iNow Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you
NicholaiRen Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 8 minutes ago, iNow said: A bigger and better reason to lean toward believing the women who come forward with such claims is history and the vast scale of the problem. It’s a bit like blaming cigarettes for lung cancer... sure, maybe something else caused the cancer, but it was probably the cigarettes if you were a smoker. Same with sexual assault and harassment. Sure, maybe the female is lying, but most times she’s not. Regardless of the aforementioned dead animal, continuing on...... I feel as though the cigarette problem doesn't really fully encompass the problem with this. The cigarette doesn't care if it's falsely accused of lung cancer. It has no feelings. Rather, let's look at race. There are far more African Americans in prison then Caucasians. So, if I were to simply assume any given African American is more likely to go to jail for a crime, I think that'd be rather racist of me. Perhaps in my old age, these things surpass my understanding, but I believe that is the type of thing the younger generation is currently fighting: Assuming something about an individual because of what their race or gender is. If I were to say I gave more credit to a white man then a black man, I'd be racist. So if you were to say you give more credit to a man then a woman, you'd be sexist. The same logic applies: If you were to give more credit to a woman then a man, you'd be sexist.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim. You quoted that and answered: 2 hours ago, iNow said: I disagree. It’s starts with each and every one of us noting how pervasive this is for women and how long it’s persisted then responding accordingly. We’re not powerless to make this situation better or women safer. We will only be powerless if such defeatist attitudes continue to be held by otherwise intelligent folks like you. EDIT: Fixed a flawed autocorrect change in last paragraph INOW, I know your hearts in the right place toward the victim but no matter where you start, you cannot make it fair for the victim. Using Ford as the example, and assuming she was assaulted/attempted rape and traumatized at 15 by Kavanaugh, what can you possibly do to make it fair? You can't go back in time. You can't punish Kavanaugh any amount that would make it fair for her. Voting him down for the Supreme court, disbarring him, jailing him...might give her justice... but what can you suggest as making it fair for her? She didn't ask for this...what can you possibly suggest to make it fair for her...or any victim? My question wasn't defeatist, nor merely rhetorical. Going forward for future potential victims or ones that are currently traumatized...what can you, or any of us suggest we do? If all you can come up with is to remove rights from the accused you are going down the wrong path. It's not going to hold up. What do you consider "responding accordingly", and how does it make it fair for someone who has been sexually assaulted? Edited October 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
rangerx Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 58 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: I suspect he is, however glaringly obvious seems like an overstatement. Could you share with me the information that makes you so sure? He certainly told lots of little white lies, but let's be blunt... little white lies are not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The real sticker though is this one: When he learned of Deborah Ramirez’s allegations Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked Kavanaugh on Sept. 27 when he first learned that Deborah Ramirez, a classmate from Yale, had alleged Kavanaugh once shoved his penis into her face as part of a joke. “In the last — in the period since then, The New Yorker story,” Kavanaugh replied, referencing the Sept. 23 story about Ramirez’s allegations written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer. NBC News reported on Oct. 1 that Kavanaugh’s team had reached out to former classmates via text message to get them to rebut Ramirez’s allegations prior to the publication of The New Yorker article. Two former classmates of Kavanaugh and Ramirez ― Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage ― discussed efforts by Kavanaugh and his lawyers to get Yale classmates to tell the press that the allegations were false. “In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense,” NBC reported. “Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.” Oddly, in a private interview with committee members held on Sept. 25, Kavanaugh indicated that he did know about the allegations before The New Yorker article was published In the printed transcript of this interview that occurred two days before his public testimony, Kavanaugh complained that Ramirez was calling former classmates to see if they remembered the alleged incident. “And I, at least ― and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that,” he said, admitting that he knew about it ahead of time.
zapatos Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 1 hour ago, NicholaiRen said: If they faced trial, and they weren't convicted(declared not guilty), why are they still considered rapists according to this graphic? That seems counter-intuitive to me. They are still considered rapists because they raped someone. Courts never find people 'innocent', they can only find them 'not guilty'. You can be 'not guilty' for any number of reason, such as an illegal search by the police or insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. 2 hours ago, MigL said: A lot of developments in the day I've been away... But maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am with the American Judicial and Political system can explain something to me. If C Blasey Ford has B Kavanough charged with attempted rape, she makes her case by providing the evidence/facts, and he is convicted ( possibly doing jail time ), can he keep his Supreme Court seat ? I would think he is at least disbarred, meaning he can no longer be a judge. There is no rule that Federal judges be a member of the bar, so yes, Kavanaugh can keep his job. To lose his Supreme Court seat he would have to be impeached and convicted by Congress. 2
iNow Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 1 hour ago, NicholaiRen said: Rather, let's look at race. There are far more African Americans in prison then Caucasians. So, if I were to simply assume any given African American is more likely to go to jail for a crime, I think that'd be rather racist of me. Actually, it wouldn’t be racist at all. It’d be an objective fact. African Americans ARE convicted at a higher rate for the same exact crimes than their “Caucasian” peers who do the exact same things at the exact same rate. It’s also a COMPLETELY off topic red herring and seemingly representative of the fact that you’re (willfully obtuse?) struggling to understand the rather simple and straight forward points I and countless others have made throughout this thread. You can continue to blame your age, but (just do you’re aware) I’m not that young myself and know plenty of old people coherent enough to grasp the rather basic human issues under discussion here.
MigL Posted October 7, 2018 Author Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) Let's see... Black men are convicted at a higher rate than white men, so if you're a black man protesting his innocence should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? Of course, anything else would be racist. Men are convicted of sexual assault at a much higher rate than women, so if you're a man protesting his innocence, should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? By saying the woman should be believed at all times, you are saying that the man shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. Or the presumed innocence until proven guilty. That seems like a valid comparison to me. ( I'm 59 yrs old, if we're comparing ages ) Edit: Thanks Zap, I wasn't aware the appointment was so 'final'. What if he's charged, convicted and goes to jail ? Edited October 7, 2018 by MigL
iNow Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, MigL said: By saying the woman should be believed at all times, you are saying... Who’s saying that? 14 minutes ago, MigL said: What if he's charged, convicted and goes to jail ? Still requires an act of congress to remove him from his lifetime appointment 1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said: no matter where you start, you cannot make it fair for the victim. <...> what can you possibly do to make it fair? <...> any amount that would make it fair for her. <...> what can you suggest as making it fair for her? <...>what can you possibly suggest to make it fair for her...or any victim? <...> how does it make it fair for someone who has been sexually assaulted? Fairness is the wrong metric. This is about justice and power. It’s about being realistic when discussing this issue. Edited October 7, 2018 by iNow
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said: There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim. 7 hours ago, iNow said: I disagree. It’s starts with each and every one of us noting how pervasive this is for women and how long it’s persisted then responding accordingly. 2 hours ago, iNow said: Fairness is the wrong metric. It is the basis of your objection. You directly claimed you could make it fair for the victim by "responding accordingly"... ....whatever that means Edited October 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
rangerx Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 3 hours ago, MigL said: Let's see... Black men are convicted at a higher rate than white men, so if you're a black man protesting his innocence should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? Of course, anything else would be racist. Far be it Donald Trump would ever falsely accuse a black person of anything, right? https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/trump-larry-king-central-park-five/index.html No less overtly calling for their deaths. Crowing about victims have no rights while criminals have all the power. What's different between then and now? Trump falsely accuses people of things EVERY day. Today's BS was the stale old accusation of paid mobs, in the same breath while staged supporters stand behind him and cheer or get booted by the secret service.https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/08/plaid-shirt-guy-trump-rally-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn 2
StringJunky Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 52 minutes ago, rangerx said: Today's BS was the stale old accusation of paid mobs, in the same breath while staged supporters stand behind him and cheer or get booted by the secret service.https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/08/plaid-shirt-guy-trump-rally-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn Yes, interesting the way those two women filled that guy's space after asking him to leave.
rangerx Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, StringJunky said: Yes, interesting the way those two women filled that guy's space after asking him to leave. Well, I don't support getting in faces in public places or shouting down people when they speak. That said, protest is a right, but to Trump it's a crime. "Violent mobs paid for by George Soros" rolls off his tongue after every event. Being rude is one thing, but maliciously accusing someone of a crime is slander. I dunno, but it seems like nitpicking to me, especially in light of who we're talking about... leaders, judges and victims of assault. You seem reasonable to me, so surely you don't mean to suggest an elevator incident nullifies the underlying issue, do you? The OP appears to suggest that fallacy over various other threads, which is why I don't buy into that narrative being peddling here now. Protest is a right, so long as it's civil and often disruptive, but not a crime as Trump would have us believe. Talking a knee at a football game is probably the single most non-disruptive protest of all. No one is prevented from doing anything, the game starts on time and everyone goes home when it's over. Yet Trump and an entire bevy of conservatives falsely accuse them of hating the country, flag and troops. To me, if a person is rude, they should STFU, but when someone (especially a leader) knowingly falsely accuses a crime or wrongly disrespects a person's patriotism for rightfully protesting an issue that deeply affects their lives, they can burn in hell for all I care.
Ten oz Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 8 hours ago, MigL said: Black men are convicted at a higher rate than white men, so if you're a black man protesting his innocence should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? Of course, anything else would be racist. Studies have been done on false reporting and shown that only about 1 in 20 reports are false, Here. Only about 1 in 5 rapes are even reported, Here. A minority of victims ever come forward and an even smaller minority false report. Meanwhile 1 in 5 women are raped, not just harrashed but RAPED, Here . There is a real problem here. Far too many women are assualt and too few come forward. Less than 20% of the 20% of women who are raped come forward. 5% (above) of those are false claims so 0.2% of the total number of rape are misrepresented. Which means a enormously small percentage of men are ever falsely accused. 1 in 3 black males born in the U.S. will be arrested I during their lifetime, Here. If 1 in 3 men, or even 1 in 10,000 men, won't be accused of sex assualt. 9 hours ago, MigL said: Men are convicted of sexual assault at a much higher rate than women, so if you're a man protesting his innocence, should you be given the benefit of the doubt ? What percentage of men are convicted for Sexual Assualt? 9 hours ago, MigL said: By saying the woman should be believed at all times, you are saying that the man shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt. Or the presumed innocence until proven guilty Trust but verify.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Studies have been done on false reporting and shown that only about 1 in 20 reports are false, Here. OK. I think that is the most frequently cited number 1 in 20, not 1 in 50 as INow claimed (though it could be that low) and not 1 in 10 (though it could be that high). No one knows for certain, but 1 in 20 seems like it is a reasonable estimate. In any case what does it mean with regard to an individual allegation? They aren't 95% guilty, They are either 100% guilty or 0%. Are you 95% certain Kavanaugh is guilty? Are you 5% certain Ford is lying? The statistics cannot tell us what the truth is. Edited October 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
MigL Posted October 7, 2018 Author Posted October 7, 2018 As much as we all love to hate D Trump, Rangerx, this thread is not about him. Or even about B Kavanough specifically. ( he was just a convenient example in the news ) It is about anyone , male or female, accused of sexual assault, and how far are we reasonably willing to believe the accusations of the victim, WITHOUT actual evidence/proof. Justice is not statistical. If 19 people have been acquitted, the twentieth is not automatically guilty because of the 1 in 20 statistic. Statistics are fine for data collection, but are in no way indicative of guilt or innocence. Each case should be decided on the merits of the evidence/facts. That is the basis of due process and the foundation of our justice system.
NicholaiRen Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, MigL said: It is about anyone , male or female, accused of sexual assault, and how far are we reasonably willing to believe the accusations of the victim, WITHOUT actual evidence/proof. 1 I'm not willing to believe them at all without any evidence or proof. I'm willing to say we should investigate them, however, if the investigation turns up nothing, I'm not going to say the investigation was flawed unless I have reason to believe the investigation is flawed. Additionally, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Which means the burden of proof to prove that one is innocent is nonexistent unless the accuser has evidence against them. It seems simple to me. That's how the system works. That's how it should work. 3 hours ago, MigL said: Or even about B Kavanough specifically. On a side note, the Kavanaugh situation sickened me. A two party system is a bad way to go because this is the type of behavior that results from "Us vs them". 17 hours ago, iNow said: Actually, it wouldn’t be racist at all. It’d be an objective fact. African Americans ARE convicted at a higher rate for the same exact crimes than their “Caucasian” peers who do the exact same things at the exact same rate. It’s also a COMPLETELY off topic red herring and seemingly representative of the fact that you’re (willfully obtuse?) struggling to understand the rather simple and straight forward points I and countless others have made throughout this thread. You can continue to blame your age, but (just do you’re aware) I’m not that young myself and know plenty of old people coherent enough to grasp the rather basic human issues under discussion here. It's not a red herring. A red herring is a misleading or distracting argument made that gets away from the main point. You specifically advocated that we give one person more credit than another because of biological factors when you said this: 19 hours ago, iNow said: A bigger and better reason to lean toward believing the women who come forward with such claims is history and the vast scale of the problem. It’s a bit like blaming cigarettes for lung cancer... sure, maybe something else caused the cancer, but it was probably the cigarettes if you were a smoker. Same with sexual assault and harassment. Sure, maybe the female is lying, but most times she’s not. 1 You support that idea with "history and the vast scale of the problem". The problem with that is you're willing to apply it to this situation and not others. A lot more African Americans have been jailed then Caucasians for the same crimes. Using your idea of justice, we should automatically lean towards believing Caucasians because of historical factors, which can obviously be biased. It's not a red herring, it's a comparison. If you can't see the logical steps I took to get here, please ask me to clarify further. 18 hours ago, zapatos said: They are still considered rapists because they raped someone. Courts never find people 'innocent', they can only find them 'not guilty'. You can be 'not guilty' for any number of reason, such as an illegal search by the police or insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. Hence why I specifically used the term "Not guilty" and not "innocent", and when I applied the not guilty assumption, I used a 50% statistic. My problem was that they assumed that everybody who was declared not guilty was still guilty, which they had no possible way of knowing or even begin to guess at. Edited October 7, 2018 by NicholaiRen
mistermack Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) Since in the vast majority of cases, only the two people involved know exactly what happened, any figures on falseness or truthfulness of rape reports are just snatched out of thin air. They're meaningless. In any case, a lot of these encounters are not black and white, and consent is often a very grey area, a really difficult thing for juries to decide, having heard a case argued over for days. That makes the attempt to concoct figures even more ridiculous. Anyway, the figures are totally irrelevant to this episode. Unless they have figures for the truthfulness of reported attempted rapes that are reported 36 years after the event, when one of those involved is up for a pivotal job that affects the politics of the nation for years to come. Show me that study, and their methodology, and I might be interested. Edited October 7, 2018 by mistermack -3
iNow Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 57 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: The problem with that is you're willing to apply it to this situation and not others. A lot more African Americans have been jailed then Caucasians for the same crimes. Using your idea of justice, we should automatically lean towards believing Caucasians because of historical factors, which can obviously be biased. You seem to have a different conclusion than me as to the nature of why African Americans are jailed more often, and you then draw a flawed conclusion rooted in that flawed premise. And it’s still totally off topic.
Ten oz Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 42 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: On a side note, the Kavanaugh situation sickened me. A two party system is a bad way to go because this is the type of behavior that results from "Us vs them". Ford is not a Democratic politician. For isn't a politician period. Ford wrote to her govt representatives whom happen to be Democrats. If was Sen. Flakes, who is a Republican, that got the vote for Kavanaugh delay so that the FBI could get involved. The only us vs them which exists in the situation is in the minds of people who falsely view Ford as a Democratic saboteur. 49 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: The problem with that is you're willing to apply it to this situation and not others. A lot more African Americans have been jailed then Caucasians for the same crimes. Using your idea of justice, we should automatically lean towards believing Caucasians because of historical factors, which can obviously be biased. You have it backwards. The fact that black people are more likely to be jailed for the same crime than white people means society already leans toward giving white people the benefit of the doubt. 52 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: My problem was that they assumed that everybody who was declared not guilty was still guilty, which they had no possible way of knowing or even begin to guess at. In the U.S. 20% of women will be raped during their lifetime. The overwhelming majority (63% of victims) will never report. One of the factors for not reporting is fear of not being believed. 95% of the women who have made reports have done so truthfully. Discouraging tens of millions of victims in the name of defending a few men who may potentially be falsely accused simply isn't working. After millennias of women not being or feeling unable to come forward we need to create safe spaces for them to do so. Once that space exists it can be fine tuned and we can look at ensuring men aren't falsely accused. However we should not hold up the development of safe spaces for millions of victims and sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect. Sacrifice the confidence of a several million women for the comfort of a couple hundred men. 63% of rape victims don't report. The system currently favors rapist. That is inexcusable. The system should favor the victim.
rangerx Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 3 hours ago, MigL said: As much as we all love to hate D Trump, Rangerx, this thread is not about him. Or even about B Kavanough specifically. No, you do not get to pick a topic then not talk about it. The word Kavanagh is in the title, but we can't talk about him? You want to talk about pervasive false accusations, but we can't talk about the pervasive false accuser in chief? I don't make rules for your thoughts, I comment on them. DON"T make rules about my comments.... no less about abstracts. If the mods feel I am off topic, I trust they'll intervene, otherwise my thoughts stand.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Ford is not a Democratic politician. For isn't a politician period. Ford wrote to her govt representatives whom happen to be Democrats. If was Sen. Flakes, who is a Republican, that got the vote for Kavanaugh delay so that the FBI could get involved. The only us vs them which exists in the situation is in the minds of people who falsely view Ford as a Democratic saboteur. You have it backwards. The fact that black people are more likely to be jailed for the same crime than white people means society already leans toward giving white people the benefit of the doubt. In the U.S. 20% of women will be raped during their lifetime. The overwhelming majority (63% of victims) will never report. One of the factors for not reporting is fear of not being believed. 95% of the women who have made reports have done so truthfully. Discouraging tens of millions of victims in the name of defending a few men who may potentially be falsely accused simply isn't working. After millennias of women not being or feeling unable to come forward we need to create safe spaces for them to do so. Once that space exists it can be fine tuned and we can look at ensuring men aren't falsely accused. However we should not hold up the development of safe spaces for millions of victims and sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect. Sacrifice the confidence of a several million women for the comfort of a couple hundred men. 63% of rape victims don't report. The system currently favors rapist. That is inexcusable. The system should favor the victim. Setting aside your math (a couple of hundred vs several million...not sure what you are referring to there) what exactly are you advocating? Is it simply that women making allegations should be taken seriously? (extremely reasonable...what can we do to assure this?) Or is it somehow taking it further? Are you advocating changing the presumption of innocence, or due process? If so, how and how much? Edited October 7, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
NicholaiRen Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: Ford is not a Democratic politician. For isn't a politician period. Ford wrote to her govt representatives whom happen to be Democrats. Son, if you are naive enough to not realize that Ford is being used by politicians then there is nothing I can say to help you. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: You have it backwards. The fact that black people are more likely to be jailed for the same crime than white people means society already leans toward giving white people the benefit of the doubt. Which doesn't mean we should do it even more. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: In the U.S. 20% of women will be raped during their lifetime. The overwhelming majority (63% of victims) will never report. One of the factors for not reporting is fear of not being believed. 95% of the women who have made reports have done so truthfully. Discouraging tens of millions of victims in the name of defending a few men who may potentially be falsely accused simply isn't working. After millennias of women not being or feeling unable to come forward we need to create safe spaces for them to do so. Once that space exists it can be fine tuned and we can look at ensuring men aren't falsely accused. However we should not hold up the development of safe spaces for millions of victims and sacrifice the good in the name of the perfect. Sacrifice the confidence of a several million women for the comfort of a couple hundred men. Yes, women shouldn't be raped. Yes, we should make it easier for them to come forward. Yes, we should investigate their claims. Yes, too few women come forward. Yes, the overwhelming majority of them are telling the truth. What is your point? I'm not advocating that women don't report. I'm not advocating we don't believe them. I'm not advocating men should be given special preference. I'm not advocating it's women's fault. I'm not advocating we shouldn't make it easier for them to come forward. I'm not advocating anything against women. 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: 63% of rape victims don't report. The system currently favors rapist. That is inexcusable. The system should favor the victim. The system favors rapist because that is due process. Unless you can prove that someone is guilty, we should not throw them in jail. I'm sorry to the women who are hurt by this, but I absolutely refuse to compromise on that idea. Everybody, and when I say everybody I include men, have a right to a fair trial. If you cannot prove they did something wrong, they should not go to jail. Perhaps you disagree with this, but I guarantee you, when you, or your best friend, is arrested and imprisoned without proof or a fair trial, you will change your mind permanently. Edited October 7, 2018 by NicholaiRen -1
zapatos Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said: My problem was that they assumed that everybody who was declared not guilty was still guilty, which they had no possible way of knowing or even begin to guess at. You are making things up or terribly misreading the chart. These are not specific individuals we are talking about, they are statistics. If a woman is raped, there is someone who is a rapist. Just because a specific person who was accused is found not guilty does not mean the woman wasn't raped. You seem to be searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported. 1
NicholaiRen Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, zapatos said: You are making things up or terribly misreading the chart. These are not specific individuals we are talking about, they are statistics. If a woman is raped, there is someone who is a rapist. Just because a specific person who was accused is found not guilty does not mean the woman wasn't raped. You seem to be searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported. I'm not searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted. And I know it's not specific individuals we are talking about. But it's also not statistics. Because statistics means looking for actual statistical data points, not assuming them. The statistics for the number of people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent wasn't included, and that is extremely misleading on their part. I'm not trying to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted, but it's not going to help anyone to make up statistics. Edit: Just because I question statistics regarding rape doesn't mean I'm trying to search for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported. That's a logical fallacy that just because I don't immediately accept the statistics associated with a position(For reasons such as they're wrong) I'm sexist. When the 1/3 statistic was widespread, I didn't believe it. However, if I suggested that no, 1/3 women aren't raped, I'm automatically considered a sexist who is trying to discredit women. Edited October 7, 2018 by NicholaiRen
zapatos Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said: I'm not searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted. And I know it's not specific individuals we are talking about. But it's also not statistics. Because statistics means looking for actual statistical data points, not assuming them. The statistics for the number of people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent wasn't included, and that is extremely misleading on their part. I'm not trying to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted, but it's not going to help anyone to make up statistics. Where would one find a statistic like that?
Recommended Posts