New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

mucker55 · 15-04-2010 08:05PM

Kiera wrote: »

Not harsh enough!

what is harsher then having your crown jewels ripped to shreds?

Ickle Magoo · 15-04-2010 08:09PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

This is pointless Ickle, because if I say I would just do what ever it could without killing him, someone will just say: "Easy for you to say.."

I am sticking to my initial point, which is that I do not believe all rapists should be murdered.

I simply don't, if people don't agree - so be it.

I don't even believe all murderers should be murdered, so why the fcuk would I think all rapists should.

It's not so much about who you think should be murdered, it's your totally twisted view of rape and victims responses to it.

I mean,

OutlawPete wrote: »

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

A non-violent rape? Wtf are you talking about? Which part of non-consensual sex do you think is non-violent? :eek:

While I don't think bludgeoning someone to death as they or just after they rape is okay, I think it's a pretty understandable reaction to a really horrific crime.

Ickle Magoo · 15-04-2010 08:11PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

--LOS-- wrote: »

It's anything but passive, sounds like an eye for an eye to me.

It's only going to affect rapists as they rape, it's hardly done as a form of retrospective retribution.

OutlawPete · 15-04-2010 08:12PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't believe acting in self defense constitutes murder.

Either do I.

Your main point in your post was, how is a woman to know what her attacker is going to do.

You don't, simply as that.

So you believe that people being raped should just kill the rapist IN CASE they are going to kill them? IN CASE they get HIV?

Less than 0.2% of rape victims are murdered by the way so all that sanctimony is wasted on me.

The gallery love it though.

15-04-2010 08:14PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

It's anything but passive, sounds like an eye for an eye to me.

It's passive in the sense the woman doesn't have to DO anything for it to work.

Since everyone in that dna thread likes that idiotic slogan, let me quote it as it applies more accurately here: "if you don't do anything wrong you've nothing to worry about". You don't want your penis barbed, don't stick it where it's not wanted.

force majeure · 15-04-2010 08:14PM

I would not say its a great idea.
Far better for a personal security device such as a taser being made available as in such an event the effectiveness off a taser [stun gun] would render a would be attacker incapacitated for long enough for the would be victim to get away.
On top off that the marks left by such a device well assist in identifying any attacker.
Only problem is getting the things legalised.
I in-fact did take part in a small group some years back in an effort to gather support for this but never got so much as a fiddlestick off positive feedback
Any how would any one like the idea off girls under 18 using a device like that and what if it malfunctioned !!!
To make matters worse some rapists in other countries particularly repeat offenders tend to start getting savvy to things like that so it would only be helpful to opportunist attackers.

It wasn't me! · 15-04-2010 08:19PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

So you believe that people being raped should just kill the rapist IN CASE they are going to kill them? IN CASE they get HIV?

Less than 0.2% of rape victims are murdered by the way so all that sanctimony is wasted on me.

The gallery love it though.

I haven't seen anyone advocating that rape victims should habitually kill their rapist.

Another thing I haven't seen is a clear answer from you on the issue of personal rights. Do you believe that the rights of the rapist to life supercede the rights of the victim with regard to their safety and personal integrity?

Zillah · 15-04-2010 08:20PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

So you believe that people being raped should just kill the rapist IN CASE they are going to kill them?

Absolutely. We are well beyond the point of giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I, and most reasonable human beings, are not all that concerned about the consequences of rape for the rapist.

spider guardian · 15-04-2010 08:22PM

Prevention is always better than the cure, this device only works if the would-be rapist has already penetrated the victim, meaning it is nothing more than a tool for vengeance. Much like speed cameras should be used to PREVENT speeding, this device should be modified to better enable the user to avoid the rape altogether.

How so? Install a flux-capacitor which could enable the device to transport the user back in time to before the rape took place, the whole-penis mutilation aspect could be kept for backup in case of space-time continuum distortion, where the user may only travel a few milliseconds back in time.

SLIGHT POSSIBILITY OF PENIS MUTILATION MARTY!

Piste · 15-04-2010 08:23PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

I like the idea of "surprise sex" resulting in "surprise mutilation", but to be honest it would end very badly for the women and future rape victims. The man would probably kill the woman (though it's probably unlikely, as the pain in his penis would be quite debilitating), but most likely anal rape would increase.

--LOS-- · 15-04-2010 08:24PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's only going to affect rapists as they rape, it's hardly done as a form of retrospective retribution.

what is it if it's not retribution? Course it is, as I've said before it doesn't prevent rape/assault, it doesn't solve anything.

rantyface · 15-04-2010 08:25PM

That rapeaxe is foolish, especially in a country with such a high HIV rate. You could get their blood all over you! I'd rather something that prevented fluid exchange but didn't cut the attacker. If they got popular, people would check for them and remove them anyway.

If you're worried about being raped by a stranger, don't go to South Africa and carry mace or something.

The website has a funny links page...

It wasn't me! · 15-04-2010 08:27PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

what is it if it's not retribution? Course it is, as I've said before it doesn't prevent rape/assault, it doesn't solve anything.

It's no more retributive than pepper spray. It incapacitates the assailant through pain, so that the victim can make an escape.

Abi · 15-04-2010 08:28PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

rantyface wrote: »

If you're worried about being raped by a stranger, don't go to South Africa and carry mace or something.

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

--LOS-- · 15-04-2010 08:31PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

It's no more retributive than pepper spray. It incapacitates the assailant through pain, so that the victim can make an escape.

nonsense, come on, I think most men would rather the pepper spray!

OutlawPete · 15-04-2010 08:31PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why would someone who is being raped not be in fear of their life?

Why would they ALL be in fear of their lives?

0.2% of all rape victims are murdered.

If the rapist has a gun or a knife or is giving signals that he is going to kill you, then I feel EVERYTHING is justified.

If it is date rape, someone ignoring a 'No' (Statistics online would suggest that Date Rape is the most common form of rape) then I do not think MURDER is an acceptable reaction, simple as that.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it's a pretty understandable reaction to a really horrific crime.

I don't.

It's a despicable thing to do, but murder is not a proportionate response in my view.

OutlawPete · 15-04-2010 08:34PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I haven't seen anyone advocating that rape victims should habitually kill their rapist.

That is why reading the thread from start to finish is a good idea, as that is precisely where this all started.

Zillah · 15-04-2010 08:36PM

Preciously.

rantyface · 15-04-2010 08:36PM

Abitar wrote: »

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say.

I thought the reason these have been in the news lately was that loads of foreign women are going to be raped during the world cup. As I understand it, they have an unusually high rate of rape by strangers in South Africa.

Tigger · 15-04-2010 08:39PM

rantyface wrote: »

I thought the reason these have been in the news lately was that loads of foreign women are going to be raped during the world cup. As I understand it, they have an unusually high rate of rape by strangers in South Africa.

gets hat

It wasn't me! · 15-04-2010 08:42PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

nonsense, come on, I think most men would rather the pepper spray!

That really doesn't change the nature of it, any more than me defending myself with my fists versus the use of a convenient piece of 2x4 changes the nature of the fact that I'm defending myself.

OutlawPete wrote: »

That is why reading the thread from start to finish is a good idea, as that is preciously where this all started.

I have done so, and what I got was a lot of people saying (frankly poorly thought out) things like "Screw him, if he rapes someone he gets what he deserves!" and the like, which, while sentimentally almost right, aren't qualified enough. The problem I have with your sentiments (And you still haven't answered the second instance of my last question) is that you seem to think rape is so trivial that if a victim can't avoid it without killing her attacker, she shouldn't avoid it. You've consistently prioritised the rights of the attacker over the rights of the victim, which is utterly reprehensible, to my mind.

--LOS-- · 15-04-2010 08:47PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That really doesn't change the nature of it, any more than me defending myself with my fists versus the use of a convenient piece of 2x4 changes the nature of the fact that I'm defending myself.

I think it pretty obvious why that is one of the dumbest things you've said.

Piste · 15-04-2010 08:48PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why would they ALL be in fear of their lives?

0.2% of all rape victims are murdered.

If the rapist has a gun or a knife or is giving signals that he is going to kill you, then I feel EVERYTHING is justified.

If it is date rape, someone ignoring a 'No' (Statistics online would suggest that Date Rape is the most common form of rape) then I do not think MURDER is an acceptable reaction, simple as that.

I don't.

It's a despicable thing to do, but murder is not a proportionate response in my view.

Are those Irish or South African statistics?

Ickle Magoo · 15-04-2010 08:49PM

NO it's too harsh a punishment.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why would they ALL be in fear of their lives?

0.2% of all rape victims are murdered.

If the rapist has a gun or a knife or is giving signals that he is going to kill you, then I feel EVERYTHING is justified.

If it is date rape, someone ignoring a 'No' (Statistics online would suggest that Date Rape is the most common form of rape) then I do not think MURDER is an acceptable reaction, simple as that.

Why wouldn't they?! Fcuk the statistics, how many armed robberies end in bloodshed? Do you think the people the robber are pointing the gun at aren't in fear of their lives? Seriously, what world do you live in? If someone is violating your trust to that extent and physically harming you then nobody in their right mind is going to be lying there thinking, "Ah, jeez, it's me buddy/bf - he'll do his stuff and give me a lift home, I'll just let him get on with it".

"MURDER" is not the same thing as clobbering the guy as he rapes or walloping him directly afterwards. Rapists deserve everything they get from their victim, in my book. I can't get my head around the whole expecting someone who's being or just been raped to think of an "acceptable" reaction to that violation, for the sake of their poor attacker. Baffling.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I don't.

It's a despicable thing to do, but murder is not a proportionate response in my view.

Why do you keep on with the murder thing? He's raping or just raped the person, then the victim kills their rapist - that isn't murder in any court I know. Grabbing the closest thing to hand to get the guy away from you is hardly calculated or premeditated, it's a position they have been put in by virtue of someone else choosing to attack them.

It wasn't me! · 15-04-2010 08:50PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

I think it pretty obvious why that is one of the dumbest things you've said.

No, it's not. Both actions are fundamentally defensive. One involves an external object, while the other does not. Both are capable of hurting people. Neither are retributive.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, you said that because you couldn't respond, and that's pretty pathetic, so until you can explain yourself, I'm going to go ahead and call that pretty pathetic.

rantyface · 15-04-2010 08:53PM

Tigger wrote: »

gets hat

I don't know what that means... is it for stating the bleeding obvious that SA is really, really dangerous and not a great place for a woman to go? It's possible that Abitar might not know about it. There are always "yeah but people get raped in Ireland too, it's dangerous here too, you can't say anything bad about south africa that's so ignorant" types who'll just waltz around SA and get raped and mugged. I think it's good we didn't get in, in light of attitudes like that.

I know a lot of people who went back-packing and insisted on going to poor areas and just got mugged and had to come home. It's one thing getting mugged out of naivety, but being raped is too much.

MikeC101 · 15-04-2010 08:57PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

Either do I.

Your main point in your post was, how is a woman to know what her attacker is going to do.

You don't, simply as that.

Exactly - so you do whatever is necessary to escape.

OutlawPete wrote: »

So you believe that people being raped should just kill the rapist IN CASE they are going to kill them? IN CASE they get HIV?

That's not what I said. They should do whatever is in their power to escape - if the rapist ends up dead, so be it. If they have a knife, use that. If they have a gun, use that.

In a rape scenario, the rapist is obviously overpowering the victim, so they have to take whatever chance they get to escape.

I don't understand this fantasy scenario that the victim is some kind of self defence expert who is able to calculate the correct way to disable their attacker without potentially killing them. While being raped.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Less than 0.2% of rape victims are murdered by the way so all that sanctimony is wasted on me.

And you think someone being raped is going through the statistics in their head? They have no way of knowing if they're going to be part of the 0.2% or not, and anyway, they didn't initiate the situation.

As per usual, no discussing anything with you without you resorting to personal insults - I'm not being sanctimonious, I'm telling you my opinion.

OutlawPete wrote: »

The gallery love it though.

Stop attributing motives to me. This is what I believe, I'm not saying it to gain kudos, and I don't appreciate you insinuating that I am.

--LOS-- · 15-04-2010 09:02PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

No, it's not. Both actions are fundamentally defensive. One involves an external object, while the other does not. Both are capable of hurting people. Neither are retributive.

Now, as far as I'm concerned, you said that because you couldn't respond, and that's pretty pathetic, so until you can explain yourself, I'm going to go ahead and call that pretty pathetic.

I didn't get into it coz I don't entertain stupidity, I think any person who's not half out of their mind can see that defending yourself with say a gun to the perpetrators head is a little bit different than knocking them a punch in the face. The rapeaxe has the ability to permanently maim the rapist, it's violent, all it does is condone violence, pepper spray, that's not going to do any permanent harm. Fact is I know a lot of people will say well rapists deserve what they get but as others have pointed out it has the potential to put innocent people at risk, and its likely to make the attack escalate.

It wasn't me! · 15-04-2010 09:08PM

--LOS-- wrote: »

I didn't get into it coz I don't entertain stupidity, I think any person who's not half out of their mind can see that defending yourself with say a gun to the perpetrators head is a little bit different than knocking them a punch in the face. The rapeaxe has the ability to permanently maim the rapist, it's violent, all it does is condone violence, pepper spray, that's not going to do any permanent harm. Fact is I know a lot of people will say well rapists deserve what they get but as others have pointed out it has the potential to put innocent people at risk, and its likely to make the attack escalate.

Not true. Again, the first principle is that a violent defence is justifiable. You accept this when you condone the use of fists or pepper spray. As I've said earlier, violence, by its very nature, can kill people. Plenty of people dead from an errant smack that went wrong, or from allergic reactions to pepper spray, so the use of force assumes the possibility of it being fatal. That's just something you have to accept. The principle on which this is justified is that you're entitled not to be subject to personal harm. The aggressor therefore opens themself to the potential consequences of your defence by force. This is entirely morally consistent. What you're looking for is an over-qualification of the situation. In either of the cases you've attempted to clumsily highlight above, the overriding factor is that they are defensive measures. The shape they take does not change their defensive nature.

OutlawPete · 15-04-2010 09:14PM

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You've consistently prioritised the rights of the attacker over the rights of the victim, which is utterly reprehensible, to my mind.

No I haven't.

I have consistently said "appropriate" and "proportionate" response is fine, that does NOT take away anybody's rights.

Sure, continue to say that have, why not - again, the Gallery be loving the histrionics.

New Anti-Rape device - RapeAxe

Comments