|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/13/2005 09:23:56 AM · #26 |
good point...lol
and one more bit, what if the girl forgets to take it off while she's having sex with her real boyfriend?
You're gonna see a lot more hapless nonrapists in the hospitals than actual criminals who will know how to remove the device by themselves. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 09:33:24 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by new_mo:
Remember those 'unbreakable' bike locks and 'the Club' they put on the steering wheel of a car? All you have to do is chew a hole in the steering wheel and slip it right off. An experienced criminal can do it in seconds. |
Misnomer...you don't even have to take off or damage the steering wheel. You simply roll down the window and hit the end with a sledge which collapses the lock.
My cousin did repo, and she always had a pile of them in her shop. She said they take about 30-60 seconds to bypass. They don't stop professional thiefs. Rather, they simply deter teenage joyriders. |
|
|
|
09/13/2005 11:12:02 AM · #28 |
I can't help but think that this takes effect at a point in time that is too late: preventative measures need to take effect much earlier than this.
Reminds me a little of a South African device that fits under cars and fires out a flamethrower 10 feet either side of the car when the driver treads on a lever. Purpose was to prevent car jackings by frying the purported car jackers.
The flamethrower device would not be legal in the UK (there is a case where a person was guilty of manslaughter for wiring his car up to the mains electricity for protection, which ended up killing a purported car thief). Corporal punishment (as in most civilised societies) is not acceptable, and authorising your citizens to mete out such punishment is merely privatising the system and making the citizen the judge, jury and executioner.
I am not sure about the barbed condom - if it is not life harming, and can be removed without too much damage, it may well be okay. However, if someone died while trying to remove it (even if that person was a purported rapist), then there would be a problem. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 01:01:45 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Corporal punishment (as in most civilised societies) is not acceptable, and authorising your citizens to mete out such punishment is merely privatising the system and making the citizen the judge, jury and executioner. |
When does the citizen have the right to privatize punishment? Simple....whenever those contracted to provide the services fail to render them.
A government is a contract with it's citizens. Citizens are not under the government but rather the government is under the citizens. The government is obligated by said contract to provide just protection to it's citizens. If it is repeatedly unable to do so, then it is in breach of it's contract. To criticize the citizen for resorting to such actions when the government has failed is IMHO unfair.
Perhaps this is a difficult concept for a Brit to understand.
See, we Americans believe a government has no rights but those it's citizens grant it. Thus, a government has no more right than it's citizens.
So say a citizen does not have the right to protect himself, is not a concept I accept. We citizens have uniformly decided to cede our acting on our right to defense to a unified front (government). However, if the government is completely failing in such. Then the citizens have the right to take back their rights.
Now, mind you there is a big difference between the occasional "rape, murder, etc." and the state of it being a commonality. |
|
|
|
09/14/2005 02:49:11 AM · #30 |
Say it did becaome a product, and many ladies wore it:
Couldn't the rapist think ahead and stick something else (a piece of clothing, a stick, something else) and "test" to see if it was safe? And then commit rape after testing it? Or would they think that far ahead/or actually do that? |
|
|
|
09/15/2005 12:33:57 AM · #31 |
| Most rapes are quick and brutal....often having to take opportunity of the moment. They're not usually keen on checking for things... |
|
|
|
09/18/2005 02:08:38 AM · #32 |
Uh yeah...okaaaaay
in a real sexual assault I don't think you will be able to convince the guy to put a condom on...this is so stupid it must be satirical.
I'm envisioning a senario where the girl suddenly thinks "ooh I think I am about to be date raped, ooh I'll just get him to where this condom...Hey honey just put this on." So the guy is tricked into what he thinks is a consensual act...come on people
rape is horrible as is any other form of sexual assault. it's usually violent....and usually the rapist isn't going to care about a condom, even if you scream out you have something.
Has anyone ever actually been in a situation where they have been raped, or sexually assaulted in any other way to understand this? I understand the idea of self defense but when someone wants to get rough or violent, all common sense, like wearing a condom isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 11:42:02 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
When does the citizen have the right to privatize punishment? Simple....whenever those contracted to provide the services fail to render them.
|
That is vigilantism. There are plenty of reasons why that is an undesirable state of affairs.
Vigilantes tend to react, and act out of vengeance or anger - they do not implement checks and balances, and their "justice" tends to be too swift. They turn the tables on the criminals, but in doing so the vigilantes criminalise themselves. There is a tendency to try and justify their kind of criminality (self defence, the right to protect your innate human rights, the criminal having foregone his rights, natural law, honour etc). But these result in a form of DIY justice, frontier-mentality, survivalist ethic where you must kill or be killed. It represents a massive retrograde step in civilisation and threatens the rule of law and democracy.
The rule of law (the opposite of vigilantism) is one of the great developments in history. I am familiar with it. I am familiar with its development in the US. One key phrase:
"to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men," [Massachusetts Constitution, John Adams (1780)]
This has been approved by the US Supreme Court and every state supreme court in the US. It seems that they disagree with your interpretation of the relationship between the relative importance of the law, the government and the citizenry. It is rather a shame that the principle is not properly understood or respected.
Another dichotomy for you: democracy (as underpinned by the rule of law) or vigilante justice?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 12:04:31 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Lyla:
Uh yeah...okaaaaay
in a real sexual assault I don't think you will be able to convince the guy to put a condom on...this is so stupid it must be satirical.
I'm envisioning a senario where the girl suddenly thinks "ooh I think I am about to be date raped, ooh I'll just get him to where this condom...Hey honey just put this on." So the guy is tricked into what he thinks is a consensual act...come on people
rape is horrible as is any other form of sexual assault. it's usually violent....and usually the rapist isn't going to care about a condom, even if you scream out you have something.
Has anyone ever actually been in a situation where they have been raped, or sexually assaulted in any other way to understand this? I understand the idea of self defense but when someone wants to get rough or violent, all common sense, like wearing a condom isn't going to happen. |
I think your misunderstanding the concept of it, you don't ask the rapist to put in on, the woman wears it in her and when the attacker penetrats her he gets snagged on it and has to have it surgically (or painfully) removed.
It is true most rapist are to hurried to check a woman if she is wearing them and will probably get caught (sorry for the pun). While I believe the rapist deserves what he gets I do see a chance of this being misused for revenge and doubt it would ever make it to the U.S.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2005 03:54:48 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Originally posted by "thesaj":
When does the citizen have the right to privatize punishment? Simple....whenever those contracted to provide the services fail to render them.
|
That is vigilantism. There are plenty of reasons why that is an undesirable state of affairs.
|
In the case where there is next to no enforcement or protection, a vigilante is often regarded as a great thing. In the Wild West...there were numerous vigilantes. They often wound up in positions of "Sherrifs". It was a very small difference...and not uncommon for the first to become the latter.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"But these result in a form of DIY justice, frontier-mentality, survivalist ethic where you must kill or be killed." |
My question for you...is what do you do when YOU ARE IN A KILL OR BE KILLED environment?
Note, we're not talking about the U.K., the U.S., etc but rather lawless areas of Africa.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men,"...Another dichotomy for you: democracy (as underpinned by the rule of law) or vigilante justice?
|
No they don't...in the U.S. we still have a government of laws and not men. However, were that to degrade so that we have a situation of men and not laws. Were justice to cease and the rule of men prevail. Then we are highly encouraged to
So no, it's not a dichotomy...just an Brit's inability to understand a concept most American's take for granted the understanding of.
You see...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
If a government becomes destructive to these ends...now, I do not believe that America is at such a point. But in regions of Africa, I do believe such is the case. And as such, I do not see an issue in the vigilantism to protect such rights. No new government arises without first being the "vigilante" in which an individual or small group of individuals take matters into their own hands so as to oppose the current institution. Whether king killing king. Coloniallists rebelling and establishing their own rule of law. Or a woman deciding to protect herself against harsh actions with harsh measures.
Mind you, it's not like the women are running around cutting men's penis' off. But rather, this is a very "passive-aggressive" measure.
Originally posted by "Lyla":
in a real sexual assault I don't think you will be able to convince the guy to put a condom on...this is so stupid it must be satirical.
|
I think you missed the point. It's worn more akin to a Tampon from what I understood. So the woman wouldn't need the guy to put it on or put it on first. But rather it would already be inside her. She would wear it when travelling unescorted.
And mind you, it was developed for the lawless regions in Africa in which yes, a woman walking alone has something like an 80% chance of being raped.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 12:04:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Originally posted by "thesaj":
When does the citizen have the right to privatize punishment? Simple....whenever those contracted to provide the services fail to render them.
|
That is vigilantism. There are plenty of reasons why that is an undesirable state of affairs.
|
In the case where there is next to no enforcement or protection, a vigilante is often regarded as a great thing. |
My point is that when a rule of law is established, vigilantism is an affront to, and undermines, the rule of law. Vigilantism is the rule of the individual, upholding his own version of law. If a sherriff in the US Wild West was empowered with law enforcement duties, he is not a vigilante, but an upholder of the rule of law.
Absent the rule of law, then vigilante justice may be the norm (though not an attractive state of affairs).
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"But these result in a form of DIY justice, frontier-mentality, survivalist ethic where you must kill or be killed." |
Originally posted by theSaj:
My question for you...is what do you do when YOU ARE IN A KILL OR BE KILLED environment?
Note, we're not talking about the U.K., the U.S., etc but rather lawless areas of Africa. |
If we are talking about an area where the rule of law is upheld, comply with the law. If not, then one would need to fight (and later campaign for the imposition of the rule of law).
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
"to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men,"...Another dichotomy for you: democracy (as underpinned by the rule of law) or vigilante justice?
|
No they don't...in the U.S. we still have a government of laws and not men. However, were that to degrade so that we have a situation of men and not laws. Were justice to cease and the rule of men prevail. Then we are highly encouraged to
...
You see...
"[...]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" |
Your reference justifies wholesale change when the constitutional purposes of government are no longer being achieved. It does not empower the individual to decide unilaterally that the state has not enforced the law in a fashion that he agrees with, permitting him to take the law into his own hands. You yourself state that the constitutionally protected right to replace the government only arises when the rule of law collapses (my emphasis in your statement).
Vigilante justice is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law. The Western democratic tradition is based upon the rule of law. Vigilantism undermines the rule of law and democracy.
I don't think that you are saying anything different. Merely repeating my statements, then telling me that if the rule of law breaks down, the position changes (which I accept).
Originally posted by theSaj:
So no, it's not a dichotomy...just an Brit's inability to understand a concept most American's take for granted the understanding of. |
I have studied jurisprudence and history, and understand the principles upon which the US was founded. You have repeated my statements, then posited changed circumstances (the breakdown of law & order, the substitution of Africa for the US) in order to disagree with me. I am not quite sure why you feel the need to make this statement.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 01:48:38 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
My point is that when a rule of law is established, vigilantism is an affront to, and undermines, the rule of law. Vigilantism is the rule of the individual, upholding his own version of law.
Absent the rule of law, then vigilante justice may be the norm (though not an attractive state of affairs).
|
I agree with this...
But we are speaking of Africa (where this device was designed and for use, and particular in regions in which the rule of law is no where to be found.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
If we are talking about an area where the rule of law is upheld, comply with the law. If not, then one would need to fight (and later campaign for the imposition of the rule of law). |
Agreed, which is what I referenced concerning the Old West and vigilantes who often were later placed in the position of Sherrif.
As for repeating the statements...as I have said. This was designed for use in Africa to deal with the situation there. Which in many regions is a complete collapse of the government and "rule of law".
You keep iterating your point, all I wanted you to express was what to do when "rule of law" ceases. That's all my point was. In America, do I support vigilantism. No. (Do I believe in lethal use of force - yes. And our government grants that right to it's citizens when protecting their families and their homes.) Do I support vigilante revolutionaries over mere political issues. No. Do I support a girl who beat her father to death with a baseball bat because he kept raping and abusing her. And after numerous attempts to seek help from police and social workers she took matters into her own hands. Yes, I do. And interesting to note, so did the judge. Who set her free even thought it was decided she murdered in cold blood. It was determined that she was in constant jeopardy. Had no means to escape. And had endeavored to seek help from the obligatory government sources - which failed to render it.
Do I believe an individual who has been wronged has the right to take matters into his own hands. Not so long as we have a working justice system and governance. And if someone does such they will bear the consequences.
But in a war zone, in a region of lawlessness and abuse. Then no...I don't think it wrong for a woman to use such a device to protect herself when no one else will.
And that's the key of it. I believe everyone has a right to protect themselves from harm. Whether thru third party means (government, police, etc.) or 1st party means if such is not available.
And essentially we agree. I just think Americans have a stronger view to ward the rights of the individual then toward the government than many Europeans based upon what I've observed.
- The Saj |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 02:00:34 PM · #38 |
In an area where some people believe that raping a virgin will cure them of aids, I think we should focus more on education, instead of making these ridiculous penis thingys. Again, the rapist will check for the device, and will likely cause more harm to the victim. So nothing would be gained by using this device.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 02:34:08 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I agree with this...
But we are speaking of Africa (where this device was designed and for use, and particular in regions in which the rule of law is no where to be found. |
If you were referring simply to developing nations, references to the US constitution, the US principles of statehood, giving examples relating to sherrifs and the Wild West and accusing non-Americans of being unable to comprehend the US style justification, is perhaps a little misleading.
In any case, I think that developing nations should be encouraged to develop a more coherent and stable society, better education (as phreakon suggests) and a system of law before we start encouraging vigilante justice. Not that I linked the barbed condom to vigilantism: I merely pointed out that it there is a similar principle at work and this is something of a morally tricky area (aimed at those who advocated the object thoughtlessly).
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 03:33:13 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by phreakon:
In an area where some people believe that raping a virgin will cure them of aids, I think we should focus more on education, instead of making these ridiculous penis thingys. |
Education is fine and dandy...but if you want to wait 12 yrs for the next generation yeah...be my guest. In fact, it will likely take decades for such education to become prevalent and accepted.
Meanwhile, women are suffering left and right. And yeah...some might be bright enough to check. But often is the case the more difficult you make something the more discouraged perpetrators are.
Nothing you do will prevent a professional thief from stealing your car. But there are things that you can do which will make him decide to steal the car parked next to yours instead.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
If you were referring simply to developing nations, references to the US constitution, the US principles of statehood, giving examples relating to sherrifs and the Wild West and accusing non-Americans of being unable to comprehend the US style justification, is perhaps a little misleading. |
Actually, it's not. As the United States of America went thru all those periods and events leading up to generation of government and "rule of laws" that were reasonably balanced and fundimentally fair to the citizenry.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
In any case, I think that developing nations should be encouraged to develop a more coherent and stable society, better education (as phreakon suggests) and a system of law before we start encouraging vigilante justice.
|
Why is there the assumption that such endeavorings are not being made? One always needs a long term and short term solution. One to fix the problem, and one to help reduce it's occurrence in the meantime.
Education = long term
Anti-rape condom = an attempt at short-term mitigation
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Not that I linked the barbed condom to vigilantism: I merely pointed out that it there is a similar principle at work and this is something of a morally tricky area (aimed at those who advocated the object thoughtlessly). |
Do you advocate a woman should pursue no recourse for her defense? do you have an alternative? this is always one of my gripes....don't like the idea...FINE...give me an alternative.
No one said it wasn't a morally tricky area. I am just inclined to side in favor of the victim, the female whom the perpetrator endeavored to rape, than I am on the perpetrator. If the perpetrator is hurt or harmed I believe it is due solely by his choice. In which case, I see the the rapist as liable for his own harm. Had he not endeavored to rape a woman then he'd be in perfect health. To the woman (and mind you, rape in these regions can often be a death sentence). Something that reduces that risk I see as a good thing. |
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:20:45 PM · #41 |
I don't think this would be a deterrent because the would be rapist would not know it was in position until he had got too far into the rape to not be in danger of being arrested for it. This is more likely to cause a violent reaction resulting in the death of the woman even if she was not raped. One can recover from rape but death is a rather final!
Education about these condoms would take just as long to get through to the public as awareness of virgins not being the cure for aids so I don't see this as an argument or an immediate cure for rape attacks.
Also the wearing of female condoms throughout the day or even for longer brings up hygiene issues for the female and they would have to be educated on using the condoms properly. How often would the women be able to buy replacements and could the women at risk afford to do so. Or are they being handed out for free? Or is some business making a healthy profit on the back of fear?
The danger of these being used to falsely accuse men is also an issue I am cynical enough to consider a problem.
The final point I wouild like to make is the possibility of these condoms being used by young girls and their virginity being called into dispute by ill informed families - a moral issue for many of these girls.
P
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 04:57:56 PM · #42 |
You are all right, my mistake...
Let them rape the girls...and have their fun. Better raped than dead. Not that the latter doesn't often happen anyways.
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 05:13:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
You are all right, my mistake...
Let them rape the girls...and have their fun. Better raped than dead. Not that the latter doesn't often happen anyways. |
I don't see that anyone is saying this should happen - I just happen to disagree that this female condom is a good way of preventing rapes. But yes, better raped than dead - that's why women are advised not to fight back if they are in danger of being raped.
Education, stronger laws and harder sentences, more visual warnings of the consequences of raping someone(ie posters on the streets), girls taught sensible behaviour ( ie where to walk, not to be alone in certain circumstances etc), tv adverts, famous people in the country decrying the crime, greater policing. - you wanted ideas here are some!
Just because people disagree with you doesn't make them wrong or lacking in feeling and concern.
P
|
|
|
|
09/20/2005 06:18:02 PM · #44 |
You can get tshirts that say:
Maybe they should hand those out to the potential rapists at the same time as handing out the condoms to the potential victims.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 09:50:59 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
If you were referring simply to developing nations, references to the US constitution, the US principles of statehood, giving examples relating to sherrifs and the Wild West and accusing non-Americans of being unable to comprehend the US style justification, is perhaps a little misleading. |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Actually, it's not. ... |
Silly me. Of course.
As you say:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Perhaps this is a difficult concept for a Brit to understand. |
It is simply a case of:
Originally posted by theSaj:
[...] ...just an Brit's inability to understand a concept most American's take for granted the understanding of. |
When you have a moment, I would love an explanation as to how the US Constitution and history affects the relationship between individuals and states elsewhere. Please let me know how I can enforce my constitutional right to overthrow the government (is it just the US government I can overthrow, or does this give me a wider right to overthrow my own government too?).
When you have done, maybe you could explain how you managed to title the thread "you go girls!!!" while retaining the impression that you thought this was a morally tricky area.
When I said that I did not have enough information to make an informed judgment as to whether this tool overstepped the mark (aka the flamethrowing car), I meant simply that. The alternative (and in the absence of information I make no judgment as to whether it is appropriate) would be to prevent the use of this device.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2005 10:35:15 AM · #46 |
| Hey, easy with the brit comments, ignorant yank :P |
|
|
|
09/22/2005 11:02:36 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
When you have a moment, I would love an explanation as to how the US Constitution and history affects the relationship between individuals and states elsewhere. Please let me know how I can enforce my constitutional right to overthrow the government (is it just the US government I can overthrow, or does this give me a wider right to overthrow my own government too?). |
Is an understanding and a belief held by Americans; that when a government fails the people. The people have the right to establish another. Yes, Americans believe you have that right. We don't believe that one needs a constitution for said right. We believe it is an inalienable right.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
When you have done, maybe you could explain how you managed to title the thread "you go girls!!!" while retaining the impression that you thought this was a morally tricky area. |
Morally, as to risks that women have. And that many object to any "vigilantism" or "self-defense".
"You go girls..." as yes, I have little sympathy for perpetrators of rape and support anything that gives women an improved and upper hand. Frankly, if it cut the penis off and led to the deaths of the perpetrators I would have very little remorse.
Now mind you, this device was developed for a small nation that has in excess of 50 murders a day.
South Africa
POPULATION: 44,344,136*
MURDER RATE: 50+/day* (18,000+/annum) & 25,000 other attempts.
[And this is after major drops in crime rate.]
RAPE: 55,000+/annum* [who knows how many were unreported?]
Imagine if 0.25% of the female population of your country were raped each year. In other words, 25 out of 1,000 every year. Or 250 rapes per 1,000 people every decade. These are hard numbers for us to really fathom.
We are not talking about our situation. But an environment in which women are raped and often murdered daily. Second, 1/8 of the population is HIV+. A higher percentage in males. And many rapists are HIV+. So what you don't understand is that RAPE is a damn death sentence in Africa. So when you don't want them to die. And in central Africa that goes up to 1 in 3 and almost 100% of rapists are HIV+. The odds are very likely that if you are raped in Africa you will die an extremely slow and painful death shortly there after.
(Regardless, I've mentioned most of this earlier...perhaps in less detail. But I hope the statistics help put it in a clearer perspective. No, this is not a need in New York, London, Paris, etc. But in Africa....it's a potential godsend.)
I just get frustrated because I see so much "well, that's just not proper...education is the way to go". TV commercials...sheesh...it's not AMERICA OR EUROPE. That's fine and dandy, but education takes a bloody long time before it permeates a culture. And even longer in one that does not have as much "mass means" of education. In central Africa where there are no schools, no TV's, for most of the villages. What then? How are you going to educate them? And the rapists....well most of these are the hardest to reach with education. So we need real, immediate, and effective strategies...not ideologies and culture we're comfortable with. No, break out of our comfort boxes and look at a world that is so far different from ours that our understanding fails to relate.
:(
Message edited by author 2005-09-22 11:05:31. |
|
|
|
09/23/2005 07:25:00 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Is an understanding and a belief held by Americans; that when a government fails the people. The people have the right to establish another. Yes, Americans believe you have that right. We don't believe that one needs a constitution for said right. We believe it is an inalienable right. |
I think of it as the other way around. The US Constitution is just one example of an expression of human rights as some people interpret them. Because it is written in the US Constitution, does not make it "correct". Because Americans believe in the principle and/or their constitution, does not make it "correct". It may be the case that because it is written in the US Constitution, many Americans believe in the principle. It may even mean that some Americans believe that the principle applies generally, because they cannot distinguish between their beliefs, the principle as expressed in the US Constitution, and the principle in the abstract.
The expression of the right to overturn a government is something of a symbol of a free society, such as is generally found in a federal republic. The word "republic" derives from the Latin "res publica", literally "a thing of the people".
However, there are other forms of government. Just because they do not conform to your view of the "best" form of government, that does not make them any more or less valid. There are many forms of government, and many ways in which the relationship is governed between a state and its citizens. Not all of these encompass the belief that the citizenry has a right to replace the government (eg a monarchy, a dictatorship or a fascist state). These are not "wrong", though you may not agree with them.
You could argue (and appear in part to do so) that the right is fundamental (or "inalienable") as a human right. That is a different question, and far more difficult to consider (philosophically, it is very hard to ascertain what exactly a "right" is, much less what those rights are). Needless to say, nothing that is written down in a constitution will affect whether or not this really is a fundamental human right. It is probably a question that is open for interpretation, will ultimately be governed by individual perception, and has no correct answer.
The problem with these questions is that they are fundamentally somewhat divorced from practicality: the whole concept of a state or of rights is a construct, and the principles tend to be derived either from philosophical debate or a belief system (such as religion). We can choose to implement those policies to a greater or lesser degree in life. My preference is to follow the principles by which we choose to live as far as reasonably practical. I believe that a principled existence will ultimately be more beneficial for all (though in a somewhat utilitarian fashion, and, I acknowledge, from a position of privilege). You, I think, prefer to implement short term, practical solutions, regardless of whether or not they offend what I would consider to be otherwise important principles.
As with all things, a balance must be found. I merely pointed out in my original post that there is a balance to be found, as there is the potential for this device to offend certain principles. The appropriate balance of considerations will vary from situation to situation. The balance will be different from the US to a developing nation and from era to era, where different emphasis may be placed upon the principle of the rule of law vs vigilantism or anarchy. Where the balance should lie is debateable.
As I have said a couple of times, I do not know enough about this device to know where it should lie on the balancing scale.
Originally posted by theSaj:
So we need real, immediate, and effective strategies...not ideologies and culture we're comfortable with. No, break out of our comfort boxes and look at a world that is so far different from ours that our understanding fails to relate. |
I agree with trying to understand other societies better. I believe that an important part of that is not to superimpose your own belief system or moral standards onto other people.
I agree with finding short term, practical solutions, but this must be balanced against the need to implement long term strategies. Assisting the development of principles in society that have been successful in improving the quality of life elsewhere are an important part of the long term strategy. It is widely acknowledged that the rule of law is highly beneficial for society.
Assisting nations in developing such a system (education, literacy, reduction of corruption, system of law combined with an effective police force) is perhaps more important in the long run than equipping them with weapons to defend themselves in the short term. Especially if the short term practical solution undermines the long term aims. Again - a balance must be found.
NB I have used the words "assisting nations in developing" thoughtfully: I do not consider enforcing our will upon another nation and implementing a new system of government by force as "assisting", or being acceptable.
Message edited by author 2005-09-23 08:54:15.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2005 09:48:19 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Because it is written in the US Constitution, does not make it "correct". |
Oh quite true, I believe the Constitution is but a guide. Trying to ensure the rights that are inherent to all individuals.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
The expression of the right to overturn a government is something of a symbol of a free society, such as is generally found in a federal republic. |
I believe that was my point....I never said the Constitution was the justification. But rather it was an understanding and a belief held by many in America.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
However, there are other forms of government. Just because they do not conform to your view of the "best" form of government, that does not make them any more or less valid. |
Any form of government that fails to protect the basic human rights or that chooses to oppress it's people is "invalid". That's my point.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Not all of these encompass the belief that the citizenry has a right to replace the government (eg a monarchy, a dictatorship or a fascist state). These are not "wrong", though you may not agree with them. |
If they become oppressive of the people they are wrong. Long live the king, so long as he is ruling justly, and beneficially for the people. But if he is to oppress the people...than off with his head and an end to his dynasty.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Needless to say, nothing that is written down in a constitution will affect whether or not this really is a fundamental human right. |
Absolutely agreed, you're barking up the wrong tree and showing exactly my point that you just don't get it. I don't know if it is cause you come from a British background or if it's just you. But you're showing very clearly my point that you have little understanding or means to understand what Americans take as an inherent de facto understanding.
Of course one does not need a Constitution for such things. Such was determined well before the Constitution.
That which I quoted:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"
Pre-dates the Constitution. One does not need a paper to be granted such rights. One writes the paper to declare such rights as a mere reminder to the established government. The rights always existed. The strength to implement them may wax or wain.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
My preference is to follow the principles by which we choose to live as far as reasonably practical. I believe that a principled existence will ultimately be more beneficial for all (though in a somewhat utilitarian fashion, and, I acknowledge, from a position of privilege). You, I think, prefer to implement short term, practical solutions, regardless of whether or not they offend what I would consider to be otherwise important principles. |
No, simply, in mine and most American's principles. "People come first..." the government is there to serve the people not the other way around. And if the government ceases such than dissolve it and form another.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I merely pointed out in my original post that there is a balance to be found, as there is the potential for this device to offend certain principles. |
Perhaps, but to me the brutal rape and often bloody killing of a woman or young girl is far more offensive than any principle of "vigilantism" or "acting in one's own defense instead of letting a non-existant/non-effective government beaucracy protect you".
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I agree with finding short term, practical solutions, but this must be balanced against the need to implement long term strategies. |
I agree, and education programs and initiatives are already underway. They're making progress (I believe there has been a 30%-50% reduction in the past 10 yrs.) But when 10 yrs equals 11,000,000 rapes. Something MORE needs to be done.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Assisting nations in developing such a system (education, literacy, reduction of corruption, system of law combined with an effective police force) is perhaps more important in the long run than equipping them with weapons to defend themselves in the short term. |
Agreed, but in the meantime I am not going to refuse the right of said individuals to defend themselves until society and government is established to the point of doing it reasonably well.
Yes, a balance must be found....and I believe that said device is just one item to help bring back into balance a scale tipped so heavily in favor of the perpetrators as to be epidemic.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
I have used the words "assisting nations in developing" thoughtfully: I do not consider enforcing our will upon another nation and implementing a new system of government by force as "assisting", or being acceptable.
|
Where as, to me, I believe there are times when such must be done. If a nation were slaughtering all the blue eyes. Or treating all women as sex slaves, than I believe in acting. Even establishing. For to me, if 1/2 the population is kept as slaves and abused than I give very little care or concern regarding imposing my views on another. I wish someone had opposed their views on America regarding slavery early on - it would have save our nation from one of our greatest shames. What we were doing deserved to be stopped. And eventually, it was imposed. And one half of the nation imposed itself on the other resulting in a very bloody war. And the ending of one of America's greatest wrong-doings.
Message edited by author 2005-09-23 09:52:28.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2005 10:49:17 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I just get frustrated because I see so much "well, that's just not proper...education is the way to go". TV commercials...sheesh...it's not AMERICA OR EUROPE. That's fine and dandy, but education takes a bloody long time before it permeates a culture. And even longer in one that does not have as much "mass means" of education. In central Africa where there are no schools, no TV's, for most of the villages. What then? How are you going to educate them? And the rapists....well most of these are the hardest to reach with education. So we need real, immediate, and effective strategies...not ideologies and culture we're comfortable with. No, break out of our comfort boxes and look at a world that is so far different from ours that our understanding fails to relate.
:( |
Have you been to South Africa? It is a very modern country, where the rapes take place is mostly in the city areas and the people there have very easy contact with tvs and radio. The education system is good and there is no doubt that education on this matter is available to many people. Don't put all African people in mud huts without western contact.
Much of Africa you see on US & UK televisions is just one side of the African culture, where it is at its worst for famine and drought.
In the poorest areas of the world I have seen tv aerials, satallite dishes attached to the most fragile homes and mobile phones used as the norm. Many of the poorest people cling to these as status symbols and they often give them the wrong impression of western life, wealth beyond belief for everyone, everyone in the US shooting people, no poverty, that all British men wear bowler hats and umbrellas, etc.
So do not say education is impossible through these means and in fact I gave several ideas that do not rely on modern technology. Knee jerk reactions using violence against violence creates more violence in the end and does little to solve the problem long term. If you want a quick answer thenput all the girls in chastity belts and let their mothers/fathers/ sisters keep the keys - solve the problem but is it right? Smae with this condom ( except it would not solve the problem of women being nattacked just escalate the violence.)
P
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 02:13:59 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/06/2025 02:13:59 PM EDT.
|
