• HatchetHaro@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago
    1. why limit to women?

    2. where’s the due process?

    3. wouldn’t this open an avenue for getting away with murder using rape as an excuse and therefore also degrading the severity of actual rape cases?

    • amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago
      1. because I’m a woman
      2. they lost the right to due process after committing rape
      3. you commit political violence, expect someone to bash back. don’t be a fascist, and you won’t have to worry about dying
      • HatchetHaro@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        very well. i shall now falsely claim rape to murder someone, and since the victim has no way of proving innocence (on account of being dead), they would have lost the right to due process anyways, and then i get away with it scot-free since it is now legal for me to kill my “rapist”.

        • amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          idk, to me it just sounds like you’re rabidly defending the right of rapists to escape any consequences.

          the “false rape agenda” is an incel fascist rhetoric pushed by MRA activists so thank you for outing yourself as one of their enablers

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            the “false rape agenda” is an incel fascist rhetoric pushed by MRA activists

            Maybe today. But you said you wanted to do away with due process for murder. What do you think due process is?

            Your position here is every bit as ludicrous as Trumpists saying “immigrants don’t deserve due process because they entered the country illegally”. Ignoring the fact that some of the people being deported had a legal right to be there that could have been proven if they were given their basic due process rights.

            • amino@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              there is no due process in actions not carried out by courts. what the fuck are you shitlibs not getting about this? self-defense doesn’t need state backing, that’s how its always been.

              this is the same as MAGA getting mad that social media platforms are banning them for hate speech and invoking a first amendment violation. you can’t violate someone’s free speech if you’re not the literal government

              • Zagorath@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                there is no due process in actions not carried out by courts

                You’re talking about killing someone. Self-defence doesn’t ever happen without due process. You face a very high chance of being charged with murder, and then you plead “not guilty by reason of self-defence”. And present your evidence, hoping the jury believes it. That is what due process is.

          • HatchetHaro@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            oh, no, i’m just massively in support of legally killing anyone i want, so thanks for giving me an easy and legal way to do it!