And as that researcher goes on to point out (for the purposes of his own study, which are very specific), the populations in question include women using contraception, post-menopausal women, pre-menarche girls and women ...
A post-menopausal woman has a 0% risk of getting pregnant, whether consensually or otherwise. Ditto a woman with a successful tubal ligation, hysterectomy, etc. So how does that affect her entitlement to kill someone attempting to sexually assault her?
This simply means that women who do not fall into those categories are more likely to get pregnant. No one is entitled to kill an assailant, per se. What the woman has is a right to stop the assailant, by means which may prove fatal--provided, of course that such possibly fatal means are necessary.
Only women who know they are fertile - and of course are not pregnant at the time, or do not know that they are at a fertile point in their cycle - being assaulted by suspicious strangers, get to kill their assailants?
Gosh. How positively Victorian.
This is one of those techniques you pretend to despise when they are used against you--the false and leading question. I said no such thing. I implied no such thing. In fact, I explicitly took a contrary position--every woman, every man, indeed every human being has the right to use potentially deadly force to prevent rape. Not Victorian at all, is it?
I assure you, "less than 1%" is not "1 in 100 (or thereabouts)". Surely you knew that.
No trickery intended. If I read that less than 1 in 5 men has a certain condition in medical literature, I do not understand that to mean that the incidence could be zero, or even 1 in 1,000,000. Yes that is technically within the limits spelled out by the language--but it would be silly to say that when the doctor knows the actual number is 1 in 1,000,000. What I would understand is that it is close to but not quite 1 in 5. Otherwise the use of the number 5 is deceptive.
Obviously, the same would not be true in a reading of a mathematical journal, where I would read "less than 1 in 5" to be anywhere between 0 and .999999999999... in 5.
Let's say the odds are actually about 1/2 of 1% and the doctor pulled the less than 1% figure out of the air. Or let's say it's 1 in 1,000. So what? If a woman uses a gun or a baseball bat, or a butcher knife or anything else to stop a would be rapist, most of the rapists won't die. Most gunshot wounds aren't fatal. Ditto for bat strikes and stab wounds. I say let the predator take any and all risks.
(Incidentally, why would the doctor say the odds were less than 1% when they are actually more like "infinitesimal" say 1 in 100,000? Wouldn't a doctor want to give a rape victim the most comforting scientifically valid statistics available?)
a rapist’s well being is not worth a 1 in 100 (or thereabouts) chance that his victim will get AIDs{--TPaine7}
I assure you, "less than 1%" is not "1 in 100 (or thereabouts)". Surely you knew that.
I've had more than one STD. It's a rare person living the good life we lived in the late 60s and early 70s who hasn't. One or more might have come from the man who assaulted me. He was a suspicious stranger who very probably did have immediate homicidal intentions, but let's say I was assaulted by a fellow student one night in men's res. Many women were and are, of course.
Absolutely no immediate risk of death. Some minor risk of getting a treatable STD, or even an STD that would stay with me for life, like genital herpes. I get to kill him? Because I *might* get genital herpes? At the time, the risk of contracting HIV was zero. Today, that risk is infinitessimal. (In 2004, 58,000 people known to be living with HIV in a population of about 30 million in Canada; go ahead and multiply it for undiagnosed cases. But the chance of my fellow student being one of them isn't determined by a mathematical operation.) No need for any reasonable belief that this was a likely outcome?
This is an amazing piece of work. I already addressed the less than 1% chance issue.
Some people choose to engage in activities that could lead to their having STDs. That does not mean that when STDs are forced on them it's no big deal.
but let's say I was assaulted by a fellow student one night in men's res. Many women were and are, of course.
Absolutely no immediate risk of death. Some minor risk of getting a treatable STD, or even an STD that would stay with me for life, like genital herpes.
"Absolutely no immediate risk of death." Wow. A guy who is willing to rape you in a men's res is not a threat to kill you?!!! Really? Compare and contrast:
Yes, no cop should ever assume that anyone is not carrying a firearm, obviously. The fact is that with concealed carry permits, there are going to be people authorized to carry firearms who should not be. The fact that there plainly have been people issued permits who went on to kill cops, not to mention commit other crimes, is all the evidence needed. Any cop who didn't treat the holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm as just as much of a potential threat as anyone else with a gun would be nuts.
Source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x240256#240388Let's see:
A "gentleman" who has the physical strength to rape a woman (and thus almost certainly the physical strength to kill her) poses "absolutely no immediate risk of death." The fact that he has shown himself willing to rape her is not enough to put his sterling character in doubt.
A citizen who has submitted to training, fingerprinting, and licensing to obtain a permit to carry a weapon is a serious potential threat to a police officer.
So if a policewoman is on a date and her date tries to rape her (in a men's res, of course), she should be aware that he poses "absolutely no immediate risk of death" (or of serious bodily harm, which is part of the actual standard for potentially lethal self-defense)? But if she meets a CCW permit holder with a perfect record who shows no signs of aggression, she should be on her guard and be especially careful--or she's nuts.
:rofl:
What's the weather like under the gun control reality distortion field, iverglas?
And while we're at it, let's not pretend that the risk you're talking about is unique to women. In actual fact, there are situations in which men are at foreseeably much greater risk, like in prisons....
Since the sex of the victim is irrelevant, objections to the killing of the assailant by the victim are entirely unrelated to the sex of the victim, and are thus not susceptible to characterizations like "misogynistic".
This is worthy of Rush Limbaugh:
"Let's not pretend that the risk we're talking about is unique to women. Men get breast cancer, too. In actual fact, there are situations in which men are at foreseeably much greater risk, like in certain chemical plants...
Since the sex of the breast cancer victim is irrelevant, objections to the disparity in funding between prostate and breast cancer research is entirely unrelated to the sex of the victim, and are thus not susceptible to characterizations like "misogynistic."
The dittoheads would eat it up. I'm sure there are fans of the sophistic arts who are cheering you, too.
If you want to raise the health risks associated with sexual assault as justification for killing a person attempting to commit a sexual assault, then you have no choice but to acknowledge that the sex of the victim is irrelevant (at best, for you, since there are higher risks for SOME men than for MOST women).
:rofl:
Read that sentence carefully and slowly a few times, iverglas. I've highlighted some words to help you. Then see how many historical precedents you can find where SOME men were treated more harshly than MOST women. See if that means there was no misogyny. You astonish me.
But this may be my favorite:
You started quite some time ago trying to derail the discussion. No one asserting a "right" to kill someone in self-defence, where the assault in question was a sexual assault, had ever said anything about the health risks associated with sexual assault. No one ever, not any time the issue has arisen in this forum, which it has incessantly.
I raised a point that hadn't been raised before and this is disruptive to the discussion? You hadn't faced this argument on DU before, and that's not fair? Awwwww. Poor baby!
New arguments can be valid, iverglas, as hard as they may be for older minds to grasp. (You keep calling me Master, indicating that I'm very young--or other things which I won't mention--so I consider your age to be fair game, old woman). If arguments that have not been raised in the past cannot be raised in the future, how will progress occur? Wow. Do you call yourself progressive?
Of course you are a versatile sophist--you're almost always wrong in more than one way. You mischaracterize the right that an informed person would assert. It's not the right to kill someone in self-defense; it's the right to stop an assault using potentially lethal means when necessary. “Killing” is not the ultimate objective.
You'll probably get the last word. I don't have time for this. Hopefully, I've helped some people get an idea of how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
