Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I just saw that Judge sentencing Larry Nassar and she mentions statistics that I question regarding women. In particular, HOW does one interpret the statistic that "2/3 of women" are unreported incidents of rape and sexual assault? If they are 'unreported', how do these idiots interpret these as valid statistics. ...especially by a judge!? I automatically dismiss any credibility to those using these conveniently made up stats in their position of authority. If they can't appropriately keep out unproven claims as 'true' without evidence, how do they have a right to be authoritative? 

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There are a lot of surveys and studies that agree with  the "2/3 of rapes and assaults are unreported." There are a variety of reasons why women don't "officially" report.   https:/

1.  That sentence is beyond readable.  I think judges usually make comments with regards to the criminal nature of the convinced, which I never understood frankly.   I think they say that in Canada

Rapists are 94% men.  It makes total sense to me that to stop that violence, measures would be taken that would be geared more for MEN.  Part of the problem has been that rape prevention has tradition

Posted Images

I am commenting on the judge's words. She mentioned stats that have no justification in fact. She also is clearly biased external to this case and her own opinions suggest she is not qualified to her powers as a judge.

My concern is not merely about her though. I am asking how anyone in society justifies using the stat that 2/3 of women do not report their assaults. It first presumes that such assaults are certainly true by default and raises questions on how such a stat is determined. 

Another example of using stats like this is in the media when they report polls or other opinion stats with the added qualification of statistical errors when these are intentionally used to convey absurd accuracy for something that cannot HAVE any 'accuracy' let alone the precision it is meant to represent. Only one understanding the math is sufficiently qualified to even appropriately interpret the meaning of any precision measure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of surveys and studies that agree with  the "2/3 of rapes and assaults are unreported."

There are a variety of reasons why women don't "officially" report.

Quote

 

The most common reasons given:

  • The crime was minor and not worth taking the time to report.
  • The matter was private or personal and was handled informally.

Most women gave several reasons though for not reporting – nearly half said that it wasn’t worth the hassle of dealing with police. Other common reasons included not wanting to go through the court process or a lack of evidence and a belief that reporting the incident wouldn’t lead to a conviction.

 

 

Quote

The survey measured three types of assault: unwanted sexual touching, sexual attacks, and activities where the victim was unable to consent. Of these, unwanted sexual touching was reported most frequently. All three types would be considered a crime if reported to police, said Johnson.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3590345/statistics-canada-report-finds-self-reported-sexual-assault-rates-steady-over-10-years/

 

Case in point:  the guy that molested 6 girls at the waterpark in Edmonton is currently on trial and so far it seems his excuse is going to be - "It wasn't me."  Which now becomes a he said/she said thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I feel like we should be able to address perceived issues within the justice system by all means at our disposal - including or excluding official statistics.

If we are to treat those in authority, like the very doctor in question being charged, to be appropriate in HOW they behave in such power, then she is being most hypocritical to her POWER in expending a view on media to overstate what she views that is BEYOND her capacity to judge even on a trivial basis. The guy pleaded 'no contest' and 'guilty' for which he did NOT defend himself other than to the incomplete statement he made to the judge and to which we were also denied hearing all he had to say based on her further power to opt to dismiss reading it in whole.

She has illegitimate rational decision-making rights to speak beyond the evidence, period. No evidence FROM the defendant himself was admitted....only the victims and the accused prior declaration of guilt by no contest. Nothing should be said other than to her sentence. Anything she said there is of a personal nature only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

There are a lot of surveys and studies that agree with  the "2/3 of rapes and assaults are unreported."

There are a variety of reasons why women don't "officially" report.

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/3590345/statistics-canada-report-finds-self-reported-sexual-assault-rates-steady-over-10-years/

 

Case in point:  the guy that molested 6 girls at the waterpark in Edmonton is currently on trial and so far it seems his excuse is going to be - "It wasn't me."  Which now becomes a he said/she said thing.

Then you can equally assert that most men, perhaps 66.739583049 % of men, are abused by women and simply are too ashamed to report it. 

This kind of thinking is insulting and ignorant. You respond to 'why women don't report' NOT to the FACT that 2/3 is actually a true statistic. The one claiming the stats is required the burden to prove this true with actual convictions only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

This kind of thinking is insulting and ignorant.You respond to 'why women don't report' NOT to the FACT that 2/3 is actually a true statistic. The one claiming the stats is required the burden to prove this true with actual convictions only.

I find it insulting and ignorant that you think unless there's a conviction, a rape or assault didn't happen.

And yes, men are abused too and yes, a lot of it also goes unreported.  

I did respond to the 2/3 stat by posting the article.  There are actually a LOT of articles on that stat.  If you care to look.

Edited by Goddess
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Goddess said:

Don't judges normally make some kind of statement as they are reading sentence?

Yes, if the defendant pleaded NOT GUILTY, then they have a reason to explain their justice. This judge had no reason to add her view as she had. She was platforming the continuing assault on males as a gender with clear unfounded stereotypical views that is popular nowadays. It was political and unprofessional of a judge that is supposed to remain neutral. The prosecutor may have that right, not the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One need only look at what a woman is forced to go through if she registers a formal complaint to understand why they may hesitate to do so. For instance the judge in Alberta who asked a rape complainant why she just didn't "keep your legs together"

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Goddess said:

I find it insulting and ignorant that you think unless there's a conviction, a rape or assault didn't happen.

And yes, men are abused too and yes, a lot of it also goes unreported.  

Excuse me? I hold an "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance only. The present assault on men today is to presume anything a woman CHARGES is to be BELIEVED without requiring doubt simply because the thought that "IF IT WERE TRUE" the crime would be horrible! This is ignorant to an extreme and is precisely suggesting that women as a class are default to be 'superior' in their moral integrity while men are default 'inferior'. 

Men AND women get abused equally because both CAUSE the social climate. "Patriarchy" is supported in sync with "Matriarchy". Women OWN the causes of men AND women who abuse just as Men OWN them in equal measure. The present society is falsely creating an image of women as requiring a SPECIAL favor in Nature, which makes it a form of Female Supremacy. If men have somehow benefited, I'd like to hear how and why only men represent the ACTUAL majority (not merely a made up 'feeling' of what is true) of the prison population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

1. If we are to treat those in authority, like the very doctor in question being charged, to be appropriate in HOW they behave in such power, then she is being most hypocritical to her POWER in expending a view on media to overstate what she views that is BEYOND her capacity to judge even on a trivial basis.

2. The guy pleaded 'no contest' and 'guilty' for which he did NOT defend himself other than to the incomplete statement he made to the judge and to which we were also denied hearing all he had to say based on her further power to opt to dismiss reading it in whole.

1.  That sentence is beyond readable. 

I think judges usually make comments with regards to the criminal nature of the convinced, which I never understood frankly.   I think they say that in Canada because they aren't elected and can't be touched.  I think they say it in the US because they're elected.

2.  Please work on the clarity of your sentences.  Short is sweet.

 

17 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

3. No evidence FROM the defendant himself was admitted....only the victims and the accused prior declaration of guilt by no contest.  

3. Didn't you say he pleaded 'no contest' ?  Why would anyone waste time with evidence.  It makes no sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Omni said:

One need only look at what a woman is forced to go through if she registers a formal complaint to understand why they may hesitate to do so. For instance the judge in Alberta who asked a rape complainant why she just didn't "keep your legs together"

The BURDEN to prove ANY abuse is high. Do you see some influx of men going to the police to charge women of sexual abuse and being BELIEVED? Do you think IF men were equally abused (if you should doubt this) that they WOULD report it and be believed better than women? Does the media believe a man over a women in complaint about abuses? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  That sentence is beyond readable. 

I think judges usually make comments with regards to the criminal nature of the convinced, which I never understood frankly.   I think they say that in Canada because they aren't elected and can't be touched.  I think they say it in the US because they're elected.

2.  Please work on the clarity of your sentences.  Short is sweet.

 

3. Didn't you say he pleaded 'no contest' ?  Why would anyone waste time with evidence.  It makes no sense.

Please...am I using too big of words? I don't use Twitter for a reason. 

Like I mentioned above, my thread is actually about HOW people present an argument using faulty statistics. If you're in the wiser space, tell me how the claim of 2/3 of women as a statistic is a VALID statement.

That's like saying God exists but  2/3 of the people are afraid to admit seeing him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The BURDEN to prove ANY abuse is high. Do you see some influx of men going to the police to charge women of sexual abuse and being BELIEVED? Do you think IF men were equally abused (if you should doubt this) that they WOULD report it and be believed better than women? Does the media believe a man over a women in complaint about abuses? 

I certainly do doubt that men are sexually assaulted by women in anywhere the numbers as the opposite. I've seen no evidence either formal or anecdotal to the contrary. And who cares what the media believes, when you have a judge, as I pointed out, suggesting a woman could have prevented the assault by a man by keeping her knees together. And yes a person accused is innocent until evidence is sufficiently provided to prove otherwise, but in these type cases it seems that burden is rather biased often. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. Didn't you say he pleaded 'no contest' ?  Why would anyone waste time with evidence.  It makes no sense.

He pleaded guilty and so the judge's sentencing was based on the minimum whereas if she had of raised it he would have the right to ask for a trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

1. Please...am I using too big of words? I don't use Twitter for a reason. 

2."tell me how the claim of 2/3 of women as a statistic is a VALID statement."

3. That's like saying God exists but  2/3 of the people are afraid to admit seeing him.

1.  If  I am to treat those in authority, like the very poster in question being poster, to be appropriate in HOW to post.

2. 2/3 of women isn't a statistic, it's a fraction... like 1/2 a pizza.  If a study says that 2/3 of women responded with information then look at the study to see if it was done properly.

3. Right.  Another nonsense statement, I agree with you there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Men rape in far higher numbers than women do.  That is why there is more of them in jail for it than women.

I suspect that men don't report for the same reasons women don't.

OR, men are by default NOT believed regardless of 2/3 of them asserting their innocence of abuse? 

I've seen abuses. And where I once thought men were the primary guilty party, I have learned that women equally play a role in HOW the abuses occur in those relationships. Their forms of abuse are often less easy to be noticed but are often MORE harmful, just as the 'white collar' criminals have a better capacity to harm because they don't use direct forms of violence that can be exposed. 

Because women HAPPEN to be physically weaker in most of these relationships, perhaps a lesson might be learned: STOP picking males who are more physically dominant to be with in the first place. This is not the case because women are PICKING the men based on the same stereotypes based on physical differences. BUT note that physical dominance, NOT male dominance, is the distinguishing difference of the physical abusers in the relationship.  Often there is a complementary abuse occurring. The passive aggression of the submissive partner in the relationship makes those kinds of partners use subtle and indirect forms of abuse that are hard to notice. This is NOT about women, but about the relative non-physically stronger partner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scott Mayers said:

OR, men are by default NOT believed regardless of 2/3 of them asserting their innocence of abuse? 

Your style of writing is a bit confusing.  Are you saying that men are NOT believed when they report?  Or are you saying that the 2/3 stat is 2/3 of them asserting innocence?

I'm a bit confused as to what is making you angry - the judge making comments at the sentencing?  The 2/3 stat?  Women not reporting?  Too many men in jail for rape?

Maybe start with one thing - this is a bit like trying to follow a pinball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Omni said:

I certainly do doubt that men are sexually assaulted by women in anywhere the numbers as the opposite. I've seen no evidence either formal or anecdotal to the contrary. And who cares what the media believes, when you have a judge, as I pointed out, suggesting a woman could have prevented the assault by a man by keeping her knees together. And yes a person accused is innocent until evidence is sufficiently provided to prove otherwise, but in these type cases it seems that burden is rather biased often. 

It's irrelevant. The CAUSE is not men against women. See my last post for a better explanation. Men TEND to be the physical abuser where abuse exists if they are the physically dominant. And so it is ONLY an accident of natural selection of most women to prefer more physically domineering men (and men preferring petite women, of course). To solve, attend to the logical distinction that makes men more physically stronger if it is the kind of abuse you want to stop, NOT the nature of one's sex. If being 'male' or 'female' are the causes for any distinction, the cure is to, in the words of our childhood rationale for not bullying, to PICK ON THOSE OF YOUR OWN SIZE so to speak. 

If violence is what is wanted to be stopped, then attend to the behaviors of those particular people who use it only, not a whole sex!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

It's irrelevant. The CAUSE is not men against women. See my last post for a better explanation. Men TEND to be the physical abuser where abuse exists if they are the physically dominant. And so it is ONLY an accident of natural selection of most women to prefer more physically domineering men (and men preferring petite women, of course). To solve, attend to the logical distinction that makes men more physically stronger if it is the kind of abuse you want to stop, NOT the nature of one's sex. If being 'male' or 'female' are the causes for any distinction, the cure is to, in the words of our childhood rationale for not bullying, to PICK ON THOSE OF YOUR OWN SIZE so to speak. 

If violence is what is wanted to be stopped, then attend to the behaviors of those particular people who use it only, not a whole sex!

Hard to make heads or tails out of all that but are you suggesting that because men are generally physically superior to women that they should be able to abuse them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Goddess said:

Your style of writing is a bit confusing.  Are you saying that men are NOT believed when they report?  Or are you saying that the 2/3 stat is 2/3 of them asserting innocence?

I'm a bit confused as to what is making you angry - the judge making comments at the sentencing?  The 2/3 stat?  Women not reporting?  Too many men in jail for rape?

Maybe start with one thing - this is a bit like trying to follow a pinball.

I was being facetious to make a point. I'm saying that you cannot logically interpret a statistic claiming an ABSENCE of information with ANY PRECISION. Like I mentioned to Michael as an example, it is like if I said 

God exists. But the reason why the courts can't prove this is because 2/3 of the witnesses are afraid to admit they've seen him in court. (They just do so safely on the phone when asked in a survey.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

If violence is what is wanted to be stopped, then attend to the behaviors of those particular people who use it only, not a whole sex!

Rapists are 94% men.  It makes total sense to me that to stop that violence, measures would be taken that would be geared more for MEN.  Part of the problem has been that rape prevention has traditionally been geared towards women changing their behaviour, instead of addressing men's behaviour.

rape.JPG

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...