Again, the irony is that you are describing yourself. I called you a child rapist because I was mocking your idiocy.
LOL. I believe you were trying to mock me by saying that I had raped a 5-year old child...but please realize that it's gonna be pretty hard for anyone much less me to take you seriously when you complain about name-calling or any other claims about being offended by immature speech of any kind.
According to your idiotic way of thinking, an unverifiable accusation is automatically true.
Automatically true? No, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that a woman's claim to having been sexually assaulted some time after having failed to report it to LE has value for the purposes of studying the frequency of sexual assault, especially when the study seeks to include information about the frequency of assaults that were unreported to LE.
Would you really think it's appropriate for social scientists to collectively just throw up their hands and say, "We can't prove that these women aren't lying so this subject can't be studied."?
Look mang, I'm hardly the only one who thinks that unreported rapes CAN be studied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statisticsAccording to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[9][10]
The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 British government report says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."http://news.ku.edu/2014/03/03/law-professor-more-1-million-rapes-unreported-official-us-crime-statisticsLaw professor: More than 1 million rapes unreported in official U.S. crime statistics
Fri, 03/07/2014
LAWRENCE — More than 1 million rape cases have gone undocumented across the United States during the past two decades, according to research by a University of Kansas law professor. The chronic under-reporting happened during what was widely considered a “great decline” in violent crime.
Corey Rayburn Yung, associate professor of law, has authored “How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America’s Hidden Rape Crisis.” The article, which will appear in the Iowa Law Review, details Yung’s review of crime data from 1995 to 2012, which shows that by conservative estimates, nearly 1.2 million rapes disappeared from the official record. Yung analyzed data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which collects data from nearly every police department in the country, and is commonly used by policy makers, media and law enforcement as a picture of crime prevalence in the United States.
Yung has taught and conducted research in rape and crime law and noticed inconsistencies in the number of rapes reported in a number of cities. Raw numbers of rapes were much lower in some cities than raw numbers of murders, which raised red flags as murder is a less common crime. Yung then learned of media investigations in Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis and Philadelphia that documented cases of police departments under-reporting rape statistics.
“Originally I was trying to reconcile why the data was showing such anomalies,” Yung said of the impetus of his paper. “Then I found out about the four cities with documented cases of under-reported rapes, and the more I looked the more red flags there were. There were a number of cities where the numbers didn’t make sense.”
...I can cite many, many more examples from what most would think are fairly unbiased sources confirming what anyone familiar with other humans could guess; Women who've been sexually assaulted will not go to the police at the same rate as they would for almost any other crime.
Im going to explain this to you one last time. If youre striving for statistical accuracy, you shouldn't include unreported rapes in the total number of rapes because you cant substantiate the veracity of the accusation. You on the other hand believe that the accusation is proof enough. Ive explained this to you repeatedly but you cant seem to grasp the concept.
Oh, I grasp what you're trying to say. I just think you're likely talking out of your ass. What I'd like you to do is support your opinion. Cite some statistical bylaws or the like that state that there's a hard and fast rule against using first-hand verbal testimony of some experience in a statistical study of the frequency of that sort of experience. (This shouldn't be that hard for someone who proclaims that statistics is a personal hobby, should it?)
I noticed you dodged this reply entirely.
You're referring to your assumption that you know the race of the folks involved in the gun violence in Chicago over the weekend and, holy shit, that whooshing sound over your head must get annoying sometimes, doesn't it?
Did you really not see my reply to Bears where I said that I agree with him (and you) that your assumption about the majority of the folks in Chicago was correct? As I wrote to him, I questioned you about your assumption because I wanted to point out that you seem to be inconsistent about what you'll believe with no proof.
Go ahead and read my reply to him again and if you really have questions and still rather laughably think I'm dodging, just let me know and I'll answer any other questions you have about the subject.
Instead you decide to change the subject and imply that its I who started the hostility. You cant even stay on topic. The fact is, you started the hostility by behaving like a frustrated child and lashing out when you didnt get your way.
It's possible that I was a dick to you before you were a dick to me but, c'mon, this is getbig. And for someone who throws around accusations of being a frustrated child as easily as you do, you sure cry a lot. Shee-it, man up, Archer.
Also, and I almost forgot about this, how can you accuse me of being a "frustrated child and lashing out" when you are the one who was so butthurt that you went through my post history looking for ammo. This was completely obvious when you started mentioning my age (I'm 50), which is something that I've mentioned maybe twice on this board and not so recently. It is to laugh, honestly.
Im being serious when I say that you are one of the most dense and disturbed individuals on this board.
Eh, whateva. I think you're gonna live despite being a too-sensitive guy who got his feelings hurt and is angrily trying his hardest to return the favor. Good luck with that, lol.
