I asked the question about what you would specifically do to replace/improve the justice system and what your vision of a better one was twice.
I had to do it a second time because the first time you just complained about what you saw as the failings of the current system?
That hasn’t changed.
I take it you actually don’t have a plan or any ideas.
I suppose you have a PhD?
Don’t do me any favors.
This all makes sense and I agree with everything except the loopholes part. The reason I don’t agree is because I am ignorant of what you are referring to.
I would like to know what you are referring to though
A lot of that stuff is useful in general, not just for assault cases.
Here is where I admit I need to do more research - I know there are technically rape shield laws that are supposed to protect prior sexual history, for example, but I also know that there are workarounds that get this evidence admitted anyway.
This is a problem. If a law is not doing what it is supposed to do, then it needs to be revisited.
…people aren’t obliged to “dance at your request.” You are perfectly happy to ignore challenges to the things you assert in this thread, you’ve ignored questions, you’ve ignored rebuttals, you’ve accused people who have laid out comphrensive cases that you’ve misrepresented the facts of this particular case of “accusing you of lying.”
You’ve set the tone for this thread. Stop complaining that people are simply doing as you do.
Sure, committing rape is just one of the bad things he’s done. But I’m trying to stay focused on the thread topic.
I think a rape accusation against Trump should be considered within the context of his history of committing rape.
I don’t think this is an argument you want to pursue. Because if you’re not defending Trump in particular for partisan political reasons, then it appears you’re defending rapists in general.
I didn’t take any liberties with the statistics. I used the figures you provided to demonstrate how weak your argument is. So I can see why you didn’t like it.
Fascinating. Apparently, if you don’t know how to fix something, you are not allowed to acknowledge ways that it is broken. For instance, right now my washing machine is broken. I don’t exactly know how to fix it, but I can recognize what’s not working (it’s not draining. But I guess I can’t say that if I don’t know how to fix it);
But I think I’m done here. Between the idea that “she’s not my (rapin’) type” is a valid and convincing defense, and the idea that “unfounded” means"false," even when presented with concrete examples that they are not synonyms…I just can’t.
I told you a while back that the style of Scylla’s arguments were all you needed to know to understand the futility of expecting a reasonable response. Rebutting that style with facts, reason, or analysis will get you nowhere. The style becomes an infinite loop of saying what already was said. Once you see that loop, the best recourse is simply to stop wasting your time.
He doesn’t have to respond. Since he did, at length, twice, I assumed he wanted to answer the question. I was just pointing out that he answered a different question than I asked.
It;s not quite Beto suddenly speaking Spanish when asked a question that he didn’t like, but it was still worth noting.
It’s not Trump, nor rapists in general. It’s more interesting than that.
Let’s say someone you know is accused seriously of rape. You don’t know for sure whether or not he did it. He seemed like a good guy to you, not someone you would think would rape (so clearly not a stand in for Trump.). He claims he didn’t do it. You talk to him and tend to believe him. You hear the accusers account, and your opinion tends to disbelieve the accusation. The fact is that you don’t know. Can’t know for sure.
Now, let’s say somebody rips into this guy very hard, and, you think incorrectly. You decide to state your opinion.
Are you defending a rapist?
I am pointing out in this thread that being a rapist and being accused of a rapist are not the same things.
…that was a silly assumption. If he wanted to answer the question he would have answered it.
Its almost as if you think we can’t actually see what you actually wrote.
Its as noteworthy as you ignoring the rebuttal of the FBI 7-8% number, or as noteworthy as you repeating the ridiculous “22 per day” number, or as noteworthy as you (incorrectly) accusing Les Wizerables of “calling you a liar”. All of which, unlike “Beto suddenly speaking Spanish”, happened in this very thread.
Excuse my ignorance. What is the problem with what I said?
…you literally quoted me. You quoted “the problem I had with what you said.”
The rebuttal cited Wikipedia and then said that the 7% number was based on a study done in 1997 and never updated and is therefore useless or worthless.
What my article actually said was:
“n the 1990s, the FBI clocked the rate of specious allegations at 8 percent, according to Turvey. A 2016 meta-analysis of seven studies found an average false reporting rate of 5 percent. In the mid-2000s, the Making a Difference (MAD) project crunched stats on 2,059 rapes and sexual assaults specifically reported to U.S. law enforcement, the only study to do so. MAD found a false allegation rate of 7 percent.
How many is that? According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies received 116,645 reports of rapes or sexual assaults in 2014, the most recent year for which comprehensive law enforcement statistics are available. Applying MAD’s 7 percent false reporting rate, that’s a total of 8,165 false reports—or about 22 every day of the year.”
This one quote mentions 4 different studies going from the 1990s to 2014. I looked at the Wikipedia cite, and I didn’t feel that their cite really said what they seemed to think it said.
I concluded that the person really hadn’t read the article, said so, and moved on. The person then came back with something I didn’t real feel was worth my time.
How did I make that determination? Personal judgement call. In the very best discussions I’ve had we tend to be focused on ideas. People will get the gist of what i am saying with just a few words because they are reading sympathetically and I am doing the same and we are trying to understand what the other is saying.
In some of the worst discussions, the people think it is a game to misinterpret, or not understand, or misread.
In this particular circumstance I looked at what my article said, what their rebuttal link said, and thought “oh ok. We are playing that game. No thanks.” I moved on. I assumed other people who wanted to have a good progressive discussion would conclude what I had concluded.
So that’s why I did what I did. You have concluded that my actions were unsatisfactory or hypocritical or something and are chiding me for them
Ok. Let’s talk about it.
As you can see, there are 4 different studies cited, not one. The range is between 5-8%. The extrapolation of the math to lead to 22 based on a 7% rate is pretty straightforward. The first study is indeed from 1997 but the last is from 2014, so the interpretation of the Wikipedia argument (which was fast and loose, IMO, but whatever) that this was not a good number because it’s just one study that needs updating, does not in fact hold water.
There. I’ve now backtracked and wasted time Explaining myself and addressing something that anybody worth talking too should be able to see for themselves without my help.
I did that for you because you seemed to think it was bad that I didn’t. So please show me how this is interesting and noteworthy and how you are going to use it to exchange ideas in an interesting way or move the conversation along.
If I stop responding and go on to something else, you will now know why.
I will go a step further and anticipate a potential rebuttal. Something like “Scylla you are still a fucking hypocrite. You can’t go ignoring stuff directed at you even if you think it’s unworthy, while chiding Andy for not asking your questions”
My answer would be that your right. I just choose where to invest my time and make a judgement. Andy is typically forthcoming and I thought my question interesting and worthy. I was asking him what his picture ideas for change were, and what he hoped to accomplish and how he would do it.
I thought that arguing about percentages that I had cited correctly from somebody who either wasn’t bothering to read carefully, was being deliberately obstinate, or disingenuous wasn’t very interesting.
I expect people are making the same choices with me when they decide whether to engage or not.
I hope that answers your question.
Now Dance Bear! Say something Interesting based on this! Give me food for thought, or I shall cast thee down into the forgotten ranks of Those Not Really Worth Bothering With. 
My ignorance. Yes. Understood. You are being tedious. Did you not understand that I was requesting you enlighten me?
…except ‘this massive wall of text’ you’ve just written isn’t what actually happened.
Did you see what actually happened? That person (who happened to have been me) wasn’t addressing the article: they were addressing the numbers **you **pulled from the article. It doesn’t matter what the article said. **You **quoted those figures here in this thread. I investigated the figures that you presented to us.
What you’ve actually done is recontexualised what you did.
Fortunately all we need to do is scroll back a couple of pages to see what you actually did.
Incorrect. I didn’t chide you. I said they were notable.
No, lets not.
It took me less than a minute to investigate the FBI figures, something that both you and the author of the article you cited didn’t bother to do. Strike One.
You then borrowed the “22 a day” figure, which was extrapolated from figures from the Making a Difference Project, something that I’m pretty sure the authors of the Making a Difference Project nor any self-respecting statistician would ever endorse. Strike Two.
I have no reason to believe that any other statistic used in the article hasn’t been similarly manipulated/misinterpreted and I’m not going to run around checking their veracity. I’ve done your homework for you already. Link to the primary sources or forget about it: I don’t trust your cite.
And it wasn’t a “wikipedia arguement.” It was Bruce Goss, PhD, JD, MBA, someone who, unlike you, has actually examined the data.
Yep: you certainly did waste your time.
Not bad. Just worthy of noting.
Please show me how pointing out that iiandyiiii not answering your question twice is interesting and noteworthy and how you are going to use it to exchange ideas in an interesting way or move the conversation along.
Because you can’t handle it when people prove that you’ve gotten something wrong?
LOL. I hope you are having fun having a conversation with yourself.
For the third time: that person was me.
Are you just skimming the thread?
Indeed.
The casual reader will note that I never asked Scylla a question.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that this thread is all about you.
I understood you perfectly. I just choose where to invest my time and make a judgement.
Here is where I answered Scylla’s question about how the justice system needs to improve:
So I identified some areas and behaviors that are bad and need to stop. Poysyn went into a lot more detail, since presumably she has some expertise that I do not. But I did answer that question, for the record.
nm - duplicate
There are lots of terrible aspects to patriarchal and rape culture, but one of the worst is that it can motivate otherwise decent individuals to attack women for nothing more than telling their stories.