Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Professor Yaffle]

For E&W data: males were 2/3 of total homicide victims in this dataset, so its a simple matter to double the percentages to get an equivalent figure to the females when looking numerically rather than percentagewise.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf

If you look at the chart on page 29, you see that 50% of female victims are killed by spouses or exes, whereas the figure for male victims looks to be about 5%. Evening up for the greater number of male victims gives 50 to 10, or 5:1. Five times as many women are killed by their spouses or exes than men are in England and Wales.

 

[Myriad]

If Shermer really did rape anyone (by the conventional legal definition of rape) then I make no excuses for him.

In fact, even if he only did what he's specifically been accused of so far with at least partial corroboration (that is, on multiple occasions getting women drunk by buying them drinks and then cajoling them into his bed), I think that would make him a jerk, and more than a little bit pathetic, and I'd be disinclined to ever have any social engagement with him. As James Stewart said in The Philadelphia Story, "There are rules about that."

On the other hand... rules, not laws. From the evidence available so far, what Myers and his anonymous correspondent appear to have done is apply their radicalized definition of rape (which includes consensual sex when there was any significant degree of voluntary alcohol intoxication involved) to the real world; specifically, to the public accusation of a specific person.

What, there can be consequences for that?

He's violated one of the cardinal rules of slacktivism: once you've redefined everything to your liking (such as what rape is), don't go and break the spell by actually putting those new definitions to the test in the real world. That only works if you can succeed at getting laws changed, which in turn (in a representative democracy) requires debating the matter with people who disagree with you. Yuck! Who wants to stoop to that?

Their PR defense against the accusation of defamation appears to be to pretend that any questioning of whether the legal definition of rape actually applies to the extremely sketchy scenario revealed so far is actually dismissing the word of one or perhaps several women that anything untoward happened at all. Hence the "how many women's word does it take over the word of one man" rhetoric, as though that, rather than whether there was anything close to sufficient reason to justify the words "I was raped" by a specific individual in a public accusation, were the main issue.

I don't think, though, that "to us, 'rape' has a different definition" will prove much of a defense. Lawyers have a stubborn tendency to focus on the real world.

 

[qwints]

Is this how you feel about BlockBot, too?

Broadly yes, but I don't think that not listening to someone or telling others not to listen to them is the same as silencing.

 

[tsig]

If Shermer really did rape anyone (by the conventional legal definition of rape) then I make no excuses for him.

In fact, even if he only did what he's specifically been accused of so far with at least partial corroboration (that is, on multiple occasions getting women drunk by buying them drinks and then cajoling them into his bed), I think that would make him a jerk, and more than a little bit pathetic, and I'd be disinclined to ever have any social engagement with him. As James Stewart said in The Philadelphia Story, "There are rules about that."

On the other hand... rules, not laws. From the evidence available so far, what Myers and his anonymous correspondent appear to have done is apply their radicalized definition of rape (which includes consensual sex when there was any significant degree of voluntary alcohol intoxication involved) to the real world; specifically, to the public accusation of a specific person.

What, there can be consequences for that?

He's violated one of the cardinal rules of slacktivism: once you've redefined everything to your liking (such as what rape is), don't go and break the spell by actually putting those new definitions to the test in the real world. That only works if you can succeed at getting laws changed, which in turn (in a representative democracy) requires debating the matter with people who disagree with you. Yuck! Who wants to stoop to that?

Their PR defense against the accusation of defamation appears to be to pretend that any questioning of whether the legal definition of rape actually applies to the extremely sketchy scenario revealed so far is actually dismissing the word of one or perhaps several women that anything untoward happened at all. Hence the "how many women's word does it take over the word of one man" rhetoric, as though that, rather than whether there was anything close to sufficient reason to justify the words "I was raped" by a specific individual in a public accusation, were the main issue.

I don't think, though, that "to us, 'rape' has a different definition" will prove much of a defense. Lawyers have a stubborn tendency to focus on the real world.

If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?

 

[Lorentz]

If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?

If one of these days a woman accuses Tsig of having turned her into a newt, should we believe her?

Or should we await the results of the witchhunter's examination for corroboration?

 

[Dissolution]

If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?

They'd do the equivalent, yes.
If you'd have had your car stolen, then they'd certainly check the details of the vehicle and visit the scene of the crime.
They wouldn't just immediately believe the accusations without any other evidence and lock the accused up.

 

[ponderingturtle]

See table 3.1 on page 17.

Killed by spouse: 80% were the wife.
Killed by boy/girlfriend: 70% were women.

Table 3.2 data on the murderer shows larger numbers of male perpetrators compared to female when it comes to killing one's spouse or lover. I'm not sure why the discrepancy.

Moved the goal post there. Are we talking about domestic violence in total or just murder?

Is this about abuse or murder?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?

Yes police collect evidence at robery scenes. And just look at how many rapists the innocence project freed with these kits.

 

[tsig]

If one of these days a woman accuses Tsig of having turned her into a newt, should we believe her?
Or should we await the results of the witchhunter's examination for corroboration?

Why no since we know that all women are liars and are just waiting to accuse me of newting her.

And we know that all women are bitches and witches right?

 

[Lorentz]

Why no since we know that all women are liars and are just waiting to accuse me of newting her.

And we know that all women are bitches and witches right?

Heh, you've really got it into your head that we must be woman-haters, right? It's a delusion that you just can't seem to let go of. It is however, both untrue and ridiculous.

(at this point I really no longer believe that Tsig is consciously trolling).

 

[Myriad]

If I went to the cops and told them I'd been robbed would they get out a robbery kit so I could prove my statement?

If I had three others that testified that they had been robbed by the same person would there be any question?

If your statement to the cops were limited to, "I had some valuable things, and Mr. Shermer robbed them from me. Enough said. Don't victimize me further by asking any questions." -- then yes, I think they'd either want to investigate further before making any arrests (or even adding your claimed robbery to the local crime statistics), or they would decline to get involved at all pending more information to go on.

Even if three other people testified that Mr. Shermer had possession of several valuable things and had sometimes looked enviously at their valuable things in a manner that they found disturbing.

And if you think that last paragraph is an unfair analogy, please tell me what testimony has been offered, under what court's auspices, that three other people were raped by Shermer, so that I can make a better one, or change my mind if that's called for.

(Also, apologies if mentioning "valuable things" in the context of discussion of a rape accusation comes across as crass, but you're the one who introduced the analogy between rape and robbery.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[SimplyAghast]

Broadly yes, but I don't think that not listening to someone or telling others not to listen to them is the same as silencing.

The block bot wouldn't bother me so much if all it did was allow people to block others. (Well, it annoys me on a skeptical basis, but people can choose to block anyone they like.) What bothers me is that the code of the Block Bot is designed to file false spam reports against tier 1 "offenders," leading to Twitter blocking the "offender" unfairly. Further, the gentleman who designed the Block Bot somehow got onto the BBC and called everyone on the block bot some terrible things. The tier 1 "offenders" were labeled "abusers" and worse.

 

[tsig]

If one of these days a woman accuses Tsig of having turned her into a newt, should we believe her?
Or should we await the results of the witchhunter's examination for corroboration?

Why no since we know that all women are liars and are just waiting to accuse me of newting her.

And we know that all women are bitches and witches right?

Heh, you've really got it into your head that we must be woman-haters, right? It's a delusion that you just can't seem to let go of. It is however, both untrue and ridiculous.
at this point I really no longer believe that
Tsig is consciously trolling).

The hilited says that you think women lie.

I don't think you hate women I think you don't think they're really human. They're just here for your enjoyment.

 

[Lorentz]

The hilited says that you think women lie.

I don't think you hate women I think you don't think they're really human. They're just here for your enjoyment.

No, the highlighted was to mock the utter silliness of all your rhetorical questions.

As for women lying? Yes, indeed they do. About as much as men.

And me not thinking they're human? It's you who seem to have this strange image of women as eternal victims without volition or agency. To me women and men are the same in pretty much all respects I care about.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure if I'm reading that right SG, but doesn't it just show that men are more likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance than their spouse?
What were the actual numbers in each case?

Men are more likely to be murder victims and they are more likely to be murderers. In pulling out the domestic violence murders, I could have included children murdered by male caretakers and really skewed the numbers.

But the discussion was about domestic violence involving spouses and partners so I just cited the fatality rate of men and women at the hands of their domestically violent significant other.

For E&W data: males were 2/3 of total homicide victims in this dataset, so its a simple matter to double the percentages to get an equivalent figure to the females when looking numerically rather than percentagewise.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_298904.pdf

If you look at the chart on page 29, you see that 50% of female victims are killed by spouses or exes, whereas the figure for male victims looks to be about 5%. Evening up for the greater number of male victims gives 50 to 10, or 5:1. Five times as many women are killed by their spouses or exes than men are in England and Wales.

Why people need to see these numbers to believe them boggles the mind.

I can't for the life of me understand what planet people live on who argue male victims of women come close to the damage level female victims suffer at the hands of men.

Yes, there are female murderers, abusers, sexual abusers, yes men get raped. But by far the perps are male and the victims female. And even with a lot of male victims of serious violence, the perps are male. Testosterone, culture or both, pick your poison, but men cause more damage to women than women come the least bit close to causing men.

Moved the goal post there. Are we talking about domestic violence in total or just murder?

Is this about abuse or murder?

I didn't move any goalposts, I addressed the cited Guardian news media report on a claim from a group with an agenda that 40% of domestic violence victims were male. If you want to argue domestic violence victimizes men and women in a 40-60 ratio you need to address severity of injuries, not just how many people got slapped. And I said as much in the post citing the different ratio of the most severe injury, death.

 

[Lorentz]

I didn't move any goalposts, I addressed the cited Guardian news media report on a claim from a group with an agenda that 40% of domestic violence victims were male. If you want to argue domestic violence victimizes men and women in a 40-60 ratio you need to address severity of injuries, not just how many people got slapped. And I said as much in the post citing the different ratio of the most severe injury, death.

Fair point.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The hilited says that you think women lie.

Women are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. It would be impossible for them to tell a lie. (I hear they don't poop, either. I'm not sure how that works.)

 

[luchog]

Moved the goal post there. Are we talking about domestic violence in total or just murder?

Is this about abuse or murder?

It was originally about domestic violence, not domestic fatality. The goal posts have been moved, since the DV rate is about 60-40/50-50 depending on the study.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I didn't move any goalposts, I addressed the cited Guardian news media report on a claim from a group with an agenda that 40% of domestic violence victims were male. If you want to argue domestic violence victimizes men and women in a 40-60 ratio you need to address severity of injuries, not just how many people got slapped. And I said as much in the post citing the different ratio of the most severe injury, death.

So you think they are wrong because they used statistics for domestic violence not murder and as such those are not the statistics for violence because murder is worse?

That sounds exactly like moving the goal posts. But I guess as long as you win the victim Olympics those who only come in second don't matter.

Eta:so as murder is worse than rape should we start ignoring that to focus on the more serious crimes?

 

[rustypouch]

Women are made of sugar and spice and everything nice. It would be impossible for them to tell a lie. (I hear they don't poop, either. I'm not sure how that works.)

And we all know that men can't be victims, and if a woman slaps a man around he must have done something to deserve it.