NicholaiRen Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 1 minute ago, zapatos said: Where would one find a statistic like that? You can't. Which was my point. The statistics the graphic was based on, were impossible to obtain. Yet, they were displayed as absolute truth. Now, I understand that for purposes of the graphic they can do that, however assuming 100% instead of something in the middle, like 50%, is another thing that irked me. And it's one thing to assume 100% over 50% in something that will change the graphic by like 1 guy. But when it multiplies the number of black figures in the bottom by 15, it's a rather large difference. And when all the little assumptions and rounding you(By you I mean the graphic makers) made means that graphic is off my a multiple of 35, I consider it misleading.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 7, 2018 Posted October 7, 2018 "On the internet, 37% of statistics cited are made up, and 53% of them are incorrectly attributed" Mahatma Ghandi 1
zapatos Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, NicholaiRen said: You can't. Which was my point. The statistics the graphic was based on, were impossible to obtain. Yet, they were displayed as absolute truth. Now, I understand that for purposes of the graphic they can do that, however assuming 100% instead of something in the middle, like 50%, is another thing that irked me. No, the statistic you asked for was "people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent". How does one "display as absolute truth"? Is there a special font used? Where did you come up with this "50%" you keep referencing? You say it like it is absolute truth. Quote And when all the little assumptions and rounding you(By you I mean the graphic makers) made means that graphic is off my a multiple of 35, I consider it misleading. Please list the assumptions that were made. Please show me where they did rounding and how much it was. Please show the math that results in a multiple of 35. The reason I ask is because I'm afraid someone will think you are lying about having some basis for making those statements and we wouldn't want that to happen. Edited October 8, 2018 by zapatos 2
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) While she stands by the purpose of the graphic, to address the fears of false accusation, she admits the graphic was "flawed". https://sarahbeaulieu.me/the-truth-about-false-accusation "This graphic did miss the mark in many ways, and I own that." Why is it that currently too many in the U.S. from commentators to politicians, from scientists to the President, feel the need to exaggerate to make their point? At least in her case she admits to the flaws in the graphic. I think that gives her more credibility going forward, something that seems lost on many people, including some here. Edited October 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
MigL Posted October 8, 2018 Author Posted October 8, 2018 People are starting to argue with reputation points. I see more and more negatives, on both sides, even for valid points which deserve deliberation. It is a very sensitive subject but, I have come to know that everyone involved in this discussion is a sensible person. Discussion leads to understanding, so if you want your viewpoint understood, discuss it. Don't neg rep opposing views, they're just trying to make their viewpoint understood. 5
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) +1 to that. I believe I have only given positives in this thread, including a couple to posters that seem to disagree with my positions (on what I consider their better or more informative posts, or corrected me when I clearly got something wrong) Badgering with negatives isn't going to change anyones mind. It may have the opposite affect. 14 hours ago, NicholaiRen said: 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. Which doesn't mean we should do it even more. 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. 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. As an example, this post by a very new member currently has 2 negative reps, Why, I have no idea...I can't even guess what is being objected to. Edited October 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell 2
StringJunky Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: As an example, this post by a very new member currently has 2 negative reps, Why, I have no idea...I can't even guess what is being objected to. An expression of partisanship, perhaps? I've neutralized a few that don't seem justified. I never dish them out for disagreement; everyone is entitled to express their position, as long as it''s done in a civil manner.
Ten oz Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 More women (63% of all Rape victims) never come forward impart the struggle and fear of not being believed than men are ever falsely accused. Women not coming forward is a far bigger problem impacting far more people than is men being falsely accused. Many rapists victimize multiple people. It should be a national priority to identify rapists. All the arguments about how long a woman waits, due process, and etc simply encourage the status quo by virtue of being against action till a perfect solution can be found which will be fair and equal for everyone. While the goal seems good it equates to inaction for the foreseeable future. As it stands men have been raping and abusing men since the stone age. Now that some societies are finally standing up against it I find it laughably ignorant to fear for men. History speaks loud here. Men will be taken care of. Men always have been without exception. Even in this thread which references Kavanaugh the man was give a sweet lifetime appointment to the most prestigious court in the land. His life wasn't ruined. He is Rich and powerful in route to becoming even richer and even more powerful. Rather than erroring on the side of the status quo while considering best solutions we should error on the side of believing the women and exposing the most possible perpetrators while considering best solutions.
MigL Posted October 8, 2018 Author Posted October 8, 2018 It would be best, Ten oz, if we didn't err at all. ( just wishing ) 1
StringJunky Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Ten oz said: More women (63% of all Rape victims) never come forward impart the struggle and fear of not being believed than men are ever falsely accused. Women not coming forward is a far bigger problem impacting far more people than is men being falsely accused. Many rapists victimize multiple people. It should be a national priority to identify rapists. All the arguments about how long a woman waits, due process, and etc simply encourage the status quo by virtue of being against action till a perfect solution can be found which will be fair and equal for everyone. While the goal seems good it equates to inaction for the foreseeable future. As it stands men have been raping and abusing men since the stone age. Now that some societies are finally standing up against it I find it laughably ignorant to fear for men. History speaks loud here. Men will be taken care of. Men always have been without exception. Even in this thread which references Kavanaugh the man was give a sweet lifetime appointment to the most prestigious court in the land. His life wasn't ruined. He is Rich and powerful in route to becoming even richer and even more powerful. Rather than erroring on the side of the status quo while considering best solutions we should error on the side of believing the women and exposing the most possible perpetrators while considering best solutions. You can't weigh guilt or innocence in any particular case based on historical statistics. It has to be based on the evidence presented for that case. Edited October 8, 2018 by StringJunky added word
mistermack Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 22 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Rather than erroring on the side of the status quo while considering best solutions we should error on the side of believing the women and exposing the most possible perpetrators while considering best solutions. That's a great idea. You could call it, "The accuser's charter" . I'm sure it wouldn't get abused.
NicholaiRen Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 13 hours ago, zapatos said: No, the statistic you asked for was "people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent". How does one "display as absolute truth"? Is there a special font used? Where did you come up with this "50%" you keep referencing? You say it like it is absolute truth. Please list the assumptions that were made. Please show me where they did rounding and how much it was. Please show the math that results in a multiple of 35. The reason I ask is because I'm afraid someone will think you are lying about having some basis for making those statements and we wouldn't want that to happen. I've bolded them in this quote. They weren't originally bolded. I'm saying that now so you don't think I'm changing the post. On 10/6/2018 at 8:40 PM, 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. What information does she have to factually say that only 2 of the 20 individuals who went to trial and were declared not guilty were actually not guilty? How does she know that every one of the rapes that were reported actually happened if they never went to trial to prove that they did? The information provided in this graphic is impossible to know.............. But I suspect you're busy, and coming up with answers to these questions is probably hard for you. I'm retired, so I got plenty of time. So I decided to research the answers to these questions because I was genuinely curious. "If they faced trial, and they weren't convicted(declared not guilty), why are they still considered rapists according to this graphic?" Answer: They simply used statistics of the number of men who went to trial, versus, the number of men who were convicted. The reason they aren't labeled falsely accused is that they weren't able to prove that they are innocent, only that the accusers couldn't actually prove they were guilty, so for the purposes of the graphic, they assumed that anyone who went to trial and couldn't prove they were innocent, are guilty. "What information does she have to factually say that only 2 of the 20 individuals who went to trial and were declared not guilty were actually not guilty?" Answer: None. For the purpose of the graphic, they simply assumed. "How does she know that every one of the rapes that were reported actually happened if they never went to trial to prove that they did?" Answer: None. For the purpose of the graphic, they simply assumed. Yes, and I wish that those who were declared not guilty in a trial weren't considered to be rapists for no reason other than to make a graphic look more extreme. Additionally, numbers were rounded to make the statistic look more extreme. The sources that are listed say 51% - 95% of rapes are never reported. For the graphic, they assumed 10% are never reported. So they've assumed about 17% lower than the average their own sources give. If that's how they want to do it, that's fine. I wish I could check the sources, but all of the links to her sources are dead ends. So, additionally, their sources list false accusations from 2% - 8%. So the average would be 5% are false accusations. Except they rounded lower again, this time to 2%. If you were to recreate this statistic again, with accurate figures, assuming the following things: The average rate of rapes being reported is only 27%. The average rate of false accusations is 5%. Only 50% of those who were declared not guilty were actually not guilty. Assuming 95% of those who were reported but didn't actually go to trial are guilty(Based on the average falsely accused rate.) Assuming 95% of those which weren't reported(Remember, the amount which isn't reported is based on polling. So assuming polling is just as truthful as reporting(That's a leap), it'd be 5% as well) Instead of 2 black figures, you'd have 75. Again, this is assuming 50% of those who were declared not guilty, are actually guilty. 1000 rapists: 730 not reported. 36 Innocent 694 guilty 270 reported 90 Trial 30 Jailed 30 guilty 60 Declared not guilty 30 innocent 30 guilty 180 Not on trial 9 Innocent 171 guilty 1 43 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Rather than erroring on the side of the status quo while considering best solutions we should error on the side of believing the women and exposing the most possible perpetrators while considering best solutions. I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I will not give up my viewpoint of "Innocent until proven guilty". I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man go to jail. You may say that sounds insane, but it's because you have to apply it to more than just this issue. If you begin to allow innocent men to be sent to jail, it can be taken advantage of. Not only can it be taken advantage of, it will be taken advantage of. Politicians, Businessmen, Criminals, and more will use this as a weapon. I have seen it. In Cuba, when a government official accuses you of something, you're done. You may believe this is a red herring, but it's the biggest reason why we cannot falter on "Innocent until proven guilty". People will take advantage over it. And when you give ground in one area of the law, you can and will be forced to give ground in other areas. That is the way it works.
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ten oz said: More women (63% of all Rape victims) never come forward impart the struggle and fear of not being believed than men are ever falsely accused. Women not coming forward is a far bigger problem impacting far more people than is men being falsely accused. Many rapists victimize multiple people. It should be a national priority to identify rapists. All the arguments about how long a woman waits, due process, and etc simply encourage the status quo by virtue of being against action till a perfect solution can be found which will be fair and equal for everyone. While the goal seems good it equates to inaction for the foreseeable future. As it stands men have been raping and abusing men since the stone age. Now that some societies are finally standing up against it I find it laughably ignorant to fear for men. History speaks loud here. Men will be taken care of. Men always have been without exception. Even in this thread which references Kavanaugh the man was give a sweet lifetime appointment to the most prestigious court in the land. His life wasn't ruined. He is Rich and powerful in route to becoming even richer and even more powerful. Rather than erroring on the side of the status quo while considering best solutions we should error on the side of believing the women and exposing the most possible perpetrators while considering best solutions. I think that is a reasonable estimate, roughly 2 out of 3 or almost that. Combined with 5% of falsely accused to accused (the middle of range admitted to by the lady that made the graphic) you get 15 falsely accused per 1000 rapists, not just 2 as the graphic suggests. This does not take into account the fact that all of the "rapists" in the graphic that were tried and found "not guilty" are assumed instead to be guilty, which was one of NicholaiRen's objections. So Ten oz, how many more accusations, honest ones and dishonest ones, would make you more comfortable? How much would you like to embolden the Swetnick's and Avennatti's, who I would suggest are much more readily induced to bring accusations forward than average victims. At what point would you stop laughing? Edited October 8, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell
Ten oz Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, MigL said: It would be best, Ten oz, if we didn't err at all. ( just wishing ) So status quo then? 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 54 minutes ago, Ten oz said: So status quo then? If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. It is much more difficult but we need to consider ways to improve on the status quo without taking away the rights of the accused. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with #MeToo, but including rush to judgement is taking it too far. We have already seen the willingness to use it politically and as a weapon (something that the historic statistics make no accounting for). 1
Ten oz Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. It is much more difficult but we need to consider ways to improve on the status quo without taking away the rights of the accused. I think we've made some steps in the right direction with #MeToo, but including rush to judgement is taking it too far. We have already seen the willingness to use it politically and as a weapon (something that the historic statistics make no accounting for). The status quo 20% of women are raped and 63% never come forward in part out of fear of not being believed. You rather we all just with that than believe women because you fear some miniscule (relative to the 63% of rape victims that never come forward) number of men might falsely accused? We'd do right by more people if we believe women while working towards improvements then sitting with the status quo while working towards improvements. That is simply a statistical fact. Doing right by the largest number of people is while continuing to improve the system makes far more sense to me.
NicholaiRen Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The status quo 20% of women are raped and 63% never come forward in part out of fear of not being believed. You rather we all just with that than believe women because you fear some miniscule (relative to the 63% of rape victims that never come forward) number of men might falsely accused? We'd do right by more people if we believe women while working towards improvements then sitting with the status quo while working towards improvements. That is simply a statistical fact. Doing right by the largest number of people is while continuing to improve the system makes far more sense to me. So what are you advocating we do? Not requiring people to have evidence a crime was committed before being convicted? Plain and simple, this is what all this debate boils down to, and it's a yes or no question. Yes or no? Mind you, the discussion is no longer "Giving the benfiet of the doubt" or "leaning towards believing women" you are seemingly saying: "Believe women period." because statistics back them up. Edited October 8, 2018 by NicholaiRen 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The status quo 20% of women are raped and 63% never come forward in part out of fear of not being believed. You rather we all just with that than believe women because you fear some miniscule (relative to the 63% of rape victims that never come forward) number of men might falsely accused? We'd do right by more people if we believe women while working towards improvements then sitting with the status quo while working towards improvements. That is simply a statistical fact. Doing right by the largest number of people is while continuing to improve the system makes far more sense to me. I said If the alternative is guilty until proven innocent then plain and simply, yes. Absolutely. So, Ten oz. What exactly are you advocating? Is it guilty until proven innocent or is it something else? 1
Ten oz Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 3 hours ago, StringJunky said: You can't weigh guilt or innocence in any particular case based on historical statistics. It has to be based on the evidence presented for that case. I can't weigh individual sexual assualt cases but I can weigh the historical trends of discrimination and disenfranchisement. That is what the complaint here is after all. That men will some how become discriminated against in the eyes of the law. Between men and women that has never happened. It is women who have been historically disenfranchised forced to marry, forced to bare children, forced to be obedient, beaten, raped, paid less, and etc. Even today the U.S. and your home UK play nice with countries like Saudi Arabia which have horribly oppressive restrictions on women. The Western world wants oil too much to stand against the abuse of women. As such I find the complaint that men will be disenfranchised at the hands of false accusations a bunch of sanctimonious b#llsh!t. It won't happen. Has never happened. Men murder, rape, beat, harrass, and etc women at rates which far and away exceed anything women do to men. The majority of men who beat and or rape woman get away with it. Yet we are in here carrying on about the rare man who might be falsely accused some day. 1
NicholaiRen Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Yet we are in here carrying on about the rare man who might be falsely accused some day. No. We are saying that at some point we must make a choice. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. There is no middle ground. 1
J.C.MacSwell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, Ten oz said: Yet we are in here carrying on about the rare man who might be falsely accused some day. So. You believe all the accusations Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh? 1
Ten oz Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said: So. You believe all the accusations Swetnick alleged against Kavanaugh? The way believing the women would have worked with Kavanaugh is that all the allegations would have been referred to the FBI and the FBI would have been given autonomy to run a full investigation. Instead we got a politically filtered investigation which was limited in time and scope.
NicholaiRen Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 25 minutes ago, Ten oz said: The way believing the women would have worked with Kavanaugh is that all the allegations would have been referred to the FBI and the FBI would have been given autonomy to run a full investigation. Instead we got a politically filtered investigation which was limited in time and scope. That, would be Ford's fault. A simple solution to having gotten a full FBI investigation that wasn't politically filtered would have simply involved pressing criminal charges. But that would have required a trial. And in our Anti-woman legal system, that would have required she proved that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. Which is just such a disappointment to our society that we're not progressive enough to no longer require evidence to convict someone. Instead, we should return to times like Castro's or medieval times, where if you were accused you were not given the right to a fair trial, you were given the right to claim your innocence from prison to deaf ears. Now, if you disagree with the statement above, let me know. However, at the moment you are avoiding answering @J.C.MacSwell's and I's question, so I'm assuming you think it should be guilty until proven innocent.
CharonY Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, NicholaiRen said: So what are you advocating we do? That is an important point, to which there are currently no solutions. Partially, because only fairly recent it has been seen to be an issue. To date there are only two larger reports (UK and Australia) who have looked at why reporting rates are low and even in cases of reports, why many women withdraw before the full trial. One thing that we can do, without changes in the legal system per se, is to remove the social stigma of rape victims or the taboo surrounding sexual violence. A big issue has been the fact that victims are seen as damaged goods, that it is their fault (e.g. for getting drunk or having a promiscuous lifestyle) or that they are just too weak and/or cannot be raped in the first place (mostly men). As long as these stigma persist and/or if certain folks attack the victims for not behaving in a certain way (reporting right away, trying to downplay the situation in an effort to regain control etc.). A second aspects that is relevant is that the reports have highlighted that law enforcement may be another gatekeeper. Typically young victims or victims from lower social status or vulnerable groups are not considered trustworthy by default. That makes them ideal victims as rarely there are any follow-ups. A general issue here is also that many are assuming that folks need to be protected from accusations as the first response. Which means the bar for investigations are raised as the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and therefore the accuser must be lying. Even if law enforcement tries to neutrally address this situation, the stigmata regarding the situation result in far larger polarization than in other crimes. Much again because of the stigma surrounding sexual vs "regular" violence. 2
Recommended Posts