Scott Mayers

I don't. I was showing HOW you could possibly have an alternate statistic that invalidates the meaning taken out of that statistic for women. If a separate poll CAN alter the meaning of a distinct poll, EVEN IF IT WERE A SINCERE STAT, this PROVES that the logic of interpreting anything of that statistic is at best INCOMPLETE. It has no validity to transfer any claim of abuse AS certain abuse without EVIDENCE. The claim of abuse is NOT 'evidence' of abuse.

Here's an example of how you might be 'fairer': Do the same statistic with the same number of men in the same style as for the women and ask how many men assert they've been abused. Also with each, the sex of the offending abuser should be clarified. It might be the case that 2/3 of men who claim to be abused are also afraid to come forward! Then it would imply that with the very identical statistic, it lacks any suggestive power to favor looking at women DISTINCTLY as the prime victim in abuses.

I clearly explained but you don't seem to follow. A poll is a weak form of HEARSAY 'evidence'. You might use it to determine people's OPINIONS if the kinds of polls are relatively simple. For instance, I may ask how many people will do a survey (as a poll) when we cold call them? That number discovered can be valid because it is not based on what anyone actually asserts, confirms, or denies other than whether they accept to do the survey. A question regarding whether one has experienced X is NOT such because it has too many ways for it to be false. The ONLY function for those asking such questions as a poll is to CONFIRM what the sponsoring poll WANTS for political purposes. As to the particular claim about the 2/3, I am asserting that on a logical basis alone you cannot USE any poll as valid evidence just as you cannot use 'hearsay' validly in court. It's worse when the particular KIND of question involves one answering self-reflective ones that place themselves in a good light. It's anonymous and prevents anyone from validating whether anyone is truthful or not regardless of how the survey could be done. It's not ignoring statistics. The claimed statistic by the poll-takers can be 'true' while the content it is asking about is irrelevant. The FACT that people are treating the poll as though it were 'scientifically valid' is FAULTY and not in the least scientific nor logically sound for these reasons and more. IF you still think this kind of thinking is rational, I challenge anyone to come forward and tell their own personal story about their personal experiences with Trudeau if they've got one. I'm sure given he asserts a blind trust for anyone female merely claiming some abuse that he'd have to step down upon the accusation or risk being a hypocrite!. It is a dangerous precedent to TRANSFER the 2/3 claim of victimhood INTO A FACT How am I the one burdened to disprove a claim like this? Do I own the burden to disprove one's religious claims too?

@ Betsy: LOL: if you tell me you're God....I'll not only deny you.....I'll also say you need psychiatric help! That, only shows, you're not getting the rational argument given in this thread. It's simply sailing over your head. Kindly do your homework, and read all my posts, starting with the OP. So, you've just proven that you are an "atheist"! I assert that I'm God in front of everyone witnessing and yet you DENY me. Shame! Please prove that I'm NOT God!

Should the textbooks also include mentioning ALL religion's theories about origins? Tell me, should the textbook reserve a chapter on those who believe Aliens from other planets came here and originally planted humans here? What about Buddha? What about each and every theory by each and every claim believed true about origins?

?? I never claimed to ignore the statistic but to dispute it outright as even a legitimate measure of anything. It is being USED to con others into a belief of an almost universal victimization of women (by men) with actual POWER to change laws that discriminate against men and for women without justice nor validity. 'Evidence' for the absurdity of this is a logical one, not an empirical one. I don't have any burden to DISPROVE what is not even logically sound 'empirical evidence'. Question: Do you believe that women should be automatically believed in law to any claim made against any man merely for claiming it? Question: Do you believe that women making such claims via media should require having any actual proof when the act AUTOMATICALLY CONVICTS the accused via destroying one's reputation regardless of its truth? Question: Does ANY claim have an automatic requirement to be believed because the defined act itself, IF TRUE, is horrifying? Question: If one is furthermore 'anonymous', should their confirmation of abuse be trusted as representing the reality?

Thank you. I'm just getting back and only now discover that others here are not merely siding with the status quo. I'm being accused of being 'unclear' and get asked (as I've often been) to be more succinct. Unfortunately only MORE words seem to be called for given some people can't seem to get the lack of logic on this issue.

It depends. The HARM and its degree is what actually matters. Petty concerns of the nature that are used to remove significant politicians are actually more harmful than one's breasts being touched. I think most of us males know that getting kicked in the balls is more harmful. Does a male who's been kicked in the balls become permanently damaged psychologically for the rest of their lives? If a woman politician was discovered to have done this to some boy when she was in high school enough to justify earning a destroyed reputation, job, and possible jail time?

Five sisters! Two mothers!

No, the laws are being used to protect SOME subset of humans to human rights on the assumption that that whole class is harmed and another whole class is the owner of the harm. I completely disagree that abuse is a male-owned problem. I also disagree that it is sound to pose statistics based upon hearsay. If I did a poll to ask whether people feel they are victims of assault, how do you assert the validity of such a claim? What kind of person volunteers to the survey? Would an abuser themselves assert they were abusers or would they feel and report themselves as 'victims'?

Hmmm? How does someone 'lie' where they haven't even reported? I don't associate assaults with sex at all. They are EQUALLY distributed on the sexes. Individuals use methods that just work best for them best.

Of the males that I have known with the tendency to behave this way (rape, assault, harm), it has been about 'power' distinctions. They use their power to harm because they CAN use it and use it most specifically in direct ways....often without foresight or fore-planning. But you are right that physical size is NOT the only way this occurs. It occurs in deceptive ways where one is relatively weaker in SOME way. Thus, where women are more often the smaller of the partner's, their KINDS of abuse are INDIRECT and hidden. It doesn't make them less violent either, just hard to detect. (Poison is usually more associated with women but is also more about those who are passive regardless of sex) I've known women who do very WICKED things that top what most males do. Also, the males that DO abuse directly based on physical power do so with naivete, not with clever intellect or the planning, as I mentioned. I cannot say this of the women I have in mind.

But that is the problem. When one is anonymous and behind a poll, they are less likely to feel risk of lying either. Are not trolls anonymity online a powerful reason why many of them choose to be more unreasonable in some way? We don't hear HOW the stats are derived. Often, they are derived by those INTERESTED in getting an effective poll that favors some agenda. Politicians rely on lying about polls too. I mean, Trump DID have more people on his inauguration than the women's march the next day, .....right!!!! (yes, I'm joking)

We are on the same page then. It is not about sex though. It is about 'power' differences. Violent forms of abuses are usually based more directly from the power distinctions based on size/strength differences. Imagine if instead of making laws that favor assumptions about whether men or women are more or less violent that they just make laws that charge those who BEHAVE with abuses based on their type of power as individuals? If I am female and am stronger than my male (or female) partner, then I should not be permitted to use physical dominance to overrule the rights of the relatively weaker partner.

The bigger part of the problem is that women prefer men that are giants relative to their own size and men to prefer petite women. If you want to stop this, (if sincere), and you BELIEVE that it is about men's NATURE, then you have to help evolution along by STOP picking partners that are of drastic different physical qualities. In time, if men and women picked those of their own physical sizes, the abuses based on physical differences would prove to be EVENLY distributed among men and women. On your suggestions, I certainly don't do ANY of those things. Is it because I'm somehow NOT MALE enough? 1. I've never put anything in anyone's drink and PREFER only social drinking. But get this: I've been drugged twice (that I'm at least aware of).....BY WOMEN!!! As to drinking though, why is there a bias only for women? if the woman was the one offering the alcohol, would she be liable for the male (or other partner, say, if female)? Are you confirming that ONLY females are so MEEK AND WEAK that they cannot be self-controlling adults who can control whether they can or cannot drink? 2. I don't bother any stranger usually. You are also being sexist here. If men are not permitted to approach women but the opposite is alright, are you not PROVING that this is the only means by which women have a special privilege of POWER? That is, if women are the ones only favoring men they themselves approach, they it is THEY who actually CHOOSE the kinds of men they end up with. Remember, it is domestic abuses that are most paramount in abuse cases. This means these are couples who CHOOSE to be together at some prior point in time. So the women are the ones who are doing the selecting. CURE: women should also NOT be the ones to approach men given they pick those who tend to abuse them later on!! 3. I'll try not to forget that one!!?? It looks like all the others are on the similar trend. I'm already in agreement with these in general. But you're not recognizing that the problems are not about the sex but about the individuals with dominance over other individuals only.

LOL?! No, of course not. Pretend you have ten children that have indetermined sex. All you know might know is that four of them are unusually larger then the rest. If I further assert that of this family three of them are physically abusive, would you not gamble that the physical abusers likely are one of the four, even without knowing their sex? You then might learn that three of these larger ones are male and one is female. Would you hold that this proves that the cause of violence is due to the males OR due to the larger children without concern of their sex?

I was being facetious to make a point. I'm saying that you cannot logically interpret a statistic claiming an ABSENCE of information with ANY PRECISION. Like I mentioned to Michael as an example, it is like if I said God exists. But the reason why the courts can't prove this is because 2/3 of the witnesses are afraid to admit they've seen him in court. (They just do so safely on the phone when asked in a survey.)

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

OR, men are by default NOT believed regardless of 2/3 of them asserting their innocence of abuse? I've seen abuses. And where I once thought men were the primary guilty party, I have learned that women equally play a role in HOW the abuses occur in those relationships. Their forms of abuse are often less easy to be noticed but are often MORE harmful, just as the 'white collar' criminals have a better capacity to harm because they don't use direct forms of violence that can be exposed. Because women HAPPEN to be physically weaker in most of these relationships, perhaps a lesson might be learned: STOP picking males who are more physically dominant to be with in the first place. This is not the case because women are PICKING the men based on the same stereotypes based on physical differences. BUT note that physical dominance, NOT male dominance, is the distinguishing difference of the physical abusers in the relationship. Often there is a complementary abuse occurring. The passive aggression of the submissive partner in the relationship makes those kinds of partners use subtle and indirect forms of abuse that are hard to notice. This is NOT about women, but about the relative non-physically stronger partner.

Please...am I using too big of words? I don't use Twitter for a reason. Like I mentioned above, my thread is actually about HOW people present an argument using faulty statistics. If you're in the wiser space, tell me how the claim of 2/3 of women as a statistic is a VALID statement. That's like saying God exists but 2/3 of the people are afraid to admit seeing him.

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

Excuse me? I hold an "innocent-until-proven-guilty" stance only. The present assault on men today is to presume anything a woman CHARGES is to be BELIEVED without requiring doubt simply because the thought that "IF IT WERE TRUE" the crime would be horrible! This is ignorant to an extreme and is precisely suggesting that women as a class are default to be 'superior' in their moral integrity while men are default 'inferior'. Men AND women get abused equally because both CAUSE the social climate. "Patriarchy" is supported in sync with "Matriarchy". Women OWN the causes of men AND women who abuse just as Men OWN them in equal measure. The present society is falsely creating an image of women as requiring a SPECIAL favor in Nature, which makes it a form of Female Supremacy. If men have somehow benefited, I'd like to hear how and why only men represent the ACTUAL majority (not merely a made up 'feeling' of what is true) of the prison population.

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

Then you can equally assert that most men, perhaps 66.739583049 % of men, are abused by women and simply are too ashamed to report it. This kind of thinking is insulting and ignorant. You respond to 'why women don't report' NOT to the FACT that 2/3 is actually a true statistic. The one claiming the stats is required the burden to prove this true with actual convictions only.

If we are to treat those in authority, like the very doctor in question being charged, to be appropriate in HOW they behave in such power, then she is being most hypocritical to her POWER in expending a view on media to overstate what she views that is BEYOND her capacity to judge even on a trivial basis. The guy pleaded 'no contest' and 'guilty' for which he did NOT defend himself other than to the incomplete statement he made to the judge and to which we were also denied hearing all he had to say based on her further power to opt to dismiss reading it in whole. She has illegitimate rational decision-making rights to speak beyond the evidence, period. No evidence FROM the defendant himself was admitted....only the victims and the accused prior declaration of guilt by no contest. Nothing should be said other than to her sentence. Anything she said there is of a personal nature only.