Feminists up in arms over Miss Nevada Advocating self defense classes for women

[Archer77]

What's wrong with the term? 

Doesn't it just mean a rape where the victim did not go to the cops?

Why the insistence on substantiation before it's ok to call it rape and not an alleged rape? 

Would you do that with an unreported (to the cops) burglary? 

For you to insist on "allegation" language seems to imply that you think false rape accusations are somewhat common.

Come to think about it, I really don't get it unless your default position is that women are lying when they say they've been raped.  (And if you think this, you are smoking crack.)

C'mon, you must have a feeling about this one way or another:  Whaddaya think is more common, a woman not reporting a rape or a woman alleging rape when one did not occur?

You make a lot of assumptions without taking the time to think.  The reason its necessary to make a distinction is because the person accused of rape has not had the due process of law to determine whether he is a rapist. You know, the whole basis of our legal system,  innocent until proven guilty.  I could call you a rapist if I so choose but that doesn't make you one.

I dont know whether more rapes are unreported than reported and thats my point.

[RRKore]

You make a lot of assumptions without taking the time to think.  The reason its necessary to make a distinction is because the person accused of rape has not had the due process of law to determine whether he is a rapist. You know, the whole basis of our legal system,  innocent until proven guilty.  I could call you a rapist if I so choose but that doesn't make you one.

I dont know whether more rapes are unreported than reported and thats my point.

Due process?  lol.  Wise up, man.  Who's being prosecuted here?  No one.  So no one is being denied due process. 

So if that's your whole reason for why one shouldn't refer to unreported rapes on the basis of a woman's word alone, then I guess that's a swing and a miss. 

When the purpose of the study is to examine the frequency of reported rapes vs unreported rapes, then no one in particular is being brought to court and that's by design, don't you think?  After all, if bringing past rapists to justice was the intent when women were interviewed for the study, then a lot of women wouldn't be so open about the unreported rapes in their past since making a bigger deal about it is likely what they were trying to avoid by not reporting it in the first place.  Make any sense to ya??

As to whether you don't know if more rapes are reported or unreported I think you misread my question;  I asked what you thought was more common, unreported rapes or false allegations of rape.

[Archer77]

Due process?  lol.  Wise up, man.  Who's being prosecuted here?  No one.  So no one is being denied due process. 

So if that's your whole reason for why one shouldn't refer to unreported rapes on the basis of a woman's word alone, then I guess that's a swing and a miss. 

When the purpose of the study is to examine the frequency of reported rapes vs unreported rapes, then no one in particular is being brought to court and that's by design, don't you think?  After all, if bringing past rapists to justice was the intent when women were interviewed for the study, then a lot of women wouldn't be so open about the unreported rapes in their past since making a bigger deal about it is likely what they were trying to avoid by not reporting it in the first place.  Make any sense to ya??

As to whether you don't know if more rapes are reported or unreported I think you misread my question;  I asked what you thought was more common, unreported rapes or false allegations of rape.

Thats exactly my point.  You cant properly quantified or qualify unreported rapes because by definition they are unreported.  The intend of the graph was to lead the viewer to the exact conclusions you jumped to without giving evidence that the statistics they provide are accurate.  It hooked you right in on an emotional level.  Youre making it a moral issue. Insinuating anyone who disagrees with you is pro-rape is an example of that.  Im looking at the structure of the argument and attempting to determine its accuracy.   I'm not taking what I read at face value.

I dont know if more rapes are unreported than reported and you don't either because neither of us can prove that unreported rapes actually occured.  Its only hearsay and conjecture until the case is investigated and proven true or false.  We don't even know the context or specifics of the unreported rapes.

[RRKore]

Thats exactly my point.  You cant properly quantified or qualify unreported rapes because by definition they are unreported.  The intend of the graph was to lead the viewer to the exact conclusions you jumped to without giving evidence that the statistics they provide are accurate.  It hooked you right in on an emotional level.  Youre making it a moral issue. Insinuating anyone who disagrees with you is pro-rape is an example of that.  Im looking at the structure of the argument and attempting to determine its accuracy.   I'm not taking what I read at face value.

I dont know if more rapes are unreported than reported and you don't either because neither of us can prove that unreported rapes actually occured.  Its only hearsay and conjecture until the case is investigated and proven true or false.  We don't even know the context or specifics of the unreported rapes.

What's "exactly your point"?  For a guy that insists on total accuracy you sure aren't being very clear.

And what's "properly" when it comes to quantifying unreported rapes and how is it that you think you're qualified to make such a determination?  Are you a statistician?  A scientist?  An actuary?  A mathematician?  A pollster?  If not, do you have training any those areas? C'mon, man, give me something that makes me think I should listen to your thoughts on this matter.

And this "unreported by definition" shit is laughable.  Let me explain:  "Unreported rapes" simply means unreported to the law.  It does not mean "I got raped but didn't tell anyone about it ever".  How is this difficult to understand?  You do accept that sometimes people do not report rapes (or any crime they've suffered, for that matter) to the police and yet they will speak about it later, right?  Lots of reasons for this are obvious but, as I've never been raped, you'd probably object on the grounds that it was conjecture, lol.

Look, I get that you might have issues with the accuracy of the numbers.  Anyone would.  But that is not the same thing as saying that the numbers aren't in the ballpark, so to speak, and therefore useful.  Science frequently makes use of statistical methods to assign values to occurrences that cannot, strictly speaking, be 100% verified as fact.  Let me know if you need examples.

Also, for the 2nd time, I did not ask you to speculate on the frequency of reported (to the law) rapes vs unreported rapes.  I asked you to speculate about the frequency of false allegations of rapes vs real rapes.  ("Real", btw, means it really happened, it does NOT mean provable in a court of law.)  If you decline to speculate that's one thing (about which I'll draw my own conclusions, of course) but the least you can do is show that you understand the question as written, don't ya think?

BTW, sorry to spoil your narrative but I did not seriously insinuate anyone was pro-rape.  Did you miss where I told Shockwave that I was kidding?  This is Getbig, after all.

[Archer77]

What's "exactly your point"?  For a guy that insists on total accuracy you sure aren't being very clear.

And what's "properly" when it comes to quantifying unreported rapes and how is it that you think you're qualified to make such a determination?  Are you a statistician?  A scientist?  An actuary?  A mathematician?  A pollster?  If not, do you have training any those areas? C'mon, man, give me something that makes me think I should listen to your thoughts on this matter.

And this "unreported by definition" shit is laughable.  Let me explain:  "Unreported rapes" simply means unreported to the law.  It does not mean "I got raped but didn't tell anyone about it ever".  How is this difficult to understand?  You do accept that sometimes people do not report rapes (or any crime they've suffered, for that matter) to the police and yet they will speak about it later, right?  Lots of reasons for this are obvious but, as I've never been raped, you'd probably object on the grounds that it was conjecture, lol.

Look, I get that you might have issues with the accuracy of the numbers.  Anyone would.  But that is not the same thing as saying that the numbers aren't in the ballpark, so to speak, and therefore useful.  Science frequently makes use of statistical methods to assign values to occurrences that cannot, strictly speaking, be 100% verified as fact.  Let me know if you need examples.

Also, for the 2nd time, I did not ask you to speculate on the frequency of reported (to the law) rapes vs unreported rapes.  I asked you to speculate about the frequency of false allegations of rapes vs real rapes.  ("Real", btw, means it really happened, it does NOT mean provable in a court of law.)  If you decline to speculate that's one thing (about which I'll draw my own conclusions, of course) but the least you can do is show that you understand the question as written, don't ya think?

BTW, sorry to spoil your narrative but I did not seriously insinuate anyone was pro-rape.  Did you miss where I told Shockwave that I was kidding?  This is Getbig, after all.

I've been perfectly clear.  It's not my problem that you are incapable of understanding.   Unreported rapes presumes these rapes actually happened and you can't do that with only the word of the accuser as evidence. This whole 100% business is straight from your mind.  I never used 100% ever yet you keep repeating it over and over again.  Nor have I ever said or implied in anyway that rapes don't go unreported.  Again, that assumption is a productive of your own imagination.

As I've said numerous times and you still don't seem to grasp, I don't know whether these cases of unreported rape are accurate because I don't have any evidence to determine whether these accusations are factual. It's disingenuous to present these unverified cases as fact in order to prove an argument. 

You absolutely insinuated anyone who disagreed with you was pro-rape.  Own that shit.   Don't run from it like a pussy.  As for it being a joke, do you consider rape and accusing a person of rape to be funny?   You have a seriously fucked up sense of humor and probably aren't the type of person anyone should be talking to about rape, especially a victim.

[RRKore]

I've been perfectly clear.  It's not my problem that you are incapable of understanding.   Unreported rapes presumes these rapes actually happened and you can't do that with only the word of the accuser as evidence. This whole 100% business is straight from your mind.  I never used 100% ever yet you keep repeating it over and over again.  Nor have I ever said or implied in anyway that rapes don't go unreported.  Again, that assumption is a productive of your own imagination.

As I've said numerous times and you still don't seem to grasp, I don't know whether these cases of unreported rape are accurate because I don't have any evidence to determine whether these accusations are factual. It's disingenuous to present these unverified cases as fact in order to prove an argument. 

You absolutely insinuated anyone who disagreed with you was pro-rape.  Own that shit.   Don't run from it like a pussy.  As for it being a joke, do you consider rape and accusing a person of rape to be funny?   You have a seriously fucked up sense of humor and probably aren't the type of person anyone should be talking to about rape, especially a victim.

LOL.  I can't joke about rape?  Says who?  You should probably untangle your panties and realize that this is Getbig. 

Let me add that if, as you sort of seem to be saying in your last sentence, YOU are victim of rape, then I apologize for my insensitivity (even though by your thinking, I guess I can't accept your claim without some form of substantiation other than your word, ya pity-seeking rape victim wannabe who is possibly speaking with a forked tongue, lol.)

OK, so you're saying that one can't accept that a rape occurred based only on the word of the person who claims to have been raped, right?  Says who?  Look, if you have some sort of training or actual experience with putting together studies about such things, then I'm all ears.  To me, though, it seems like you're misapplying the standards of the legal system whereby convicting someone of rape based solely on the testimony of the victim with no other evidence, physical or otherwise, is likely unacceptable. 

Either that or you're from some middle-eastern country (or maybe India?) where a rape isn't considered a rape unless there are 4 witnesses.  (Oh shit, more rape humor, right? lol)

You are right that you never mentioned "100% verifiable" so sorry for that but I'm wondering, what is the standard in your mind?  You say that you can't accept that a woman has been raped on her word alone, right?  So, at a minimum, what other evidence to you need before you'll think to yourself that, "Yeah, she really has been raped?".   

At the risk of distracting you so that you don't answer the question above (like you won't answer whether you think false allegations of rape are more common than actual rapes even though I've posed this question 4 times now, lol) I will reiterate that for the purpose of conducting a survey (and NOT for convicting someone of rape in a court of law) I think the woman's word is good enough as long as the questioning is conducted with as little bias as possible.   

So, what say you?:  Besides a woman's word, what else do you need at a bare minimum to reasonably believe she has been raped?

BTW, don't let the following vid distract ya too much.  It only concerns your pearl-clutching about what's not OK to joke about:

[Archer77]

LOL.  I can't joke about rape?  Says who?  You should probably untangle your panties and realize that this is Getbig.  

Let me add that if, as you sort of seem to be saying in your last sentence, YOU are victim of rape, then I apologize for my insensitivity (even though by your thinking, I guess I can't accept your claim without some form of substantiation other than your word, ya pity-seeking rape victim wannabe who is possibly speaking with a forked tongue, lol.)

OK, so you're saying that one can't accept that a rape occurred based only on the word of the person who claims to have been raped, right?  Says who?  Look, if you have some sort of training or actual experience with putting together studies about such things, then I'm all ears.  To me, though, it seems like you're misapplying the standards of the legal system whereby convicting someone of rape based solely on the testimony of the victim with no other evidence, physical or otherwise, is likely unacceptable.  

Either that or you're from some middle-eastern country (or maybe India?) where a rape isn't considered a rape unless there are 4 witnesses.  (Oh shit, more rape humor, right? lol)

You are right that you never mentioned "100% verifiable" so sorry for that but I'm wondering, what is the standard in your mind?  You say that you can't accept that a woman has been raped on her word alone, right?  So, at a minimum, what other evidence to you need before you'll think to yourself that, "Yeah, she really has been raped?".  

At the risk of distracting you so that you don't answer the question above (like you won't answer whether you think false allegations of rape are more common than actual rapes even though I've posed this question 4 times now, lol) I will reiterate that for the purpose of conducting a survey (and NOT for convicting someone of rape in a court of law) I think the woman's word is good enough as long as the questioning is conducted with as little bias as possible.  

So, what say you?:  Besides a woman's word, what else do you need at a bare minimum to reasonably believe she has been raped?

BTW, don't let the following vid distract ya too much.  It only concerns your pearl-clutching about what's not OK to joke about:

Proving someone guilty of a crime always involves more than the word of the accuser. This is the one of the pillars of our justice system.   Im sorry that you are incapable of understanding this fact.

You dont have to create a study to determine whether the data and the application of that data may be inaccurate.  Statistics is one of my personal hobbies. Unlike you,  I dont accept what I read at face value because I understand how stats are manipulated.   You feel comfortable commenting on it when it's clear you have no idea how to properly interpret the information.  If you do happen to work with statistics, may I suggest you find a new line of work.

Joking about rape is just plain creepy and disrespectful to the victims. It takes a depraved mind to find rape remotely funny.   You might want to think about what you say instead of being a passive aggressive bitch and making snide comments in bad taste when someone disagrees with you.  The original "joke" was simply your way of lashing out and it makes you look like a teenage girl who had her feelings hurt.  Im beginning to wonder if your brazen mocking of rape victims indicates something much deeper.  You could very well be a rapist. You might not be a rapist but you dont respect women. Your other "joke" referring to living in a middle eastern country is another example of your feminine passive aggressiveness.   Youre moralizing instead of engaging in a discussion like a man.

For the last time,  I dont know whether false allegations are more common than actual rapes.  Ive answered  this question multiple times.  What I've said repeatedly is that in order to properly quantify actual rapes its disingenuous to use unproven allegations such as unreported rapes in calculating the total number of rapes because they cant be substantiated.

[RRKore]

Proving someone guilty of a crime always involves more than the word of the accuser. This is the one of the pillars of our justice system.   Im sorry that you are incapable of understanding this fact.

You dont have to create a study to determine whether the data and the application of that data may be inaccurate.  Statistics is one of my personal hobbies. Unlike you,  I dont accept what I read at face value because I understand how stats are manipulated.   You feel comfortable commenting on it when it's clear you have no idea how to properly interpret the information.  If you do happen to work with statistics, may I suggest you find a new line of work.

Joking about rape is just plain creepy and disrespectful to the victims. It takes a depraved mind to find rape remotely funny.   You might want to think about what you say instead of being a passive aggressive bitch and making snide comments in bad taste when someone disagrees with you.  The original "joke" was simply your way of lashing out and it makes you look like a teenage girl who had her feelings hurt.  Im beginning to wonder if your brazen mocking of rape victims indicates something much deeper.  You could very well be a rapist. You might not be a rapist but you dont respect women. Your other "joke" referring to living in a middle eastern country is another example of your feminine passive aggressiveness.   Youre moralizing instead of engaging in a discussion like a man.

For the last time,  I dont know whether false allegations are more common than actual rapes.  Ive answered  this question multiple times.  What I've said repeatedly is that in order to properly quantify actual rapes its disingenuous to use unproven allegations such as unreported rapes in calculating the total number of rapes because they cant be substantiated.

Well what a pussy you sound like.  No, not for complaining that I'm not sensitive enough to know that joking about the subject of rape is verboten.  No, you are a pussy because you wrote all that in order to dodge the question about what, in your mind, would be sufficient evidence for you to believe a woman has been raped aside from her word, didn't you?

C'mon, guy who counts the study of statistics among his "personal hobbies" (LOL), show me I'm wrong about this and answer please:

Besides a woman's word, what additional evidence do you personally need at a bare minimum to be able to reasonably conclude that she's not lying about having been raped?

[Archer77]

Well what a pussy you sound like.  No, not for complaining that I'm not sensitive enough to know that joking about the subject of rape is verboten.  No, you are a pussy because you wrote all that in order to dodge the question about what, in your mind, would be sufficient evidence for you to believe a woman has been raped aside from her word, didn't you?

C'mon, guy who counts the study of statistics among his "personal hobbies" (LOL), show me I'm wrong about this and answer please:

Besides a woman's word, what additional evidence do you personally need at a bare minimum to be able to reasonably conclude that she's not lying about having been raped?

At least I'm not a passive aggressive old man who makes makes snide little comments like a woman on the rag. Maybe youre just one of those overly emotional sensitive types.  Yes, stats are a personal hobby.  Ive mentioned my interest in stats on several threads.  For the record, the type of person who has stats as a hobby is someone who knows what the fuck hes talking about, unlike you.  

By the way, according to your own criteria you shouldnt even be commenting on stats because you know nothing about. Well, you might know a thing or two about raping women. As for evidence?    Any evidence other than her word alone. Ive said that a million times but your dumb old ass doesnt seem to get it.  Maybe its time to buy new bifocals.

Whats in my mind?  Whats in my mind is deconstructing th conclusion being made by the graph and corresponding stats to determine accuracy.  Idiotic ideologues like you are so myopic, you assume the act of questioning anything is wrong or there is an ulterior motive involved. 

[RRKore]

At least I'm not a passive aggressive old man who makes makes snide little comments like a woman on the rag. Maybe youre just one of those overly emotional sensitive types.  Yes, stats are a personal hobby.  Ive mentioned my interest in stats on several threads.  For the record, the type of person who has stats as a hobby is someone who knows what the fuck hes talking about, unlike you.  

By the way, according to your own criteria you shouldn't even be commenting on stats because you know nothing about. Well, you might know a thing or two about raping women. As for evidence?    Any evidence other than her word alone. Ive said that a million times but your dumb old ass doesnt seem to get it.  Maybe its time to buy new bifocals.

Whats in my mind?  Whats in my mind is deconstructing th conclusion being made by the graph and corresponding stats to determine accuracy.  Idiotic ideologues like you are so myopic, you assume the act of questioning anything is wrong or there is an ulterior motive involved. 

An example of this other evidence? Pretty please.  

And sorry, man, you've not said "any evidence other than her word alone" that I've seen.  You've only said "not her word alone".  (If I'm wrong, point to where, please.)  And that's not the same as saying you'd accept "any evidence + her word" because, for all I know, there are other sorts of what some folks call evidence that you'd not accept.  I hope this is clear.

BTW, I'm honestly not so interested in getting into a pissing match with you or most folks here.  I'm not averse to it and can find it fun sometimes, but I'm perfectly able to resist the urge to insult as long as you do the same.  I'm a little too lazy to read back through the thread but I'm pretty sure that you started with the blatant insults before I did.  I think the only semi-provocative thing I wrote before you began to charmingly (lol) comment on mah feminine side (lol) was "Wise up, mang".  Is that really so rude?

So, chill negress.  I certainly didn't mean to get you so uh, worked up (is that a fair characterization?) that you'd do a search through my other posts. (But if you did search and the best you could come up with was, "Hey, this guy is 50, I'll talk about that", well I guess I should feel good, right? lol.)

Back to the subject:  I'm a SW QA Engineer (not that means much except I do use stats some in my job, determining the standard deviation for performance test runs, mostly), I've taken statistics at the college level and am a more than fairly logical guy, so I generally agree that evaluating the accuracy of claims makes sense. -- However, what lengths one goes to do that ought to be commensurate with the importance of the topic, don't you think?  In other words, if my life depended on it, I would definitely be more interested in obtaining confirmation about the accuracy of the range of unreported rapes that are claimed in the graphic that was the result of the study in question.  But, if the claim seems reasonable and it's not a serious matter for me, why go through all the trouble?  

I should explain why the unreported rape thing seems reasonable to me, I think;  Now, maybe I have spoken to more girls than you about this subject (this is no veiled putdown - As you've said, I'm old and so I've been close to a lot of females), but really, almost every girl older than college-age whom I've gotten to know well and to whom I've spoken to about this subject has a story to tell about being raped or nearly raped and not reporting it to the law.  I'm not exaggerating.  So, were all or most of them lying?  I don't didn't think so then and I don't think so now.  Of course, even if you believe every word I've written, this isn't proof of anything but it IS not completely worthless, I think.

So, I'm still interested to get an example of the evidence other than the girl's word that you'd accept in order to believe she's been raped.  

Otherwise, you're just a guy who's saying (correctly), "How can they know that for sure?; They can't know that for sure!" while not trying to find out how the results of the study were achieved, nor acknowledging that findings based solely on a woman's word are not without value when it comes to trying to find the approximate relative prevalence of unreported rapes.

And, if that's all you're doing, no matter whether you defensively think that might make me think poorly about your motives or not, it can definitely be said that you're not adding much to the discussion.

TL; DR:  Here's an olive branch...now quit being so touchy.

Lastly, do ya mind if I ask you a little bit about your hobby?   When one's personal hobby is statistics, what sort of activities does that entail?  Really, what sort of statistical methods are you most familiar with?  Do you use any sampling theory at all?  If so, I'm surprised that you seem to find it hard to accept that the study, which is breaking exactly no new ground by doing so, is trying to make use of sampling theory to use info taken from a sample of raped women to inductively infer parameters of the population as a whole.  It's been a long time since I sat in a statistics classroom, though, so maybe there's some rule I haven't heard of that proscribes using the word of one person about, well, anything?