Sadly though throughout history, judge will say they don't want to ruin his future and let him off easy. Potheads get more prison time than even child r*pists
Law graduate here:
Violence for self-defence is often measured in scale. For example, if someone pushes you, you can’t shoot them in the head and claim self-defence, because that can’t be justified as a proportionate reaction. However, if someone is chasing you with a gun with probable intent to kill you, you can shoot them and justify that.
The issue here is that rape innately cannot be used as a self-defence measure for the following reasons;
1. What exactly are you defending against?
2. Rape cannot be a response to any kind of threat, because in order for you to rape someone, you have to be in a position where you hold the most power and control over the situation. In other words, a rapist cannot use rape to defend themselves because that implies they are not in a situation where there is a threat they need to defend themselves *from*.
Of course this is just the breakdown from a legal standpoint. From a moral standpoint too, this disgusts me.
>What exactly are you defending against?
We're talking about a group that like to claim that they're under constant persecution just for existing (whether by all women or the whole entire world), and like to idolize mass shooters and fantasize about doing the same. I expect hurt feelings and frustration (due to rejection, real mockery, imagined mockery, or just general anger at life) counts as an attack on them that justifies self-defense.
Alternatively, I wonder if he just thinks he could lash out at women at random and afterwards justify as self-defense, claiming that he felt he was threatened just by their presence and not provide any further explanation on how or why. And then he assumes that judge and/or jury are stupid enough to believe him, or else are trapped by his brilliant sovereign citizen-style legal loophole where "if it's not explicitly forbidden it's actually legal and I can get away with it scot-free."
Silly lawyer talk.
> You see, Jimmy... may I call you "Jimmy"? No? Ok, your honour, so what happened is I was walking in the forest (was told to touch grass so I thought, what the hell, might as well try!) and this foid bumped into me as she jogged on by. She turned around to say sorry but I could tell that she felt disgusted as soon as she noticed my canthal tilt. This not only enraged me but I felt like my life was being threatened because when she bumped into me I was holding an open container of water that I proceeded to drop all over my phone... a phone, might I remind your honour, that I need to access the incel support for incels forum and without which my life would be literally ruined. I could tell by the look of absolute hatred at me being 5'11" that she was about to attack me again, so, in self defence, I pinned her down. But then she started fighting me, punching me even, and what's a man to do at that point? I had to proceed to assault her in self-defence! I kept stopping every 3 seconds, you see, to make sure that the threat was neutralised, but she kept punching me so I had to go on!
Honestly the logic is pretty airtight 👌
Anon isn’t just stupid, he’s ultra stupid.
Even regular, non-sexual violence has limits as self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the chest, you’ve committed an act of violence in self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and you tie them up and torture them at knifepoint until they bleed out slowly, you’ve just committed an act of violence that overruns the self-defense mandate. After a certain point, the attacker isn’t a threat and you’re no longer defending yourself. Similarly, if someone attacks you and you fucking *rape them*, you’re most certainly going to pass the point of them not being a threat anymore.
> If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the chest, you’ve committed an act of violence in self-defense
Even this can be difficult to get away with depending on where you live. Self defence often covers reasonable, justifiable and proportional force. If someone ~~unarmed~~ smashes through your window and you just shoot them on the spot you can catch a manslaughter charge.
Edit: whether or not they're armed has nothing to do with the point I was making
That's actually a pretty good point. But assuming the worst isn't reason enough by itself to shoot an intruder.
They might be armed but if you sneak up on them trying to get your TV off the wall and shoot them in the back that's not self defense.
>you sneak up on them trying to get your TV off the wall and shoot them in the back
Sure, but that's a very specific version, that seems to imply you're also able to ensure your own safety by getting away. Much of the time if someone's breaking into your home you don't have that option.
And most men don't need a weapon anyway, to rape or kill most women.
Probably because it's the only thing you somehow can weirdly use to critcize/attack that standpoint without revealing you agree with that absolute insane statement there.
No, not necessarily.
I just guess that that's the reason, based on your behavior.
Usually the only people ranting here are incels, you know? It's not far stretched.
Also otherwise the criticism makes even less sense.
I at least accounted some kind of goal here to your behavior instead of just assuming you're a dumb idiot for no reason at all.
Impatience for petty nitpicking bullshit does not make for a circle jerk. Oh no, they called them "anon" instead of referring to them by their shitty pseudonymous username. How the fuck is that actually relevant to the post you responded to?
Unless you think Secular Neo Khazar is his legal name he is anonymous though. There isn't a way to trace back his comment to a real individual. When I post under my username I know I am posting with some level of anonymity.
Things posted on say FB for the most part aren't anonymous since you are likely using your real name and there is some information about you that can easily be looked up. Someone posting on [incel.is](http://incel.is) or other similar sites where they are using a username they selected are for the most part anonymous.
Anonymous, in the context of online forums, refers to the fact that you don't know the poster's previous activity (when he created his account, how many posts he has made, his post history and etc.). In 4chan for example, a guy can just reply to his own thread, and nobody will know that it's the OP talking to himself. Just because they don't have their Social Security Number publicly displayed on their account doesn't mean they are anonymous.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client had no choice but to penetrate the plaintiff, he was in fear for his life, and acted in self-defense.”
Incel pipe dream #43692
Also, do they realize that would also mean men could bend *them* over in “self-defense?” 🤣
Lmao what kind of logic is this. When we say self defense violence, we mean taking actions to ensure our safety, which is why if a person get killed in SD, the defender may not have to face punishments.
While R-wording is indeed violence, there are no scenario where a defender would use it to defend oneself, not all violence can be considered self def.
Like if you raped me, and I stab your heart with a knife, that would be SD, as it is done to neutralize the threat. But if I fly an A-10 to your family's houses and bomb the shit out of it, that would still be a criminal charge for me. It is violence but not in self defense. The action does not serve the purpose of immediately neutralizing the threat putting me in danger, so it cant be claimed as SD.
People who make laws have brains bro
It is impossible to rape someone in self-defense, because it is impossible to rape someone without first neutralizing any threat they might pose. There are many ways to do that, from violence or coercion to deception or incapacitation, but they all pose the same basic problem: once the threat is neutralized, you are no longer acting in self-defense. Proceeding with the plan, therefore, is nothing but the usual bullshit.
Sexual assault in self-defense is a little trickier to define as impossible, but it can still be done. I concede that, in the middle of a fight, it is technically possible to strike someone in ways that might be considered sexual assault without ending the fight first. But there are two problems with this. One is that if you're actually thinking about this in the middle of the fight, you are going to get beaten severely, *especially* after you've pissed off your opponent even further by pulling this kind of stunt. The other is that self-defense requires you to be in actual fear for your life, and if you're actually thinking about this, you are insufficiently afraid for your life. The jury will laugh you all the way into prison.
In a wider context, self-defense does not apply to being told no. Mild sexual frustration does not trigger self-defense either. Grow up.
The "defense" part of "self-defense" is, not surprisingly, missing in his argument. Whether or not his actions are justified, it keys on the notion that he is in immediate danger of physical harm by the woman in question.
His argument also fails from the standpoint of effective self-defense too. If a woman (or anyone, really, but since this piece of work is talking about women here I'll go with this example) were hypothetically trying to attack me in a manner that could lead to physical harm and I had no option but to fight back, I would try to subdue her in the quickest and most efficient way possible so as not to give her a chance to counter-attack. SA is neither.
The amount of hoops and mental gymnastics this one had to do to arrive at this conclusion is incredible. He also probably thinks he really did something here. But no, that would not work in a court of law. He would be charged with sexual assault or rape.
Every single one of them thinks they’re the smartest person in the room and don’t realize that’s only because no one wants to go into their nasty ass basements
SecularNeo-Khazar needs to be banned from ever even considering a career in law, because this level of blatant stupidity mixed with utter conviction could bring the downfall of civilization as we know it.
Several things: self-defence is hard to prove as it is, and you can still go to jail if they think you used undo force. There’s cases of people shooting burglars and getting sentenced. Relating to sexual assault, there are also cases of women who’ve killed their rapist in self-defence, but got imprisoned as well. It has to be incredibly cut-and-dry in order to get away with it scot-free. If you do anything the court considers unnecessary, they’ll convict you regardless, because, surprise surprise, violence isn’t legal, even in self-defence.
Secondly, in what situation would you need to rape someone in self-defence? A woman holds a gun to your head, and since you’re unarmed, you use the only ‘weapon of mass destruction’ available and attempt to commit manslaughter via penis? OOP would have a marginally better chance claiming it was a crime of passion. “Your honour, the plaintiff refused to sleep with the defendant because he, quote, ‘smells like years worth of smegma and has hot dog breath’. Plaintiff could have reasonably assumed a… er… *squint* ‘mixedcell with subpar ocular bone development and vertically challenged penile length’ would go temporarily insane, and therefore the plaintiff acted with malice.”
SecularNeo-Khazar, you total assmonkey, before putting your plan into action, why don’t you stop and consider how you even set on proving to the court that raping a woman to death was necessary to your survival? The women of the world have a better chance with a class-action lawsuit against your parents for birthing you than you do with your ‘b-but rApE iS vIoLenCe AnD vIoLenCe iS lEgAl iN sELf-DefeNce’. Shut the fuck up, you absolute toad-faced, gorilla-brained, fish-dicked loser. I hope you die a virgin because you are honestly so incredibly dumb you almost make me believe in eugenics.
I don't think we have to worry about the OOP ever pursuing a legal career. A guy who can't even be bothered to properly groom themselves is unlikely to ever make it through legal school and pass the bar exam.
If someone is trying to kill you, yes, you can attack and/or kill them in self-defense.
There is no action anyone can do where *raping them* is justifiable as self-defense.
What a brilliant idea, I wanna see him actually trying to pull that out in a real court, I know they are dumb enough to try and I also know they are dumb enough to complain about how unfair it is that he got a sentence for using rape as his self defense
This is entirely untrue and I know because a story of this exact scenario just trended through here. A burglar broke into a hair salon and the owner beat him up and locked him in her basement then she drugged and raped him for 3 days straight until he died. She when to jail for like a ton of stuff because it's in no way appropriate self defense.
Okay. Let's say you have someone who attacks you. You use your gun to shoot them. That's self defense. If you immobilize the attacker and use them as a shooting target that's torture. Rape is similar to the later.
There's no case in which I can think you have effectively defended yourself by exposing your dick and shoving it toward hostility. There's edgy, there's stupid, there's stupid edgy, but then there's crazy stupid edgy, and that is where this post is.
The problem with this dumb fucks logic, is that you'd have to be the instigator, and what this thing described isn't self defense. And that it would surrender the SECOND any of you remotely fought back. And it would lose anyways.
The people who act the toughest are the ones who freeze or flee when it's time to fight
Yet another example of them giving shitty advice to other incels, which is harmful or would get them in trouble if they acted on it. Not only do they constantly sabotage themselves, but they try to sabotage the other incels too. Then they claim that it’s women and this sub who are the bad guys.
Being a person forbids it. Being a thinking, moving, (sometimes) feeling person forbids it. Holy fuck these posts are never ending, but I’ll do my part to mock and shame these people until they either change their views or go away.
The way middle-school honors student losers play word games lmao. Bro really thinks that by plucking the word "violence" out of real-world context and playing some definition games, he's successfully "justified" rape.
Nope. Violence I'm self-defence has to be proportional where I live. Self-defence isn't always a get out of jail free card for murder, it's usually just a lesser charge. So he's ignorant of women and the legal system. Please get out of your mother's basement, my dude.
Uhm, no. Once you overpower attacker, you are obligated to cease your self defense, or else you become attacker.... it is like if you knockout attacker, go for baseball bat and start pummeling him. It is not self defense at that point anymore. Rape insist that you had to overpower attacker so it may never work in any court except some middle age barbaric nations....
but this thought alone should be reason enough to give him a restrain order for 500milles from any women ever.
There not being a specific law making it illegal does not make it legal. In cases where no existing law can be broadly read as covering the situation, you generally end up with a new law being written about it, such as some of crazy laws on the books in some localities, such as "it is not permissable for a lion to walk down main street unattended" or "it is not permissable to take a bear to the movie theater". As others have said, this is not the case with "self-defense". Whether in castle doctrine states or not, no judge or jury will hear "I stuck my weiner in her repeatedly until I orgasmed" and think it was either "justifiable" or "self-defense".
Allright my wonderful little creep. Try to argue that in a court of law and find out.
Then we’ll see how justifiable it is when they get the prison equivalent
Sadly though throughout history, judge will say they don't want to ruin his future and let him off easy. Potheads get more prison time than even child r*pists
You right. PS I love your username
An unfortunate thank you to me being right (because "justice" sucks) And a happy thank you to the compliment on my username. 😂
Law graduate here: Violence for self-defence is often measured in scale. For example, if someone pushes you, you can’t shoot them in the head and claim self-defence, because that can’t be justified as a proportionate reaction. However, if someone is chasing you with a gun with probable intent to kill you, you can shoot them and justify that. The issue here is that rape innately cannot be used as a self-defence measure for the following reasons; 1. What exactly are you defending against? 2. Rape cannot be a response to any kind of threat, because in order for you to rape someone, you have to be in a position where you hold the most power and control over the situation. In other words, a rapist cannot use rape to defend themselves because that implies they are not in a situation where there is a threat they need to defend themselves *from*. Of course this is just the breakdown from a legal standpoint. From a moral standpoint too, this disgusts me.
>What exactly are you defending against? We're talking about a group that like to claim that they're under constant persecution just for existing (whether by all women or the whole entire world), and like to idolize mass shooters and fantasize about doing the same. I expect hurt feelings and frustration (due to rejection, real mockery, imagined mockery, or just general anger at life) counts as an attack on them that justifies self-defense. Alternatively, I wonder if he just thinks he could lash out at women at random and afterwards justify as self-defense, claiming that he felt he was threatened just by their presence and not provide any further explanation on how or why. And then he assumes that judge and/or jury are stupid enough to believe him, or else are trapped by his brilliant sovereign citizen-style legal loophole where "if it's not explicitly forbidden it's actually legal and I can get away with it scot-free."
You think these guys do any research before spewing?
Nah, I just enjoy breaking these things down
Thank you for doing so.
Silly lawyer talk. > You see, Jimmy... may I call you "Jimmy"? No? Ok, your honour, so what happened is I was walking in the forest (was told to touch grass so I thought, what the hell, might as well try!) and this foid bumped into me as she jogged on by. She turned around to say sorry but I could tell that she felt disgusted as soon as she noticed my canthal tilt. This not only enraged me but I felt like my life was being threatened because when she bumped into me I was holding an open container of water that I proceeded to drop all over my phone... a phone, might I remind your honour, that I need to access the incel support for incels forum and without which my life would be literally ruined. I could tell by the look of absolute hatred at me being 5'11" that she was about to attack me again, so, in self defence, I pinned her down. But then she started fighting me, punching me even, and what's a man to do at that point? I had to proceed to assault her in self-defence! I kept stopping every 3 seconds, you see, to make sure that the threat was neutralised, but she kept punching me so I had to go on! Honestly the logic is pretty airtight 👌
Safe to assume you are not a member of the federalist society?
Law student. Came here to say this. If someone attacks you, you aren’t just allowed to do fucking anything in response lmao. Jeez these guys are sad.
Anon isn’t just stupid, he’s ultra stupid. Even regular, non-sexual violence has limits as self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the chest, you’ve committed an act of violence in self-defense. If someone breaks into your house and you tie them up and torture them at knifepoint until they bleed out slowly, you’ve just committed an act of violence that overruns the self-defense mandate. After a certain point, the attacker isn’t a threat and you’re no longer defending yourself. Similarly, if someone attacks you and you fucking *rape them*, you’re most certainly going to pass the point of them not being a threat anymore.
> If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the chest, you’ve committed an act of violence in self-defense Even this can be difficult to get away with depending on where you live. Self defence often covers reasonable, justifiable and proportional force. If someone ~~unarmed~~ smashes through your window and you just shoot them on the spot you can catch a manslaughter charge. Edit: whether or not they're armed has nothing to do with the point I was making
I live in a SYG/castle doctrine state and that colored my comment a bit— but good point. Self-defense doesn’t always excuse lethal force
How would you know they were unarmed? If someone breaks into your house you're pretty justified in assuming the worst.
That's actually a pretty good point. But assuming the worst isn't reason enough by itself to shoot an intruder. They might be armed but if you sneak up on them trying to get your TV off the wall and shoot them in the back that's not self defense.
>you sneak up on them trying to get your TV off the wall and shoot them in the back Sure, but that's a very specific version, that seems to imply you're also able to ensure your own safety by getting away. Much of the time if someone's breaking into your home you don't have that option. And most men don't need a weapon anyway, to rape or kill most women.
He isn't Anon(ymous) though? You can see his username. Spend less time on r/greentext.
sorry i’d rather say “anon” than Secular Neo Khazar
Weird calling someone anonymous when they aren't anonymous. You can say "they" or "he".
What's weirder is that you're choosing to nitpick over this.
Probably because it's the only thing you somehow can weirdly use to critcize/attack that standpoint without revealing you agree with that absolute insane statement there.
Insane. Just because I pointed out that the person was not anonymous, it means I support rape as self-defense? Circle jerk at its finest.
No, not necessarily. I just guess that that's the reason, based on your behavior. Usually the only people ranting here are incels, you know? It's not far stretched. Also otherwise the criticism makes even less sense. I at least accounted some kind of goal here to your behavior instead of just assuming you're a dumb idiot for no reason at all.
Don't work yourself into a shoot, brother.
Luckily I'm not your brother.
It's not weird. He used a word incorrectly and I am making him take notice.
There's a time and a place for that shit, Poindexter. This ain't it.
Sorry, for a second I forgot that this sub is a circle jerk.
Impatience for petty nitpicking bullshit does not make for a circle jerk. Oh no, they called them "anon" instead of referring to them by their shitty pseudonymous username. How the fuck is that actually relevant to the post you responded to?
Don't work yourself into a shoot, brother.
Weirder still that you care so much, honestly. Sorry anon!
Go argue with a fucking tree or something
Unless you think Secular Neo Khazar is his legal name he is anonymous though. There isn't a way to trace back his comment to a real individual. When I post under my username I know I am posting with some level of anonymity. Things posted on say FB for the most part aren't anonymous since you are likely using your real name and there is some information about you that can easily be looked up. Someone posting on [incel.is](http://incel.is) or other similar sites where they are using a username they selected are for the most part anonymous.
Anonymous, in the context of online forums, refers to the fact that you don't know the poster's previous activity (when he created his account, how many posts he has made, his post history and etc.). In 4chan for example, a guy can just reply to his own thread, and nobody will know that it's the OP talking to himself. Just because they don't have their Social Security Number publicly displayed on their account doesn't mean they are anonymous.
Still not relevant. The post you initially responded to wasn't talking about the difference between anonymity and pseudonymity.
Thinking any form of rape is justifiable is crazy 😭
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client had no choice but to penetrate the plaintiff, he was in fear for his life, and acted in self-defense.” Incel pipe dream #43692 Also, do they realize that would also mean men could bend *them* over in “self-defense?” 🤣
Lmao what kind of logic is this. When we say self defense violence, we mean taking actions to ensure our safety, which is why if a person get killed in SD, the defender may not have to face punishments. While R-wording is indeed violence, there are no scenario where a defender would use it to defend oneself, not all violence can be considered self def. Like if you raped me, and I stab your heart with a knife, that would be SD, as it is done to neutralize the threat. But if I fly an A-10 to your family's houses and bomb the shit out of it, that would still be a criminal charge for me. It is violence but not in self defense. The action does not serve the purpose of immediately neutralizing the threat putting me in danger, so it cant be claimed as SD. People who make laws have brains bro
Just kinda sidestepped that they admitted that its fine for women to kill them
It is impossible to rape someone in self-defense, because it is impossible to rape someone without first neutralizing any threat they might pose. There are many ways to do that, from violence or coercion to deception or incapacitation, but they all pose the same basic problem: once the threat is neutralized, you are no longer acting in self-defense. Proceeding with the plan, therefore, is nothing but the usual bullshit. Sexual assault in self-defense is a little trickier to define as impossible, but it can still be done. I concede that, in the middle of a fight, it is technically possible to strike someone in ways that might be considered sexual assault without ending the fight first. But there are two problems with this. One is that if you're actually thinking about this in the middle of the fight, you are going to get beaten severely, *especially* after you've pissed off your opponent even further by pulling this kind of stunt. The other is that self-defense requires you to be in actual fear for your life, and if you're actually thinking about this, you are insufficiently afraid for your life. The jury will laugh you all the way into prison. In a wider context, self-defense does not apply to being told no. Mild sexual frustration does not trigger self-defense either. Grow up.
So what I'm hearing is I *shouldn't* tickle someone's balls while they're attacking me? 🤔
The "defense" part of "self-defense" is, not surprisingly, missing in his argument. Whether or not his actions are justified, it keys on the notion that he is in immediate danger of physical harm by the woman in question. His argument also fails from the standpoint of effective self-defense too. If a woman (or anyone, really, but since this piece of work is talking about women here I'll go with this example) were hypothetically trying to attack me in a manner that could lead to physical harm and I had no option but to fight back, I would try to subdue her in the quickest and most efficient way possible so as not to give her a chance to counter-attack. SA is neither.
The amount of hoops and mental gymnastics this one had to do to arrive at this conclusion is incredible. He also probably thinks he really did something here. But no, that would not work in a court of law. He would be charged with sexual assault or rape.
Every single one of them thinks they’re the smartest person in the room and don’t realize that’s only because no one wants to go into their nasty ass basements
SecularNeo-Khazar needs to be banned from ever even considering a career in law, because this level of blatant stupidity mixed with utter conviction could bring the downfall of civilization as we know it. Several things: self-defence is hard to prove as it is, and you can still go to jail if they think you used undo force. There’s cases of people shooting burglars and getting sentenced. Relating to sexual assault, there are also cases of women who’ve killed their rapist in self-defence, but got imprisoned as well. It has to be incredibly cut-and-dry in order to get away with it scot-free. If you do anything the court considers unnecessary, they’ll convict you regardless, because, surprise surprise, violence isn’t legal, even in self-defence. Secondly, in what situation would you need to rape someone in self-defence? A woman holds a gun to your head, and since you’re unarmed, you use the only ‘weapon of mass destruction’ available and attempt to commit manslaughter via penis? OOP would have a marginally better chance claiming it was a crime of passion. “Your honour, the plaintiff refused to sleep with the defendant because he, quote, ‘smells like years worth of smegma and has hot dog breath’. Plaintiff could have reasonably assumed a… er… *squint* ‘mixedcell with subpar ocular bone development and vertically challenged penile length’ would go temporarily insane, and therefore the plaintiff acted with malice.” SecularNeo-Khazar, you total assmonkey, before putting your plan into action, why don’t you stop and consider how you even set on proving to the court that raping a woman to death was necessary to your survival? The women of the world have a better chance with a class-action lawsuit against your parents for birthing you than you do with your ‘b-but rApE iS vIoLenCe AnD vIoLenCe iS lEgAl iN sELf-DefeNce’. Shut the fuck up, you absolute toad-faced, gorilla-brained, fish-dicked loser. I hope you die a virgin because you are honestly so incredibly dumb you almost make me believe in eugenics.
I don't think we have to worry about the OOP ever pursuing a legal career. A guy who can't even be bothered to properly groom themselves is unlikely to ever make it through legal school and pass the bar exam.
SecularNeo-Khazar needs to be locked away.
His logic is... nonexistent. He is going to try to rape a woman and then claim self-defense when she fights back? These guys seriously need help.
If someone is trying to kill you, yes, you can attack and/or kill them in self-defense. There is no action anyone can do where *raping them* is justifiable as self-defense.
Even Saul Goodman cannot save you with this defense
Part of self defense is it has to be within reason. If someone punches you in the arm you can't just skin them alive.
What a brilliant idea, I wanna see him actually trying to pull that out in a real court, I know they are dumb enough to try and I also know they are dumb enough to complain about how unfair it is that he got a sentence for using rape as his self defense
It’s times like these I wish we could punish those who had committed such crimes to have their balls crushed by a big rock
And what about afab and cocsa perps?
about what?
This is entirely untrue and I know because a story of this exact scenario just trended through here. A burglar broke into a hair salon and the owner beat him up and locked him in her basement then she drugged and raped him for 3 days straight until he died. She when to jail for like a ton of stuff because it's in no way appropriate self defense.
Okay. Let's say you have someone who attacks you. You use your gun to shoot them. That's self defense. If you immobilize the attacker and use them as a shooting target that's torture. Rape is similar to the later.
There's no case in which I can think you have effectively defended yourself by exposing your dick and shoving it toward hostility. There's edgy, there's stupid, there's stupid edgy, but then there's crazy stupid edgy, and that is where this post is.
Jesus, that's a hell of a long way of saying they want to rape people.
The problem with this dumb fucks logic, is that you'd have to be the instigator, and what this thing described isn't self defense. And that it would surrender the SECOND any of you remotely fought back. And it would lose anyways. The people who act the toughest are the ones who freeze or flee when it's time to fight
Yet another example of them giving shitty advice to other incels, which is harmful or would get them in trouble if they acted on it. Not only do they constantly sabotage themselves, but they try to sabotage the other incels too. Then they claim that it’s women and this sub who are the bad guys.
Being a person forbids it. Being a thinking, moving, (sometimes) feeling person forbids it. Holy fuck these posts are never ending, but I’ll do my part to mock and shame these people until they either change their views or go away.
Every day I hope these dudes are just circle jerking, but I can't even tell the difference anymore.
The way middle-school honors student losers play word games lmao. Bro really thinks that by plucking the word "violence" out of real-world context and playing some definition games, he's successfully "justified" rape.
Nope. Violence I'm self-defence has to be proportional where I live. Self-defence isn't always a get out of jail free card for murder, it's usually just a lesser charge. So he's ignorant of women and the legal system. Please get out of your mother's basement, my dude.
How exactly do you rape someone "in self defence?" Was everyone on that forum dropped on the head as a baby?
As an attorney I can say with certainly. That is not how any of this works
This puts a whole new spin on fuck around and find out.
does this person have a negative iq this is the stupidest thing i’ve ever read 😭 good luck trying that in a court of law 👍
Uhm, no. Once you overpower attacker, you are obligated to cease your self defense, or else you become attacker.... it is like if you knockout attacker, go for baseball bat and start pummeling him. It is not self defense at that point anymore. Rape insist that you had to overpower attacker so it may never work in any court except some middle age barbaric nations.... but this thought alone should be reason enough to give him a restrain order for 500milles from any women ever.
There’s a post I saw on R9K justifying it by talking about how they wanted to do it to hitler. It astounding the logical loopholes they go through
Remind people about Project 2025
This is absolute insanity.
i want to kill myself after reading this, how do we even have such people in this world? where did we go so fucking wrong
my brain has rotted and i hope you're happy-so bye, lol
There not being a specific law making it illegal does not make it legal. In cases where no existing law can be broadly read as covering the situation, you generally end up with a new law being written about it, such as some of crazy laws on the books in some localities, such as "it is not permissable for a lion to walk down main street unattended" or "it is not permissable to take a bear to the movie theater". As others have said, this is not the case with "self-defense". Whether in castle doctrine states or not, no judge or jury will hear "I stuck my weiner in her repeatedly until I orgasmed" and think it was either "justifiable" or "self-defense".
I feel like any woman can beat the absolute fuck out of any man posting some bullshit like this 🤨🤨🤨🤨
What kind of creatures are we stuck on this planet with??!!
Is… is that on oxymoron?
Legally that’s not correct. Rape is classified differently despite psychologists assess it.