The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Also to point out "no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged."
I do just from personal experience from formerly working at the sheriff's department I've seen every one of those made as a claim and come back to be untrue.
Sure. ALL crimes have a certain level of false reports (particularly when insurance is involved).
But we don't live in a culture where there's a particular four-letter slur for a person who lends their car to friends. Not many people who say "Yeah, when I was a teenager my car got stolen" suddenly get peppered with questions about how maybe the guy who took it thought it was a gift, or whether they secretly wanted it to get stolen, or whether it was really theft theft because they left the keys in the ignition, it wasn't like somebody broke a window or something.
I've also never seen someone called a slut for claiming they were raped but once again this has nothing to do with my view points on the subject which you could obtain by simply reading the thread you're posting in.
Vash once again you did not read my posts and are purposely misinterpreting my stance.
Enlighten me.
Every part of your post about me is a bold faced lie and an exaggeration of my posts made in this short 4 paged thread.
You Said
You can provide sympathy and support to a victim without ever uttering the words, "I believe you."
Except you can help the victim without automatically believing their story and we've already stated earlier in the thread the mere accusation of these crimes even when shown to be untrue can and will ruin someone's life and reputation.
I represented your argument as
You should offer support without believing, because Innocent until proven guilty.
Seems spot on to me. And in case you think that the bolded part is key, and that i did you a great disservice by leaving it out, i suggest you go and read my post again because it's covered by Requirements A and B.
His wikipedia article is where I formed my information about. To the italicized part I never claimed that. Actually that was a strawman made against my claim thanks for playing though.
*edit also you still didn't cite what I asked for. Linking other articles that have nothing to do with it is not a citation sorry. If anything its more of a oh hey look over there argument.
rational vash said: The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You agreed with this, saying: And the irrational belief that people never lie is why even after being proven innocent the accused become victims.
Both you and rational vash were saying that the cause of stigma against genuine abuse victims is that some women* file false charges. Well, then: if only nobody filed false charges, all that stigma would go away! Seriously, do you really believe that to be true?
This is why the links I gave were relevant. Both in the law and culturally, there has been a very long history of focusing on whether the victim was deserving or not.
Oh, and psst, you might want to read your own cites instead of "hurrr read it on Wikipedia somewhere". The source Wikipedia cites for your claim says the following:
Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.
"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.
(Oh, but wait, that "isn't something you do to get the limelight off of you." If only she'd had the benefit of your wise advice!)
Cat is right. You're relying on your anecdata without comprehending that other people had the exact opposite happen. Instead of the false accuser's friends shunning the accused even after they know it's false, a genuine victim being shunned by their friends even after they know it's true. In your view, would it be OK for them to say "well this happened to me, so we should always believe all rape victims always"?
*Men, apparently, are either never raped or never lie about having been raped. Probably both.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Vash you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. The fact that you need to make a claim that I'm not making instead of just quoting me proves this.
Mythago you're trying to claim 2+2 = a bucket of peanuts. We actually had a discussion yesterday about trying to figure out how someone gets logically from point a to point c will make you go o_O
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
I've also never seen someone called a slut for claiming they were raped
You worked in law enforcement and you've never heard of the Haidl rape case, where the rapist's attorney had people follow the victim around and slut-shame her (for example, at her high school)? Have you ever spoken to someone who was actually raped, or did you just assume they were all liars?
ETA: ah, found the link I was looking for. The rapists' then-attorney has since been disbarred for other reasons.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I've also never seen someone called a slut for claiming they were raped
You worked in law enforcement and you've never heard of the Haidl rape case, where the rapist's attorney had people follow the victim around and slut-shame her (for example, at her high school)? Have you ever spoken to someone who was actually raped, or did you just assume they were all liars?
Yes including multiple friends and family members. My question to you. Did you read how I said you should handle a situation of a person coming to you claiming they were sexually assaulted and if so what issues do you have with this? Mind you I'm asking for issues with my claims not other's strawmans.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
I did. Unless by "cite your claims" you mean "spend all day running around the Internet putting up links I can't be bothered to read." You'll be waiting a long time for that one.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
I did. Unless by "cite your claims" you mean "spend all day running around the Internet putting up links I can't be bothered to read." You'll be waiting a long time for that one.
You claimed an equal number of false sexual assault claims are made as to other crimes. You have not cited this.
oh god, the demand for citations. She's not quoting stats, Deshadow, she's summarising common knowledge surrounding sex crimes and how they're handled by society. You don't get to demand cites for that. That's just acting the dick.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
mythago is making the claim that there are the same amount of false reports on sexual assault as there are other crimes something I have never seen cited before. Asking for proof of this claim isn't unreasonable especially when in these thread before claims have been made by both sides that had no proof of or came about from misreading statistical analysis.
Your second paragraph makes claims that are completely wrong and also misinterpret my position that can easily be read in this thread. Seriously this thread is three pages long can people read it before making accusations that are untrue.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
As to the second point, I just read the whole thread and trust me you're not coming across as you think you are. Remember also that I remember what you were like in the comicfail threads, and it didn't improve your rep for me at all.
Also you're so wrong about Polanski's victim that it isn't even funny. 30 years of public abuse for standing up and telling the truth? Of course she wrote the damn article.
His wikipedia article is where I formed my information about. To the italicized part I never claimed that. Actually that was a strawman made against my claim thanks for playing though.
*edit also you still didn't cite what I asked for. Linking other articles that have nothing to do with it is not a citation sorry. If anything its more of a oh hey look over there argument.
rational vash said: The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You agreed with this, saying: And the irrational belief that people never lie is why even after being proven innocent the accused become victims.
Both you and rational vash were saying that the cause of stigma against genuine abuse victims is that some women* file false charges. Well, then: if only nobody filed false charges, all that stigma would go away! Seriously, do you really believe that to be true?
This is why the links I gave were relevant. Both in the law and culturally, there has been a very long history of focusing on whether the victim was deserving or not.
Oh, and psst, you might want to read your own cites instead of "hurrr read it on Wikipedia somewhere". The source Wikipedia cites for your claim says the following:
Geimer said Polanski had paid, and she wanted to move on and stop reliving the details of the assault every time he made headlines.
"True as they may be, the continued publication of those details causes harm to me, my beloved husband, my three children and my mother," she said.
(Oh, but wait, that "isn't something you do to get the limelight off of you." If only she'd had the benefit of your wise advice!)
Cat is right. You're relying on your anecdata without comprehending that other people had the exact opposite happen. Instead of the false accuser's friends shunning the accused even after they know it's false, a genuine victim being shunned by their friends even after they know it's true. In your view, would it be OK for them to say "well this happened to me, so we should always believe all rape victims always"?
*Men, apparently, are either never raped or never lie about having been raped. Probably both.
You misunderstand me
I was saying that because alot of people assume a rapist is innocent, they look down on anyone who reports rape. Even if there were no false reports, there would always be a stigma against rape victims, because there would still be the perception that there are false rape reports, indictments and sentences. Therefore, there will always be some stigma against rape victims. The only time there wouldn't be is if there were no more rape charges filed, guilty or not.
Vash you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. The fact that you need to make a claim that I'm not making instead of just quoting me proves this.
Mythago you're trying to claim 2+2 = a bucket of peanuts. We actually had a discussion yesterday about trying to figure out how someone gets logically from point a to point c will make you go o_O
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
What? I quoted you! Then i condensed to your argument to the logical form "A, because B." I summarized it exactly.
By the way, after quoting you, i made an independent argument why friends of rape victims should always believe them. Go ahead, read it again, and tell me what part is logically wrong.
oh god, the demand for citations. She's not quoting stats, Deshadow, she's summarising common knowledge surrounding sex crimes and how they're handled by society. You don't get to demand cites for that. That's just acting the dick.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
mythago is making the claim that there are the same amount of false reports on sexual assault as there are other crimes something I have never seen cited before. Asking for proof of this claim isn't unreasonable especially when in these thread before claims have been made by both sides that had no proof of or came about from misreading statistical analysis.
Your second paragraph makes claims that are completely wrong and also misinterpret my position that can easily be read in this thread. Seriously this thread is three pages long can people read it before making accusations that are untrue.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
As to the second point, I just read the whole thread and trust me you're not coming across as you think you are. Remember also that I remember what you were like in the comicfail threads, and it didn't improve your rep for me at all.
Also you're so wrong about Polanski's victim that it isn't even funny. 30 years of public abuse for standing up and telling the truth? Of course she wrote the damn article.
Please forgive me while I take the time to read your citations. I find it funny you criticize someone for being uneducated on a subject and yet criticize them for asking for information with which to better educate themselves. As for the second part I'm sorry you don't have the ability to respect those with different opinions from yours but considering a lot of people posted in opposition to you, you should consider the possibility that they might have a reason for their opinions.
You claimed an equal number of false sexual assault claims are made as to other crimes. You have not cited this.
Your cites have been "this one time, in high school?" and "I sort of heard about this thing on Wikipedia". Turns out that the Wikipedia article doesn't, as you claim, say that Polanski's victim is "in his corner." Are you going to practice what you preach or what?
Do you have any evidence that rape is more falsely reported than any other crime? In the absence of evidence that it is, I don't understand why I would have to prove a negative. But since you're in love with Wikipedia, you might find this article interesting. I expect you to cherry-pick out the citation from that bastion of impartiality, Men's World Daily.
When you refuse to cite any of your own claims, and only start shouting OMG CITE!!! when somebody disagrees with you, it comes across an awful lot like a rhetorical game. Just a thought.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
I did. Unless by "cite your claims" you mean "spend all day running around the Internet putting up links I can't be bothered to read." You'll be waiting a long time for that one.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
Vash you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. The fact that you need to make a claim that I'm not making instead of just quoting me proves this.
Mythago you're trying to claim 2+2 = a bucket of peanuts. We actually had a discussion yesterday about trying to figure out how someone gets logically from point a to point c will make you go o_O
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
What? I quoted you! Then i condensed to your argument to the logical form "A, because B." I summarized it exactly.
By the way, after quoting you, i made an independent argument why friends of rape victims should always believe them. Go ahead, read it again, and tell me what part is logically wrong.
While condensing my argument you leave out parts which do not allow for your interpretation. I discounted the reasoning for your independent argument pages ago.
I was saying that because alot of people assume a rapist is innocent, they look down on anyone who reports rape. Even if there were no false reports, there would always be a stigma against rape victims, because there would still be the perception that there are false rape reports, indictments and sentences. Therefore, there will always be some stigma against rape victims. The only time there wouldn't be is if there were no more rape charges filed, guilty or not.
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm disagreeing with is the belief that the stigma against rape victims stems entirely from the perception of false reports. That assumes there is no stigma associated with the status of being a rape victim. This is untrue.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
oh god, the demand for citations. She's not quoting stats, Deshadow, she's summarising common knowledge surrounding sex crimes and how they're handled by society. You don't get to demand cites for that. That's just acting the dick.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
mythago is making the claim that there are the same amount of false reports on sexual assault as there are other crimes something I have never seen cited before. Asking for proof of this claim isn't unreasonable especially when in these thread before claims have been made by both sides that had no proof of or came about from misreading statistical analysis.
Your second paragraph makes claims that are completely wrong and also misinterpret my position that can easily be read in this thread. Seriously this thread is three pages long can people read it before making accusations that are untrue.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
As to the second point, I just read the whole thread and trust me you're not coming across as you think you are. Remember also that I remember what you were like in the comicfail threads, and it didn't improve your rep for me at all.
Also you're so wrong about Polanski's victim that it isn't even funny. 30 years of public abuse for standing up and telling the truth? Of course she wrote the damn article.
Please forgive me while I take the time to read your citations. I find it funny you criticize someone for being uneducated on a subject and yet criticize them for asking for information with which to better educate themselves. As for the second part I'm sorry you don't have the ability to respect those with different opinions from yours but considering a lot of people posted in opposition to you, you should consider the possibility that they might have a reason for their opinions.
Thank you for reading them. I think the second link in particular is interesting as it is some kind of law enforcement training manual and contains a detailed discussion of the problems surrounding sex crime rate reporting. It provides a good commentary that I think is missing from the wiki article on sex assault.
Despite that, its really not my job to educate the rest of the thread. All this stuff is easily googleable, and I've provided it as a courtesy. I've also given no indication that I don't respect your opinion, and I consider your false accusation to be extremely insulting. In addition, claiming that you must be right because other people agree with you is a logical fallacy, namely the appeal to popularity.
Vash you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. The fact that you need to make a claim that I'm not making instead of just quoting me proves this.
Mythago you're trying to claim 2+2 = a bucket of peanuts. We actually had a discussion yesterday about trying to figure out how someone gets logically from point a to point c will make you go o_O
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
What? I quoted you! Then i condensed to your argument to the logical form "A, because B." I summarized it exactly.
By the way, after quoting you, i made an independent argument why friends of rape victims should always believe them. Go ahead, read it again, and tell me what part is logically wrong.
While condensing my argument you leave out parts which do not allow for your interpretation. I discounted the reasoning for your independent argument pages ago.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
What? I said flat out that I had read the thread. WTF?
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
What? I said flat out that I had read the thread. WTF?
I took "I just read the whole thread and trust me..." to mean you had just read the whole thread since that's what you even said.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
What? I said flat out that I had read the thread. WTF?
I took "I just read the whole thread and trust me..." to mean you had just read the whole thread since that's what you even said.
your sentence above implies that I hadn't read the thread and admitted to same. Is this a mistake on your part?
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
What? I said flat out that I had read the thread. WTF?
I took "I just read the whole thread and trust me..." to mean you had just read the whole thread since that's what you even said.
your sentence above implies that I hadn't read the thread and admitted to same. Is this a mistake on your part?
My sentence above implies that the only thing in this thread I have accused you of, was at the time of my accusation, not reading the thread, which you later confirmed and corrected. I completely trust that since claiming to have read the thread you have indeed read the thread.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
What if she asks if you believe her? Saying "I'm waiting for more evidence" is the same as saying no.
Assuming the accused is innocent is the exact same thing as assuming the accuser is lying. When you are close to the accuser this is damaging to the accuser. You cannot support the accuser while believing that the accuser is lying.
Moreover, what is dangerous about assuming that the accuser is guilty if you have no power over him? The government must reserve judgement so that innocents aren't imprisoned, but there is no harm in you believing him to be guilty, and there is harm in you believing he is innocent, since, as i stated, you cannot assume he is innocent without assuming the accuser is a liar.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
What if she asks if you believe her? Saying "I'm waiting for more evidence" is the same as saying no.
Assuming the accused is innocent is the exact same thing as assuming the accuser is lying. When you are close to the accuser this is damaging to the accuser. You cannot support the accuser while believing that the accuser is lying.
Moreover, what is dangerous about assuming that the accuser is guilty if you have no power over him? The government must reserve judgement so that innocents aren't imprisoned, but there is no harm in you believing him to be guilty, and there is harm in you believing he is innocent, since, as i stated, you cannot assume he is innocent without assuming the accuser is a liar.
There is harm in believing the accused is guilty because you always have power over others. Vigilantly justice tends to happen when someone believes the accused guilty but the courts do not.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
If someone is cloes to you, you should assume they are telling the truth until proven otherwise. You should not assume that they are lying until proven otherwise.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
If someone is cloes to you, you should assume they are telling the truth until proven otherwise. You should not assume that they are lying until proven otherwise.
-Human Relationships 101
There are problems with that logic as pointed out.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
What if she asks if you believe her? Saying "I'm waiting for more evidence" is the same as saying no.
Assuming the accused is innocent is the exact same thing as assuming the accuser is lying. When you are close to the accuser this is damaging to the accuser. You cannot support the accuser while believing that the accuser is lying.
Moreover, what is dangerous about assuming that the accuser is guilty if you have no power over him? The government must reserve judgement so that innocents aren't imprisoned, but there is no harm in you believing him to be guilty, and there is harm in you believing he is innocent, since, as i stated, you cannot assume he is innocent without assuming the accuser is a liar.
There is harm in believing the accused is guilty because you always have power over others. Vigilantly justice tends to happen when someone believes the accused guilty but the courts do not.
Sorry, i left out part A of my two part requirements
If you are not close to the accuser, assume innocence. There is no harm, because that is generally to be expected of our country, so the accuser anticipates that she will have to prove to strangers: that is the court system. But if you are close you should assume guilt.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
And their friends and family should have believed them.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Do you understand the difference between being someone's friend or partner and being a public prosecutor?
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
If someone is close to you, you should assume they are telling the truth until proven otherwise. You should not assume that they are lying until proven otherwise.
-Human Relationships 101
There are problems with that logic as pointed out.
Ok here, i have bolded your argument. You know those friends of false accusers? You know what they did wrong? Nothing! You know why? Because they didn't have any power over the accused. They didn't send him to jail. The government assumes innocence so innocent people aren't sent to jail. As family members of the accuser, they don't have this power; they don't harm any innocents by assuming guilt.
People who assume innocence when they are close to the accuser, and the accuser is telling the truth? They significantly hurt the accuser.
And before you say, no i've already adressed that, because
A) you can support the accuser without believing them, so they aren't hurt
believing in the accuser when they're lying is damaging, because of vigilante justice
Go back and you'll find that i addressed your counterpoints, because thats how debate works.
A) Assuming innocence is the same as assuming the accuser is lying so it does hurt the accuser
vigilante justice is bad, you can believe in the accuser and still not go rambo
Seriously, i have responded to every counterpoint you have made. After i make the counterpoint, you just tell me to go read the thread again, like you have some invincible circle of logic.
FFS, state them again. I have already taken apart your reasoning in previous posts, pretending it didn't happen isn't helping you.
Its in the same quote tree. Seriously I don't feel like echoing myself all night.
I'm sorry some of you are unable to keep a rational and open mind when being told something and automatically have emotional responses. I however don't.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
FFS, state them again. I have already taken apart your reasoning in previous posts, pretending it didn't happen isn't helping you.
Its in the same quote tree. Seriously I don't feel like echoing myself all night.
I'm sorry some of you are unable to keep a rational and open mind when being told something and automatically have emotional responses. I however don't.
Dude, The points you have made? I already countered them. I have addressed every single point you have made. Every fucking one. But everytime i do, you just say, I've already countered it.
Posts
I've also never seen someone called a slut for claiming they were raped but once again this has nothing to do with my view points on the subject which you could obtain by simply reading the thread you're posting in.
Every part of your post about me is a bold faced lie and an exaggeration of my posts made in this short 4 paged thread.
I represented your argument as
Seems spot on to me. And in case you think that the bolded part is key, and that i did you a great disservice by leaving it out, i suggest you go and read my post again because it's covered by Requirements A and B.
rational vash said: The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You agreed with this, saying: And the irrational belief that people never lie is why even after being proven innocent the accused become victims.
Both you and rational vash were saying that the cause of stigma against genuine abuse victims is that some women* file false charges. Well, then: if only nobody filed false charges, all that stigma would go away! Seriously, do you really believe that to be true?
This is why the links I gave were relevant. Both in the law and culturally, there has been a very long history of focusing on whether the victim was deserving or not.
Oh, and psst, you might want to read your own cites instead of "hurrr read it on Wikipedia somewhere". The source Wikipedia cites for your claim says the following:
(Oh, but wait, that "isn't something you do to get the limelight off of you." If only she'd had the benefit of your wise advice!)
Cat is right. You're relying on your anecdata without comprehending that other people had the exact opposite happen. Instead of the false accuser's friends shunning the accused even after they know it's false, a genuine victim being shunned by their friends even after they know it's true. In your view, would it be OK for them to say "well this happened to me, so we should always believe all rape victims always"?
*Men, apparently, are either never raped or never lie about having been raped. Probably both.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Mythago you're trying to claim 2+2 = a bucket of peanuts. We actually had a discussion yesterday about trying to figure out how someone gets logically from point a to point c will make you go o_O
I'm also still waiting for you to cite your claims.
You worked in law enforcement and you've never heard of the Haidl rape case, where the rapist's attorney had people follow the victim around and slut-shame her (for example, at her high school)? Have you ever spoken to someone who was actually raped, or did you just assume they were all liars?
ETA: ah, found the link I was looking for. The rapists' then-attorney has since been disbarred for other reasons.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Yes including multiple friends and family members. My question to you. Did you read how I said you should handle a situation of a person coming to you claiming they were sexually assaulted and if so what issues do you have with this? Mind you I'm asking for issues with my claims not other's strawmans.
I did. Unless by "cite your claims" you mean "spend all day running around the Internet putting up links I can't be bothered to read." You'll be waiting a long time for that one.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You claimed an equal number of false sexual assault claims are made as to other crimes. You have not cited this.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
As to the second point, I just read the whole thread and trust me you're not coming across as you think you are. Remember also that I remember what you were like in the comicfail threads, and it didn't improve your rep for me at all.
Also you're so wrong about Polanski's victim that it isn't even funny. 30 years of public abuse for standing up and telling the truth? Of course she wrote the damn article.
You misunderstand me
I was saying that because alot of people assume a rapist is innocent, they look down on anyone who reports rape. Even if there were no false reports, there would always be a stigma against rape victims, because there would still be the perception that there are false rape reports, indictments and sentences. Therefore, there will always be some stigma against rape victims. The only time there wouldn't be is if there were no more rape charges filed, guilty or not.
What? I quoted you! Then i condensed to your argument to the logical form "A, because B." I summarized it exactly.
By the way, after quoting you, i made an independent argument why friends of rape victims should always believe them. Go ahead, read it again, and tell me what part is logically wrong.
Please forgive me while I take the time to read your citations. I find it funny you criticize someone for being uneducated on a subject and yet criticize them for asking for information with which to better educate themselves. As for the second part I'm sorry you don't have the ability to respect those with different opinions from yours but considering a lot of people posted in opposition to you, you should consider the possibility that they might have a reason for their opinions.
Your cites have been "this one time, in high school?" and "I sort of heard about this thing on Wikipedia". Turns out that the Wikipedia article doesn't, as you claim, say that Polanski's victim is "in his corner." Are you going to practice what you preach or what?
Do you have any evidence that rape is more falsely reported than any other crime? In the absence of evidence that it is, I don't understand why I would have to prove a negative. But since you're in love with Wikipedia, you might find this article interesting. I expect you to cherry-pick out the citation from that bastion of impartiality, Men's World Daily.
When you refuse to cite any of your own claims, and only start shouting OMG CITE!!! when somebody disagrees with you, it comes across an awful lot like a rhetorical game. Just a thought.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Well, I've gone and done it, so if he refuses to read what's been provided it'll be readily apparent.
While condensing my argument you leave out parts which do not allow for your interpretation. I discounted the reasoning for your independent argument pages ago.
I understand what you're saying, but what I'm disagreeing with is the belief that the stigma against rape victims stems entirely from the perception of false reports. That assumes there is no stigma associated with the status of being a rape victim. This is untrue.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
As far as I can tell, you're wrong because you disagree, and you disagree because of your love for strawmens. Also, you were probably mean to somebody in high school.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I didn't say that. Jesus someone else made the opposite claim and I asked to read his or her information on where the claim came from.
I never accused The Cat of strawmanning, because she hadn't, only that she hadn't read the thread, which she later admitted to.
Thank you for reading them. I think the second link in particular is interesting as it is some kind of law enforcement training manual and contains a detailed discussion of the problems surrounding sex crime rate reporting. It provides a good commentary that I think is missing from the wiki article on sex assault.
Despite that, its really not my job to educate the rest of the thread. All this stuff is easily googleable, and I've provided it as a courtesy. I've also given no indication that I don't respect your opinion, and I consider your false accusation to be extremely insulting. In addition, claiming that you must be right because other people agree with you is a logical fallacy, namely the appeal to popularity.
Disagreement is not disrespect.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
What? I said flat out that I had read the thread. WTF?
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
I took "I just read the whole thread and trust me..." to mean you had just read the whole thread since that's what you even said.
your sentence above implies that I hadn't read the thread and admitted to same. Is this a mistake on your part?
My sentence above implies that the only thing in this thread I have accused you of, was at the time of my accusation, not reading the thread, which you later confirmed and corrected. I completely trust that since claiming to have read the thread you have indeed read the thread.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
Assuming the accused is innocent is the exact same thing as assuming the accuser is lying. When you are close to the accuser this is damaging to the accuser. You cannot support the accuser while believing that the accuser is lying.
Moreover, what is dangerous about assuming that the accuser is guilty if you have no power over him? The government must reserve judgement so that innocents aren't imprisoned, but there is no harm in you believing him to be guilty, and there is harm in you believing he is innocent, since, as i stated, you cannot assume he is innocent without assuming the accuser is a liar.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
There is harm in believing the accused is guilty because you always have power over others. Vigilantly justice tends to happen when someone believes the accused guilty but the courts do not.
If someone is cloes to you, you should assume they are telling the truth until proven otherwise. You should not assume that they are lying until proven otherwise.
-Human Relationships 101
There are problems with that logic as pointed out.
Sorry, i left out part A of my two part requirements
If you are not close to the accuser, assume innocence. There is no harm, because that is generally to be expected of our country, so the accuser anticipates that she will have to prove to strangers: that is the court system. But if you are close you should assume guilt.
And their friends and family should have believed them.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Do you understand the difference between being someone's friend or partner and being a public prosecutor?
People who assume innocence when they are close to the accuser, and the accuser is telling the truth? They significantly hurt the accuser.
And before you say, no i've already adressed that, because
A) you can support the accuser without believing them, so they aren't hurt
Go back and you'll find that i addressed your counterpoints, because thats how debate works.
A) Assuming innocence is the same as assuming the accuser is lying so it does hurt the accuser
Seriously, i have responded to every counterpoint you have made. After i make the counterpoint, you just tell me to go read the thread again, like you have some invincible circle of logic.
Its in the same quote tree. Seriously I don't feel like echoing myself all night.
I'm sorry some of you are unable to keep a rational and open mind when being told something and automatically have emotional responses. I however don't.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Dude, The points you have made? I already countered them. I have addressed every single point you have made. Every fucking one. But everytime i do, you just say, I've already countered it.
You're stuck in some sort of circle.