Some “experts” say that women should pee their pants or puke to avoid rape. Are they serious? Guns are better. Don’t pee your pants; make your wannabe rapist pee his pants.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayJune 20th, 2013 |
 24 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The “Progressive” elite do indeed say such, demented, things as women should urinate or vomit to prevent rape – as if such things can be done at will, and as if a rapist would not respond by beating the woman to death.
In Sweden the “Progressive” elite have gone one step further – woman should get used to rape. That all cultures are equal (if the culture of certain newcomers has a different view of women – Swedish women must adjust to the “new reality”). And that humans are not beings anyway – they (we) can not really choose between good and evil (and good and evil are not objective), “society” makes us do things……..
End result – light (if any) punishment for rape.
And no clear definition of what rape is – remember “consent” is ……
All these philosophical elements are present in other Western nations – not just Sweden(they have just gone further there).
Makes me wonder why they went after Julian Assange then, given the triviality of the case. Things that make you go “hmmmm”
Indeed – there’s a reason that the Colt .45 was known as “The Equalizer”.
There’s a group in Texas, the Armed Citizen Project, that gives away free guns and training. At one point I noticed them offering a “Rape Prevention Kit” that consisted of a 12ga shotgun and some ammo. No attacker is going to be feeling very rapey after that.
What as Julian Assange got to do with anything? Light punishment for rape is a Muslim thing and not acceptable in a civilized society. As a brother, son and husband I’d beat the living shit out of any sob stupid enough to attack a female member of my family. And if I can’t do it without getting caught, I’ll go with a jury of my peers. To get to your point, what Julian did was not trivial. What makes me go ‘hmmmm’ is the Progressive Liberal destruction of decent society.
What four words do rapests fear most? “Stop or I’ll shoot.”
There’s still some sanity left in the world:
Some “experts” say that women should pee their pants or puke to avoid rape. Are they serious? Guns are better. Don’t pee your pants; make your wannabe rapist pee his pants.
True words. I wish women had the opportunity to follow that advice in this country.
I think it perfectly plausible that a bit of pant-peeing or puking might deter some of the more delicate and sensitive rapists, if you can do it to order. But not all – after all, drunken sex not infrequently involves a bit of pee or puke anyway, so yucky stuff can’t deter everybody. “Date rape” must be knee-deep in pee and puke already. Plus I’m a bit hazy on progressive rape theory these days – at once stage we were invited to believe rape had nothing to do with sex, it was all about power and violence. So why would people who think that, think pant peeing would be a good deterrent ? As Mr Marks says, one can do all sorts of powery violent stuff without going near the pants.
So I agree guns would work better, and not just for rape. But though I buy the idea that the government and the police are terrifying people to have a monopoly of firepower, I’m nearly as terrified of letting millions of my fellow citizens have guns. I find them scary enough unarmed. So, I’m a bit of a Samizdata dissident on guns. I think only me, and people as sensible and responsible as me, should be allowed guns. Unfortunately I’m struggling to come up with a statutory definition that wouldn’t come across as a little self serving.
Incidentally, on the subject of armed women, I watched a couple of episodes of Two and a Half Men recently (the proper old one with Charlie Sheen.) In one episode, Alan was at the door of a girlfriend who had another man in her flat and she was keen that Alan bugger off before the other guy spotted him. So she tasered him in the lobby. In the other episode, a mother and daughter were in coffee shop and Jake took a fancy to the daughter. Charlie volunteered to act as wingman, so he went over and tried to butter them up. The mother asked him politely to go away and leave them in peace, twice, and at the third time of asking, she pepper sprayed him. Both incidents were highly amusing. But I can’t help feeling that a similar level of violence meted out by a man on a woman, on the provocation of no more than simply wanting to end an unwelcome conversation, would be much harder to make into a joke that people would genuinely laugh at. Things must have changed since Punch and Judy.
(Incidentally – on the show they bleep out “bitch” as in “son of a bitch.” But they don’t bleep out vagina and penis. Huh ?)
What Julian Assange did was bed a woman who had (perhaps) morning-after regrets, though not enough to avoid hanging around with him later, so yes, what Julian did was most certainly trivial.
But the four words Julian Assange heard were something along the lines of “See you tomorrow Julian”. You really should read up on the case.
In respect of rape, socialists have at times approved of it as a tactic, e.g Eastern Europe 1945. Look at this clip, reportedly filmed near the German/Czechoslovak border at the war’s end, a German women victim of brutality it seems, beaten and dazed. Many Sudeten Germans fared worse, and many women in eastern Germany too, a scenario repeated probably a million times over. Sweden is not yet so bad.
Here’s the thing, Lee: I’ve seen back of an envelope estimates from defence attorneys that somewhere between 20% and 50% of modern day rape convictions are flawed, with the most common cause of the false claim being that the “victim” (often drunk) found it easier to lie than to admit the truth to an abusive partner. Apparently the odds are stacked terribly heavily against the defendant in such cases, with political pressure to increase the conviction rate and (in England, as I understand it) the abolition of the double jeopardy rule.
In contrast, neither I nor any of my friends who routinely carry a firearm have ever got drunk and shot anybody. Further, I would suggest that even those who might find it convenient to make a false accusation would balk at pulling the trigger on another human being.
There’s a tenuous argument to be made that, if more people carried guns, then not only would incidences of actual rape be reduced but also the agents of the state would have fewer opportunities to destroy the innocent in pursuit of a political agenda.
@ Lee: The thought of say, 11,000,000 armed Labour voters, all stupid or vicious enough to have voted as they did, might be more scary than them unarmed, but they have no monopoly on stupidity or evil. Football fans, late-night drunks, some Cabinet Ministers past or present, just plain nutters all would be a concern if armed. Perhaps no one in receipt of benefits, a convicted felon or in a State-funded job should be armed. But, did someone not say, an armed society is a polite society.
Lee Moore, carrying a gun is very sobering: because the consequences of being foolish or losing your temper can be drastic – and not just for the shootee – one becomes very careful not to do either one.
I’m sure carrying a gun is very sobering, for some people. But there are other people. Here’s an example plucked at random from google in the eight seconds that I chose to devote to the task
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-shot-muggers-refuses-give-iphone-article-1.1012734
My point is that some people will make responsible gun owners and some will not. I am happy for the former to be armed and the latter not. I have no idea how to achieve such discrimination in practice.
other rob – I’m sure having an armed population would reduce the incidence of rape and a lot of other crimes. Probably at the cost of a higher murder rate and death by accidental shooting rate (unless someone could think of a way of achieving the discrimination that I would like, in which cases the pros might be achieved without the cons.)
Lee Moore – have you been drinking? You put forward a case in which a repeat felon (already barred from legally owning a firearm) uses an illegally obtained handgun in the commission of a crime against an unarmed victim and, astoundingly, claim that this demonstrates a clear and pressing reason to disarm yet more potential victims. Consider my mind to be well and truly boggled!
As for the rest, you make unfounded assumptions. Have you ever lived in an area where most people own guns? Or analyzed the UCR statistics? (hint: I have done both and still do) while failing to respond to an important subtext of this discussion, namely the way in which the politicization of rape has led to egregious abuses of prosecutorial power while furthering the victimisation of physically weaker people in order to preserve the power of the state.
No, I’m sober as a judge. My last post was a response to PersonfromPorlock’s suggestion that carrying a gun induced sober and responsible behaviour with the gun. To which my answer was perhaps, but not in all cases. (I produced a counter example of irresponsible gun possession and use. For this purpose the legality is irrelevant.)
You may have missed my larger point. Which is that the world would be a better place if nice good responsible people were armed and nasty bad irresponsible people were not. I have already stated that I do not know how to achieve this in practice. For, amongst other things, even if nasty bad irresponsible people are banned from having guns, they may be able to get hold of them illegally. How easily , and at what risk, will depend on the circumstances.
But as regards the example I selected, you seem to be no keener than I am on the perp in question being armed. Your grounds for discrimination (and the state in question’s grounds for discrimination ) relate to previous felony convictions. Fine. Previous felony convictions would certainly figure in my grounds for discrimination too, if and when i get round to codifing them. But, probably, so would youth, mental illness, drug use and several others that may come to mind later. Such as not having passed your gun driving test. These may not figure in your grounds for discrimination, but it’s not obvious to me that you dissent from my central proposition, that wise discrimination in gun possession is liable to make the world a happier place.
Note that I am not talking about rights and liberties. It may be illiberal to forbid man who has committed no crime from carrying a gun, but whether it is or not, the question of whether, armed, he poses an unreasonable threat to law abiding folk is a different one.
As for me wanting to disarm more potential victims, it depends on what country you’re in to start with. Maybe my criteria (when drafted) would let say 75% of adults carry a gun if they chose. So I would be disarming a few Americans. But I would be arming a few Brits.
Forgive me if I do not respond to the politicisation of rape aspect, other than to say that it, and rape, are amongst the many bad things that we could happily have less of.
Lee,
As you say, discriminating between the good people and the bad is an impossible task. It therefore comes down to this: Are we better off in a society where being armed is largely seen as a right, or one in which it is largely seen as prohibited? One must take into account that in the former case, accidents will happen, but that in the latter, criminals will be armed irrespective of the prohibition.
In a disarmed society, I may find myself attacked by someone twice my size, or half my age. I may be outnumbered, or I may be an unarmed person facing an assailant with a knife. I may be a sedentary person, and my assailant may be well trained or simply accustomed to violence.
In all these circumstances, quite simply, I lose. In all likelihood, my assailant has chosen me because I look like I’ll be easy for him to defeat, so the odds are that one or more of the above will apply.
In an armed society I run a greater risk of my neighbour irresponsibly or accidentally harming me. However, I would point out that even in the United States, which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, you’re almost three times as likely to die in a road accident as you are to be killed by someone else’s firearm. However, that figure includes murder-by-firearm. If this is removed and only accidents are counted, you’re over 35 times more likely to die on the road. This, in a country with a good road safety record.
The most common way to be killed by a gun is by your own hand. Nearly 20,000 people in the U.S. killed themselves with a gun last year. However, there I would point out that the suicide rates (per head of population) are almost identical in the U.S. and the UK, both of which are solidly mid-table in this respect.
~R~
Lee Moore,
Are you trolling? the other rob makes a good point about crime and violence have gone down in areas that saw increased ownership of guns (see the statistics that he cites). Meanwhile your statement that “I’m nearly as terrified of letting millions of my fellow citizens have guns. I find them scary enough unarmed. So, I’m a bit of a Samizdata dissident on guns. I think only me, and people as sensible and responsible as me, should be allowed guns. Unfortunately I’m struggling to come up with a statutory definition that wouldn’t come across as a little self serving.”
I think you should perhaps face your fears, maybe seek counseling, because who are you to arbitrarily restrict others for your own comfort and convenience? “people as sensible and responsible as me” makes you sound both less than sensible, and irresponsible – this is statism, where the ‘enlightened’ like you decide what’s best for others. And of course, any statutory definition, no matter how harmless, would be politicized and more restrictive in short order – but that’s the point of such a rule, isn’t it?
Just to note that Lee wrote,
And then,
Given the whole tenor of the comment at 6:54 p.m., 6/20, in which the quote appears: If this isn’t a (successful!) attempt to state a fact of his emotions and to poke fun at their incongruity with logic and messy reality, I don’t know what is.
I think logic and the factual record both refute Lee’s fears, at least in societies where aggressive violence is a well-established evil; but for goodness sakes, lighten up!
Julie quite correctly points out the (rather well done) somewhat humorous elements of Lee’s post. I’ve complimented him on similar, in the past and (as she says) it’s certainly no reason to pile on him.
My initial beef was with Lee’s very poor choice of counter-example to PfP’s point. But matters have progressed from there. Lee wrote, in response:
While I’m never keen on any person bent upon initiating violence being better armed than I, he misunderstands my position. As RogerC points out, very eloquently, gun restrictions are a functional fiction. Lee’s own example confirms this. Further, there are thousands of people with felony convictions in the USA who are unjustly barred from owning a firearm, even though the law permits them to, because congress refuses, every year, to fund the means for them to reacquire “permission” (or whatever bureaucratic nonsense). If pressed, I would prefer no restrictions over restrictions which must necessarily be always unjust and unenforceable.
Lee – you present as arguing for some means of discrimination whereby only “good people” should be permitted guns, while “bad people” will be denied them. As this is patently unattainable nonsense, I must wonder whether you are, in fact, arguing for regulation (any regulation) in anticipation that the inevitable function creep will achieve the goal of universal disarmament; gradually and by stages. As I watched happen in England, before I followed the example of a man named Crockett and said “You may all go to hell, and I shall go to Texas”.
rob — I’ve never heard that quote from Mr. Crockett. I love it!
–As to “young people” having guns, what about the high-school rifle teams whose members, in days gone by, used to carry their weapons on the New York subways, or in their dads’ pick-up trucks?
What about all the young, really young–grade-school age–kids who as late as my own youth (admittedly 800 years ago) went hunting, with or without dad along, to put food on the table?
And the cheeeeldren of the 1700’s and 1800’s, at least, who could at need defend themselves and their homes with firearms?
Every so often we still read news stories about kids as young as pre-teens who successfully use weapons to dissuade, and sometimes even to kill, home invaders.
In the U.S. at least, the Boy Scouts and 4-H still have programs in clay-shooting, marksmanship, and even “youth hunting,” as one site calls it.
Different children are different, of course, but at this point they are so little trusted with any responsibility at all that it’s no wonder they get into trouble (real, not statutory) in various ways; out of the explorative urge, and out of sheer boredom, and out of knowing–KNOWING–that they are not trusted. This breeds a lack of self-trust which is difficult to overcome; and it means that learning to shoulder responsibility as adults may be very difficult.
It never seems to occur to the Left that things done ‘for the children’ will continue to be done to the adults those children will spend most of their lives as.
I think it’s even worse than what Julie describes: 13-17 year-olds are treated as adults when they commit sufficiently serious crimes – and this is practically the only way they can get themselves treated as adults. The wonder is not that so many crimes are committed by this age group, but that so few are.
And what it means today to be “treated like a child” makes things even worse. As David Friedman put it: “I have long held that there are two fundamental views of children: That they are pets who can talk, or that they are small people who do not yet know very much. The wrong one is winning.”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…on the subject of the prevention of rape:
We are treated to the spectacle of Serena Williams being made to apologise for having observed, among other things, that teenage girls ought not be drinking with young men who might have other things on their mind, and that the young women’s parental figures should make this very clear to them. One can argue that Serena Williams may have been somewhat too easy on the young men with her implication that, well, they may have received the wrong impression, ya da da, ya da dee. That, I suppose, is fair criticism– those young men knew what they were doing and what the results could be, and were rather stupid to film themselves doing it, for a start, and probably should have been prosecuted just on general principle for the purposes of teaching them valuable life lessons about being reckless. This does not, however, take anything away from the fact that Ms Williams offered some sound advice to young women– don’t get shit-faced drunk, don’t accept a drink that may be spiked with roofies, don’t drink with horny young teenage boys (in short, don’t go to drinking parties full stop)– but to say so is to invite the accusation of that most heinous of crimes, blaming the victim. Of course, to offer the opinion that young women might profit from learning what happened and learn to avoid, as the RC’s say, the “near occasions of sin” in their own lives going forward, is also somewhat suspect, as how are the professional do-gooders to make hay when people decide not to become victims anymore?
The sort of Nice, Well-Meaning, Liberal Person who thinks a woman should urinate or vomit to turn off her attacker clearly hasn’t met anyone with a fetish for having sex with a vomiting, urinating woman. I have, once.
I don’t get the attraction myself, but I’m shocked that these pacifists apparently can’t remember when they said rape was about “male domination” and “power, not sex”. Losing control of one’s bodily functions is about as complete a surrender as I could imagine, so any fool following the advice of NW-MLP is going to have a rotten experience. As with most pieces of advice these idiots dish out.