• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Schrodinger's Rapist: When is uncritical thought ok?

Jesus Haploid Christ, repeating the same strawman again won't magically make it true, you know? She's not saying she'll treat you like a rapist, she's saying she won't date you if you give the wrong signals.

That's the first time I've ever mentioned the fact that putting "Schrodinger" in front of a word apparently allows someone to call you whatever they want, without actually calling you anything.

Second she said you're acting more like a rapist if you do x,y and z. It's the same thing.

Third, you really need to brush up on your fallacies. She uses "Schrodinger" in front of rapist and now you magically believe because she's calling men a "Schrodinger's rapist" she's not calling you a rapist or treating you like one. It isn't a strawman. She's advocating treating every stranger you meet as a rapist of varying degrees.

Says the guy who's been arguing she shouldn't even call a rapist or rapist but something as vague and undefined as "jerk", or that if she even takes the precautions that actually work she's some kind of irrational fear monger, or trying to substitute lifetime for anual prevalence numbers because they're (obviously) smaller, etc. What would your argument above make _you_?

:dl:

Since when is "jerk" vague and undefined? You're joking right?


Actually, you may even have a point there. Let's see:

- you accused people of lying, yet it's you who repeatedly make up lies about the article, even if it's pointed out that the article doesn't say that

- you accuse people of not understanding maths, yet you repeatedly flunk a 4'th grade level arithmetic problem. And it's already generous to rate it even 4'th grade.

I'm going to ask you a simple question that everyone has avoided, see if you can answer it: What did she multiply by 10 to get 1 in 60?

I bet you can't answer it, and it's a very simple question.

I'm going to use my super powers and guess you will lie and squirm like a worm on a hook trying to deny the obvious.
 
First off: I think your behavior in both stories is admirable.

Thank you, but a lot of people wouldn't, especially in the case of stepping out in front of cars. They would find it overly aggressive. After all, nobody was immediate harm, and I caused distress to the driver. My wife at the time certainly saw my behavior as far worse than calling her a name.

In both cases somebody could easily make the case that I am more likely to rape. It's classic confirmation bias. In the first case I demonstrated my willingness, nay, eagerness to control a situation that wasn't mine to control. Anybody who would do that wouldn't think twice about dominating a woman if he felt it was his right, and we all know many men see women as property or objects of conquest. In the second case I demonstrated an uncontrollable temper, which is why I had to leave. What happens when I don't leave? Do I snap? Or maybe I demonstrated manipulative behavior and by walking away I was in some way trying to get her to submit to my will by withholding my attention and presence.

My point is that this is all just a parlor game. We can look at all sorts of behaviors outside of a sexual situation and invent our own probabilities of what that would mean in the bedroom. Of course, I'm talking about intimate partner rape, not stranger attacks. Professor Yaffle cited some data, but depending on which part you read, the person on the bus pushing a conversation may be more or less likely to be a rapist.

It's not a comfortable situation to realize that you've got little in the way of predictive power, but that's no excuse for adopting unsound policies. It's certainly an avenue for further research. I wrote another post where I went into detail about behavior I thought was reasonably predictive, and I gave some reasonable scientific basis for it. Unfortunately, the best predictor of unwanted sexual behavior involves engaging in sexual behavior with that person.

What makes it worse is that once you're at that point, it becomes even harder to look at the situation objectively. It's easy to dismiss a stranger as a potential rapist because he hit on you too hard on the bus. It's quite hard to think that your lover who got a little rough and aggressive while drunk the other night is giving you a big clue that one night he goes over the edge and forces himself on you. But the statistics say that your boyfriend is far, far more likely to rape you than any of those pushy strangers on the bus.
 
I'm going to ask you a simple question that everyone has avoided, see if you can answer it: What did she multiply by 10 to get 1 in 60?

I bet you can't answer it, and it's a very simple question.

Actually

1. she didn't multiply, she divided

2. the number divided was the percentage of women raped in the general population.

And not only nobody avoided it this far, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly.

I'm going to use my super powers and guess you will lie and squirm like a worm on a hook trying to deny the obvious.

Super-powers failed, obviously.
 
Mine is Bayes'. I've just expanded the P(B) in the denominator. See here.



I know how to apply Bayes' rule. In this case it requires one to have sources for estimates of P(A) (which we have), P(B|A) and P(B|~A) (which we don't). What are your estimates for the latter two probabilities and where did you get them from?

And again: no it doesn't. Just because you can expand something into a sum, doesn't mean it's a valid objection that basically "you may know the sum, but not the individual terms." As long as all that's required by that division is the sum, that's all that matters.
 
Note sure how reliable they are, but I've been looking for sources for behaviours which can be used to identify rapists. Here are two such lists:

http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/Rapists



http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

Well, that's helpful. Thanks. Now let's look at those and see how far the author of the article was off the mark:

Danger signs

1) Insensitivity for others/emphasis on self - Does this person put his wants above the needs, feelings or well being of others? Is getting his way more important to him than other people's welfare? Often this can go beyond mere selfishness and border nearly on an "assumed divine right." Often these people will justify a particularly vicious action with a flip comment like, "Hey, that's how the game is played." Such a person has no understanding that he must co-exist with others. Because he simply exists he thinks the world "owes" him whatever he wants. A common tactic of such a person it to make you feel bad for not doing what he wants.

I'd think that -- although not deterministically conclusive -- someone who is basically a jerk to a stranger on the bus (to use 3body's "jerk" term) has already fit this criterion. So it would seem to me like she at least got one criterion right, after all.

2) Belittling behavior or attitudes towards others - Does this person habitually make nasty, belittling or degrading comments about others – especially under the guise of joking? Does this person think he is better than others? Does he look down on others? A nouveau riche aristocrat? Is he a racist? A person who thinks that race or social position makes him superior can also assume gender does too. When you think you are superior, an assumed right to ‘take’ what you want often follows.

Just look around in this thread. We've even had comments of the type of "ask a man to explain it to you" (though now it's been thankfully moved by a moderator.) It's not that hard to see that at least some people do think women are in some way inferior or incapable of taking their own choices or knowing what they really want.

But at any rate, someone who thinks he can override her choices or that it's ok to make her uncomfortable, even when it comes to little things, has to some extent proven that he puts himself and his needs above hers. To exactly what extent, remains to be proven, but we're talking something that nevertheless is recognized as a potential warning sign.

3) Negating behavior or comments - Closely related to 1 and 2. Does he try to tell you what you are feeling or thinking? Or worse, tell you what you are not? Comments like "you don’t really mean that" are serious indicators of someone trying to negate you. A person who negates others is trying to take away the other person’s thoughts, feelings and needs and attempting to project his wants onto that person. The most obvious example of this is "Well even though she said ‘no’, she really meant ‘yes’".

Here we basically have it refined to exactly what the author was talking about. Someone who thinks they can override someone's choices -- and note that here it's talking about behaviour too, not just telling her explicitly "you don't mean that" -- has just rung this warning bell.

And, at any rate, it's exactly reflected in one of the author's bolded criteria: "If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem."

4) Hostile and/or threatening language - What words does a person use? Choice of words convey subconscious assumptions about a particular topic. For example a man who generically refers to women as "bitches" does not have good assumptions about females (or much respect). It is all too easy to dismiss this behavior as just "blowing off steam." But if it is a constant behavior, it goes far beyond that. Someone who habitually uses violent or threatening language should be carefully watched for possible escalation. It’s on his mind already. It’s a uncomfortably short step from ‘thinking about’ to ‘doing’.

Is not explicitly addressed in the article, except maybe tangentially.

5) Bullying - This behavior is especially dangerous. Does this person use overt or subtle threats to get his way? A bully uses the threat of violence more than actual violence. Most often bullies are not willing to risk conflict with someone who can hurt them (an alpha male), and will instead chose to intimidate someone he considers weaker and safer. Someone who is bullying over other matters can easily turn to bullying you regarding sex.

While not explicitly mentioned as such, a lot of the behaviours she describes as negatives can be actually done intentionally as basically intimidation attempts. She doesn't know which is which, but I think she has a right to be cautious if someone's behaviour is strangely all that would take to make her feel extra vulnerable.

6) Excessive anger - How easy does this person anger? Is he a "Short Fuse"? Does he boil over at the slightest problem? This is an indication of chronic anger. A person who explodes over a minor issue is like a full pot boiling over on the stove. It’s not that the issue is all that important, but that he has so much anger already, any more causes him to explode. Often people with chronic anger look for targets to vent their anger at. This could manifest as physical fights, abuse, or rape.

IIRC not explicitly addressed in the article.

7) Brooding/ revenge - Does this person hang onto his anger long after the situation is over? Will he still be stewing over something while everyone else has moved onto other things? Will he become anti-social and glare at the source of his anger from across the room? Will he insist on taking revenge for real or imagined slights? Both indicate a petty and obsessive personality. A brooder fixates on something and then works himself into a frenzy over it. A person who seeks revenge "has to win" and is willing to take it to extremes. Refusing such a person’s sexual advances can turn this tendency towards you.

8) Obsession – This is a close cousin to number seven. It is a major factor with acquaintance rapes. This is the person who won’t leave you alone. He insists on ‘hitting on you’ long after you have told him no. He is always trying establish forced intimacy (see ‘bonding process’ below). Such obsessions easily turn into anger when his advances are rejected. One day he shows up in a fringe area, drunk and attacks.

Basically here 7 is a possible manifestation of 8, and 8 is basically illustrated in her obsessive emailer example.

9) Extreme mood swings - Beware someone who can go from wildly happy to deeply wounded at a moment's notice. This sort of personality can feel justified to commit an unlimited amount of violence and damage, because you "hurt his feelings." This is a common pattern among those with chronic anger about life.

10) Physical tantrums - How does this person get angry? Especially when denied "getting his way". Beware of a person who regularly physically assaults his environment i.e. hitting walls, kicking things etc. It is only a short step from striking a car to attacking you.

11) Jock or gorilla mentality - This mentality promotes both acceptance and encouragement for the use of violence. It is especially common among participants of contact sports. What is most insidious about this mentality is the "jock" receives, not only positive reinforcement, but out-and-out applause for being aggressive and violent. This can easily lead to a failure to differentiate between the playing field and real life. Mike Tyson’s comment is a prime example: "Nobody ever objected before."

12) A mean drunk - Nearly all rape and abuse cases involve alcohol. Watch what surfaces when someone is intoxicated. It shows what is always lurking underneath. Do not put yourself into a situation where you would deal with such a person while he is intoxicated. Most importantly, don't allow your facilities to be diminished by alcohol or drugs in this person's presence.

13) Alcohol or drug abuse - To begin with drug and alcohol addiction can in be traced back to selfishness and a refusal to change one’s world view. Alcohol and drugs are not the cause of bad behavior, rather they are used as an excuse! Often the attacker intentionally became intoxicated to ignore the social restrictions and inhibitions regarding violence.

While there are others, these behaviors are serious indicators of a potential rapist. This short list should acquaint you with the basics. Not all men are rapists, but a person like this has a higher probability than others. You not only find these traits among rapists and abusers, but also professional criminals. Philosophically there is little difference between such, they are all selfish. Most often it is just a matter of degrees, style and choice of victims.

9 to 13 are not explicitly addressed in the article.

So basically it seems to me strange that so many people would have it so hard to believe that there's any possible rationality in her criteria, when those in the article are a direct match to half the recognized list of danger signs you quoted. She even left out the cases when a guy is directly aggressive or whatnot.
 
It's not only logically sound, but basically you could even apply Bayes' Theorem to it if you were actually calculating probabilities. Watch:

A = "a guy is a rapist"
B = "a guy overrides the woman's personal choices"

P(A) = is the probability of a guy being a rapist in the general population, i.e., that 1 / 60 in her estimation, but actually higher in actual studies

P(B) is the percentage of guys in the total population who override a woman's personal choices. Obviously this is less than 1

P(B|A), i.e., the conditional probability of B given A is 1, since you can't possibly be a rapist without overriding a partner's personal choice at least once. You know, the choice to not have sex at that time.

And Bayes' Theorem says:

P(A|B) = P(A) x P(B|A) / P(B)

Given that P(B|A) is 1 and P(B) is less than 1, this means that P(A|B) > P(A).

In plain English: "The probability of a guy you observed overriding a woman's choices to be a rapist, is greater than the probability of being a rapist in the total population."

So, yes, her risk estimation is not only it's logically sound, it's provably _mathematically_ sound.

So I assume she could also use
B = "a guy is a member of a certain race"
as well, correct? That would be mathematically sound as well, correct?
 
Note sure how reliable they are, but I've been looking for sources for behaviours which can be used to identify rapists. Here are two such lists:

The first link seems to be dealing more with attack-style rapists and not so much with the non-violent, intimate partner rapes that make up the majority. There seems to be some good stuff, but they do say:

It is very difficult to predict who may or may not be a potential rapist because rapists have many [personality type]s, and use many different methods. However, certain behavioral characteristics have been observed in some rapists. These should be used cautiously as "warning signs", since non-rapists and other innocent people may also exhibit similar behaviours:

The second link doesn't provide any indication that the information is science based or even based on expert opinion. The male author is allegedly an expert on hand-to-hand combat. It says, "his main skill, however, is to find the easiest and best way to handle violent situations." The female author worked as an editor. Neither has any training in the field.

Basically, the second article is little more than an elaboration of the bullet points of the first article. In fact, each bullet point appears in the same order in both articles except that the second article adds "Bullying" in the middle. Other than that they are essentially the same thing in the same order using very similar language. If I had to guess I would say the second article was based on the first.

Overall, what they describe sounds reasonable. Of course, it takes a lot more than just a brief encounter with a stranger to detect, and even then, as they say, it can be "very difficult" to predict. And as I have said several times, it needs to be an ongoing process of evaluation, and it can be very difficult to admit to the signs when there's an emotional attachment.
 
And again: no it doesn't. Just because you can expand something into a sum, doesn't mean it's a valid objection that basically "you may know the sum, but not the individual terms." As long as all that's required by that division is the sum, that's all that matters.

Actually we both made an error. Earlier I stated that P(B) becomes 1 when B is uncorrelated with A. This is both sloppy and incorrect. When B is independent of (and so uncorreleated with) A, P(B) = P(B|A), so that

P(A|B) = P(A).

I.e. Event B provides no information which can increase or decrease the probability of A being true.

Your error was assuming that because P(B) < 1, this makes P(A|B) > P(A).

ETA: Although I see you defined B such that P(B|A) = 1.

So, where is the evidence that rapists are more likely to start unwanted conversations with people than non-rapists?
 
Last edited:
Actually

1. she didn't multiply, she divided

Actually no she didn't, she multiplied two unrelated ratios. Nice squirm.

2. the number divided was the percentage of women raped in the general population.

A lie or you just don't have any clue about math. The percentage of women raped dived by 10 is {16.66%/ 10= 1.666%} or 1.66% of women raped. Not 1 in 60 men are rapists.


Super-powers failed, obviously.

Not quite, you lied and squirmed. (That's 2 in 2 or 100% FYI) You're very predictable, perhaps that's why you don't mind profiling :D
 
The first link seems to be dealing more with attack-style rapists and not so much with the non-violent, intimate partner rapes that make up the majority. There seems to be some good stuff, but they do say:



The second link doesn't provide any indication that the information is science based or even based on expert opinion. The male author is allegedly an expert on hand-to-hand combat. It says, "his main skill, however, is to find the easiest and best way to handle violent situations." The female author worked as an editor. Neither has any training in the field.

Basically, the second article is little more than an elaboration of the bullet points of the first article. In fact, each bullet point appears in the same order in both articles except that the second article adds "Bullying" in the middle. Other than that they are essentially the same thing in the same order using very similar language. If I had to guess I would say the second article was based on the first.

Overall, what they describe sounds reasonable. Of course, it takes a lot more than just a brief encounter with a stranger to detect, and even then, as they say, it can be "very difficult" to predict. And as I have said several times, it needs to be an ongoing process of evaluation, and it can be very difficult to admit to the signs when there's an emotional attachment.

^This

The predictors listed are probably very good over a period of time. That period of time is much longer than simple interaction on a bus or even a date.

It's pretty obvious what the target audience is, and given the stats it's the appropriate audience to speak to.

You'll also notice the deliberate attempt here to point out this shouldn't be used to accuse innocent people of rape or being rapists. The author in question suggests this, then goes on to do it anyways.
 
The word 'rape' seems to be extremely polarizing. Just the existence of that word in the article seems to have blinded a lot of people to the fact that it is badly thought out and poorly written.

Like UncaYimmy, 3BodyProblem and SatanicSheep, I too understand where the authoress is coming from, but the execution is definitely poor.

Yes, that's the basic gist of it. I'd go so far as to say the author has good intentions, but in writing her guide for men on approaching strange women she seems to have missed her target audience-men and instead used the inflammatory language to get the rally cries from women.

I can be as sincere as I want writing a "How to understand men; A woman's guide to dating" and if I start throwing around the word **** or bitch too willy nilly I'm going to lose my target audience. No matter how much I try and fail to rationalize it.

Welcome to the forum Dipayan.
 
So I assume she could also use
B = "a guy is a member of a certain race"
as well, correct? That would be mathematically sound as well, correct?

I don't know what I'm talking about and have no understanding of Beysian Whatevers, and I still think it is safe to say you have misunderstood.

For the original example, B was something that would apply to all of A. Because of this it was useful even without knowing the exact percentages of other factors. In your example, we would need to know the percentages involved.

Or I could be totally wrong.

ETA: But I don't see any reason that race couldn't be factored into this kind of formula under the proper conditions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if pursuasion was her intent she radically underestimated male sensitivity. I'm surprised at how easily feelings were hurt.

Of course the article was more of a venting of frustration than anything. The complaint about tone and civility strikes me as quite similar in construction to theist whining over the mean, nasty New Atheists. Sometimes it's necessary to just call ******** ********.

Which is why I took no offense. That article wasn't directed at me. It was directed at the endless dirtballs, scumbags, douche-knozzles, and, at worst, sexual assailants that women have to deal with on a dialy basis in a way that few, if any, hetero-sexual men ever encounter.

If you read that article and come away thinking you're being called a rapist, you're either insecure on an astonishing level or really bad at reading.
 
Let me see if I can settle this. What she wrote was:
[assuming one in six women has been raped]if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty.

What I think she was saying was this:

Given Some Population of Women
10,000

Number of Women Raped
1,666 (one in six)

Maximum Number of Rapists
1,666

This is wrong because one woman can be raped by multiple people multiple times. We cannot deduce a maximum number of rapists based on the one in six number for rape victims. The only number we know is the minimum number of rapists, which is 1.

She seemed to assume (incorrectly) that each woman raped was raped only once by one person, and that each rapist only raped one person. That would give us 1,666 unique rapists to match the 1,666 unique rape victims. If we further assume that the population of women is the same as the population of men, then one in six men is a rapist.

Her statement then asks to consider 10 rapes per rapist. The implication is that each rapist rapes exactly 10 different women and that each woman is still raped only once (faulty assumptions). We'd still have 1,666 rapes, only now we'd have 166 rapists. Again, assuming the same population of men, then 1 in 60 men would be a rapist.

The math is sound, but the assumptions are not. You can't get to the number of rapists by looking the unique count of rape victims. Period.
 
Actually no she didn't, she multiplied two unrelated ratios. Nice squirm.



A lie or you just don't have any clue about math. The percentage of women raped dived by 10 is {16.66%/ 10= 1.666%} or 1.66% of women raped. Not 1 in 60 men are rapists.




Not quite, you lied and squirmed. (That's 2 in 2 or 100% FYI) You're very predictable, perhaps that's why you don't mind profiling :D

Dude, seriously... your inability to understand elementary arithmetic even after several people explained it, doesn't make me a liar, it just makes you innumerate.

Try this:

X = 1/6 raped_women/total_women

a = 1/1 total_women/total_men
(This is actually true within the precision she uses, which is to say, rounding to the nearest. She's not using 17.1% rape attempts either, she rounds it to 1/6.)

b = 10 raped_women/rapist

If you multiply and pay attention to the units, a*X = 1/6 raped_women/total_men, but that still doesn't tell us how many rapists there are. Then we divide by B. Again, pay attention to the units. The raped_women variable is once above and once below the fraction line, and gets taken out. And you're only then left with rapists/total_men. With 1/60 rapists/total_men, to be precise.

And frankly, even without the maths part, again, even the notion that you need to believe 1/6 of X are Y to believe that 1/60 of X are Y is freaking absurd for any definition of X and Y. You can't simultaneously believe, say, that 1.6% of women are redheads _and_ that 16% of women are redheads, much less require the latter to believe the former. They're simply mutually exclusive, for crying out lout. Or you can't simultaneously believe that 1.6% of chicken in my farmer example are roosters _and_ simultaneously 16% are roosters, much less require the latter to believe the former. Ditto for rapists.

It's not even a matter of maths, it's a matter of it making no freaking sense to believe that for the exact same ratio two vastly different numbers would both be the result.
 
Last edited:
Let me see if I can settle this. What she wrote was:
[assuming one in six women has been raped]if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty.

What I think she was saying was this:

Given Some Population of Women
10,000

Number of Women Raped
1,666 (one in six)

Maximum Number of Rapists
1,666

This is wrong because one woman can be raped by multiple people multiple times. We cannot deduce a maximum number of rapists based on the one in six number for rape victims. The only number we know is the minimum number of rapists, which is 1.

She seemed to assume (incorrectly) that each woman raped was raped only once by one person, and that each rapist only raped one person. That would give us 1,666 unique rapists to match the 1,666 unique rape victims. If we further assume that the population of women is the same as the population of men, then one in six men is a rapist.

Her statement then asks to consider 10 rapes per rapist. The implication is that each rapist rapes exactly 10 different women and that each woman is still raped only once (faulty assumptions). We'd still have 1,666 rapes, only now we'd have 166 rapists. Again, assuming the same population of men, then 1 in 60 men would be a rapist.

The math is sound, but the assumptions are not. You can't get to the number of rapists by looking the unique count of rape victims. Period.

Well, mostly correct, but technically she never even mentions the possibility of it being 1 rape per rapist. I think the implied assumption is more like it's going to be 1666/X, whatever X may be. She never actually makes the case even in passing or as a conditional that X would or even could be 1.
 
Let me see if I can settle this. What she wrote was:
[assuming one in six women has been raped]if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty.

[...]

The math is sound, but the assumptions are not. You can't get to the number of rapists by looking the unique count of rape victims. Period.

It's a sloppy, quick number and very much wrong, but all assumptions are made in favor of the contrary position: that a smaller percentage of men are sexual assailants.

If more than one man rapes one woman, then the concentration of rapists would be higher in relation to the number of victims. And obviously a 10 rape average is ridiculously high. You are correct that it assumes multiple victims.

We do not know the minimum number of rapists because, theoretically, 1 rapist could commit all 1,666 rapes in your example. And, conversely, every man in that town could be a rapist, they just go after the same 1,666 women, meaning the ration of abused women would be 1 in 6 and the ration of male rapists would be 1 in 1.

If all assumptions are made against the notion that there are a bunch of rapists in society and we still arrive at the conclusion that there are a bunch of rapists in society, the point stands.

It's not a work of art, nor a particularly convincing bit of science. It does, however, more than establish the case she's making: that guys stop doing creepy stuff to scare women.
 
Last edited:
Well, mostly correct, but technically she never even mentions the possibility of it being 1 rape per rapist. I think the implied assumption is more like it's going to be 1666/X, whatever X may be. She never actually makes the case even in passing or as a conditional that X would or even could be 1.

I had to read that five times to figure out what you are trying to say. I never said she said it was 1 rape per man, so it makes no sense to tell me that she didn't say something I never said she said. Can you see how that might be confusing?

I said she seemed to be saying that given N rapes in Y population, the maximum number of rapists would be equal to N. That's the only way I can see her subsequent math making any sense. I gave my derivation about all the assumptions she made to get to the 1 in 60 number.
 
She seemed to assume (incorrectly) that each woman raped was raped only once by one person, and that each rapist only raped one person.

I didn't see either part of that in the article. Multiple rapes against the same woman don't change the ratio of one in six because that's not ever referred to as "number of rapes" but of "nuber of people who have been raped" unless I missed something. As for the second part, she never says that each rapist raped one person. She assumes that each rapist rapes multiple people, an assumption that is both logically sound and is in favor of men in general. She picks ten arbitrarily and doesn't claim otherwise.
 
I had to read that five times to figure out what you are trying to say. I never said she said it was 1 rape per man, so it makes no sense to tell me that she didn't say something I never said she said. Can you see how that might be confusing?

I said she seemed to be saying that given N rapes in Y population, the maximum number of rapists would be equal to N. That's the only way I can see her subsequent math making any sense. I gave my derivation about all the assumptions she made to get to the 1 in 60 number.

I'm trying to say that she never names a maximum. Sure, it's clear to you or me what would happen if that coefficient were any other number than 10, a value of 1 included. But she doesn't say it. And that's IMHO an important distinction.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom