Please describe a scenario in which raping someone is a legitimate means to avoid being raped.
And please do explain why one would have to rape to avoid being raped.
Dumbest logic I've ever heard in my long life. Using rape as an example in this situation? wut?
ok, you just equated killing in self-defense to raping your way to safety...? wha.?
You all focus on the
circumstances instead of the
action resulting from it. The circumstances can be anything and still lead to the same action. You all have in mind multiples circumstantial possibility in which you think you would kill someone to protect yourself or your family, but you have a hard time imagining any circumstances in which you could be force to rape someone to avoid be rape yourself? wow...
What about this as a circumstances... a criminal threaten you at gunpoint and ask you to rape someone else you know or not, if you refuse to act, he will rape you. What choice would you make then?
I'm pretty sure all of you here will say they prefer being rape than rape someone else even if force to do so. The reason you will give is, rape by principle is bad and also you will not harm, rape somebody who didn't "deserve it". The question is, can you imagine a single scenario where somebody could "deserve" to be rape (as a punition)? I'm sure not and the reason will be rape accomplish nothing for the rapist.
I'm also sure you would argue that killing in self defense accomplish something for the killer by saving his live. You will be right about that but I will then have to come to the conclusion that the aversion about the act of raping, as a moral principle is not enough for you, he also cannot accomplish anything relevant for you, because you know, you cannot "raping your way to safety"... killing, on the other hand... and that will be my point!
For you, raping, killing is not by principle unmoral and off limits as long as you can benefit from it, right? you cannot "raping your way to safety"? you will
never rape somebody then. You can "killing your way to safety"? no problem then, you
ready and
willing to kill.
You have no moral limits? for your benefit you ready to do
ANYTHING? No wonder then Hiroshima and Nagazaki, Everything goes as long as it benefit the doers. How could you stand then and criticize Saddam, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin... They not just like you? men ready and willing to do what they have to do for their own benefit? I may ad to the list Truman, Napoleon, Alexander of Macedon, Hernan Cortes and Columbus but I'm sure they already have their defense force ready in this thread.
it's a naive point of view. if someone was threatening to kill your child, had your child and was about to inflict a killing blow your views would change...
No, not my view, but maybe I will act in a way I didn't anticipate and be haunted by my action the rest of my life. Ultimately, I can't control my reflex but I'm sure I know what I don't want my reflex to make me do.
"Everyone doesn't think exactly like me and share my sensibilities!" has been a common complaint throughout the ages. You're just going to have to learn to cope with the fact that you don't live in fantasy land where there's no violence and everything is wonderful...
Yes you right, I should be ashamed to not think like a potential willing killer, my bad... but I'm not. I don't call
any military member "hero" and I don't call a child who don't want to fight in school a coward also.
SuWedi has read too many Batman comics.
Or I just choose to see the world as it should be and not at it is and join the pack mindlessly...
Please don't bring a child into this world that you're not willing to protect.
I have a child and so far he's been doing quite alright for himself, thank you.
