Rape-X Anti-Rape Female-Condom

[Petethemerch]

I think its fine, i wouldnt have sex with a drunk/drugged up girl anyway out of principle. It does have its downsides though... there would definately be accidents...

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Umm, I did read your post. And basically anyone can use it for malicious reasons, but even if they do, you can sue them. And I doubt they would like that.

My point should be clear to you then. We have concealed weapon laws for this same reason. You can sue someone for anything. However, laws are meant to protect us from ourselves. There is no reason for anyone to have to go through such pain and then tie up our court systems because another chooses to neglect the well-being of a society over themselves.

I posted days earlier before you guys did between pages 6-8. I just repost his posts so people can read about the product and not go on their horrible resources (their brains) to make their opinions.

The date you posted has nothing to do with your credibility/ability to read other's posts. Furthermore, Xest is the one who started this thread, so I believe that he posted way before you did.

 

[RagingCullen]

This thing definitely shouldn't be released, coming from a woman here. I think a guy having his like penis, which is some guys whole life, split and damaged because of some dumb bitch (not saying all are) is completely just wrong. Sure it's fine for rapist but whose to say some woman or feminists won't were them and just go whore crazy and have sex with men just to harm their penises? That device is way to dangerous with way too many risk. Down with the rape-x!

 

[natin1337]

that is just fucked up

 

[Epic God]

yes i agree with shredder, you cant just give ownership of a body part away.

 

[xestrox]

yes i agree with shredder, you cant just give ownership of a body part away.

So you feel by releasing this device you are not forcing a man to having a chance of his penis (body part as you said) being harmed?

 

[kamakazy_kid]

People have the right to do whatever they like with there own body

 

[Thehate9]

I don't support like you said, woman would take advantage of it. And the girls would forget they are wearing it.

 

[THE LAP]

fuck no i dont believe this product should be released.

the chance of an inocent person falling victim to this device is incredibly high. excruciating pain and the idea of unremovable spikes cutting into the scin worries me. alot of vains down below, i think it could cause massive bleeding...

i do think people have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies but not when it endangers other people...

 

[Shredderbeam]

wow this is redicoulse why should women have to be afraid of getting raped they should have these devices

Exactly.

I feel that is irrational, saying anything should be allowed to be released to public even chemical weapons or nuclear bombs, let alone a device that helps increase pleasure when raping a child (as we discussed before on this thread and you supported anything being released) this reply you had shows no sense.

We've already been over the WMD aspect.

If you cannot find a flaw in my logic, leave.

It is a concealed weapon that can severely harm others. Unless the weapon was in plain sight, so everyone was aware of it's existence, it is dangerous. This obviously cannot be done. The weapon can be used maliciously and therefore laws must exist to prevent those malicious uses. It is a danger to society.

No, laws must not prevent those malicious uses. If a woman wishes to insert a modified mousetrap into her vagina, she has every right to do so. You do not have the right to control her vagina.

So you feel by releasing this device you are not forcing a man to having a chance of his penis (body part as you said) being harmed?

Of course it doesn't force a man to do anything. The risk taken is his own.

fuck no i dont believe this product should be released.

the chance of an inocent person falling victim to this device is incredibly high. excruciating pain and the idea of unremovable spikes cutting into the scin worries me. alot of vains down below, i think it could cause massive bleeding...

i do think people have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies but not when it endangers other people...

Exactly, so punish the woman who misuses this!

Let's look at this using the "Argument From Morality".

To begin, there are really only three principles to remember when using the argument from morality: 1. Nothing exists except people.
There is no such thing as "the government," or a "country," or "society." All these terms for social aggregations are merely conceptual labels for individuals. "The government" never does anything – only people within the government act. Thus the "government" – since it is a concept – has no reality, ethical rights or moral standing. Moral rules apply to people, not concepts. If anyone argues with you about this, just ask them to show you their "family" without showing you any individual people. They’ll get the point.
2. What is good for one must be good for all.
Moral beliefs, in order to rise above mere opinion, must be applicable to everyone. There is no logically consistent way to say that Person A must do X, but Person Y must never do X. If an action is termed "good," then it must be good for all people. If I classify the concept "mammal" as "warm-blooded," then it must include all warm-blooded organisms – otherwise the concept is meaningless. The concept "good" must thus encompass the preferred behaviour for all people – not just "Orientals" or "Policemen" or "Americans." If it doesn’t, then it’s just an aesthetic or cultural penchant, like preferring hockey to football, and loses any power for universal prescription. Thus if it is "good" for a politician to use force to take money from you and give it to me, then it is also "good" for anyone else to do it.
3. What is bad for one must be bad for all.
Conversely, if it is wrong for me to go and steal money from someone else, then it is wrong for anyone to go and steal money from anyone else. If shooting a man who is not threatening you is evil in Atlanta, then it is also evil in Iraq. If being paid to go and shoot someone is wrong for a hit man, then it is also wrong for a soldier. If breaking into a peaceful citizen’s house, kidnapping him and holding him prisoner is wrong for you and me, than it is also wrong for the agents of the DEA.
Thus far, the argument from morality is very similar to the argument from consistency. The argument from morality comes in by stating that, if it is wrong or evil for me to rob Peter to pay Paul, then it is wrong or evil for anyone – including politicians – to do it. Thus a man who defends state welfare programs, for instance, can only do so on the grounds of personal preference, but he cannot claim that it is moral. In fact, he must admit that, on the basis of any universal principles, the welfare state is immoral, since if it is wrong for anyone to steal, then it is also wrong for everyone to steal – including politicians!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html



Essentially, this argument states that all of society and government is only comprised of people. All people are the same from the viewpoint of rights. There are no "supermen" that inherently have more rights than others. Given this, if one man has the right to kill others, then all men must have that right. If it is immoral to steal money from a man, then it must be immoral to steal money from all men. If you feel that you have a right to prevent a woman from manufacturing and purchasing this product, then everybody has a right to prevent you from manufacturing and purchasing products.

 

[RagingCullen]

Well, should any potential weapons be banned in the same way? I mean, guns, pens, knives, forks, spoons, baseball bats, cups, etc, can all be used as weapons. Under your logic, they should all be banned as they can potentially cause damage.

If a man wishes to have sex with a woman, he can check for one of these. If a woman wishes to insert something into her own body, why can't she do so?

I see your point. But i have never heard of this device before now and perhaps if released some other people might not either. Probably one of the last things on a guy mind is checking for some weird anti rape device in a girl before he gets on his groove. There is a very big chance a girl will remember that she has some weird thing in her, which isn't the real problem but what about the people under the influence? A woman won't remember and most likely the man she is with will be about the same as her under the influence so that could end badly. But i do acknowledge your comment. It would be very nice to ban guns and knives from people in society be it's very complicated, but pens and forks are ridiculous. I don't care what woman stick in themselves but potentially endangering someone else for forgetfulness or stupidity if wrong. Would it be right to have a security system on everyone to keep someone from being harmed? Would it be okay for EVERYONE to keep a gun to prevent harm to them? The anti-rape prevents a crime, so do guns and security systems. Perhaps only certain woman should have the device like woman with no felony's, misdemeanors, or any history of abuse of anything like drugs.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

No, laws must not prevent those malicious uses. If a woman wishes to insert a modified mousetrap into her vagina, she has every right to do so. You do not have the right to control her vagina.

Laws are meant to protect us from ourselves. One of the basic freedoms we have is a freedom to safety. This is the reason we have laws concerning ownership of weapons and, especially, concealed weapon laws. You do not have the right to infringe upon my safety. Your personal freedom ENDS where mine BEGINS. You fail to consider other rights that are violated because you only look at the situation through the freedom of one person, not the freedom of a society. You cannot split a society into individual people, for a society is not singular, it is collective.

This thing should not be released.

 

[Shredderbeam]

One of the basic freedoms we have is a freedom to safety.

A right to safety.

Yes, you have a right to your own body, to do with it as you please as long as it harms nobody else, and a right to not have your body assaulted. However, banning this device is a violation of one's freedom to own property.

This is the reason we have laws concerning ownership of weapons and, especially, concealed weapon laws.

A small of violation of rights to prevent a possible larger violation of rights, then. Why can't I do this to you?

You do not have the right to infringe upon my safety.

No more do you have the right to infringe upon my right to property.

Your personal freedom ENDS where mine BEGINS.

It sure does - so why are you allowed to ban me from producing or owning such a device?

You fail to consider other rights that are violated because you only look at the situation through the freedom of one person, not the freedom of a society.

You fail to consider that you're violating the self-ownership principle to begin with.

You cannot split a society into individual people, for a society is not singular, it is collective.

Society itself does not exist. Society is composed of individuals, and nothing more. To illustrate this point, please show me society without showing me any individuals.

 

[nuite0]

Wouldn't this just encourage Ass Rape =\

 

[Supa_Ramga]

A right to safety.

Yes, you have a right to your own body, to do with it as you please as long as it harms nobody else, and a right to not have your body assaulted. However, banning this device is a violation of one's freedom to own property.

Pardon my typo, I seem to be making a lot lately =/.

Aside from that, it seems like you agree that the public has a right to safety. Allowing the device's use would be an infringment upon the public's rights. Nonetheless, you assert that banning the product would be an infringement upon ONE person's rights. Either way rights will be infringed upon, so which should we uphold? As a society, we uphold laws that limit one's personal property rights in the event that the "right" infringes upon others. For example, property owners must conform to noise, height, and eye-sore laws. People are not allowed to own certain weapons. These laws exist to protect the rights of the society as a whole, not at the individual basis. "For the greater good" if you will.

A small of violation of rights to prevent a possible larger violation of rights, then. Why can't I do this to you?

It's done everyday with the examples I stated above.

Society itself does not exist. Society is composed of individuals, and nothing more. To illustrate this point, please show me society without showing me any individuals.

Undeniable, but society exudes attributes that individuals do not possess. Much like the way a single atom doesn't exude all the attributes of a human being. Although society is composed of individual beings, as a collective unit, society has capabilities not inherent to the single individual. To solely view society on the micro level is to disregard the concept of society entirely.

This product should not be released.

 

[Ravenous Kirby]

...i see no problem with it...BUT HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET IT OUT??

 

[Shredderbeam]

Pardon my typo, I seem to be making a lot lately =/.

No worries.

Aside from that, it seems like you agree that the public has a right to safety.

Yes.

Allowing the device's use would be an infringment upon the public's rights.

Well, no, allowing the device does not inherently violate everybody else's rights. It is only when an individual decides to start harming others that they make use of the device to aid them.

Nonetheless, you assert that banning the product would be an infringement upon ONE person's rights.

Not upon one person's rights, but upon all individuals who want to purchase this product, but are prevented.

Either way rights will be infringed upon, so which should we uphold?

You're asking whether we should preemptively violate rights to spare a potential larger violation. No, we shouldn't.

As a society, we uphold laws that limit one's personal property rights in the event that the "right" infringes upon others. For example, property owners must conform to noise, height, and eye-sore laws. People are not allowed to own certain weapons. These laws exist to protect the rights of the society as a whole, not at the individual basis.

Well here's the thing: Society doesn't do this, individuals do. Some individuals tell others what they may or may not do, and if they try to break these rules, they are dragged away by men with guns and thrown in prison. Why can they do this? Why can't I do this?

"For the greater good" if you will.

"The greater good" is a silly way to structure laws. Shall we butcher a homeless man because his organs would save the lives of five others, given that no alternatives were available? Of course we should not, that is a violation of his rights. If we have the right to kill him, then he has the right to kill us.

It's done everyday with the examples I stated above.

Oh, ok. Can I show up at your house and confiscate all knives on the basis that I think they're too dangerous for you to keep?

Undeniable, but society exudes attributes that individuals do not possess. Much like the way a single atom doesn't exude all the attributes of a human being. Although society is composed of individual beings, as a collective unit, society has capabilities not inherent to the single individual. To solely view society on the micro level is to disregard the concept of society entirely.

The attributes that society exudes come straight from the individuals. Society is a useful abstraction, but when you actually start to believe that it's a real entity, you have taken it too far. It's not - it's a group of individuals.

 

[Supa_Ramga]

Well, no, allowing the device does not inherently violate everybody else's rights. It is only when an individual decides to start harming others that they make use of the device to aid them.

It depends on what you define as "inherently" violating people's rights. If a group of individuals reach a concensus that simply "allowing the device" violates their right to safety; then yes, the device's release to the public is violating individuals' rights. The same way the simple possession of certain narcotics is illegal.

Not upon one person's rights, but upon all individuals who want to purchase this product, but are prevented.

Nonetheless, this is a "person by person" case. Whereas the infringment of the right to safety affects a group of individuals with each person person using the product.

You're asking whether we should preemptively violate rights to spare a potential larger violation. No, we shouldn't.

So what do we do in a situation where the infringment of rights cannot be avoided?

Well here's the thing: Society doesn't do this, individuals do. Some individuals tell others what they may or may not do, and if they try to break these rules, they are dragged away by men with guns and thrown in prison. Why can they do this? Why can't I do this?

As you have said in the past, individuals make up a society. They define, shape, maintain, and enforce their own rules. Rules are not made by one sole individual, it is a collobrative effort meant to represent a majority of individuals. They can do it because the individuals have bestowed that right upon them. You can do it as well if that right has been mandated to you.

"The greater good" is a silly way to structure laws. Shall we butcher a homeless man because his organs would save the lives of five others, given that no alternatives were available? Of course we should not, that is a violation of his rights. If we have the right to kill him, then he has the right to kill us.

If individuals considered this "the greater good" then yes it would be done. But we do not see it that way, therefore we do not have the rights to butcher the homeless. Nonethless, individuals elected the option to donate organs at death something anyone can do because they have determined that this is "for the greater good."

Oh, ok. Can I show up at your house and confiscate all knives on the basis that I think they're too dangerous for you to keep?

If society determined (by means I explained earlier) this was infringement upon right to safety, then yes. But society has not determined this to be so. So no, you can't.

The attributes that society exudes come straight from the individuals. Society is a useful abstraction, but when you actually start to believe that it's a real entity, you have taken it too far. It's not - it's a group of individuals.

It is a real entity. A group of individuals is not the same thing as an individual. A group is able to complete much more than an individual. The conglomeration of atrributes from different individuals create a mixture of attributes that were not present at the individual level.

You said it yourself, it's a group, and a group is not the same thing as an individual. The same way like a human is not the same as an atom.

 

[Shredderbeam]

It depends on what you define as "inherently" violating people's rights. If a group of individuals reach a concensus that simply "allowing the device" violates their right to safety; then yes, the device's release to the public is violating individuals' rights. The same way the simple possession of certain narcotics is illegal.

If the mere fact of the device's existence violated the rights of those people, then they would be justified. To test this, we can perform a decisive empirical test. Let us take one of these devices, and lay it out on a table. If it immediately starts violating people's rights, then we'll ban it.

Nonetheless, this is a "person by person" case. Whereas the infringment of the right to safety affects a group of individuals with each person person using the product.

The device itself violates no rights.

So what do we do in a situation where the infringment of rights cannot be avoided?

Take appropriate measures to defend yourself.

As you have said in the past, individuals make up a society. They define, shape, maintain, and enforce their own rules. Rules are not made by one sole individual, it is a collobrative effort meant to represent a majority of individuals. They can do it because the individuals have bestowed that right upon them. You can do it as well if that right has been mandated to you.

Who grants these rights, a majority of individuals? Say that there 100 people in my neighborhood, and 51 of them vote to allow me to steal from you and kill you if I so desire. Would that be an acceptable situation?

If individuals considered this "the greater good" then yes it would be done. But we do not see it that way, therefore we do not have the rights to butcher the homeless. Nonethless, individuals elected the option to donate organs at death something anyone can do because they have determined that this is "for the greater good."

Actually, that would be for the greater good.

The situation: Five people will die if this homeless man does not immediately donate his organs (heart, liver, kidneys, etc.). If the homeless man has these organs removed, he will die. If you do not strip him of his organs, give people will die, but if you do, then only one will.

If society determined (by means I explained earlier) this was infringement upon right to safety, then yes. But society has not determined this to be so. So no, you can't.

If a large number of individuals can proclaim that they have the right to decide who gets rights, then so can I.

It is a real entity. A group of individuals is not the same thing as an individual. A group is able to complete much more than an individual. The conglomeration of atrributes from different individuals create a mixture of attributes that were not present at the individual level.

It is not a real entity. An entity has a real, concrete existence that you can reach out and touch. Can you show me society? Can you touch society? Can you objectively measure society?

All of society, every single part of it, arises from individuals. Society is a useful abstraction that makes it easy to speak about certain groups of people, but it does not actually have its own concrete, separate existence.

You said it yourself, it's a group, and a group is not the same thing as an individual. The same way like a human is not the same as an atom.

Humans are separate from their society - they are not all physically joined together.

 

[Kristian4th]

Maybe cutting the penis off would be a little OTT. But what if it trapped the penis? I would just be rofling if a man got his penis trapped in one of them.