How to justifiably rape women
As we know, when someone attacks us, we can use violence for the purpose of exercising self defense. With or without a weapon. Violence in self defense, can lead to the death of the attacker and it would be justified in court. Meaning, we can end somebody's life. We can also induce heavy...
incels.is
Thanks for taking interest in my post wonderfull people.
I like arguing, and I'll argue back.
I am honored that my post has made somebody with an degree in law break down my post and offer a response. Unfortunately I do not posses means as to check if you really are a law school graduate, but for the purpose of this segment and the discussion I will assume you are.
Furthermore I make the claim that we have a responsibility to validate the assumptions and information we base our arguments on rather then to take them at face value.
Side note: By neccesity it is a signal for me that my post has some inherent value, causes an effect you would like to mitigate. Likewise I act and speak on behalf my beliefs. I'm a falibilist, I concede to the notion that I may not be right. Many IT members can't even say "yes" to the question "Do you find it propable that the polar opposite of your beliefs is true?"
I know well enough that self-defense and its legitimacy are determined by the scale of force, tools and practical manifestation it causes on the other. Same logic applies when people have potent arguments about slapping a streamer after he took a hat off from a bodybuilder (I'm refrencing Stable Ronaldo, who got smacked by Bradley Martin. )
So, what needs to happen in order for it to be justifiable? What sort of circumstance must happen, in order to have the law back you up?
I'll use myself as the subject.
What am I defend against?
In Poland as of now there is a build up of hostility against immigrants from the east, due to the Polish-Balerussian border and policies the government is introducing as well as their policy regarding migration, I can imagine a rcist foid wanting to attack me. I am defending against bodily harm.
In your second point, you say that in order to rape, you have to be in a position of power. Honestly this is only better for my case, if I am not in the position in power as I am attacked, then the natural consequence is I cannot rape , even if every action I perform normally constitutes the act we call with the word rape (the pararell to draw would be symetrical to a poc saying they cannot be racist only bigoted because in society the group they belong doesn't have a level of power)
The foid in question attacks me. Knife, some sort of chemical, maybe outright physically (she can be taller and stronger then me, I am after all 5'7). Most favourable scenario is with a weapon however.
In the struggle, I can rip her shirt off or take off a piece of her clothing. Seems reasonable (you american lawyers love that word) that when we're close we push, pull etc. Why wouldn't the court believe it was an accident? Same way, can't I place my hand on her chest to try and tackle her or get her away from me? Grabbing her tiddie and squeezing it to cause her pain (and bring myself sexual satifaction) so that she get my hand away and distracts herself (create a opportunity for myself to retaliate) is a explonation. My end goal afterall is to survive by any means necceserry (officially).
Do you agree people who are at isk of losing their lives should be able to defend themselves? Or are there situations in which methods available are unacceptable, and they must loose their life?
Moreso, would you try and downplay such asituation by asking why of all places I choose to perform an action like this? To try and insinuate a hidden agenda?
I can use my mouth to bite. Can I use my mouth to kiss her? Is this area sacred and I cannot aim for her mouth? If she is on me and still has her weapon, and I take a gamble with my own health for the purpose of achieving the end goal and do not rip the weapon from her hand (naturally I must try to convince the court I was unable or I was too weak, despite the material truth that I was able)
Lets dive deeper. How to penetrate said foid? How could I take off her panties? It would get weird, she maybe would get scared now and back off and that's when my claim is no longer valid (especially if she starts running). I agree.
However, does it matter if her motiff changed from wanting to attack me to now herself thinking she is losing and defending herself? The fight didn't end. Looks deceive. The event occuring has continuation where I am in the position of the victim from the standpoit of the observer. This graphic property is a + for my case.
In the case she stays and now for her own sake and belief she wants to neutralize me for her own safety (accordingly to her changed opinion), but to me and the outsiders she seems fanatical, no? I could mirror her view and it would still be indistinguishable from the very beginning. To me she still looks like she wants to harm me.
Tell, me if two things end in the same effect, are they not different? Couldn't I argue I was and felt like under threat?
Real life in no porno movie, no way in hell she would land on my erect dick. Which is the tricky part. Here the ideal is to wait for her to try and approach me with the intention of harming me, succesfully avoid the attack, succesfully tackle her AND put my dick in her pussy still without getting rid of her weapon. She MUST have her weapon. At best if she clinges to it from desperation.
I need a claim to continue. I need conditions that give me allowance. What I am saying is, some errors are a required must for a whole enterprise to stand. This is literally a deliberate and honest call to name a bug a feature. The threat must persist, to have a backing. This is how dictaroships persist. Fear, anger, frustration or material facts.
Insane and very impropable to do it. It is a gamble at my life.
This is why I do not expect anything like this happening very day. Considering only statistically, there is a chance it might happen once. No sane foid would choose to stay btw and fight on, lets be real here.
Point being. My whole post by virtue what topic it revolves around, is a mental exercise equal to "abhorrent" discussions in ethic's classes. What you find disgusting and horrible is the notion that the law has space to allow it.
tl;dr version:
I say: It is true, that rape can be justified. (here I also want to say, that I do not believe rape must be related to a position of power. That is not my belief. In order to criticize my beliefs, you are forced to first get to know it. I talk about an abstract and propose a method/way of justifying it. My take can be wrong, I accept that.)
You say: It is true, that rape is lawfully unjustifiable.
I'd like you too organize this in clasiccal notation.
1. Rape is lawfully unjustifiable
...
... [space for your premises, how many you want them to be]
...
Conclusion: Rape is unjustifiable.
I believe that if there are arguments that would justify rape, we should accept the situation and bend under the arguments and be subject towards truth. I think what Frederick Nietzsche writes in "Beyond Good and Evil" Chapter two: Free Spirit
If you don't have the right worldview, you don't have a right to education (which btw is a human right). Am I less human? I think a foid is part of a gender that can be found in humans. Same goes for men.
I think that regardless what you did in life, it should not hold you bak from trying to change yourself, be better. The stigma will be after you, true, but that's a problem with people (normies). I subscribe to falabilism. I am ready, if the counterarguments are presented, to verbalize that the blackpill is wrong.
Interestingly enough progressive spaces like IT are quick to forget every instance of rascism that happened in the past when a person among them has done it, because now the person is an ally and acts the right way etc.
When it comes to us, its not the case. We are eternally doomed to hell, no chance at rehabilitation, no second chances, nothing. Its like arguing with religiouscels about the afterlife. One thing to cross you out, unless you join their side while its still growing, then your "sins" are cleansed and you don't even have a responsibility to pay back for the evil you've done.
Ah yes. Common law. Best law system (sarcasm)
I live in Europe. We have Roman traditions.
quod lege non prohibitum, licitum est - what is not by law forbidden is allowed.
Nullum crime sine lege - no crime, no punishment without a previous penal law.
These and other parenthesis are used to build up the constitution and are source material for the grounding of democracy.
Morality
To get it out of the way, I don't think consent is the only ingredient allowing us to decide whether or not rape happened (consent means the person decides to, based on their freedom to decide about their body, to engage in sexual intercourse and gives us also autonomy to make moves without prior asking for everything)
If we left it to consent alone (freedom to decide about your own body), then we would not be able to discuss rape in terms of moral theory (ethics) we would shift towards relativism. In order to dicuss the morality of rape, we must make an assumption we can find an answer about it in ethics. Relativism blocks us from speaking about values, we are stepping right into moral anti-realism.
Person
The discussion about personhood can be traced all the way back to ancient greece. The etymology of the word stems from prosoponos, meaning a mask, something that you wear to play a role. Then it appeared in latin as -persona (which is why furries have their furrsonas)
The first greek philosopher who made an impact on it was Boeficius. To him personhood was a indyvidual substance of a conscious nature (he was an aristotlean, for Aristotle every human had a conscious soul). So, every human is a person, because very human has a counsciouss soul. For Aristotle a soul organized matter, it was considdered by him a substance and not something that goes into you.
Since foids as fertilized egg have mitosed in their mother's womb, speak, eat, have interests, walk, sing, suck chad's dick etc. In accordance to Boeficius's definition, unfortunetly a foid is a person.
Up until the 17th century when John Locke seperated humanity from being a person. To him, a person is somebody who has certain abilitites (which you can gain and loose). This way it is possible to speak of non-human persons, some say it about animals.
- Thinking
- Reflecting
- understanding
- rationality
Peter Singer thinks a person is where there is feeling of pain.
Merry Ann Waren thought it was counsciousness, communicating and mindfulness.
Baruch Broady thought it was the case when we have brain signals.
The basic argument
1. Foids are persons.
2. We have responsibilities before a person, like not killing them, or harming them etc.
Conclusion: Rape is a way of harming a person, so its immoral to do it.
But lets make an negation of the second premise, okay? We don't have responsibilitites before non-persons, such as not killing them or harming them.
This is an argument people make in regards to industrial farming, especially when it comes to getting meat. Aniamls are not persons, so we can kill them to get meat.
However there are people who say that we do have responsibilitites even to non-persons. For example, people argue we shouldn't cause animals pain (and the reason for their euthanization is oftentimes the pain of having to leave as disabled among their own and in their life). People who care about the enviroment also point towards worth of the beauty nature has inherently. The enviroment and the planet is not a person, but somehow moral responsibilitites towards the conservation of beauty is invoked.
And now, what about the second premise? Is it undeniable? Is it there no exception? When don't we have responsibilitites towards persons?
There is an exception.
Self-defense (which is also why I used self-defense as the main trope in my post)
We can kill and cause harm to another even if a person is on the receiving end. So as we can seetThere are exceptions to the second premise and that is why precisly self-defense is the best way to rape or sexually assoult women.
Another point to make is that beetwen the attacking foid and me there is a distinct relationship. We have hostility and our relationship is not the same we have towards a random dude or foid we pass on the street, or our family members. This is not the strongest point, I agree, but it opens up room for gradient that sets the act in a better context.
Rape on a foid just so is not mutual when conducted on a foid who is an attacker. Why? The analogy doesn't work by principle because of the different relantionship and situation we are in. As such, rape on a foid that attacks me, is an act executed when there are different material conditions present comapred to when I am the attacker.
Many of you in the comments will think reading this, that it was unnecessery to yapp so much, but those who are interested in truth, cohesion, practicality, logical integrity etc. You know all this text was necessery to arrive at such a simple statement.
Moral systems
What about an utilitarian standpoint?
Would a utylitarianist say, that if one person has sexual intercourse with a person who sleeps, and the consequences of this intercourse never have bad outcomes for the sleeping person, and said person will never find out about the situation (or that such situation ever happened) would that utilitarian argue the overall happiness in the world hasn't increased?
Jeremy Bentham would agree. As a hedonist, he would not see an issue in me somehow defending myself by the use of rape, as it would bring me happiness.
John Stuart Mill would focus on the aspect of increasing overall happiness in the world. In the case above, Mill would agree, as the overall happiness in the world increases, thanks to the fact the sleeping foid doesn't decrease it by not hurting.
However in the case of defending myself with rape, the overall happiness in the world would increase. Why? Because I have sucesfully defenended myself and people would be happy for me, whilst the attacking foid would get minimal copassion, as she was the one herself bringing the potential negatives of her behaviour.
Peter Singer? His preferential utilitarianism says that we should aim at decreasing and minimizing pain for all feeling beings. He would say I did wrong.
What about a deontologist approach?
I feel like IT might be coming from this philosophical position at the fiercest.
I will open with the following: The principle of double outcomes was formed in the medieval times on the grounds of a re-occuring predicament. When foids gave birth, sometimes the head of the newborn would get stuck beetwen the hip bones. In order to save the mother the head of the baby was crushed, otherwise the mother would die too with the baby. The question at that time was, is that permissable?
On the grounds of deontologism, no, as the person cannot be a mean to an end.
But, in deontologism INTENTION is very important. So long the person is not a mean to a goal, it is acceptable. The fact another person dies, is an unfortunate product. However in the whole act, the person never was a mean in the process, the act doesn't require them in the process, the effect of my act caused them to die.
Meaning, that so long my goal is to defend myself and my life, and my method (rape) is not a goal in itself but a method to safeguard my life, it is permissable and morally correct to rape the foid in self defense, because it just so happens she gets hurt.
Same thing applies to regualr violence in the case of necceserry defense. So long I aim to protect my life, if the other person dies, and it was only my intention to defend my life, on deontologist grounds I did nothing morally wrong.
Naturally, casual rape, where the man is the attacker and its his goal to rape, on grounds of deontolgism is morally wrong.
Problem of demarcation
The line which says divides those who still were in "self defense" using violence from those who eliminated the threat and themselves now could become the attacker if they went on with using violence is arbitrary.
Same way as in the video above I can imagine one thing, tiny even, switching my stance from the victim to the attacker. Be it that the foid in question was lying on the floor, maybe sitting, maybe I had one of her hands in grip, maybe she was on me but still I was in control and so on and so forth.
Whatever the case, its based on intuition majority of the times how we come to the conclusion that self defense turned to execution or revenge.
You cannot point down where self defense ends, and where it doesn't end unless the contrast in position person A and person B are in is strong. If the contrast is weak, it becomes very hard or impossible.
With enough public support or sophistry, I see no problem gaining enough support to extend the concept of self defense in order to integrate more situations and conditions so that it becomes easier to say, I was defending myself with the use of rape.
Tbh its a no man's land. What the victim has for themselves is proof they were atacked and that can function positivly for their verdict.
Last edited:
