Should a potential rape wictim be allowed to use deadly force?

[MoonWater]

Nice spin. Here let me try it.

It's only a spin if one is deliberately trying to alter the meaning of the opposing argument to something you know was not the actual intent. I was simply stating my personal understanding of your very long winded post. What else was I supposed to get out of "make an appeal to god" other than "pray and hope for the best". If you meant something else then please clarify for me so I can have a better understanding of what you are trying to say.

So essentially your saying the best way to deal with such a situation is to "kill mfs who you disagree with, because you have a short fuse and violence is best solution ever made." Lol, please :areyoucra



You forgot about the part in the parable, fitting in with your version of protection, where God sent a whole bunch of people after the helicopter came and one of them threw up a gun with 18,000 rounds of ammunition. Fortunately, there were exactly 18,000 people all around the house, and guy on top of the roof blew them all away. Shot them cold. They all stacked up and absorbed just enough water, that he was able to climb off the roof top and get to safety. All thanks to the gun and his use of force.

He later told God, thanks for telling me stories where violence is the answer. Some stupid people tried giving me a boat and a helicopter to get out of the situation in a non violent way, but I knew my God wouldn't do that. So, I intentionally waited for the gun to come, because that's what I was praying for, and you came through God. As always.

and where did I say violence is always the best answer. Nonviolent solutions are always preferable, however when faced with a violent attacker one will not have time to try and consider or way their options to try and find such. You literally have seconds, if that, to break free and get out of there. I will agree that nonviolent solutions are preferable, however they are not always practical, especially if one hopes to get out of a violent situation alive.

 

[Acim]

It's only a spin if one is deliberately trying to alter the meaning of the opposing argument to something you know was not the actual intent.

Hence the reason I said nice spin.

I was simply stating my personal understanding of your very long winded post. What else was I supposed to get out of "make an appeal to god" other than "pray and hope for the best". If you meant something else then please clarify for me so I can have a better understanding of what you are trying to say.

Previous post was clear. Do not spin it, and you'll have better understanding of what I said.

where did I say violence is always the best answer.

I don't think this is all you said. I was spinning to demonstrate how that can misrepresent a person's position.

I will agree that nonviolent solutions are preferable, however they are not always practical, especially if one hopes to get out of a violent situation alive.

I believe nonviolent solutions are more practical than violent solutions. As I said before, I wouldn't rule out an aggressive show of force, but is last resort and carries with it repercussions. This is not about blaming the victim and is about empowering individuals to effect a change that stands good chance of working before, during and after a physical attack. I believe both sides of debate are focussed on same thing, and ironically both sides think the other position is one of weakness. My position is violence exacerbates the problem, attempts to argue two wrongs can make for right, and is at best last resort that while it can lead to escape in physical way, can be 'killer inside' if justification for lethal force is sought before need arises.

 

[England my lionheart]

I say yes and if the rapist dies during or after an attack good riddance

 

[dawny0826]

We seem to have a member or two here that think it is better to be killed inside by allowing yourself to be raped than to use a gun in defense because it could kill the rapist.

I say the victim should use any means at their disposal to defend them selves up to and including killing the attacker.

What say you?

Heck to the yes, you should be able to defend yourself up to and inlcuding killing the attacker.

 

[Alceste]

Understood. The problem is many times the blame is put on the woman in those cases and they feel helpless. I am no counselor but if it were me it would be the last time it happened.

Many will think of the children but the fact is if he has not got control enough to stop with you he may not be able to stop himself with the kids (beating not sexual) so he professional needs help and I and the kids would not be there for him.

Yes, I think the sensible thing to do is kick an abusive partner to the curb the instant s/he tips his/her hand, but I am not going to judge people who believe in second chances. I tend to assume people don't change, but once in a while they do.

 

[Archer]

Yes, I think the sensible thing to do is kick an abusive partner to the curb the instant s/he tips his/her hand, but I am not going to judge people who believe in second chances. I tend to assume people don't change, but once in a while they do.

Well I never changed I just learned a little self control.

Especially when the judge told me he would lock me up for contempt if I stood in front of him again for assault (fighting).

 

[Acim]

Well I never changed I just learned a little self control.

You don't see that as profound change?

 

[Archer]

You don't see that as profound change?

My nature did not change only my actions. Control comes with temper and there are many things that can influence out temper.

I will and do react (though I am more proactive today) but the difference is the level I react at. Before I would simply not take it but now I let it build and if it continues for too long I do explode. The stripes are still there but better concealed.

 

[Acim]

My nature did not change only my actions. Control comes with temper and there are many things that can influence out temper.

I will and do react (though I am more proactive today) but the difference is the level I react at. Before I would simply not take it but now I let it build and if it continues for too long I do explode. The stripes are still there but better concealed.

The underlined part is where you cited difference and is where I think there is profound change. The rest is you saying you are prone to react if it gets to a point. That's true with vast majority, they might just not be as vocal about it as you are saying here. While true that your fuse may be shorter than many, it is profound change, I think, to acknowledge that your level of 'when to react' has changed.

Wouldn't you say before that the 'idea of levels' was essentially concealed before?. That you would fly off the handle, and set things 'right' as they happened, not caring about consequences to you or society, but just taking it as it came. Now, you take a step back, maybe two (or more), and have some concern for you, which translates into concern for others.

Self control is profound change. Awareness of letting it build is a change. That can be counter productive in the medium to long term, but it isn't too far, IMO, from 'letting it build' to 'let it simmer,' to eventually, 'let it dissipate.' That sort of self control is critical to conflict resolution, for surely jumping at chance to exercise violence is not helpful, even while there is mindset that says, it is helpful and might equals right.

 

[Archer]

The underlined part is where you cited difference and is where I think there is profound change. The rest is you saying you are prone to react if it gets to a point. That's true with vast majority, they might just not be as vocal about it as you are saying here. While true that your fuse may be shorter than many, it is profound change, I think, to acknowledge that your level of 'when to react' has changed.

Wouldn't you say before that the 'idea of levels' was essentially concealed before?. That you would fly off the handle, and set things 'right' as they happened, not caring about consequences to you or society, but just taking it as it came. Now, you take a step back, maybe two (or more), and have some concern for you, which translates into concern for others.

Self control is profound change. Awareness of letting it build is a change. That can be counter productive in the medium to long term, but it isn't too far, IMO, from 'letting it build' to 'let it simmer,' to eventually, 'let it dissipate.' That sort of self control is critical to conflict resolution, for surely jumping at chance to exercise violence is not helpful, even while there is mindset that says, it is helpful and might equals right.

While I disagree with nothing you said I think it should be for another thread. It would be a good one as well. Put a poll up there too. Can and do people really change or do they just maintain better control.

 

[MoonWater]

Hence the reason I said nice spin.



Previous post was clear. Do not spin it, and you'll have better understanding of what I said.

not with the horrible grammar, repetition, and run on sentences that you had. I simply told you how I understood what you said. If I misinterpreted it then you need to correct me and further clarify what you meant, otherwise we can't get anywhere in this debate. Again a spin is when you DELIBERATELY twist someone's words WHEN YOU KNOW they actually MEANT SOMETHING ELSE. I have no idea what else you could possibly mean by saying "make an appeal to god" other than "just pray and hope for the best". Since that is the only meaning I currently glean from it(and yes this is after going back and re-reading it) then it is not a spin to state that as my understanding of your words. Simply saying "your interpretation is wrong" won't tell me what interpretation I AM supposed to glean from your words.

To put it simply, when there is a misunderstanding both sides must be willing to discuss with eachother and explain themselves in order to reach a FULL understanding. If either side isn't willing to do that then the discussion cannot progress in any meaningful way. I am more than happy to fully explain myself and to try and understand what you feel you truly meant by your post. However, if your not willing to explain it to me and help me reach that understanding then we can go no further here and all I'm left with is my original interpretation.

I don't think this is all you said. I was spinning to demonstrate how that can misrepresent a person's position.

Except I already know how spinning can misrepresent a person's position and have already explained, twice now, how I was not trying to spin or misrepresent your position. I was simply stating how I understood it, which, in and of itself, is not "putting a spin" on something. Hence your spinning was entirely pointless.

I believe nonviolent solutions are more practical than violent solutions. As I said before, I wouldn't rule out an aggressive show of force, but is last resort and carries with it repercussions. This is not about blaming the victim and is about empowering individuals to effect a change that stands good chance of working before, during and after a physical attack. I believe both sides of debate are focused on same thing, and ironically both sides think the other position is one of weakness. My position is violence exacerbates the problem, attempts to argue two wrongs can make for right, and is at best last resort that while it can lead to escape in physical way, can be 'killer inside' if justification for lethal force is sought before need arises.

okay, this I understand and actually agree with for the most part. I'm not saying that one will not suffer any consequences for using violence as a solution. Of course there will be consequences. However the non-violent side also presents consequences as well. It may very well exacerbate the problem but sometimes it's the only solution you have if you want to survive the encounter. Yes ideally it would be used as a very last resort but one must also take into account instinct and the will to survive. I don't know about you but I know if myself or my loved ones were being attacked my first instinct would be to fight back. However I would never advocate the idea of "kicking someone when they are down". The kind of fighting back I advocate is to do what you need to do in order to break free from them and as soon as you have an opening you get the heck out of there.

You advocate nonviolent solutions, so can you give an example of how one could solve such a situation without resorting to at least a few kicks and punches in order to get away?

I know you already gave the idea of "appealing to god" but since I'm still trying to understand what you meant by all that I'm not going to count it as an example at this time.

 

[Archer]

I know you already gave the idea of "appealing to god" but since I'm still trying to understand what you meant by all that I'm not going to count it as an example at this time.

I agree with your entire post but this I want to add to if I may.

The Jews appealed to God and they were slaughtered by the millions.

The Muslims appealed to god and it got them about as far.

The Christians appealed to God but it did not slow the "Black Death".

Appealing to God for his mercy and protection shows reverence and respect, asking for his hand to guide you as you attempt to deal with a situation shows faith.

What I mean by that is man and nature are the tools. God can not save you if you are unwilling to act.

 

[MoonWater]

I agree with your entire post but this I want to add to if I may.

The Jews appealed to God and they were slaughtered by the millions.

The Muslims appealed to god and it got them about as far.

The Christians appealed to God but it did not slow the "Black Death".

Appealing to God for his mercy and protection shows reverence and respect, asking for his hand to guide you as you attempt to deal with a situation shows faith.

What I mean by that is man and nature are the tools. God can not save you if you are unwilling to act.

I agree 100%. Hence why I made the point earlier that god's intervention, for all we know, could simply amount to giving us the means to defend ourselves. In fact I believe that would be her primary method of intervening.

 

[MoonWater]

Hey Acim a quick question that may help clarify something. What exactly are you think of or considering when think about the idea of solving the problem of a rapist with violence? Are you solely referring to the idea of killing the person? Would you consider spraying someone with a can mace and/or kneeing the guy between the legs then running away and screaming for help "ending it violently"? Would you consider breaking the attacker's arm in order to get free and run away "ending it violently"? Basically how far would the person have to go or how much damage would have to be done in order for the solution to fall under the category of "violent solutions" in your eyes?

 

[Acim]

not with the horrible grammar, repetition, and run on sentences that you had.

It had none of this, or very very little of this. Be glad to go line by line if you really feel differently.

I simply told you how I understood what you said. If I misinterpreted it then you need to correct me and further clarify what you meant, otherwise we can't get anywhere in this debate.

Then we might not get anywhere in this debate because of your stubbornness. The previous post was clear, and you spun it to say something that was misrepresenting the position.

Again a spin is when you DELIBERATELY twist someone's words WHEN YOU KNOW they actually MEANT SOMETHING ELSE.

Yes, this is what you did.

I have no idea what else you could possibly mean by saying "make an appeal to god" other than "just pray and hope for the best".

Well, I'll take lines from the previous post, not change them at all, and hopefully this time you'll have better understanding.

I do ultimately think an appeal to God / Inner Spirit is something to at least consider if that situation ought to present itself. The alternatives to fighting, for a rape victim becomes matter of psychology. Akin to presenting front where victim is like, "yes, I absolutely want this to happen" only to enable sense of control and then create outlet in opportune time later on. That would be alternative option. I do think there are other options, where God doesn't even need to be considered and could lead to escape / resolution.

I do think appeal to God would lead to invisible transaction which would potentially be made visible where rapist is 'suddenly not into it.' Not magically apologetic and wanting to seek redemption and light a candle vigil. But something realistic where rapist say vents anger on inanimate object, or two, and leaves situation on his (or her) own volition. This may happen without victim making the appeal, but I think a plausible defense mechanism would be this sort of appeal. And I think the more genuine it is, the more conviction it has, the better the chance of success. If say thought is, well I have that gun in the drawer downstairs, so just need to get to that, so I can plug this person with a few rounds to his chest, but in meantime, I'll appeal to God, in short order. Wait 3 seconds, oh well, that didn't work, so now violence is my only resort -- this to me would be poor way of appealing to God. And reality would show that mind was already made up, God will be ineffective while gun in drawer will be effective.

One may realize that there is possibly several solutions that could resolve the situation, and in general there is the one that says, "violence of some sort here is answer," and one that understands, "this doesn't need to end violently, and I am empowered to effect that sort of change."

Since that is the only meaning I currently glean from it(and yes this is after going back and re-reading it) then it is not a spin to state that as my understanding of your words.

It is spin still, especially if adding in "are you crazy" smiley. It is mocking the position, which apparently you think you understand, and then want to minimize with language of a few choice words, followed by "lol, please."

Simply saying "your interpretation is wrong" won't tell me what interpretation I AM supposed to glean from your words.

"this doesn't need to end violently, and I am empowered to effect that sort of change."

... is direct quote that gives pretty clear indication of meaning the post was getting across. I would say this sort of meaning is stated in several ways in that post.

To put it simply, when there is a misunderstanding both sides must be willing to discuss with eachother and explain themselves in order to reach a FULL understanding.

Even when one has ridiculed your position with "lol, please, are you crazy?" And then deal with person who is denying THAT is spin? Really? Really, really?

When, I did the spin they back to you, you seemed to grab right away how that was me spinning your words to mean something other than what you stated, while I pretty much just used same words you used.

If either side isn't willing to do that then the discussion cannot progress in any meaningful way.

Yes, I am feeling that.

I am more than happy to fully explain myself and to try and understand what you feel you truly meant by your post.

"Lol, please" doesn't indicate willingness to understand, and is more like, "my mind is made up, you are a lunatic if this is all you have to say on the subject."

However, if your not willing to explain it to me and help me reach that understanding then we can go no further here and all I'm left with is my original interpretation.

And I'm left with impression that you misrepresented in way that was demeaning and not seeking understanding, but seeking to ridicule instead. Sorry if I don't display hunky dory attitude to jump right in and explain further so you can plausibly ridicule more based on lack of understanding on your part.

You advocate nonviolent solutions, so can you give an example of how one could solve such a situation without resorting to at least a few kicks and punches in order to get away?

I did in the previous post.

I know you already gave the idea of "appealing to god" but since I'm still trying to understand what you meant by all that I'm not going to count it as an example at this time.

And this bottom line from you tells me you did have your mind made up. And didn't read the non-violent alternative I gave in that previous post, or skipped over it.

Appealing to God can mean many things, and I believe I gave 2 examples in previous post. The general idea I was conveying is, a person may appeal to 'threat of violence' in the situation. They may say (to themselves, which incidentally God will hear), "I have that gun in the drawer. I just need to get to that. This is my solution." That is appeal to violent resolution. Appeal to God, incidentally, might include that "gun in drawer" thing, but IMX and understanding, that would easily be last resort. Appeal to God, would, in general terms, be appeal to non violence. It would be akin to awareness / thoughts that say (to one's self, could be very quickly), "God is in control of this situation, I trust God will help me in this situation, help me find peace, and way to resolve this situation with idea that no one, including me, needs to get hurt / experience pain. I will put my full trust in this understanding, and stay mindful of ways to resolve this situation, with confidence and sense of firmly standing up for myself." Perhaps that's "too many words," and so a shorter version would, very likely work.

I do believe such an appeal could lead to many "wondrous" things, like something that would severely distract an attacker, or make them appear to step back and reconsider their course. Dealing here with only hypothetical notions, I can see denying the wondrous, but when put to the test, and dealing with reality, I believe the hypothetical items that amount to denial wouldn't hold up. Especially if the appeal is made with confidence and not wavering.

Hope this helps further explain things. If not, and if truly willing to seek understanding, feel free to ask again. If responding with ridicule or superlative that minimizes things, do not be overly surprise if I conclude with, "you're spinning."

 

[Acim]

Hey Acim a quick question that may help clarify something. What exactly are you think of or considering when think about the idea of solving the problem of a rapist with violence? Are you solely referring to the idea of killing the person?

No, not solely the idea of killing.

Would you consider spraying someone with a can mace and/or kneeing the guy between the legs then running away and screaming for help "ending it violently"?

Yes. Anything intended to cause harm would be act of violence.

Would you consider breaking the attacker's arm in order to get free and run away "ending it violently"?

I believe I've answered this.

Basically how far would the person have to go or how much damage would have to be done in order for the solution to fall under the category of "violent solutions" in your eyes?

I believe I've answered this.

I'll be clear with regards to this post, and this thread. I do feel my other 4 or so posts in this thread are clear. And I'm not sure if I'm about to say anything different, though am compelled to reiterate certain points.

In my understanding of things, one is 'okay' to respond violently, as means to get out of the situation. If I stated this 47 times, I think it would possibly be missed, because unless you stick to this position, as 'best option,' you might get painted as something that is akin to 'rapist apologist.' And yet, as one can see, I'm not shy about my position, and instead am pretty assertive, even while it has been said to me both on this thread and in PM the following:

Hmmm, was going to do quote, but I see it has been edited. Let's just say that one tactic that has been employed by one who vehemently disagrees with me on this thread is publicly hoping I experience violent rape, so I might understand a little bit better, how realistic the stakes are. Apparently said out of anger, and designed to intimidate not just me (which it really didn't), but to intimidate the position of non violence.

Why is self defense weakness? This isn't simple to accept, and thus intellectually, it may not be grasped. In fact, I would say I still have some active resistance myself to the notion. But when explored honestly, and apart from thinking of this world (a la via meditation, contemplation, introspection), it becomes apparent that the lies we tell ourselves around self defense do not hold up to "that which knows (us) better."

The reason self defense is weakness, is you demonstrate, first with your thoughts, then with you actions (and maybe with your words), what you are seeing as valuable. If you truly grasp that part, the rest of it will likely fall into place in terms of understanding. We think, in self defense, that we are protecting our life, or the life of one's we love. And we think we see that life in bodies. Yet, we put ourselves (and loved ones) into harm's way by our defense, which when looked at directly, honestly, and not hiding behind veil of arrogance, is actually (very clearly) an offense, intended to destroy that which we say / think we are protecting. IOW, we tip our hand and make it clear to a certain element that we have a vulnerability, and it is there for the taking.

We think that this "certain element," is outside of us, as is depiction of logic on this thread. But that element is within us, and it has EVERYTHING to do with what we give allegiance to. This element within us, holds conviction in idea that existence of life is under ongoing threat for survival. This is not God (Self), nor is this Life, nor does it offer protection. It offers death, destruction and guilt. An appeal to it, is an appeal to insanity. It guarantees that if the rapists comes to do what rapist come to do, you will be hurt, and you will die inside.

This element within, is all too glad that you have publicly and assertively said you will side with it, when push comes to shove. Reality is, you don't know yourself well enough to know you will do this, but the seed has been planted, and the message put forth. Come hell or high water, the appeal to violence and 'self defense' will be sought first and reasonable questions asked later.

The sane defense is forgiveness, and like most things spiritual at esoteric level, this isn't willy nilly forgiveness that you say in words, cross your fingers, click your heels together and hope stuff works. This is forgiveness at level where fundamental error is made, hint hint, it ain't outside of you. It never was, and never will be. You are not asked to forgive another for wrong they are doing, may do, or have done. That has merits, but is not what actual forgiveness is about.

Therefore forgiving the rapist is not what this is about, nor will it ever be about that at fundamental level. You forgive yourself, for thinking life is in need of YOUR defense, for thinking truth is in need of YOUR defense, and for thinking freedom, innocence and love are in need of YOUR defense or protection. You no longer appeal to your version of protection, because if we are being blunt and honest, your defense is insane and is ineffective in resolving matters with long term responsibility in mind.

Forgiveness is only defense you can invoke that isn't also a double edged sword. It does work wonders. And in the way it does work, thoughts matter far more than words which may attempt to conceal honest convictions. You appeal to God (or Self that is realized, to whatever degree you understand that, within) and you are asking for your Innocence to be your protection, while also asking one who does know how the outcome will be manifest. This leads to confidence and peace.

If this strikes you as airy fairy nonsense, then put this aside, and go with what you honestly feel works. If this instead strikes you as "worth consideration," then go within and make peace with this understanding before hypothetical mumbo jumbo arises and be prepared to make appeal in way that will carry conviction, rather than be met with self doubt.

 

[Otherright]

I believe nonviolent solutions are more practical than violent solutions. As I said before, I wouldn't rule out an aggressive show of force, but is last resort and carries with it repercussions.

Explain this to the person assaulting you. I'm sure they'll agree.

Yes, in an argument, diplomacy is always the best option and when it fails, simply part ways. In an attack, you have no option for diplomacy.

As, you are probably aware in some of my other posts, I've been involved in marital arts of one form or another most of my life. I teach diplomacy and compromise in arguments. In physical confrontation, I teach fast resolution. It is genuinely the only option you have.

Now, the approach you take can vary in the degree of violence. Jiujitsu or Aikido are both very effective methods to end violence without throwing a punch. The techniques employed in Krav Maga or boxing, however, are the most efficient.

 

[Otherright]

Any Kotegaeshi will do the trick when done right. See video. I remember the first time partner at the gym put me in kotegaeshi, I literally landed in the shoes. Aikido practice leaves your joints horribly sore the next day, but it is fun. And, he didn't even throw a punch. Oh, and don't try this at home at full speed, you can easily break your partner's wrist.

[youtube]HB01hhonf8Q[/youtube]
Aikido Basic Techniques : Munetsuki Kotegaeshi - YouTube

 

[Acim]

As, you are probably aware in some of my other posts, I've been involved in marital arts of one form or another most of my life. I teach diplomacy and compromise in arguments. In physical confrontation, I teach fast resolution. It is genuinely the only option you have.

Now, the approach you take can vary in the degree of violence. Jiujitsu or Aikido are both very effective methods to end violence without throwing a punch. The techniques employed in Krav Maga or boxing, however, are the most efficient.

FWIW, I've taken 3 forms of martial arts in my life. None in last 10 years, 2 when over the age of 16. I understand the effectiveness of these methods, as I do understand effectiveness of various physical objects as weapons.

None of this, for me, takes away from anything I said in previous two posts to this one.

 

[Otherright]

FWIW, I've taken 3 forms of martial arts in my life. None in last 10 years, 2 when over the age of 16. I understand the effectiveness of these methods, as I do understand effectiveness of various physical objects as weapons.

None of this, for me, takes away from anything I said in previous two posts to this one.

Really? What did you take? I started at 12 and am still somewhat practicing. I help train MMA fighters and do some self defense classes. I've studied Tae Kwon Do, tang su do, Kung fu. I boxed in college. Afterward, I studied Krav Maga. I still study Jiujitsu and Aikido.

What about my reply above this one?