Man, somehow I missed that classic.
Thanks.
I’m not fighting with you, I’m inviting you to share in the discussion we’re sort of starting up about where the line is and how “rape” is defined.
I rather suppose I go too slowly to participate – I probably should keep my mouth shut. But because your position is certainly more defensible than I thought it was, I’ll go ahead and follow up.
This criticism pertains not to the actual data themselves, but rather to the manner in which they are usually presented. As I understand the NCVS, its administrators collect a much broader set of information about the purported crime than simply whether something occurred that meets their criteria for [attempted] rape. If someone is willing to look, he could identify cases for whether physical harm was threatened, or applied, in an attempt to force vaginal intercourse.
Hm – I don’t really have a strong feelings about this criticism – but here is what immediately strikes me. As long as we assume that the incidence of genuine lying to the interviewer is low, which I have no reason to doubt, then such an underrporting statistic would provide a measure of how frequently an individual believes herself to have been raped but fails to report. I would argue that this at-the-very-least statistic is valuable information.
One might also argue that it gives at least an upper bound for how much rape is attempted – surely it is higher than the number of incidents which actually result in a conviction. Alongside arguments about the stigma of being raped, the he-said/she-said nature of rape accusations implying some unlikelihood of a conviction, the fact that many rape victims know their accusers and may wish to avoid a situation in which friends/family members take sides … such arguments (if sound) would give some reason for believing the number of rapes to be closer to the upper bound than the lower.
But you’re right about one thing: these figures should be interpreted with care.
Mmm. The problem I have with that is, at least where I’m concerned, the claim of alien abduction is a different sort of beast from the claim of ghost sightings (or rape). It requires a rather elaborate truth denial; possibly vivid hallucinations; the belief that false, prolonged events actually occurred despite no evidence. On the other hand, those in the US are culturally conditioned to believe in spirits, and ghost sightings require merely a trick of the light and some gullibility. Heck, if I thought ghosts were real I would claim to have seen one – I’ve seen weird stuff now and again. You can safely interpret this kind of claim as some combination of imagination and fright toward the unknown.
So how are we to take a claim to have been [violently] raped? (1) It could be true; (2) it could be false, but believed by the claimant; or (3) the claimant could be lying. I think (3) is quite unlikely, and I think that the incidence of (2) is probably as low as the number of individuals who genuinely believe themselves to have been abducated by aliens (which is almost certainly much less than the 2% reported by the Roper poll).
That’s true, but, as I said, more complete data are available if someone wishes to dispute the validity of heretofore reported statistics.
In Virginia:
§ 18.2-61. Rape.
A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness’s will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness’s mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.
So in Virginia, it can be by physical threat of harm (to the victim or another), thereby eliminating consent. It can be through physical incapacitation (drunk, drugged, otherwise handicapped) thereby eliminating consent. Or, if the kid is 12 or less, thereby eliminating any kind of meaningful consent.
Consent is pretty much the thing.
Penetration (as is defined for sodomy, rape, object sexual penetration, etc…) is defined as merely passing the labia majora (outer lips of the vagina) or butt cheeks. In Virginia, that is.
My two cents, if anyone cares, regarding this thread and the other… Regardless of how the media tried to portray the 11yo’s prior relationship with one of her perpatrators, an 11yo cannot consent to a sexual relationship. Every time they had sex it was rape, by Virginia’s definition at least.
Was the information that the 11yo was engaging in a sexual relationship with a 19yo, prior to this incident, a subtle form of victim blaming??? Maybe. Was it relevant??? Only for the fact that she had already been a rape victim many times over.
Yes, I think I linked to the questionnaire up-thread somewhere. They do, but the problem is then how it’s presented in the reports, where rape/sexual assault and unreported rape/sexual assault are presented as unified statistics. It ruins the entire purpose of such specificity if, right after we achieve differentiation and specific answers, we group everything from an unwanted hug to a brutal gang rape into “rape/sexual assault”.
Oh, absolutely, which is why (I’m pretty sure, this thread is moving fast) that I argued that it’s a decent metric, assuming we sort out the non-violent embracing and such, of the rate of unreported allegations. My point was, however, that treating allegations as proven facts is a problem, and treating allegations of everything from non-violent embracing to rape as proof of the under-reporting of rape itself… that’s even more of a problem.
Sure, but we’d also need to investigate claims to know how many have merit, to differentiate claims of non-violent embracing from rape, and to use a rational definition for our terms.
That was my main point. There’s a high difference between looking at the statistics and declaring that the “unreported rape/sexual assault” statistic proves that there were that many unreported rapes, and actually analyzing the methodology involved.
Well… and some colleges teach their students that having sex with a drunk girl can be rape. I know that’s the message many of the ‘take back the night’ folks argued in the Gender Studies courses I was mandated to take at college. That’s not an attitude that’s isolated, either, unfortunately. IIRC there was a fairly substantial push in the UK a few years ago to get drunk-sex categorized as rape, but I’m not sure what eventually came of it.
But that does skew the stats as well. If people can look at strange lights and say “yeah, that’s a ghost” because of cultural assumptions, surely some can also look at sex-with-consent that they had while drinking and say “yeah, drunk sex is rape” because of similar cultural assumptions.
Of course, I’m not saying that means all, most, whatever of the allegations are necessarily false. Not by any means. The point is just that we have to treat allegations as allegations, and not as facts, before they’re investigated.
That may be true, and I suppose it’s useful for psychiatrists/social workers/what-have-you to be aware of that and respond accordingly. And it may even be appropriate to group certain offenses together in states’ penal codes under certain broader headings. But that doesn’t have to do with the NCVS’s methodology. Even if we accept that there is a similar degree of emotional harm to many types of unwanted sexual contact, that doesn’t make “non-violent embracing” fit into the same statistic as rape, and certainly not if we want to know to what degree rape is under-reported. In general if we want to look at a broad spectrum while keeping in mind that it really is a spectrum and the ends of it aren’t fungible, that’s fine. But statistical inquiries are another matter.
Even in simple terms, what do you think would be more likely: respondents have at some point or another been slapped/pinched on the ass, hugged by someone they didn’t want, groped, etc… or raped?
Well, here, there has to be a lot more than a grey area, otherwise we criminalize married couples saying that they require a certain amount of sexual activity for the marriage to work. Which would be doubly odd as many states have ‘failure to perform spousal duties’ as a valid reason for divorce. Whatever standard is adopted, it needs to have some clear daylight between forcing someone into having sex with you via physical force or the threat of retribution, and married couples talking about the health of their marriage and arguing that it needs greater physical intimacy to work.
To remind you, that’s not the context at all. In the course of a discussion about the NCVS and why it used the same category for everything from non-violent embracing to out and out rape, and called that “rape/sexual assault” you said:
I pointed out that not only are you wrong in that context and they were not the same kind of action, at all, because the NCVS included everything from non-violent embracing all the way to actual rape, and while states’ statutes vary, they do not include an unwanted hug in the same category as rape.
You do understand the difference between handwaving an argument and rebutting it, yes?
For instance, you may want to handwave the fact that the NCVS stats on under-reporting group everything from an unwanted hug to a slap on the ass to actual rape in the same statistic. You may even claim that’s “not essential” to a discussion on the hard stats for the under-reporting of rape. But handwaving isn’t a refutation, yet again.
See, Jimmy, it’s less than great for you to complain about how often I point out that people are being stupid, and then to say something this stupid. What actually happened was that Villa bizarrely claimed that men weren’t as effected by violent assault/murder as women are by rape in statistical terms. Then she claimed that while that might be true, that rape was significantly under-reported. But even with that being the case, it was pointed out to her that a 100% under-reporting trend would leave rape well below the statistics for violent assault and murder directed at men. And it was also shown how methodolgy in studies like the NCVS conflated everything from a slap on the ass and an unwanted hug to actual rape, and presented the whole ball of wax as incidents of unreported rape/sexual assault.
Which I guess is easy to miss if you’re just ranting and babbling about how my argument makes no sense.
Perhaps you missed the part where Villa claimed that something was not the legal definition of rape, and I immediately provided two states in which it is? We can ignore your appeal to authority fallacy, yes?
Were you not here for the whole discussion of how the NCVS statistics showed the incidence of unreported rape? Or is that just content you were free from?
As you are a fairly hysterical kind of creature given to fiction, let’s go back to what was actually said, yes? I didn’t take exceptio0n to your “common law definition”, I took exception to your factual error where you declared, as a blanket statement, that the definition I’d provided was simply “not the definition”, despite it being the definition in multiple states. You are also, rather predictably, being less than honest. Not only did I not ignore the lack of consent element, I stated it explicitly in the statement you claimed was wrong. (You were the one who went berserk because I responded to what you actually said but didn’t quote everything in your entire post, so you ranted and raved about “dishonest editing”. Now you’re pretending that I didn’t say something that I clearly did.
Underlining for the factually challenged:
Now, those reading along can wonder why you’d lie about me “ignoring the absence of consent element”. As for why I wouldn’t take your claims as gospel about what precedent a state sets, well, there’s the fact that you’re given to bouts of hysteria and dishonesty (see above about "ignoring the lack of consent element), I do not trust a damn thing you say without a cite. And neither should anybody else.
Just like people can wonder at your haughty disdain for the actual facts of an argument from your pose of ‘lol, I am teh uber lawyer, it am ever so amusing for non-lawyers to argue facts about which I am wrong’, while you present allegations as unreported actual crimes. Could’ve sworn that there was some sort of principle in American jurisprudence that it isn’t “Guilty as soon as an allegation is made.” But what do I know.
I did not include the stats for under-reporting, but “astute readers” would have noticed that my post was specifically in reply to Paranoid Randroid’s question about “what precise criticism is being levied against the NCVS with regard to its rape incidence measures?” You cannot deny that much of the conversation of the last few dozen posts has been centered on what counts as sexual assault on the NCVS and why they would group it with rape. This “methodological failure” has been the crux of your argument centered on the questionable reliability of the NCVS rape statistics. It is neither changing the subject nor arguing dishonestly to provide more accurate data and clear up the misconception you’ve been perpetuating.
I’m not sure why you think that the rape stats going down between 2006 and 2009 is some big gotcha. I didn’t ignore it; it wasn’t relevant to my post. Anyway, to most of us that’s a good thing. I should also point out that my cite actually omits the 2006 data, despite your claim, due to inconsistencies in methodology between that year and other years. Not sure why you would say it’s there when your link shows a big gap in the graph for that year.
That said, the NCVS did publish a report that includes under-reporting for rape and sexual assault separately. You can read it here.
According to the report: Most rapes and sexual assaults against females were not reported to the police. Thirty-six percent of rapes, 34% of attempted rapes, and 26% of sexual assaults were reported to police, 1992-2000. While this data is a little older, the 2009 report notes that reporting of violent crime (including rape and sexual assault) has remained consistent since 2000 (Figure 3, page 9).
By the way, the first link you gave in post 259 to the “survey questions” doesn’t link to the actual screening survey. It’s to the supplemental survey, which only asks about rape/sexual assaualt if it happened in conjunction with some other harassment. That’s why it doesn’t go into any great detail. Ooops.
This is the screening survey. This is the incident report, which only gets completed if a respondent feels that an incident rose to the level of being attacked or threatened. Whether or not an unwanted embrace or pinch on the butt in a bar rises to that level and would be memorable enough to be reported on the survey depends on the individual woman. And contrary to your belief, the incident report questioning is VERY careful not to conflate rape with sexual assault. The DOJ might report them together in some reports, but that doesn’t mean that the line of questioning wasn’t more specific.
No, you fucking moron, I was taking exception to the following as not being a legal definition of rape:
Because you aren’t including the absence of consent element, which is required in every US jurisdiction. Under your definition, every single act of sex would be rape in New Jersey, that has defined the necessary level of force to constitute rape (or the gradation of sexual assault that corresponds to what is commonly understood as ‘rape’ - I genuinely don’t remember which way NJ swings on this) as being penetration itself.
Unless, of course, you are suggesting ever time I had sex in my in-laws house in NJ was rape.
An unwanted hug. It’s such a good thing ‘we’ take such a skeptical view of this stuff, otherwise we’d let women define it and we’d wind up lumping ‘unwanted hugs’ in with brutal gang rapes.
This is sexist, because it assumes women are so goddamned stupid that they don’t know their own minds, and are frivolous and foolish. It compares a charge of rape to seeing a ghost—something that doesn’t exist. My, my, my, don’t you think you’re clever?
if it’s women making the accusations, apparently. Men get believed, it seems. After all, it was just drunk sex, right? And yet how does this square with your belief that these allegations are stupidly made? See above.
Koss was fairly clear about that. So was David Lisak, who I linked to earlier, whom apparently you have not bothered to read. They described acts which met the legal definition of rape—not hugging, as you so dismissively and dishonestly put it. Nor did they describe somebody with buyer’s remorse the next morning, which is a not terribly-sly way of working in yet another acccusation of false accusation.
So, tell me, do you fear murder every day? Do you pick your clothes with the knowledge that somebody will blame you for whatever happens to you, because of the clothes you were wearing? Do you have to face murder every day, from co workers, from guys on the street? Is there a continuum of little forms of murder, ranging----as you dismissively put it—from ass slapping and ‘hugs’----to full fledged murder, for which you will be blamed?
Look, asshole, you’re speaking from the perspective of somebody who doesn’t have to experience what you’re dismissing and sneering at. So you can jeer at ‘drunk sex’ and how stupid it is to take that seriously, how allegations can’t be trusted—but apparently, only if they’re by women----and compared rape and various forms of sexual assault allegations to seeing ghosts on film. You shouldn’t be trusted to talk about women, any more than David Duke should be trusted when it comes to talking about black people.
Innocent till proven guilty applies only to the courts. However, making the allegation of rape or sexual assault, to you, means that the victim more likely than not is lying.
Now go run off and screech about Israel or something.
I rest my case.
Yet when I gave you a cite (incidentally one of the most widely cited and reviewed surveys on the prevalence of acquaintance rape, which makes up the overwhelming majority of rapes) you cried because it wasn’t an online cite.
Actually, this is yet more proof of why nobody should trust a single thing you say, since you evidently resort to obvious lies as soon as the facts prove you wrong and that you are nearly as insane as Margin. Rather obviously, the issue at hand when you describe a cite is your penchant for making shit up and whatever mental illness you suffer from (or should that be, enjoy?) I pointed out that we’d need more than your word that a source said what you claimed, and more than your word to verify that its methodology was correct and beyond reproach. As you’re routinely hysterical, you may actually belive that I was “crying”.
Non-crazy people, however, will recognize an eminently reasonable request:
A fairly reasonable request; if you’d like to discuss something, please provide a link so we can analyze it, and your description of it. You responded, immediately, by going to full on Batshit Lunatic Mode: Level 12.
You also went into your traditional paranoid raving about “dishonest editing” while, just a few posts above this post now, you dishonestly cut off the entire half of a quote talking about consent to claim that consent wasn’t being talked about, and ignored the fact that forcing something to do something via violent or the threat of violence also dealt with whether or not they consented to it.
As I stated, you are a lunatic, so nobody should take your word for anything without a cite that they can read for themselves to see if you’ve actually describing it.
Would you kindly stop being an hysterical idiot, maybe just for a little while?
I’ve already cited the NCVS’s own interviewing guidelines which make it clear that non-violent embracing is counted as sexual assault.
No, you are an hysterical idiot. It point out that just because someone makes a claim, that doesn’t mean it’s true. It also doesn’t mean that they’re making the claim from a rational definition, like defining all drunk sex as rape. And as men can be raped too and are included in the ‘unreported’ statistic, your focus on only women yet again evinces your hysteria.
Allegations are allegations. Proven assertions are proven assertions. Your fascination with whether or not the person making the allegation has a penis is irrelevant.
Seriously, I know you’ve got a rep to maintain as an hysterical loon, but quit it. The NCVS’s own interviewing guielines include non-violent embracing with sexual assault. That you’re in full on freakout mode about “dismissive dishonesty” just goes to show that you are utterly unable to look at this topic rationally. Just like you’re more than a bit nutty on the subject of false accusations. You were actually insane enough to claim that I was “making things up” when I stated the fact that women have made false reports before. And yes, “buyer’s remorse” is one type of false accusation made. You honestly seem to be so unhinged that you can not even bring yourself to admit that this occurs.
No you hysterical lunatic, I can point out that some people are taught that drunk sex is rape, and it isn’t. That’s another fact you can’t deal with because you are raving-wild. Just like I pointed out that all allegations are merely allegations until they’re investigated and proven, and you’re so unhinged that you really think that’s a sexist attack only on women.
Comparing me to David Duke just further proves the point that you have left reality for the comforting presence of angry lunacy long, long ago.
All that stuff above, about you being an insane person?
Yeah… it’s still true. You are out of your freaking mind. I never said it was “more likely than not” a lie, I pointed out that accusations aren’t facts, they’re allegations, and there are even definitional problems like equating all drunk sex with rape.
But you can’t handle the facts, or the logic, or the actual arguments, because you are evidently mentally ill. I’d normally not mind so much, since crazy people are somewhat pitable and deserve compassion, but you’re violently and aggressively crazy. It’s the difference between the poor homeless guy who thinks that the CIA is spying on him through the fillings in my teeth and you, a lunatic who’s trying to attack me as the David Duke of statistical analysis.
Seek help.
And again you go straight to hysteria when your bullshit is pointed out, and prove that you’re not only a loon, but a hypocritical loon as you’re engaging in the worst sort of dishonest, deceptive editing. I know it’s not an accident, because I just underlined the relevant portion right above this post.
You are simply lying when you claim that the issue of consent was ignored. Or, perhaps, you are simply hysterical and out of your mind when you pretend that using force to obtain something is not the same as obtaining it without consent. Perhaps you’re just being an hysterical freak and going ballistic over the fact that I didn’t lawyerproof my definition and state “using force or the threat of force (lawyers this means that you are using force or the threat of force because the person is being forced or threatened with force against their will).”
Anybody who’s not utterly lost to raving hysteria probably undstood the point, though.
Again, the only information we have to back that claim up is your description of NJ’s penal code/precedent/whatever. And you are not exactly a credible witness, being insane and dishonest, and such.
Yes, and I was the one levying precise criticisms and they were about the stats for under-reporting. You know this, because you explicitly claimed that the “fault” lay with my discussion of the data.
Wrong, it was on the subject of the NCVS’s inclusion of everything from non-violent unwanted hugging to actual rape in their “unreported rape/sexual assault” statistic in the NCVS reports. It is both dishonest and trying to change the subject to state that, in a separate location, not in the reports, they break it down by category.
Yes, this is the kind of dishonesty that you shouldn’t engage in. There is no “misconception”, I have cited several NCVS reports where they clearly group everything from non-violent embracing to rape into one statistic, and present that. That, in other places they differentiate it doesn’t mean that when they present it as one unified statistic, that it’s improper to rely on it for anything but the broadest, least specific claims.
Yes, you did. The original claim was that rape is dramatically under-reported and the implication was that it would be equal if not higher to the rate of violent assault/murder against men. The fact that rape is actually at an all-time low in American history is not only relevant, but the fact that you ignored it is doubly so.
So in other words, not only am I correct that 2009 was an all time low, but the figure that the NCVS came up with for 2006 was not only higher, but was so out of whack that it was removed with the assumption that significant and unavoidable errors were present. So you admit that I was correct and your own cite shows that the numbers for 2009 are at the lowest point in history and 2006 was not only higher but so much more so that they threw the whole figure out as unreliable.
I already provided the interviewing guidelines, which do go into detail, and which include “non-violent embracing” in the category of sexual assault.
Interesting standards. 2006 is hopelessly out of date compared to 2009, but 2000 is just fine because, in general, all violent crimes didn’t have a significant shift in alleged reporting rates. In any case, it was the NCVS that was brought up (not by me), not the Bureau of Justice Statistics Select Findings. Additionally it still falls at the methodological level by counting alleged crimes as proven crimes.
But does he play Valkyrie on a bass bassoon?
Shut up, sexist!
From a penalty standpoint, it certainly can be rape, at least in my state:
There have been convictions in my college town that hinged on § 3121.a.4 being activated by the perpetrator buying one drink for the victim, regardless of the drunkenness of the victim before that drink.
Well, we don’t know if it’s appropriate either way, not knowing the relative frequencies of under-reporting of any given category. I haven’t been able to find a version of the NCVS data that has the answers to each question broken out to determine that.
On the other hand, I’m also moderately willing to assume that the people who compile NCVS statistics don’t have any particular political axe to grind one way or the other, and thus wouldn’t group all forms of sexual assault unless the reporting rates were so similar as to not matter.
On preview: now that it’s been cited, they’re not that far apart. Not as close as I would have expected, though.
There’s an intent of threat that needs to be teased out here–“Have sex with me or I break up with you (and the community we are part of shuns non-virgin non-married women, while mostly ignoring same from men)”, “Have sex with me or I break up with you (because I’m unsatisfied with our sex life)”…I think this is adequately dealt with by the “credible threat” rule–presuming we trust our judges/juries to be able to determine the difference between that and “negotiating”. More clearly on the “rape” side of the equation is something like “Have sex with me (or I’ll tearfully confess to your father/our classmates you had sex with me)” in a community that values female sexual purity.
There are some additional factors to be teased out here, granted–starting with the spectrum of murder to assault (heck, the FBI tables class “robbery” as a violent crime, too). The FBI’s Unified Crime Report (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/) is singularly unhelpful in this regard, as by-sex data is only available for murder. While it can tell us that murder is between 1/5 and 1/6 as common as rape, and that aggravated assault is a little under ten times as common, it can’t tell us what fraction of the victims were male or female except in the case of murder (about 3/4 male, 1/4 female).
Interestingly, the UCR DOES tell us that of the violent crimes, rape has the second-lowest clearance rate (at 41%). That’s significantly lower than murder (67%) and aggravated assault (57%), and significantly higher than robbery (at 28%). “Clearance Rate” is the percentage of offenses for which a subject is arrested (or found, but unable to be arrested for whatever reason). So while there are more aggravated assaults than rapes, a victim of an aggravated assault is almost 30% more likely to see their attacker go to trial than a rape victim.
Well, there the distinction seems to be intoxicating or drugging someone else (rather than a girl hooking up with a guy while she’s drunk at a party) and the standard is beyond the point of being able to rationally consent.
My claim isn’t that there’s any sort of bias going on, or a political axe is being ground (at least not by folks other than the “You’d believe a man if he alleged rape, you sexist!” crowd). My point was simply that relying on the NCVS’s at face value would not enable us to tell the rate of unreported rape accusations versus everything else in the category. As it is, the only cite we have been offered where differing rates are broken down, is more than a decade out of date.
I think that there should be some clear, bright-line metrics used for determining rape from simply being an asshole, especially since it is a serious crime. Do we, for instance, really want to punish people the same for drugging a woman and forcing her to have sex as a highschool schmuck who tells his girlfriend that if she doens’t blow him, he’ll spread a rumor that she’s a slut? Obviously while the two are bad, there should be some sort of a distinction between being a jerk in order to try to get sex and using force/removing the potential for consent/using threats serious enough to constitute duress.
IIRC other cites put it at about 55% male to 45% female for violent assault. Perhaps I’ll hunt down the figures later.
To put a finer point on it, a person who alleges rape has a lower chance of having their complaint confirmed by a ‘guilty’ verdict than someone who alleges assault.
And that aside, we can generally expect a similar dynamic. In cases of rape, it does often come down to a he-said-she-said dynamic. And while I’m sure that some of the folks here will be driven into paroxysms by that, the fact is still that an accusation doesn’t equal proof, and even an accused rapist is entitled to the full course of law that the justice system affords.
Because in the real world, where Finn does not live, apparently sexual assault victims stand an even chance of being either gender.
Going back to the original topic of the thread, I’d like to bring in this gem from a pitting of Finn:
Who’s she addressing? Ibn Warraq
The problem is, Margin really does seem to be, at best, in a permanent state of, well, inchoate rage (:D). And at worst she is actually mentally ill. I think it may be the latter, as the things she seems to be reacting and responding to aren’t things that have been said by anybody, not even within a remote possibility of interpretation.
The other thread is a good example. Ibn, an intelligent, knowledgeable, outspoken Muslim American, explicitly said that he didn’t agree with Magellan on many points but Margin was inaccurately describing his conduct. Ibn also pointed out that the sum total of terrorist incidents perpetrated by Muslims in America wasn’t the short list that Margin provided. Margin’s response was to start raving, evidently about white Christians and such, and then to imply that Ibn was somehow cowardly and wouldn’t address her points.
She is, unfortunately, bonkers.
Just like all the other fucking crazy things you’ve said, this too shows that you are simply mentally ill. To remind you, just in case the facts have even a basic chance to penetrate the fog of utter insanity that has enveloped you, your initial bit of sputtering lunacy was to shriek about sexism because I said that all allegations of crimes have to treated as allegations and investigated in order to be verified. You actually somehow read that as a claim that only women aren’t trustworthy and allegations made by men are gospel.
That is because you are a raving, shrieking, insane person.
But good job quoting all the times I’ve pointed out that you and Villa are dishonest raving maniacs. The fact that I correctly identified both of you behaving in a dishonest and absolutely insane manner is more more relevant than the fact that both of you behaving in a dishonest and absolutely insane manner.
A couple of million Muslim dudes versus a hundred million white dudes? Madness, obviously. I mean, it’s not like there’s been terrorist activity in this country at the hand of angry white guys. Eric Robert Rudolph. Paul Hill. Scott Roeder. Michael F. Griffin. John Salvi. James Kopp. Those are just the angry white guys who successfully killed doctors. There have been seventeen attempted murders, nearly four hundred death threats, 153 incidents of assault and battery, and three attempted kidnappings. These are just the tip of the iceberg when one is discussing only anti-abortion violence—most of it committed by white guys.
Just anti-abortion violence by white guys, and only in the past nearly four decades since Roe V. Wade. There are what, two million Muslims in America? Whereas fifty percent of the Republican Party thinks Obama is Kenyan and perhaps twenty percent define themselves as Tea Baggers, how many million is that? Which percentage is greater? Which pool is larger? Which pool consists of people who are subject to little scrutiny in society?
I realize the Straight Dope has decided I'm nuts, but I don't care. If anybody has any honesty, they'd have to admit otherwise. Shouting en masse CRAZY HYSTERICAL FEMINAZI might convince the other dudes who buy into this kind of shit, but you're still wrong. You guys---and Ibn Wariq---react to me because I'm the resident pariah, and you don't have the guts to be anything but a dogpile. If you had any honesty, you'd pit him for objecting to me not because of what I said, but because it was me that said it.
"Crazy’ is a pretty effective label for stigmatizing somebody. It’s funny that you guys are following such a classic trolling, privileged male pattern. Which I linked to already in “Derailing for Dummies,” but nobody here has the guts to admit it.
Hm…A Guide to Derailing Conversations
Not just Finn’s playbook, it’s apparent.
Yes, you are an insane person. Ibn pointed out that the instances of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims that you mentioned weren’t the sum-total. That, evidently like the subject of rape, is a ‘trigger concept’ that sent you hurtling off the rails. You began ranting about a subject that nobody brought up and one that was, in fact, totally irrelevant to the subject.
You’re still doing that, by the way. Only now you’ve found a way to work abortion and the teaparty into the conversation too. No doubt so you can shriek wildly about “sexism”, or perhaps “Islamaphobia” if someone points out that your rant has nothing to do with the point Ibn made in the first place.
No, that would be if we were crazy like you and suffering from paranoia. Ibn is a new poster here and I’d wager he doesn’t know you from Eve. Even if he did, his response to you was because you responded to his very reasonable point about terrorism by freaking out. And you continued to freak out, and now you’re freaking out, about the same subject, in this thread.
Crazy is also an accurate label for someone, like you, who is so obviously off her meds. It’d be an accurate label for you if you were a guy, a hermaphrodite or a silicon based alien life form. Predictably, pointing out that you’re a crazy person is now some part of a “privileged male pattern”. There does indeed seem to be sexism going on here. It’s just not where you think it is.
Actually, I think that “Derailing for Dummies” website that you’re jilling off to is part of the problem. Rather than trying to, ya know, not be so crazy, you’re using it as a justification for for thinking that you’re so horribly persecuted. You’re not being persecuted, kept down by the man, or whatever. You’re just mentally ill.