You think only online cites are valid? Good luck in the real world, sparky.
What? Here is what I said:
If you don’t think those threads were appalling, I think we probably won’t agree on anything here.
Just to point out, again, that you are an utterly unhinged crazy person:
Readers will note that a simple request for you to provide a link so that others could read and analyze your cite sent you sprinting to the Loony Bus in order to take you from Crazy Town to Lunatic City. Readers will also note that taking a lunatic at their word as to the contents and methodological foundations of a cite is… unwise.
So you’re equating “sexually touching, embracing, and/or fondling the respondent” with “a slap on the ass”? Really?
Frankly I feel better about it than ever.
Yes, touching someone’s buttocks is a non-sexual gesture here in America. Why, if you pinch/slap a girl’s ass in a bar, what you’re telling her is that you think she really played great in her recent sporting event. I’d ask how you view touching someone’s ass as not “sexually touching” them, but I’m afraid of the response I might get.
I think it’s somewhat encouraging that not only are you unable to admit error when I provide a cite that clearly states that things such as “embracing” are covered under rape/sexual assault, thereby making the statistical results entirely useless for discussing rape, but you are calling me an idiot over it. I’m generally quite encouraged when my critics display utter stupidity. Much appreciated.
Did you notice the word “sexually” in your own cite? “Sexually embracing” doesn’t sound so goddamn benign, does it?
So basically, you’re asserting that, in a survey about unreported and reported crimes, people will a) lie about being victims of rapes they didn’t report (cf your blather about how “unreliable” the study is, with your absurd analogy to UFO abductions), and b) report “a slap on the ass” as an unreported sexual assault.
You’re goddamn vile is what you are.
Keep fuckin’ that chicken, Finn.
I’m glad you’ve decided to turn the stupid up to 11.
No, it’s a bit like touching someone’s ass in a club without their permission. And whether or not it’s “benign” is not the issue (but I’m honestly no longer sure whether or not you’re smart enough to realize it at this point). Even non-benign “sexual embracing” that’s included in the same category as rape hopelessly distorts the actual statistics on rape. If you then use “unreported sexual embracing, oh, and rape too” to show just how common unreported rape is, either you’re an utter fool or you’re dishonest and using (obvious) trickery to try to sell an agenda.
That’s you being stupid, again.
I pointed out several things, among them the fact that the statistics provided aren’t about just rape, but everything from rape to unwanted “embracing”. I also pointed out that simply because someone makes a claim doesn’t make it true. Perhaps it should be called The UFO Fallacy, but maybe the Zeriel Fallacy would work better.
Again, stupid, you, very, yadda yadda.
The study lumps in everything from rape to “sexually touching, embracing, and/or fondling the respondent without grabbing, pushing, or restraining.” To then use that to show how under-reported rape is? That’s either dishonest or painfully stupid.
You seem to honestly believe it though, so I think you’re probably being honest.
It’s only absurd to you because you’re hung up on the Zeriel Fallacy. A report made, unconfirmed (and in this case, possibly of anything as simple as “embracing”) is being presented by you as a factual recitation of an actual rape. That the same fallacy would cause you to champion an investigation into the horrible state of alien abductions is lost on you, because you’re not reasoning, you’re rationalizing.
I now know that logic is lost on you, but for those reading along: in 1992 polling results suggested that nearly 4 million Americans thought that they’d been abducted by aliens. Now, obviously, we would be more than a little remiss if we then claimed that was proof that there were “four million unreported alien abductions.” To put a finer point on it, if 4 million Americans can report that they were abducted by aliens who’ve visited the Earth (who, ya know, don’t actually exist and therefore didn’t actually abduct them), then un-investigated claims that people were “embraced and/or anything up to and including raped” cannot be taken as gospel truth that there are lots and lots of unreported rapes going on.
Simply because reports are made does not make them true. And a reporting schema that groups together everything from an unwanted embrace that occurred without violence, to actual rape, but then doesn’t differentiate between the two for reporting purposes… is useless.
This is basic.
Unless you’re stuck on the Zeriel Fallacy, in which case maybe it’s time to start coming up with anti-saucer-invasion plans.
Again, I have to wonder if you’re as stupid as you seem, or as dishonest as this looks. I’m having trouble believing that even you are really this stupid. I provided the terms of the study which define what a “sexual assault” is in their questionnaire. Those are:
-“Unwanted sexual contact with force (grabbing, fondling, etc.),” if the offender used any type of force during the unwanted sexual contact (for example, grabbing, pushing, or restraining).
-“Unwanted sexual contact without force (grabbing, fondling, etc.),” if the offender did not use any force during the unwanted sexual contact (for example, sexually touching, embracing, and/or fondling the respondent without grabbing, pushing, or restraining). "
I really have trouble believing that you think that touching/slapping/pinching/whatever another person’s ass without their permission is not “unwanted”, “sexual” or “contact” or that it’s not either violent, or non-violent, “touching”, “grabbing”, or “fondling.” I will admit, though, that I have been criticized for seeing dishonesty where people are just really, really unintelligent. So perhaps I will do you the courtesy of assuming that you’re just too stupid to understand the issue here. I’m undecided as of yet.
And we’re back to FinnAgain asserting (backhandedly, naturally) that some sexual assaults are not “real” sexual assaults (need I remind you that you brought up “a slap on the ass”, and you minimized it, long before you decided to try to win this debate by half-assedly taunting me about it), and that they’re “confusing” rape statistics. You can’t have it both ways–you cannot criticize the study for including those things and then also taunt me for calling you on it. Fuck the latter attitude right in the ear, by the way–you can assert “sexual assault” isn’t as serious as rape, or you can assert that you have no need of evaluating the victim’s sense of violation, but not both. Surely you’re smart enough to see why that is.
You can believe what you care to believe about the study’s reliability. Its conclusions are not outside the range of a variety of studies in a variety of first-world countries–I’ve cited Britain’s version–and that consistency alone speaks to its usefulness as a predictor. But of course, in your world, self-reported survey studies are exactly as non-reliable as UFO abduction reports. Never mind that people have a set of highly valid reasons to only report sexual assaults anonymously (the ridicule and judgments they can face in some situations and jurisdictions)–as opposed to your UFO believers, whose subcultural cred is increased by said reports. Apples are not oranges–except in **FinnAgain **land, apparently. By the way, that poll you cite? Horrible methodology problems.
Your attitude is what’s wrong here. Your attitude would justify a margin-like response (if she’s done making insane comments about “hysteria”)
Lemme expand on that–you’re comparing a non-scientific poll, written by a artist and a historian, that doesn’t directly ask any questions about the subject matter (i.e., have you been abducted by a UFO), that was written to prove that UFO abductions were real, with a leading intro story, and included a battery of questions that correlated with either TV ideas of aliens or symptoms of sleep paralysis…
And you’re comparing that pile of drivel to a US Government study that’s been in use and being refined for years, with the goal of impartially measuring real crime rates as contrasted with reported crime rates?
Christ, I’m halfway to apologizing to **margin **just because you’re shaping up to being a rape culture by yourself.
Also, I don’t think I’m going to bother reiterating you’re an idiot anymore, nor will I bother responding to your calling me same. Our respective posts speak for themselves.
Maybe we could add Zeriel’s name to the thread title?
This thread’s getting a little leggy and I can’t keep up with either at this point, but I do want to say this: you’re right. I read the thread. I was completely wrong to say anything like “all.” The majority of the posts in that thread weren’t saying what I said they said. I don’t much appreciate the “loonies” bit, because I still think margin was on the right side of the particular issues she was upset about, but I mischaracterized the discussion, and there’s certainly enough of that going around without my contribution.
No, that’s you being very stupid, yet again.
The NCVS study, which you had been willing to use earlier, included non-violent embracing in its category of rape/sexual assault. Your idiocy about whether or not that’s “real” is, I suppose, an issue for stupid people to mull over. I’ve simply pointed out the facts as to what the category contains.
At this point, please just assume that I’m pointing out your utter stupidity as you make successive claims, okay? I’ll try not to bring it up, but good lord while I’ve never noticed you before, you’re got Gonzomax level intellect with, well, Gonzomax level reading comprehension.
Anyways, I brought up “a slap on the ass” because it clearly falls under the metrics that the NCVS used to tally up “rape/sexual assault”. And that any report which lumps together a slap on the ass with actual rape, and doesn’t differentiate the two, is useless for determining the number of alleged rapes.
I certainly can assert that a slap on the ass or an unwanted embrace is not as serious as rape. You, I understand, can not. This is because I use my head for things other than a hat stand. And you weren’t “taunting” me about the fact that it was included in the study (good lord you’re fucking stupid). I brought up the fact that it was included in the study, and the study didn’t differentiate it from actual rape, as falsifying your claim that the study showed actual “unreported rapes”.
Actually, your cite contains zero hits for “75%”, zero hits for “95%” and zero hits for “unreported”. Your claim was that it “put it at 75-95% unreported”. Now, given either your shocking lack of honestly or shocking lack of intellect with the NCVS study and its methodology, I’m afraid that your claims aren’t worth any more than Margin’s or Villa’s. They’re crazy, but you’re stupid, and it all comes out in the wash.
Now why don’t you actually quote the claims you’re making, and identify the reporting protocol, definitions, and methodology they’ve used.
The Zeriel Fallacy in action: four million Americans can believe that aliens who are visiting the Earth, who don’t actually exist, abducted them. We totally can not trust those, because their claims are unreliable and people can believe insane things. Many people have also reported that they’ve been anything from “embraced” to actually raped. This shows that they’ve actually been raped witout questioning, investigation, or verification.
I think we can ignore your stupidity about whether or not someone thinks that they not only saw a UFO, but were abducted, will have ridicule and value judgments placed on them for being a UFO nut.
That facts and logical reasoning matter and that stupidity like yours is somewhat offensive, like a loud, wet far in a cramped elevator? I don’t really see that as a problem, tbh.
I know, I know, you’re not terribly bright and you’d really just prefer if we treated “all reports of anything from alleged unwelcome embracing to alleged rape” as “factual reports of rape” and that your glaring errors in logic and lack of intellectual vigor weren’t pointed out. I’d prefer if Firefly hadn’t been canceled by Fox. We can’t always get what we want.
I can let people google “Roper Poll” and judge for themselves whether you’re better able to describe their polling outfit than the “embracing and/or rape” statistics. Now, try to think, the poll’s results means that A) millions of people are capable of believing truly weird things that have no basis at all in reality and claims have to be investigated before they’re verified or B) every who said that anything happened to them from unwanted embracing to rape, really was raped, and to question the methodology is “rape culture”.
(Hint: it’s not B)
And it groups unwanted embracing in with actual rape, and doesn’t differentiate for statistical purposes.
You’re evidently not smart enough to understand why that is a Not Good Thing if you’re conducting a study.
Yeah, that’s because your brain isn’t working. You’re a bit of a shrieking idiot loon yourself, it seems. Faced with the fact that a study used poor methodology, didn’t differentiate “embracing” from rape, and that its results are allegations and not verified events, you’ve decided that has something to do with “rape culture”.
Have you tried… not being retarded?
That was my impression as well - of course you could have a field day with this thread.
Getting insulted by FinnAgain and SA is basically a compliment, anyway.
No refutation for the fact that the statistic for rape/sexual assault includes everything from “non-violent embracing” to actual rape and doesn’t differentiate, eh?
Don’t worry, you’re being insulted as stupid because you really, truly are pretty stupid.
I never asserted it does. My comment about “judging degrees of violation” was because I’m not enough of an arrogant asshole to judge a victim’s level of violation based solely on the reported sexual act. I don’t give a shit if you think that’s wrong-headed, because I assure you I feel the same way about the opposite.
By making claims founded on a differentiation between sexual assault and rape, you’re putting yourself in the position of declaring …what, exactly? Sure sounds like you’re trying to imply “oh, you shouldn’t be complaining, it’s not like you were raped” to the former.
I know that you are physically incapable of understanding this, but without differentiating the “everything from non-violent embracing to rape” from rape, you can’t draw conclusions about rape from it. It is hopelessly, completely methodologically flawed. It’s like a survey of everybody who possesses sparklers and firecrackers to pipe bombs, and using that statistic to argue that everybody who answered “yes” has a cache of pipe bombs.
Again, if you weren’t quite so intellectually challenged, you’d have understood this at least by the point that I’d smacked you in the head with a clue-by-four for, perhaps, the half-dozenth time.
No, it has nothing to do whether or not you’re arrogant. It’s because you’re stupid.
The degree of “sense of violation” is immaterial and irrelevant, since what you’re actually trying to prove is the incidence or rape. And even then, an accusation is not the same as a proven fact. All you can actually say is that there’s a statistic for un-investigated actions that range from “non-violent embracing” all the way to rape. Using that to prove the degree of unreported rapes reveals an utter and complete lack of comprehension and basic reasoning ability. If you hadn’t donated all of your grey matter above your brain stem, this wouldn’t need quite so much explaining.
The survey also didn’t ask about “sense of violation” (nor does “sense of violation” have fuck all to do with unreported rapes). The survey asked about rape/sexual assault, lumped them both together, and made clear that the category of rape/sexual assault includes everything from non-violent embracing on up to violent gang rape. Again, this is like conducting a survey of everybody who’s got something with transfat in their house to everyboyd’s who’s got arsenic in their pantry, and concluding that everybody who answered “yes” is a veritable Borgia.
Is that noggin of yours starting to serve a function yet besides rectal-plug?
Ah, I see the answer to my question above, is “no”.
See, here’s the thing. There is a valid and important point to be made here, which is that sexual assault is a Bad Thing, and that rape is a Bad Thing, and that the two are often tied together. But rape, definitionally, is not the same thing as sexual assault, and so if you’re going to make claims about one or the other, it behooves you to make your claims clearly. It’s not like it’s a particularly weak point to say “This study shows that rape is generally under-reported by percentage X and sexual assault by percentage Y.”
And there is also a valid and important point that for a long time, there was a culture of minimizing anything other than stranger-in-alley-rape as actually being rape, and a reluctance (sadly ongoing in many cases) for people to accept that the nice guy who took the girl out to dinner and a movie is a rapist or sexual assaulter. And some people, in their reluctance, try to minimize rape or assault when it happens in such situations, or sometimes in any situations. And this is bad.
But it doesn’t make rape equivalent to sexual assault. The fact that bad people point out a truth that is irrelevant and harmful in a given circumstance does not make the fact less true. Rape is not the same as sexual assault. People who say “Oh, it wasn’t that bad, he just grabbed you and said stuff.” are arseholes. People who say “Rape is not the same thing as sexual assault.” are not necessarily the above, and therefore are not necessarily arseholes.
It behooves people to be understanding and considerate of pointing out things that, while true, may be irrelevant and harmful in a particular context. However, it behooves others to make extremely certain that someone who is pointing out said things is actually doing so to minimize rather than be precise, because claiming otherwise fosters the belief that supporting rape culture is an inherently spurious accusation, that is leveled against people who point out inconvenient true things, and this is not a belief that benefits anyone.
I thought I had provided a sufficiently clear disclaimer that the Rape Culture Posse wouldn’t jump on it:
Ah well. I wonder if including pictures would help the Rape Culture folks comprehend the most basic degrees of nuance.
Hey, I’ve got some back issues of Rape Culture Monthly I’ll send your way. I’ve apparently been a lifetime subscriber.
P.S. The monthly recipe column is pretty damn good.