neck fitted with anti rape device"

Id imagine, a large part of the trauma to getting raped is the initial attack, this device only protects against after the initial penetration

Zillah

Ugh, After Hours.

AckwelFoley

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

No SHARP TOOLS or FIRE :mad:

No .. wait now .. sorry, wrong thread

Stick the knife in his arse, his leg .. just don't cut his throat.

Disproportionate response if you did, in my view.

clearly you have never been, or known the victim of rape.

we'llallhavetea_old

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

No SHARP TOOLS or FIRE :mad:

No .. wait now .. sorry, wrong thread

Stick the knife in his arse, his leg .. just don't cut his throat.

Disproportionate response if you did, in my view.

sometimes you have to stick the knife in wherever you can.

don't forget its quite a struggle like.



can we have some form of make up sex now? :pac:

OutlawPete

It wasn't me! wrote: »

is the use of force as a defence appropriate against a rapist? Again, I stress that I'm not quantifying the force, because we're still dealing with first principles.

You have to quantify the force.

Some response are appropriate and some are not.

If a woman is being raped and the guy says: "Your daughters next.."

Kill him.

If your on a date and your bf get's frisky and you say no and he says yes and forces himself on you, the proportion of violence that is appropriate in each circumstance is going to be quite different.

Xluna

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

snyper wrote: »

Id imagine, a large part of the trauma to getting raped is the initial attack,

No,it is'nt.

AckwelFoley

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

Xluna wrote: »

No,it is'nt.

Ill tell the woman that told me that so that she was full of sh1t.

hypersquirrel

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Secondly, even if you said: "Of course they are in fear of their lives.."

That would imply that you are talking about strangers who rape their victims.

Did you know that only 2% of rape victims are actually raped by strangers?

Did you know that 98% of rape victims actually know the rapist?

So, how many victims are afraid that their husbands or their boyfriends or even one of their close friends are going to kill them?

I wouldn't say too many.

I would say acquaintances and ex-boyfriends would be the highest, as one being not too well known and the other holding somewhat of a grudge.

So, to say or imply that ALL rape victims are in fear of there lives is rubbish. The vast majority know they are being raped and that is all.

If they then kill that person raping them, it is to stop a rape and nothing more.

This is why I believe that MURDER is not a proportionate response to a non-violent rape.

Just because a man or woman refuses to take no for an answer, does not mean he or she deserves to be murdered.

We have a court system to decide what should happen after that.

So because you know your rapist it means they aren't going to kill you?

If I thought my husband/boyfriend was going to rape me I wouldn't be married to/dating him. The very fact that he would be raping me would imply that it is behaviour I am not expecting from so I'm hardly going to be thinking "Oh it's ok I know this man so once he's finished he'll just leave me alone".

If I was raped by my boyfriend I would be more inclined to think that he is fully aware that I know exactly who my attacker is and I can report everything in full to the Gardaí and am therefore more of a liability then a stranger.