So first thing’s first, this article is clearly click bait and no, the Chinese government isn’t going to start encouraging or even allowing women to simply carry flamethrowers and open fire on any threat like it’s nothing. So let’s start by establishing that we are arguing hypotheticals here over a clearly click bait article.
However, the point of self defence isn’t to provide an equivalent punishment to the crime committed, but to allow someone to use violence preemptively against an aggressor to stay safe. You don’t practice self defense after you get raped, but hopefully before you do.
This opens the door to many difficult and vague situations where it’s hard to tell whether an act was justified or not, but that doesn’t mean that burning someone is necessarily in any way less justifiable than shooting them or stabbing them etc.
So in this hypothetical scenario, the question isn’t whether burning someone is equivalent to being sexually harassed, because that’s not the type of situation that self defence is meant to be used in. It’s not equivalent but rather preemptive.
So we are now asking the question: are women entitled to self defence against sexual harassment? And I’d guess the answer probably lies in the middle of “yes every time” and “never” because no one should get raped for lack of self defence avenues, but also I don’t think someone should get burnt to death for cat calling someone else, no matter how inappropriate I may think it is.
However, if a woman (honestly, any SA victim, not just women) gets touched inappropriately and feels threatened, I think it’s fair to allow her to preemptively attack. So I’d say you can’t argue self defence without the presence of a physical threat. And even then, self defence obviously needs to be clearly outlined to minimise the likelihood of unjustified attacks.
That being said, this is both obviously clickbait and also a terrible idea simply because of how much uncontrolled collateral damage a flamethrower can do to others, structures and even first responders. So yeah, it’s a dumb idea. But I don’t think that’s because sexual assault is not a basis for self defence, rather because flamethrowers are extraordinarily unsafe weapons for everyone involved.
EVERY TIME ANYTHING WOMAN RELATED COMES UP IN THE FEED, HERE YOU ARE ACTING IT OUT, EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. HOLY HELL WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST WOMEN? I NEED TO KNOW. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU?
Not wanting to encourage people lighting other human beings on fire, if they decided the victim is an incel, means I hate women? Your worldview is unhinged. Maybe see someone about your violent fantasies.
No, but you obviously do considering your reaction to what is blatantly a joke post.
Why did you decide an anti-rape/self defense device would be targeted at you enough to have such a strong negative reaction to it?
Yes or no? Any other answer will be interpreted as a yes. Are you concerned about getting set on fire with a device intended to hurt rapists in a self defense scenario?
Edit: Also still curious about your stance on dick traps.
I mean a society that lights incels, would probably also expand that torchability to other groups rather quickly.
And then people like the one above cry because nobody could have Seen THAT coming.
Oh my god, holy shit, that is genuinely fucking hilarious! You’re being earnest, aren’t you? Oh my god, I love it. You’re like the human equivalent of a Neil Breen movie. You wouldn’t work as a written character, they’d say you’re too unrealistic and two dimensional. Keep going, say more shit like that. You’re actively redefining comedy, and I’m here for it.
Perhaps you having to interpret reality through the lense of fiction is part of why you want to justify burning people alive. Life isn’t a storybook or a tv show. Go touch some grass.
Not sure that’s an acceptable level of violence for pervertry but who am I to get in the way of women’s violent fantasies?
Alright. Let’s do this. I’ll bite.
So first thing’s first, this article is clearly click bait and no, the Chinese government isn’t going to start encouraging or even allowing women to simply carry flamethrowers and open fire on any threat like it’s nothing. So let’s start by establishing that we are arguing hypotheticals here over a clearly click bait article.
However, the point of self defence isn’t to provide an equivalent punishment to the crime committed, but to allow someone to use violence preemptively against an aggressor to stay safe. You don’t practice self defense after you get raped, but hopefully before you do.
This opens the door to many difficult and vague situations where it’s hard to tell whether an act was justified or not, but that doesn’t mean that burning someone is necessarily in any way less justifiable than shooting them or stabbing them etc.
So in this hypothetical scenario, the question isn’t whether burning someone is equivalent to being sexually harassed, because that’s not the type of situation that self defence is meant to be used in. It’s not equivalent but rather preemptive.
So we are now asking the question: are women entitled to self defence against sexual harassment? And I’d guess the answer probably lies in the middle of “yes every time” and “never” because no one should get raped for lack of self defence avenues, but also I don’t think someone should get burnt to death for cat calling someone else, no matter how inappropriate I may think it is.
However, if a woman (honestly, any SA victim, not just women) gets touched inappropriately and feels threatened, I think it’s fair to allow her to preemptively attack. So I’d say you can’t argue self defence without the presence of a physical threat. And even then, self defence obviously needs to be clearly outlined to minimise the likelihood of unjustified attacks.
That being said, this is both obviously clickbait and also a terrible idea simply because of how much uncontrolled collateral damage a flamethrower can do to others, structures and even first responders. So yeah, it’s a dumb idea. But I don’t think that’s because sexual assault is not a basis for self defence, rather because flamethrowers are extraordinarily unsafe weapons for everyone involved.
Great response. I agree.
Oh no, wont anybody think of the sex criminals just mind their own business harrassing women.
Harassment is not justification for burning someone alive. You sound like a republican.
EVERY TIME ANYTHING WOMAN RELATED COMES UP IN THE FEED, HERE YOU ARE ACTING IT OUT, EVERY. FUCKING. TIME. HOLY HELL WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST WOMEN? I NEED TO KNOW. WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU?
Not wanting to encourage people lighting other human beings on fire, if they decided the victim is an incel, means I hate women? Your worldview is unhinged. Maybe see someone about your violent fantasies.
You’re against those dick traps that rapists have to get removed at hospitals, too, huh?
Do you think rapists and incels are the same thing?
No, but you obviously do considering your reaction to what is blatantly a joke post.
Why did you decide an anti-rape/self defense device would be targeted at you enough to have such a strong negative reaction to it?
Yes or no? Any other answer will be interpreted as a yes. Are you concerned about getting set on fire with a device intended to hurt rapists in a self defense scenario?
Edit: Also still curious about your stance on dick traps.
Are your concerns for others or yourself?
For a society that encourages each other to light people on fire if they decide they’re an incel.
I mean a society that lights incels, would probably also expand that torchability to other groups rather quickly. And then people like the one above cry because nobody could have Seen THAT coming.
Mobs with torches tend to do very bad things when wrapped in righteousness.
Tell that to John Brown.
So, yourself.
Must be easy to keep your worldview when you refuse to see anything outside of it.
Oh my god, holy shit, that is genuinely fucking hilarious! You’re being earnest, aren’t you? Oh my god, I love it. You’re like the human equivalent of a Neil Breen movie. You wouldn’t work as a written character, they’d say you’re too unrealistic and two dimensional. Keep going, say more shit like that. You’re actively redefining comedy, and I’m here for it.
Perhaps you having to interpret reality through the lense of fiction is part of why you want to justify burning people alive. Life isn’t a storybook or a tv show. Go touch some grass.
YES! Just like that! More! MORE! I can’t get enough of you, mon ami! You. Are. ART!
There is no level of violence unacceptable for self defense against sexual assault. Keep your hands to yourself.
Disagree. Lighting someone on fire for the lowest form of sexual assault is not okay.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. If you don’t want to catch fire, don’t sexually assault people.
Somehow I’ve managed to live nearly 3 decades without sexually assaulting anyone. You can do it too! I believe in you!
Nice that you simply assume I sexually assault people. If that’s the kind of thinking you do, I’m not surprised you enjoy violence.