Phi for All

And the propaganda technique also uses a "daily lives" backdrop while giving an extreme example, that's why it's insidious. Black women picking up their welfare checks while trying to get pregnant in the backs of their Cadillacs. Blinged-up rappers walking through Calcutta slums. And women wearing slutty outfits at a party, just asking to be raped. I think too many men realize the first two are hardly "daily lives" occurrences, but don't extend this reasoning to women. Where can a woman go to get away from the foul balls being hit at her in places where it isn't appropriate? You only have to assume risk at the stadium. Why does she have to assume the risk at restaurants, movies, parks, sidewalks, etc? Are they always guilty if they look ravishing in public? Isn't this more a case of having a foul ball crash through your windshield on the highway, where you weren't expecting it? Wouldn't you hold the stadium responsible for a lack of restraint (some kind of netting, in this case)? If they told you you shouldn't have been driving so close during a game, wouldn't you object to the assumption?

2.9 million.

This is very similar to the propaganda technique used by Ronald Reagan with the black Welfare Queen campaign. You point to an instance that embodies the worst aspects of your argument, and use that as a supposed baseline for judging behavior. It Begs the Question that the behavior is rampant and always at fault, and in Reagan's case, it unfairly cast several generations of black women in an unfair, stereotypical, and fabricated light. Why are women in general who've been assaulted treated as though they walked through a Calcutta slum like some blinged-up rapper? It's a fairly automatic response from the current system. You argue that there's a time and place, but in the case of sexual assault, the times and places for women are a tiny fraction of those enjoyed by men in the same venues. Don't you think that needs to be corrected? If you want to change to a better course, you can't steer towards the danger or just leave the wheel where it is. I think we need to start holding men to a higher standard, and not accept that clothing is an excuse to forget those standards.

Absolutely. It would be a good first step to figure out why the victims in sexual assault aren't getting treated in court the same way the victims of a robberies are treated. Do robbery victims get the talk mistermack refers to, informing/dissuading them that this will be a long and brutal process, and that their personal lives will be under the microscope? Are they warned about their limited chances of getting a conviction? Most of the "compromises" he talks about seem weighted to benefit the accused, and then he claims it's the best option available. The more I think about it, it's the exact stance that has enabled us to ignore this injustice all along.

! Moderator Note You've had multiple requests to clarify what you want to talk about. From the first sentence, it's unclear, and just gets worse from there. If any person who is not an identical twin can identify with your concept, why doesn't it make more sense? Please define "apolitical correctness" as well, since Google is not forthcoming. No more responses from others, please, until the OP can help sort this out.

Use your reasoning filters. Swansont made no claims about you, but did say that some of your arguments made it seem like you were blaming the victim. That's not a claim, that's a really excellent invitation for you to explain your position a little clearer.

Couldn't let this stand tacitly, sorry it's off-topic. Your low upvote count is due to your being a smart person with limited life experience, a passion for learning, and a tendency to hold assertive stances. The combination is common in people your age. You use the knowledge you have but your reasoning filters are still developing. You make bold statements that often clash with what others know, so it's not difficult to see how that affects reputation. People don't vote you down because you disagree with them (or if they do, that will often be countered with an upvote). More often it's because you're being insistent and not listening past your own concepts. Again, pretty normal for the college-bound person flexing their mental muscles. You remind me of Cap'n Refsmmat when he first joined. It's a miracle he survived the early moderators. Very bold, very argumentative, often very wrong. Little bastard was like 12, and now he owns the place. Brilliant scientist. Age really doesn't matter, but the filters you gain with experience are pretty important. "A high proportion" sounds like "I'm pretty sure this goes on a LOT!" It's also far too subjective for us to take seriously. Also, since the current option is under question in this thread, I would suggest that "There's no better option" is a point that's far from being reached. I would suggest that building confidence in a case is exactly the sort of initiative the courts could improve upon, so there is no hazy line between informing and dissuading.

! Moderator Note This was a concept you were unable to support in another speculation that was closed. Please don't bring it up as a hijack in this thread.

Something empirical that adds to the body of evidence and avoids attempts to justify the conclusion as 100% fact.

Which still won't make your original statement 100% fact.

There is a non-zero possibility that only works with Romans.

This is critical. It's the nature of our intelligence to look for patterns in phenomena so we can explain and dismiss them, constantly managing the brain's resources. We treat "answers" and "proof" the same way we recognize the refrigerator when we see it; you know what it is and you don't give it a second thought, much less question it. But when we use theory, our best current explanation for a phenomenon, it has to be updated constantly. It's not a pattern that can be exactly understood and dismissed. As more and more supportive evidence piles up for the explanation, the theory is further strengthened but never taken as fact. The mechanisms can be thought of as fact, but not the theory. Like evolution is an observable fact, but the theory that describes it is constantly being supported by experiment and observation. This way the explanations we believe are based on trust rather than hope, faith, or guesswork.

Think of all the ideas intelligent humans have, and understand that almost all of them have to be wrong, and you begin to see the power of theory. Methodology keeps our feet on the ground while our heads are in the clouds, and limits guesswork and bias that ruin our understanding. This argument sounds like someone didn't invest in the right commodity, and is now trying to convince everyone that corn is bad for you. I suspect we're going to hear a rant about frozen concentrated orange juice soon.

! Moderator Note Trying to build knowledge on ignorance is counterproductive. The ignorance MUST be removed first before you can construct anything meaningful. It's a shame when obviously intelligent people choose to ignore mainstream studies. Thread closed.

In a "regular" assault, you'd have to be doing something overtly stupid to trigger questions about behavior and circumstances. In sexual assaults, you're right, the assumption is fairly automatic that the woman was doing something to bring attention to herself, like the guy in the regular assault who was flashing lots of cash in a rough neighborhood. In the woman's case, having breasts, smiling, or wearing perfume is often enough to trigger these questions.

If you replace "women" with a different group in our society (like "Asians", or "Stamp Collectors", or "Prosthetic Leg Wearers") in the above sentence, you can see how silly what you're suggesting is. Why should there be problems with these folks entering the workforce? What is there to "work out"? It seems to me that the problem in every scenario is still the man who refuses to treat with people on a non-sexual basis. I could understand it if you replace "women" with "convicted felons", or "those with violent mental illnesses". Do you think we should equate "women" with groups that have an understandable problem blending with the rest of society? What basic understandable problems do women have with regards to work?

Well sure, Deepfoot is real, we know that. You'd be shy and elusive too if you were under such incredible pressure.

Stare into the shadows long enough without critical thinking and your imagination will fill the gaps in your knowledge with fantasy.

! Moderator Note Thread closed.

! Moderator Note By now it should be obvious that your style of narrowing responses to your claims to only those you understand doesn't make for a productive discussion. Pages and pages of members trying to help you understand explanations you've dismissed because you don't understand them. You stand on your soapbox and declare against the patient help others are trying to give. This is a science discussion forum. The discussions are for the purpose of learning. I don't see that happening, and I'll close this down if it doesn't start soon. And stop using the excuse that you're not a physicist to reject answers from people who are. That's just trolling. ! Moderator Note Responses to the modnote, which are off-topic to the thread, have been split off to here. ! Moderator Note Dalo, we'd love to help you, but if you continue to make assertions rather than asking questions that could facilitate learning, then you need to go somewhere else. Science. Discussion. Site. What you don't understand you should ask about, rather than making strident guesses. ! Moderator Note Respond to this note and I'll assume you don't want to try following our rules anymore, and that you've lost interest in the thread.

These days, I give green to people who do their best to facilitate a reasoned discussion. I also reward clever, funny, and of course, really great mainstream science explanations. Too many people are so interested in "winning" an argument that they'll use really poor and obviously fallacious reasoning, so they get red from me. I give red to those who seem willful in their ignorance, asking for but then rejecting good science in favor of some pet idea. I give red to folks who don't understand the difference between critical analysis and personal attacks, and get rude about it. I give red to those who start with a decent question about science and then spend the rest of the thread trolling about how others treated their question. I don't give red for wrong answers. I don't give red because someone disagrees with me. I don't give red usually unless the behavior was pretty blatant. I give green to counteract someone else's red if I think it was done in retaliation for not agreeing with them. Those are always easy to spot,.

! Moderator Note After repeated requests for supportive evidence have gone ignored, I think it's safe to say the OP is not going to be able to satisfy the requirements of mainstream arguments. Since this won't fly in the Speculations forum without some kind of mature and reasoned approach, it can't go there either. I think it's best this just stop now. Chriss, this kind of guesswork is not what we're about here. There are plenty of places on the web that are, so you won't lack for input. But don't bring this up here again unless you're prepared to defend it rigorously.

! Moderator Note We aren't going to have threads in Politics like this. You're asking for guesswork masked as opinion. If you have a topic we can review critically and reasonably, please feel free to post that.

! Moderator Note Junk posts and the replies that were trying to help have been split to the Trash here.

! Moderator Note You need to stop wasting other member's time with your lack of rigor in mainstream threads. Almost 20 posts worth of wtf. Pop-sci explanations are usually flawed, and you make matters worse with your strong assertions coupled with weak support. Try asking questions if you don't know something. If you respond to this modnote complaining in this thread, instead of stepping up your game, I'll be happy to split everything after the first few posts into the Trash. Report this post if you disagree with it.