Print

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

[Criptfeind]

I have to take it that you're arguing with Kaiyuu entirely for lulz then, because that's exactly his point.

Except no.

t's overkill that can seriously harm someone; that they're doing something bad (or horrific, in this case) doesn't change that.

[Reelya]

Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

Burglar should have known better, i had a shot-gun trap primed.
Unfortunately the courts don't usually see it this way.

But, the burglar was doing something bad (breaking in) so it's justified to mutilate them, right? It prevented the burglary. The fact that there might have been other ways to prevent the burglary in no way makes this less justified, right?

[Criptfeind]

The point.

Your head.

We already went over the fact that this might not be worth it. The argument is about the idea that there is such a thing as overkill to stop a action.

[Reelya]

You haven't answered any of my repeated points about why is this only limited to rape -_-

No need to be snarky.

Now you're ignoring 80% of my posts and focusing on a side point to belittle me.

[Criptfeind]

Because I post my last post three minutes before you added them to your post. The time tags are right there.

[Nadaka]

Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

No. Your point does not stand. It explicitly fails. Laying booby traps about your home is indiscriminate. The emergency services and police have the right to enter your home without your foreknowledge and consent under certain circumstances. The only time you will have someone entering your vagina without your foreknowledge and consent is while being raped.

[scriver]

Yeeaaah. Except not. If you were reading my posts you would already know what my response to what you just said is:

That is retribution. I don't advocate excessive retribution.

The penis mangling is to stop the action. Not as punishment for doing it.

Also, we're not talking about a legal punishment here. If someone clawed or cut out an eye while trying to protect themselves from being raped, I wouldn't put much blame on them either.

Also, Cript, it isn't retribution. It can't be, as retribution is giving back for something that already happened - this is about preventing something from happening or rather, protecting oneself from something who is about to happen. Unless, of course, it was you who believed "preemptive retribution".

Two words: raped ass. Rapex fails and probably causes more infections itself than rapes it prevents.

Anyway my point about rapex justifying all sorts of mangle-traps around your home and property stands. Why stop at rapist and penises? Booby-trap everything.

Burglar should have known better, i had a shot-gun trap primed.
Unfortunately the courts don't usually see it this way.

But, the burglar was doing something bad (breaking in) so it's justified to mutilate them, right? It prevented the burglary. The fact that there might have been other ways to prevent the burglary in no way makes this less justified, right?

There are many different reasons to be on somebody's house or land than burglary or crime. There are very few reasons to be in somebody's vagina, and the chances of they having a non-rape reason to be there and the woman haven't remembered to take it out is very, very small indeed.

[Criptfeind]

Agreement with Nadaka.

Also, we're not talking about a legal punishment here. If someone clawed or cut out an eye while trying to protect themselves from being raped, I wouldn't put much blame on them either.

Also, Cript, it isn't retribution. It can't be, as retribution is giving back for something that already happened - this is about preventing something from happening or rather, protecting oneself from something who is about to happen. Unless, of course, it was you who believed "preemptive retribution".

Actually. That was in fact me. And what the fuck are you saying? The penis mangler is not retribution. Of course not. I have said that before. My whole point stands on it.

[Frumple]

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?

[Criptfeind]

Ah. Sorry. It's just, I can't really remember the name of it very well. And Penis mangler sounds so much better.

[Reelya]

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?

[kaijyuu]

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).

[Scelly9]

Obviously, if the woman left the rapex in and it injured her gynecologist, she'd be at fault.

The thing can't break the skin. I seriously doubt it would be a big deal, even if he was shortsighted enough to stick his finger in it.

[kaijyuu]

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

[Criptfeind]

Reelya.

You need to learn, or at least acknowledge the difference in scale.

A gynecologist in danger? Really?

More importantly, rape is in a whole other level of crimes then burglary. Hell, burglary can be justified. Rape is always a terrifyingly evil action.