|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/13/2011 : 09:34:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Is that a plausible scenario? |
It is very likely that EG is an okay guy, but this is about how he was perceived and not about him in particular. Watson's "don't do that" is a suggestion to think about how your actions will be seen by others, regardless of your intentions, which is why some of us, Mab, will continue to tell you that his intentions were irrelevant, and your attempts to find plausible or reasonable scenarios just look like excuse-making. It misses the point.
|
OK, so this went from a minor dust up to full blown warning Will Robinson tempest in a teacup in 5 days.
Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.
OK, out here in the US, we have some people who ought to go play in traffic. They sometimes start shitstorms.
What started out as a "hey, that was kinda wierd" momment got escallated to potential sexual assault in a big hurry.
Intentions are irrelevant. The act given the lateness of the hour (irrespective of whether EG, the poor fellah, heard Watson express she was tired and wanted to go to bed) was questionable. Sorry, lived near Chicago my entire life, so I am jaded that way. Questionable/creepy. (coffee in my room at dark-o-clock sounds like an euphamism for come back to my place and see my etchings.) (cue 70's porn music)
Then Dawkins opens his big yap and throws the first verbal punch. Plait responds with a completely emotional response. And the rodeo begins all over the skeptic internet.
Here's a solution. Dawkins-Plait cage match. John Cena special referee. I'll bet WWE would pay big bucks to televise the event. We'll put in chairs and ladders and the like. Just like the importance that this should have been before people started preening themselves for a crowd to whip them into a lather.
How about this, LET IT DIE. It only gets new legs after someone uses yet another emotional response to "git" the other side.
My view is this.
1) EG made an inappropriate request
2) Dawkins opened his yap
3) Plait reacted emotionally and escallated the issue
4) The factions parted and lo, war came upon the nations
This kind of thing nearly screams out for gladitorial combat. Decks awash with testosterone and heralded by the screeching of ad-homs against the masculine sex in general instead of specific. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 10:22:16 [Permalink]
|
Am I missing the point?
Perhaps.
Why is everybody talking about potential rapists when Rebecca her self didn't say anything about it? She just didn't want to be sexually objectified, and implied in her video that was the kind of behaviour that creeped her out.
That she would be creeped out because he might be a rapist (or behaved like one) are other people's fantacies. At least it started out that way, and if Rebecca is currently holding that position, then she has obviously adopted it for her cause after the fact. Which makes me even less sympathetic to it.
I guess we've reached a stand off then.
No one has managed to convince me that Rebecca and her followers isn't overreacting.
No one has changed my mind about Phil Plait being a massive hypocrit.
Feminists has lost another battle for my approval of their cause, because of Rebecca's (and other figureheads') failure to reign in their more rabid section of the movement.
I hope Rebecca is happy. Her misandric supporters certainly are. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 10:40:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Greta Christina is trying to help men get laid, too.
|
I read halfway through her blog piece, but quit when I realised she wasn't addressing me. She also jumped to conclusions about what actually happened and why Rebecca felt freaked out, and it didn't match what Rebecca actually stated in her video.
So much for evidence based critical thinking.
Edited spelling. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 07/13/2011 10:45:46 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 11:05:05 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| His behavior was inappropriate. It was dismissive of Watson's stated intentions and mimicked some of the behaviors of rapists. |
You can only say that if you assume knowledge you don't have. No one has placed elevator guy near Watson when she said she was tired and going to go to sleep.
The only account you have of his behavior is from Watson, and you are ignoring it. He hit on her once, she rejected him, he accepted it and went on his way.
Characterizing him as a potential rapist ignores evidence to the contrary. But you keep hammering that shit if you like, just makes you (and Plait) look ridiculous.
So let's say you come down with a disease, floobyitis. Your doctor tells you there are two medications, A and B, to treat floobyitis with a single dose. Medication A has a 10% risk of killing you, and medication B has a 1% chance of killing you. According to your logic, you would say, "Don't tell me the difference in risks, doc. The sample size is going to be 1, so the odds of dying from either medication are irrelevant. Choosing one over the other based on the difference in risk is nothing more than unskeptical, irrational medicationism."
|
If medications were intelligent beings who decided if they were killing you or not, you'd have a point. I'm sorry that you don't understand how statistics work. Statistics describing group behavior can't be applied to individuals. Statistics that predict the possibility of a physiological reaction to a certain substance are useful in assessing risk because the harm causing factor is inanimate. Rapists, not being inanimate, can't be assessed on an individual level by applying group behavior statistics.
Is there a 10% chance that you are a rapist Dave? If so, I suggest you seek medical attention. Or perhaps there are other factors on an individual level that make those group statistics irrelevant? If you disagree, maybe you should start warning people that you are a potential rapist. Put it in your sig, get a tee shirt, stencil it on your car, tattoo it on your face. Be sure to use red letters so women will know you should be approached with caution.
| but this is about how he was perceived and not about him in particular. Watson's "don't do that" is a suggestion to think about how your actions will be seen by others, regardless of your intentions, which is why some of us, Mab, will continue to tell you that his intentions were irrelevant, and your attempts to find plausible or reasonable scenarios just look like excuse-making. It misses the point. |
You are missing the point, Dave. An old white person who percieves threat in a black person, because they are black (there is a non zero chance a black person will rob you, afterall), is a racist. A woman who percieves threat (is creeped out) by a man, when his behavior (as described by that woman) was non threatening and innocuous, is a sexist.
| You asked for "the standard format," which is two premises. |
Well, no. It is as many premises as you need to allow the conclusion to follow.
| No, I've described it to you in some detail already. There shouldn't be any need for writing it out in a different format. |
I accept your admission that you can't write it out.
| All of the premises taken together lets my conclusion follow. After all, it's a statistical argument, and not deductive. |
No they don't, and so what? You are improperly using statistics to justify the conclusion you reached via emotional response.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 11:08:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Greta Christina is trying to help men get laid, too.
|
Dave, I say fuck all the rest of these guys (not literally). Let natural selection work and after a few generations these clowns will be bred out of existence! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 12:11:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You can only say that if you assume knowledge you don't have. No one has placed elevator guy near Watson when she said she was tired and going to go to sleep. |
Oh, FFS.| The only account you have of his behavior is from Watson, and you are ignoring it. He hit on her once, she rejected him, he accepted it and went on his way. |
Ignoring it? Hardly. You're ignoring the context. You're specifically ignoring the things that Watson was suggesting not to do, in order to chastise her for advising men not to do those things. You can't have it both ways.| Characterizing him as a potential rapist ignores evidence to the contrary. |
What "evidence to the contrary?" Where is there any evidence that EG cannot possibly commit rape?| But you keep hammering that shit if you like, just makes you (and Plait) look ridiculous. |
Just keep on ignoring the meaning of the word "potential" if you like, it just makes you look foolish.| If medications were intelligent beings who decided if they were killing you or not, you'd have a point. I'm sorry that you don't understand how statistics work. Statistics describing group behavior can't be applied to individuals. Statistics that predict the possibility of a physiological reaction to a certain substance are useful in assessing risk because the harm causing factor is inanimate. Rapists, not being inanimate, can't be assessed on an individual level by applying group behavior statistics. |
So it's a good thing that nobody is trying to assess EG on such an individual basis.
You're really reaching to deny the conclusion that you can't even be bothered to accurately restate. Let's try again:
Not all fundamentalist Christians are creationists, but most are. Few atheists are creationists. You're telling me that if I encounter a random person, and all I know about him is whether he's a fundie or an atheist, it is irrational and unskeptical for me to think, "if he's a fundie, then he's probably a creationist, and much more likely to be a creationist than if he's an atheist," even though that's precisely what the empirical data says.| Is there a 10% chance that you are a rapist Dave? If so, I suggest you seek medical attention. |
If I get a brain tumor or get dosed with inhibition-removing drugs so that I become willing to rape someone, I certainly hope I do get medical attention. The idea that I lack the potential to rape is ludicrous. The only people for whom rape can be ruled out entirely are those who are dead or in terminal comas.| Or perhaps there are other factors on an individual level that make those group statistics irrelevant? If you disagree, maybe you should start warning people that you are a potential rapist. |
The people to whom it's important already know.| Be sure to use red letters so women will know you should be approached with caution. |
Women already approach strange men with more caution than they do women, and you're calling them sexist for it, based on your apparently private definition of the word "potential," which seems to mean "always" to you.| You are missing the point, Dave. An old white person who percieves threat in a black person, because they are black (there is a non zero chance a black person will rob you, afterall), is a racist. |
Only because there's a nearly equal chance a while person would rob them, too. The color of their skin doesn't substantially change the odds of them being a robber.
But the sex of a person does substantially change the odds that they will rape a healthy, adult woman. Men are much more likely to rape then women. Men in general pose a larger threat. A particular unknown man doesn't become a non-threat just because the sample size drops to one.| A woman who percieves threat (is creeped out) by a man, when his behavior (as described by that woman) was non threatening and innocuous, is a sexist. |
If the behavior were non-threatening, then she wouldn't have been creeped out. His behavior was threatening. He got her alone and trapped, and the first thing he discussed with her was sex. After he accepted her rejection, then perhaps he wasn't so creepy. But you're trying to ignore everything before then.| Well, no. It is as many premises as you need to allow the conclusion to follow. |
That's not "the standard format."| I accept your admission that you can't write it out. |
I've written it out several times for you already, just not in the format that you wanted. The textual format of the argument does not change its logic or the strength of its conclusion. If "the standard format" is so important to you, then you go ahead and re-write it in such a fashion. It'd be good to see just what you think the premises and the conclusion(s) are, in detail. I already know that you've got at least one conclusion wrong, though.What, are you five?| ...and so what? You are improperly using statistics to justify the conclusion you reached via emotional response. |
The conclusion is justifiable on empirical foundations alone. Perhaps someday you'll explain to me just which emotions I'm supposedly feeling, besides disgust at your sexism. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 13:07:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Why is everybody talking about potential rapists when Rebecca her self didn't say anything about it? |
Dude thinks it's sexist for a woman to be more worried about riding an elevator with a strange man than with a strange woman, despite men being responsible for nearly all stranger-rape of adult women. This is largely an abstract discussion, though, and not particular to EG.She just didn't want to be sexually objectified, and implied in her video that was the kind of behaviour that creeped her out.
That she would be creeped out because he might be a rapist (or behaved like one) are other people's fantacies. At least it started out that way, and if Rebecca is currently holding that position, then she has obviously adopted it for her cause after the fact. Which makes me even less sympathetic to it. |
Let's see what she said, again (from about the four-minute mark):The response at the conference itself was wonderful. There were a ton of great feminists there (male and female) and also just open-minded people who had maybe never really considered the way that women are treated in this community, but were interested in learning more.
So thank you to everyone who was at that conference who engaged in those discussions outside of that panel. You were all fantastic. I love talking to you guys.
All of you except for the one man who didn't really grasp, I think, what I was saying on the panel, because... At the bar later that night - actually at four in the morning - we were at the hotel bar. Four AM. I said, "You know, I've had enough guys, I'm exhausted, going to bed." So I walked to the elevator and a man got on the elevator with me and said, "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more, would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"
Just a word to the wise here, guys, don't do that. I don't really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I'll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman in a foreign country at four AM in a hotel elevator with you. Just you, and... I... Don't invite me back to your hotel room right after I've finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner. So... yeah...
But everybody else seemed to really get it. Then four comments down, she said (on the same day, June 20th):There is a small chance that this man meant nothing sexual in his comment, despite the fact that I had clearly indicated my wish to go to bed (alone) and the fact that the bar had coffee and therefore there was absolutely zero reason to go to anyone’s hotel room to have it. Sure. There’s a chance.
But regardless, the point I was making was that people need to be aware of how their comments might make someone feel extraordinarily uncomfortable and even feel as though they are in danger. This person failed to recognize that even though I had been speaking about little else all day long. I haven't seen any indication that she's changed anything about this since then. The things she mentions, "...single woman in a foreign country at four AM in a hotel elevator with you. Just you..." are factors which are associated with rapes, and in her comment she says, "feel as though they are in danger."
Down lower in the comment thread, the very next day, someone asks her what she would have felt if the same guy had hit on her at the bar at two AM, and Watson replies,In that situation it would have been merely pathetic as opposed to threatening. And before a bunch of sad sacks start whining that I’m saying it’s always pathetic when a man hits on a woman: no. It’s pathetic when someone hits on a person (who has been talking nonstop about how much she loathes the sexual advances she’s subjected to at conferences) by saying absolutely nothing to her before inviting her to his hotel room. It is clear that Watson found EG's behavior threatening when she first told the story, and that hasn't changed.I guess we've reached a stand off then.
No one has managed to convince me that Rebecca and her followers isn't overreacting. |
Over-reacting? I don't know which "followers" you're talking about, but Watson's reaction was to simply suggest that guys shouldn't act creepy.| No one has changed my mind about Phil Plait being a massive hypocrit. |
Well, he certainly was a hypocrite with his "Don't Be A Dick" speech, but what about this is hypocritical of him?| Feminists has lost another battle for my approval of their cause, because of Rebecca's (and other figureheads') failure to reign in their more rabid section of the movement. |
Let me get this straight: you're not going to approve of the idea that men and women should be treated equally because there are some misadrists who will try to take advantage of any opportunity they find? That's like saying, "I will not approve of the Golden Rule because of pedophile priests and the church's cover-up of them." How is it not an over-reaction of your own?
[Edited to correct a typo.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 13:11:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Dave, I say fuck all the rest of these guys (not literally). |
Depends on how hard they are to catch. Bwahahahahaha!| Let natural selection work and after a few generations these clowns will be bred out of existence! |
That trick never works. Conservatives and fundamentalists have been trying that for a long time now, but liberals and non-theists are still around. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 13:26:29 [Permalink]
|
Sorry that I'm coming into this discussion late. I have read PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson's and Greta Christina's blogs. I did not read Phil Plait's. What I have noticed is that there is a lot of misunderstanding and people taking things too personally.
I see Rebecca Watson's video as an example of what she is trying to say about problems in the secularist/atheist community (and it is true for all communities). The problem is that some men (not all) are not listening to woman. the guy in the elevator did not listen to her saying she was too tired to do anything else that night. He could have suggested getting coffee the next day in a public place. This "elevator" guy is not the problem and he could very well be a nice guy who is clueless. So it is not about this guy but Watson is using the incident to illustrate her points.
I don't think anyone is saying this guy is a rapist. What everyone is saying is that an incident like this will trigger a woman's fear about being assaulted. Think of this as information as opposed to an accusation. Women have to be constantly aware of the risks of being assaulted, sexually or otherwise. to use an analogy: If you started talking about the days when blacks were lynched in front of a black guy, this will probably make him very nervous. But you wouldn't because you would figure out that it would make him nervous. Now you know what makes women nervous.
Watson is not saying all men are potential rapists. The fact is that women have to always think about the possibility of being raped, so they are going to be on guard with any man they meet |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 18:40:02 [Permalink]
|
| Dude thinks it's sexist for a woman to be more worried about riding an elevator with a strange man than with a strange woman, |
Dude said no such thing, so maybe you should stop being a douche for a few minutes and calm down. That whole woman thing is entirely of your invention, introduced intot his thread by you, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have been saying.
What I'm saying is that it is a sexist mindset that lets a woman be creeped out by a guy doing nothing threatening (no evidence suggests that he was aware of her wish to be left alone, and his behavior directly contradicts any assumption he was disregarding her wishes. Also, it was not in the US, there is no evidence to suggest this guy was a native English speaker, so language and cultural differences are just being throw out without consideration).
It is pure hysteria for anyone to characterize elevator guy as a potential rapist (or any random man for that matter, you need more info/data/evidence to make that judgement on an individual basis). You don't understand that group behavior statistics can't be used to predict individual behavior. More is required.
You can take a group of 100 men and say that ~10 of them are probably going to commit a sexual assault in their lifetime, but you can't look at a single individual and say there is a 10% chance they are a rapist.
So it's a good thing that nobody is trying to assess EG on such an individual basis.
|
So you haven't read Plait's words about it. Fair enough. You should.
| If I get a brain tumor or get dosed with inhibition-removing drugs so that I become willing to rape someone, |
This is... what? Your attempt to distract further? More goal post shifting? I asked you if you think there is a 10% chance you will rape another person. If you can't answer yes or no, and you have to start dropping stinky fish, then you must not want to answer. I suspect your reluctance to answer is because you just don't want to admit you are wrong. That, or you are a rapist.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 19:59:14 [Permalink]
|
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf
79% of all sexual assaults in 2009 were carried out by people known to the victim.
Pretty damaging to the idea that strangers pose a significant threat. If we go with 10% (I really don't know where that number came from) of men being sexual assault perpetrators, and 20% of them will attack a stranger, then you are down to 2% of men who will sexually assault a stranger.
You still can't apply that to a single individual though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 20:27:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dude said no such thing... |
Then why the hell have you been arguing for that position?!| What I'm saying is that it is a sexist mindset that lets a woman be creeped out by a guy doing nothing threatening... |
He did at least four threatening things: (1) He approached a lone woman for sex when he could have asked while she wasn't alone. (2) He approached a lone woman in a confined space for sex. (3) He approached a lone woman in a foreign country for sex. (4) He signaled he didn't care about what she wanted, with both what he asked (in the context of what she'd been talking about all day) and how he asked it.| ...(no evidence suggests that he was aware of her wish to be left alone... |
Yes, evidence exists, right in her story. She'd been talking about hating the way men come on to her at conferences "nonstop." He'd obviously been listening to her talk (either on the panel or at the bar), which is why he said he found her "interesting" and wanted to talk with her more (allegedly).
Of course, if you're going to claim that there's no evidence of his being aware of her intentions, then you'll have to stop claiming that he took the rejection well, since there's no evidence of that, either. Watson didn't report on that. Her recounting of events ends when he asks the question.| ...and his behavior directly contradicts any assumption he was disregarding her wishes. |
No, his behavior plainly indicates that he was disregarding her wishes. "Don't take this the wrong way" is an idiom meaning "You're definitely going to take this the wrong way, but I don't care enough about what you think to rephrase what I'm about to say."| Also, it was not in the US, there is no evidence to suggest this guy was a native English speaker, so language and cultural differences are just being throw out without consideration). |
Do you know the etymology of "Don't take this the wrong way?" Of course, there's no evidence that he's a speaker of English as a second language. That's just another red herring from you.| It is pure hysteria for anyone to characterize elevator guy as a potential rapist (or any random man for that matter, you need more info/data/evidence to make that judgement on an individual basis). You don't understand that group behavior statistics can't be used to predict individual behavior. More is required. |
What is so threatening to you about the word "potential," Dude? As well as being a potential rapist, you're also a potential Mozart and a potential astronaut. All people are potential rapists, scientists, musicians, etc. It's a simple fact that we have the potential to be all sorts of things, and when we encounter a stranger, we won't know what they are until we get to know them better. EG threw off a bunch of warning signs that he might be a little more likely to be one particularly bad thing, and you throw a conniption because those signs were seen as such, despite the wealth of evidence we have about how rapists operate.| You can take a group of 100 men and say that ~10 of them are probably going to commit a sexual assault in their lifetime, but you can't look at a single individual and say there is a 10% chance they are a rapist. |
Because now you're playing a semantic game. I don't know what the odds are of a man being a rapist. I do know that I can look at each individual man in that sample of 100 and say that each has a 10% chance of committing or attempting at least one sexual assault in his lifetime. In other words, each one is a potential rapist.| So it's a good thing that nobody is trying to assess EG on such an individual basis. |
So you haven't read Plait's words about it. Fair enough. You should. |
No, I have. "Potential sexual assault" doesn't mean "he's a rapist" no matter how hard you work to ignore the meaning of the word "potential."| This is... what? Your attempt to distract further? More goal post shifting? I asked you if you think there is a 10% chance you will rape another person. If you can't answer yes or no, and you have to start dropping stinky fish, then you must not want to answer. I suspect your reluctance to answer is because you just don't want to admit you are wrong. That, or you are a rapist. |
No, my life is half-over (actuarially), and I haven't raped anyone yet, nor have I ever been tempted to. I can't say that I won't rape anyone with whatever remains of my life, so I can't say the odds that I'll rape someone are zero, because I can't predict random occurrences or diseases in my brain, so I cannot calculate the actual risk I personally pose to anyone else in terms of rape. It's probably closer to 0% than 10%, but with all the evidence I have at hand, the risk I pose to women is definitely not zero. And since I don't warrant special treatment, women who don't know me should react to me the way they'd react to any other man, which includes becoming more wary if I start doing creepy things. So I avoid doing creepy things, and that's not a problem because I don't want anyone to think I'm a rapist (even though I'm married and not about to try to get into another woman's pants).
If you were to ask about a newborn baby boy, I'd have said 10%. You asked about me, though, and I can't say other than to say "the risk I pose won't be 0% until I'm dead." For all I know, I'll have a psychotic break tomorrow and rape someone the next day. Odds are low of that happening, but they're not zero. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 20:48:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
79% of all sexual assaults in 2009 were carried out by people known to the victim.
Pretty damaging to the idea that strangers pose a significant threat. |
Significant? When did that qualifier enter the conversation? Significant compared to what, exactly? Should women take more precautions when crossing a busy street than when encountering a stranger on an elevator? Absolutely. Does that mean they shouldn't have any worries when encountering a stranger on an elevator? Of course not.
But fine. There were 125,910 sexual assaults in 2009. 21% of them were committed by strangers to the victims, or 26,411. Women were victims in 80% of cases, or 21,153. Men were perpetrators of 99% of sexual assaults, so men sexually assaulted 20,941 women they didn't know in 2009, or 57.3 man-on-woman stranger sexual assaults per day in the US (did you look for Irish stats?). That's a lot more frequent than winning the lottery.
Hell, 84.3 people died every day in car crashes in the US in 2009. Man-on-woman stranger sexual assaults are nearly 68% as common as traffic fatalities.| If we go with 10% (I really don't know where that number came from)... |
I linked to the paper in which I found that number. Apparently, you couldn't be bothered....of men being sexual assault perpetrators, and 20% of them will attack a stranger, then you are down to 2% of men who will sexually assault a stranger.
You still can't apply that to a single individual though. |
Nobody is trying to. "Potential" doesn't mean "does it" in anyone's mind but your own, Dude. Every person is a potential rapist just like every car is a potential death machine. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 07/13/2011 : 21:01:16 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and there are all sorts of estimates for the under-reportage of sexual assaults in this country. It seems to be around 60%, which would bring the number of man-on-woman stranger sexual assaults up to 95.5 per day, or more frequent than fatal car crashes.
Which is a good comparator, because I'd guess that even though fatal car crashes are infrequent, and you cannot predict that any individual driver might kill you with his/her car, when you're on the road you practice the IPDE you were taught as a kid in order to try to avoid accidents, right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I do not like Rebecca Watson (aka skepchick)
