The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it okay to kill your rapist?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
.... Did you not understand the links? He was found not guilty. It wasn't rape.


He was found not guilty by the CA after being convicted of rape.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I have never attempted to argue any definition. As I've said many times - I have no interest in debating the point. I merely wished to express my view that the statement I responded to was absurd.

In case it didn't get through to you, despite the 5+ times I've said it - I wont be debating this, because I simply don't want to have a debate about rape.


We're not having a debate. I'm explaining to you why a particular position you've taken is ridiculous. You have repeated throughout this thread that every rape is 'violent'. I just explained why that is a stupid thing to say. You may take that or leave it. There is no debate to be had.

Incidentally, for someone who isn't debating anything, you're posting an awful lot in this thread. I wonder exactly what you think you're achieving.
Original post by DiddyDec
He was found not guilty by the CA after being convicted of rape.


Yes. So it was overturned. Therefore, not a rape.
Reply 83
Avatar for AzimH
AzimH
5
I would rape my rapist.

Doesn't matter had sex.
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
My apologies; I didn't know you were aware of the law of self-defence. That being said, the comment you made ("Absolutely yes. I don't understand arguments against killing someone in self defence - you would rather just die or something as a matter of principle? Makes no sense to me") made me assume that you were not aware of such laws.

Furthermore, it has become apparent on this thread (not by you, of course) that knowledge of such laws is insufficient...


I meant more from a moral/ethical perspective. People who would not kill their attacker if they had the chance, because two wrongs do not make a right. Or because they would rather be raped/murdered than kill someone themselves. I don't understand these kinds of attitudes (not that I do not understand the premises, but that I don't understand why anyone would adopt this attitude).

I don't think you need to understand the law on self-defence to have an opinion on this though.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Well since you implore me, I guess I'll just have to agree with you.

You heard the sarcasm, right?


You're hilarious. Putting out your opinions but you don't want people to criticise them - and because you're either too lazy or too ignorant to respond you resort by employing some sarcastic behaviour to undermine what I and others have said.

Forgive me, I apologise. I was blind and now I see. You've enlightened me in ways that I couldn't have imagined.

I probably won't look at your reply. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response. :smile:
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
I wont be debating this, because I simply don't want to have a debate about rape.


Why are you assuming I'm a man? If you're so determined not to debate this or explain your position then perhaps you should just stop posting. I still don't understand why you quoted me in the first place, perhaps you didn't expect me to reply?
i don't blame her, she did well. And am sure her intention was not to kill him its called self defense. i would do the same if i were in her position!
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
We have different opinions then, and we won't reach any logical conclusion. As I have stated, rape is always violent due to the nature of the act, and any disagreement with that is born of rape-apology or stupidity.

I won't debate this. Have a nice night!


Lmao, this divisive bull**** is why it's hard to have a conversation in society about anything without someone trying to shut it down. The toxic attitude of "agree with me or you're ignorant/scum" is one of the worst ways to go about anything.

Non-violent rape: "all sex that is not physically violent, but still coerced". I shall assume you take consent laws into consideration, and I shall assume you take penetration laws into consideration. When you take both into consideration, you come to the conclusion that non-violent rape in the form of blackmail, coercion, or taking advantage of an individual who cannot consent (due to age or mental state e.g. too drunk) all count as rape, but not as violent.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Yes. So it was overturned. Therefore, not a rape.


But the fact is he was convicted at the time of rape, would you have considered it violent when he was convicted?
Original post by TimmonaPortella
We're not having a debate. I'm explaining to you why a particular position you've taken is ridiculous. You have repeated throughout this thread that every rape is 'violent'. I just explained why that is a stupid thing to say. You may take that or leave it. There is no debate to be had.

Incidentally, for someone who isn't debating anything, you're posting an awful lot in this thread. I wonder exactly what you think you're achieving.


Posting an awful lot because men won't stop talking to me, and insist on bothering me.

Have a nice night! Please don't message me again in this thread. Feel free in others though! :tongue:
It was not a right or good thing to do per say, but I'd say it's something that is completely permissible/justifiable given the circumstances.
Original post by Arkasia
Lmao, this divisive bull**** is why it's hard to have a conversation in society about anything without someone trying to shut it down. The toxic attitude of "agree with me or you're ignorant/scum" is one of the worst ways to go about anything.

Non-violent rape: "all sex that is not physically violent, but still coerced". I shall assume you take consent laws into consideration, and I shall assume you take penetration laws into consideration. When you take both into consideration, you come to the conclusion that non-violent rape in the form of blackmail, coercion, or taking advantage of an individual who cannot consent (due to age or mental state e.g. too drunk) all count as rape, but not as violent.


Not debating, thanks. Have a nice night.
Shan't be posting anymore in this thread, I'm bored of everyone who keeps trying to debate a point I've already said I won't debate.

Funny how you're all men, too. Have fun agreeing with each other.
Original post by DiddyDec
But the fact is he was convicted at the time of rape, would you have considered it violent when he was convicted?


Last reply to you, I'm bored of this.

IF he had actually raped her when she was ACTUALLY incapable of consent (it was held she was not incapable), then yes. But that's not what happened.

Bye!
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Funny how you're all men, too. Have fun agreeing with each other.


I'll ask for the second time, why are you assuming I'm a man?
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Not debating, thanks. Have a nice night.


As you wish, you too.

Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Shan't be posting anymore in this thread, I'm bored of everyone who keeps trying to debate a point I've already said I won't debate.

Funny how you're all men, too. Have fun agreeing with each other.


Just keep digging your hole, perhaps you can use that chip on your shoulder as the shovel.
Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons
Last reply to you, I'm bored of this.

IF he had actually raped her when she was ACTUALLY incapable of consent (it was held she was not incapable), then yes. But that's not what happened.

Bye!


Violent: using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

For future reference.
Original post by Snufkin
I'll ask for the second time, why are you assuming I'm a man?


Rule 37: There are no girls on the internet.
Original post by infairverona
I meant more from a moral/ethical perspective. People who would not kill their attacker if they had the chance, because two wrongs do not make a right. Or because they would rather be raped/murdered than kill someone themselves. I don't understand these kinds of attitudes (not that I do not understand the premises, but that I don't understand why anyone would adopt this attitude).

I don't think you need to understand the law on self-defence to have an opinion on this though.
Perhaps its because people have a personal hierarchy of "wrongs"; a threatening act should only be met with by an act from a corresponding or lower hierarchy. And perhaps since the threat to being killed is possibly on the highest tier of the hierarchy, it is often hard for the victim to accept that he should act as such, even though it would be morally acceptable to do so.

In a 3-person situation like that of the 12-year old Guatemalan boy who chose death over killing another (innocent) person, such an act would easier to explain. Whether or not this could translate into a 2-person is a different thing altogether.

Or maybe, if one leaves all the legal definitions and theories aside, it is that the victim does not want to be the same monster which his killer is.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you