No, that’s incorrect. The events we know about are as I described. The part we don’t know is whether the act was consensual. Excluding facts that we know happened from the equation is going to give inferior results.
In other words, we’re not trying to figure out whether a consensual sex act occurred. We’re trying to figure out whether the sex act that occurred was consensual. Your way of treating it also includes cases where no sex act at all occurred, which adds an irrelevant variable.
Well in any event, I’m done explaining this, I think.
No, you’ve disingenuously avoided answering my question directly, instead trotting out some generic b.s.:
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
The main point of my many posts in this thread has been that past practice has predictive value for the future. Pick one at random.
[/quote]
Don’t flatter yourself. :rolleyes:
Does that mean our date is off?
Afraid so FP. I don’t swing that way.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Go you!
I feel like I’m explaining to you why your amp isn’t louder than others, even though it goes up to 11. If only you’d work harder at understanding this.
Maybe someone with a more rigorous statistical background than me can put the errors in your thinking in mathematical language.
Still in the closet, huh. OK.
Don’t count on it.
I myself have a much more rigorous statistical background than you, and not making much headway …
Uh, no. Happily married.
Don’t feel too bad about being rejected, however. Can’t be your first or last time.
Not the rejection, but the difference between your public and private behavior. Whenever you think there’s nobody around you’re so different …
Oh, FFS. You’re one tiresome old wanker.
Would you mind doing that in private so the rest of us don’t need to see it?
Getting a bit sensitive there, my friend. So sorry, so sorry.
For some people, the standard on rape accusations is “It is better that ten guilty people escape than that one guilty person suffers.”
Some people are really opposed to rape. I mean, really really opposed to rape. Not just, like, opposed to it. Really opposed to it, you know. Like, nobody should ever think these people have any sympathy for rape or rapists, nosiree. They really really oppose it.
Sure, they’re really really really opposed to rape in theory.
But every time an actual rape case is presented, they’ll explain that this rape case is different.
No, that’s a different set of guys.
The guys I’m talking about really really oppose it. They oppose it in theory and they oppose it in practice. They oppose it in the rain, they oppose it on a train. They oppose it on a boat, they oppose it with a goat.
Basically they oppose it. I mean, really really oppose it.
It’s great that they really, really, REALLY oppose rape. Through misogyny and “hey, I’m talking about the numbers here.”
Because the numbers argument seems to rely that every woman is equally likely to make a false rape claim, provided that she has enough sexual encounters. For every X number of sexual encounters, a woman will make Y number of rape accusations and will be raped Z number of times (NB Y =/= Z). And that strikes me as ridiculously misogynistic. How about – For every X number of sexual encounters a man has, Y of those encounters will be non-consensual and Z will be false accusations leveled at him. The likelihood is equal for each and every man, and is really only impacted by the number of encounters he has had. But the number of sexual encounters a woman has is relevant at a rape trial, but NOT the number of encounters a man has had.
Why is that?
You’re making a big mistake. The people who really really oppose rape would never make these types of arguments. Because they really really oppose rape.
If they see any argument that might just possibly undermine their AAA+ rape-opposing credentials they fight it with every fibre of their being and with every twisted logical convolution they can muster. That’s just how really really opposed to rape they are.
Basically, they’re really really opposed to it. Like, you know? They oppose it. They really really oppose it.
As per usual, when you’re wrong on facts and logic, you resort to attacking the honesty of your debate opponents. Does that strategy every convince anyone, or just you?
I don’t know who it convinces, but it amuses me, so that’s enough.
But you might want to put this question to Little Nemo. Just a few posts up. #132. You seem to have missed it. You miss a lot of things, when you want to.
Fair enough.
I don’t see how his post has much to do with anything. I ignored it because it wasn’t especially interesting to me. Just because I don’t respond to everything doesn’t mean I miss it.