Rape-X Anti-Rape Female-Condom

[~Killer~]

alright, I can understand why it would help a lot but at times that would make for a big danger to someone if the person who had one was a jackass and wanted to use it to hurt others

 

[h 1]

ok alot of opinions floating around and people should have an opinion on this.
I would say-as my opinion- this device should be used but should be permitted of who is aloud to use. A doctor or atleast nurse should limit who can use this-to decide in thier own situation who could use it and who couldn't. in other words.... not everyone should have access to a device like this... there are some sick people out there who are not afriad to mame people. Given after enough time of this device being out... almost anyone could get it off the street just like drugs, pills, etc. So it's possible eventually anyone could get it too-which turn into a bad thing.
thats my opinion-h 1 signing out.

 

[Shin]

I believe that this product should be able for use, but in the event of a woman using it for malicious purposes, the woman should be put in jail. It is not right to use this for pleasure of another's pain.

In the event of rape, however, I would believe that someone would check the woman first to see if she had it inside her. The knowledge that it is out would be public to many people, and I could not see how a rapist would not be able to know about it.

I'm thinking that this would be a good product to have out, but it does not have more pros than cons for me. Perhaps there may be a way to create such a product, in which it cannot be taken out unless a particular task is performed. Even then, there would be a way found around it, I believe.

For now, I shall say no, but Shredderbeam will think of something to open my eyes.

 

[Shredderbeam]

And shredder, I do not want to remove it. I said, just for the purpose of this thread, that I was against its release, which was the question. You seem to continuously misread my replies by tying it to an unrelated topic. I would not remove it from circulation, and yes, you are correct, it would be stealing to remove it. Therefore it is lucky I did not say I would go around collecting these devices and shut the company, if I could, I said that I was opposed to the initial release.

Here is what you said:

- No, I never once said I would "physically stop her". I have no qualms with woman's rights; in fact some of my best friends [that are female] are social activists. Fortunately, none of there rights are being called into question. I would stop the product, not the women from buying the product.

I do not know how else to interpret that other than preventing its release. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Also, I could say a gun's thin metal back thing (not sure what its called, I'm not American, j.k ) moves in the same way as a mouse trap. I could say this about quite a few things, such as "boats float" and "inflatable ducks float". This does not make an analogy between them any stronger, which you seem to believe. I'm sorry to say, you are sadly mistaken.

A gun operates more on the "combustion of gunpowder" factor than a spring.

The point I was attempting to make is that it's basically a modified mousetrap.

Alright, I'm off to bed gettin late here. Shredder, add my msn too, [email protected], I'd be more than happy to chat with you when we're on the same side. Matthew, I believe I already have you.

Ok.

ok alot of opinions floating around and people should have an opinion on this.
I would say-as my opinion- this device should be used but should be permitted of who is aloud to use. A doctor or atleast nurse should limit who can use this-to decide in thier own situation who could use it and who couldn't. in other words.... not everyone should have access to a device like this... there are some sick people out there who are not afriad to mame people. Given after enough time of this device being out... almost anyone could get it off the street just like drugs, pills, etc. So it's possible eventually anyone could get it too-which turn into a bad thing.
thats my opinion-h 1 signing out.

A doctor or a nurse decides whether or not a person has the right to purchase a modified mousetrap?

In the event of rape, however, I would believe that someone would check the woman first to see if she had it inside her. The knowledge that it is out would be public to many people, and I could not see how a rapist would not be able to know about it.

For now, I shall say no, but Shredderbeam will think of something to open my eyes.

The product would very probably be unsuccessful in preventing rapes. That, however, does not remove the right of a manufacturer to produce one, or a woman to buy/use one.

 

[Teh 1337ness]

Look at it this way. If I had an axe, to prevent myself from getting raped, I would be inclined to use it in self-defense. So, when you attempted to rape me, you would suffer the consequences of the device. Now let's say you persuade me NOT to use the axe- I would've been raped.

However- This does not justify the fact I just chopped off your penis, but it prevented me from becoming a victim of rape, so in a law-suit, you would win using the motive of SELF DEFENSE.

 

[Shin]

Look at it this way. If I had an axe, to prevent myself from getting raped, I would be inclined to use it in self-defense. So, when you attempted to rape me, you would suffer the consequences of the device. Now let's say you persuade me NOT to use the axe- I would've been raped.

However- This does not justify the fact I just chopped off your penis, but it prevented me from becoming a victim of rape, so in a law-suit, you would win using the motive of SELF DEFENSE.

Yes, but the axe cannot be forcefully removed from you so easily. The topic is about a device that a woman would put inside themselves that would injure that part of a man's body.

If the man was going to rape a woman, he would most likely make it so that she would not be able to fight, in which he would be able to remove the device.

Of course, if the man is stupid enough to not remove the device and is hurt, what would make you think that they would take it to court? They would be taking themselves to be prosecuted basically, so may you explain where that reasoning came about?

 

[antchak]

I do not know how else to interpret that other than preventing its release. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Yes, that is how it should be interpreted, preventing its release, not removing it and taking away the existing rape aXes.

Yes, but the axe cannot be forcefully removed from you so easily. The topic is about a device that a woman would put inside themselves that would injure that part of a man's body.

If the man was going to rape a woman, he would most likely make it so that she would not be able to fight, in which he would be able to remove the device.

Of course, if the man is stupid enough to not remove the device and is hurt, what would make you think that they would take it to court? They would be taking themselves to be prosecuted basically, so may you explain where that reasoning came about?

That is basically what I'm saying. I can see the advantages, and I can see the disadvantages, and I'm betting it will be unsuccessful. Again, it could possibly harm innocent men, and since it is believed to be unsuccessful in rape prevention, then the product is basically rendered pointless.

I would love to see a device that could successfully stop the crime of rape, but I see it as impossible unless people stop trying to rape others.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Yes, that is how it should be interpreted, preventing its release, not removing it and taking away the existing rape aXes.

Ok, and that is the violation of rights. You are preventing a person who owns it from selling it to a willing customer.

 

[antchak]

Ok, and that is the violation of rights. You are preventing a person who owns it from selling it to a willing customer.

How so? If no such product is on the market, and no one owns it, it is not a violation of rights. I am not preventing it, but if I could prevent it from being sold, i.e I was the company owner, or a federal official, etc. I could stop it without violating rights. You cannot sell a product, especially a self-defense product, without approval, and by denying approval, I would violate no rights whatsoever. I am really indifferent to the product's release though, I just thought the "No" side needed someone to help em out.

My true opinion is that this would be [most probably] unsuccessful in preventing rape, but I have no qualms with anyone using it or purchasing it. If it saved a woman, it would have fulfilled its mission, and if a woman used it maliciously, I believe it should be taken as seriously as if she raped the man, as it is nearly the same violation of body.

So I am neither for or against it, rather I do not see it as a success but I have no reason to argue if women would like to use it, that is, of course, their choice.

This was a fun little debate lads

 

[Shredderbeam]

How so? If no such product is on the market, and no one owns it, it is not a violation of rights.

If a product is on the market, that means that somebody owns it and has put it up for sale.

I am not preventing it, but if I could prevent it from being sold, i.e I was the company owner

If you directly owned the product, certainly you could prevent it from being sold, and you would have every right to.

or a federal official, etc. I could stop it without violating rights.

If you were a federal official, you would not own the product, and stopping an individual from selling it would be a violation of their rights.

You cannot sell a product, especially a self-defense product, without approval, and by denying approval, I would violate no rights whatsoever. I am really indifferent to the product's release though, I just thought the "No" side needed someone to help em out.

I'm speaking of natural rights, not legal rights.

The approval system is immoral.

 

[Louis]

If they're to make a breach of her rights by forcefully engaging with her sexually, they - by doing this - consent to the forfeiting of their own rights

But what if they're doing it with her consent?

 

[antchak]

I'm speaking of natural rights, not legal rights.

The approval system is immoral.

Of course it is immoral, I never said it wasn't; I completely agree there is no reason this shouldn't be approved, denying it would be a violation of moral rights. Moral rights do not govern anything though, so there is really no point in bring ethics into this.

 

[Shredderbeam]

But what if they're doing it with her consent?

Then it's not a violation of her rights.

Of course it is immoral, I never said it wasn't; I completely agree there is no reason this shouldn't be approved, denying it would be a violation of moral rights. Moral rights do not govern anything though, so there is really no point in bring ethics into this.

Given that we are discussion whether this device should be allowed or not, I would argue that moral rights are fairly relevant.

 

[antchak]

But what if they're doing it with her consent?

Is that a trick question? Then its not rape....

The law does not define morality. I'm going by pure logic here.

Given that we are discussion whether this device should be allowed or not, I would argue that moral rights are fairly relevant.

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were going by pure logic, in which morality is non-existent. Logic is making the right choice, even if it is immoral. Morality is making decisions based on so called "human" values.

Moral rights have no place in a logical debate, because taking away this device would be morally wrong, but it could be logically right if it benefited the community (a poor example, but I'm pressed for time).

So I will gladly hear your opinion, but you seem to be ambiguous as to where you stand. Logic is often "the right decision is not necessarily the good decision (good ethically)", whereas morality is making decisions that may be wrong, but with good moral reasons. The classic example of sacrificing a few to save many (logic), or not sacrificing one person to save the world (morality).

This devices success rate is probably low, but that has no bearing on her moral right to wear it. Now if a power decides it is not to be done, and removes it, it may be morally wrong, but unfortunately moral rights seem to be violated far to often for my taste in this day and age.

This isn't a perfect society; people are killed, raped, and tortured every second. When one person cries for help, the world turns a blind eye. I wish this would work, and although it probably won't, I see no reason why it should not be used.

 

[TheMasterMind]

Should be realeased.

This post received an infraction for spamming.

 

[aint_no_saint]

Ok but lets say the female gets drunk? And she forgets she has it in and comes onto the male X.X

 

[MatthewGor123]

1) Xestrox, I may have missed your question. Feel free to re-state it.
2)

who are you to decide if someone should be having drunken sex? seeing as you stated a women should be allowed to stick anything in her that she wants, thats an example of free-will and having free choice, seems like you are having a double standard.

I'm not deciding anything, I'm just saying - when you're drunk, you don't make rational decisions. If you make an irrational decision to have drunken sex, why don't you have to pay the consequences? If you're driving drunk and you drive into a tree and die, whose fault is that? It should still be free-will if you want to have drunken sex, go ahead - but you can't say that an irrationally made decision should prevent this product from being further manufactured.

Shredder, why do you think it won't help in preventing rape?

--TO EVERYONE SAYING THE RAPIST CAN JUST SEE IT:

Is it possible for a rapist to see if a woman is wearing RAPEX?
Absolutely not! It fits behind the labia and has no strings or anything protruding

--TO EVERYONE SAYING HE WILL KILL HER RIGHT AWAY, AS SOON AS HE FEELS IT:

Won't the man initially feel this?
When a rapist attacks, he looses control of his senses. He will become aware of the device when it is too late.

--TO EVERYONE SAYING HE CAN JUST REMOVE IT IF HE CHECKS:

How is RAPEX inserted and removed?
It is inserted with an applicator like a tampon, and removed with the same applicator. No applicator, no removal.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were going by pure logic, in which morality is non-existent. Logic is making the right choice, even if it is immoral. Morality is making decisions based on so called "human" values.

Objective morality is derived from logic.

Moral rights have no place in a logical debate

They certainly do.

So I will gladly hear your opinion, but you seem to be ambiguous as to where you stand. Logic is often "the right decision is not necessarily the good decision (good ethically)", whereas morality is making decisions that may be wrong, but with good moral reasons. The classic example of sacrificing a few to save many (logic), or not sacrificing one person to save the world (morality).

Morality and logic are not separate things:

To begin with, everything discussed here will be built from axioms. An axiom is a self-evident truth that cannot be broken down into a more simple form. If you build an argument out of axioms, then your position is correct.

1. I am.

1 a. To propose such a thing, I must exist.
1 b. I have proposed it.
1 c. Therefore, I exist (I am).

2. I am conscious.

2 a. To propose such a thing, I must be conscious.
2 b. I have proposed it.
2 c. Therefore, I am conscious.

3. I have free will.

3 a. Consciousness is the ability to think.
3 b. The ability to think entails free will.
3 c. Therefore, I have free will.

4. I can know of/interact with reality.

4 b. I am a part of reality.
4 c. I have free will.
4 d. Therefore, choices that I make affect reality.

5. Correct/incorrect decisions exist.

6. Morality is the means of determining whether my decisions, as applied to other beings of free will, are correct or incorrect, right or wrong, logical or illogical.

Now, as beings of free will, we must bear in mind that we are biological creatures, and thus have certain needs and desires. It is rational and justified for us to fulfill these needs and desires, and continue to exist.

Morality must apply to all rational beings. It cannot apply to some, and not to others. If it is moral for you to own land, then it must be moral for me to do the same. If it is moral for you to exist, then it must be moral for me to do the same. This also swings the other way. If it is moral for the government to tax me, then it must be moral for me to tax others. If it is moral for them to force people to join the military, and fight in wars, then it must be moral for me to do that to my neighbors.

http://www.g4hq.com/showthread.php?p=4565

Ok but lets say the female gets drunk? And she forgets she has it in and comes onto the male X.X

Then deal with that just as you might deal with other negligence/accidental injury cases.

 

[antchak]

Objective morality is derived from logic.
They certainly do.

Morality and logic are not separate things:

That link proves your opinion is your opinion.

They are completely separate, a logic is making the right and best decision; logic is morally ambiguous. Logic exists with or without humans.

Morality is decisions based on ethics. Ethics is based on human belief of what is correct ethically, which, in turn, means that it is non-existent outside of the human world. Completely separate.

EDIT: Also you post saying "right or wrong, logical or illogical" is completely incorrect. Many moral conflicts involve making the logically right decision, for the ethically wrong decision, and vice versa. Breaking it down into making choices, logic and morality are nearly always opposites when making the choice.

 

[SwiftSeller]

They had these in the late 70s and early 80s. It was a rubber tube with a 1" needle inside of it. the needle was filled with a type of shock liquid.

when the penis was punctured by the needle the rapist was rendered immobile from the waist down.

the problem was that many women forgot them in during sex, or got pricked by the needle themselves and too many accidental cases came about.

the liquid was also toxic to younger people and nearly 30% of teens who were injected with it died.

The product was only on the market for 2 or 3 years and then was taken down.