Sex Statistics...

[Scott Mayers]

14 minutes ago, Goddess said:

But you reject the findings of this study/poll.  Why would you accept the findings of a similar study/poll done in the same way for men?

 

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. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

58 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

How am I the one burdened to disprove a claim like this? Do I own the burden to disprove one's religious claims too?

You are basically claiming all polls to be suspect if not wrong.  It's quite a striking claim, and as ever you will be expected to defend it.

[Goddess]

24 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The claim of abuse is NOT 'evidence' of abuse. 

Ya, I get that.

Other than you, I don't think there's too many people who expect that a study/poll should or does encompass the same kind of "evidence" as what's given at a legal trial.

[Scott Mayers]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You are basically claiming all polls to be suspect if not wrong.  It's quite a striking claim, and as ever you will be expected to defend it.

I gave an example of a 'valid' form (the one testing to see who responds to surveys as an example). I am also not asserting stats have universal invalidity. The invalidity is in using the stats within political institutions as 'valid and relevant evidence' to make laws or pass legal judgments. 

You are basically supporting a 'guilty UNTIL proven innocence' for men when women make charges alone as though you don't think they are capable of lying, manipulating, or abusing. By implicit neglect of men, you support a bias based upon that statistic. Since many, like the judge in the case I mentioned, treat the statistic AS convictions, this threatens ALL people in our democracy. 

And if this keeps going, I assure you that it is going to backfire. I gave you the example of one accusing Justin Trudeau of such a potential crime (even if potentially untrue). Should this occur, would you expect it appropriate that he step down .....especially if he knows it to be untrue? If you were accused of this, would YOU voluntarily accept a pre-sentenced conviction that you require appeal to AFTER time spent in jail? 

[Scott Mayers]

12 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ya, I get that.

Other than you, I don't think there's too many people who expect that a study/poll should or does encompass the same kind of "evidence" as what's given at a legal trial.

That is not true though. People ARE accepting our present law makers to make gender-based laws that discriminate BASED on this propaganda. It took me a lot here just to get you guys (with reasonable aptitudes) to agree in some of these principles. But the vast majority of society do NOT care to even think beyond their emotions and so when the kind of polling that gets used to PERSUADE, it has strong power.

And I'm sure you agree that outside of the political sphere, the media's reporting of the ACCUSATIONS that is leading into a cascade of claims proves the danger because the accusation alone is pressuring anyone associated with these people to REQUIRE abandoning them without fairness. ...like one losing their job.....like one stepping down of their authority. These prove that there is FEAR of people speaking out for the mere consequences of being granted the same conviction due to association alone.

[Goddess]

30 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I am also not asserting stats have universal invalidity. The invalidity is in using the stats within political institutions as 'valid and relevant evidence' to make laws or pass legal judgments. 

Ahhh, okay.  Finally you get to your point.  You don't like the judge quoting this study in her sentencing because you don't trust the results of the study/poll.

I think it's sort of hair-splitting, because I don't believe her sentence was based on this poll.  I think  it was based on the evidence presented to her in the courtroom.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Goddess

[Scott Mayers]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Ahhh, okay.  Finally you get to your point.  You don't like the judge quoting this study in her sentencing because you don't trust the results of the study/poll.

I think it's sort of hair-splitting, because I don't believe her sentence was based on this poll.  I think  it was based on the evidence presented to her in the courtroom.

My thread is NOT about the judge specifically. It is just an example of the use and abuse of her position of power (funny how women are considered powerless?) to dictate a statistic as her own belief of reality. It was a media-focused rhetorical speech meant to target the audience with affect. She admitted as such when she quoted that she wasn't intending anything she was about to say as not 'precedence'. But she was setting the 'precedence' in the mind of the listeners who elect her and others like her in power. 

Today's movements on identity issues are Witch Hunts. And the use of these statistics are just one tool. There are other statistical types of abuses too being used this way. My thread is about a fallacy of reasoning with statistics in the present cultural phenomena of favoring women specially as innocent bystanders to abuse. 

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

I gave an example of a 'valid' form (the one testing to see who responds to surveys as an example). I am also not asserting stats have universal invalidity. The invalidity is in using the stats within political institutions as 'valid and relevant evidence' to make laws or pass legal judgments. 

"Using the stats .... as 'valid'"  Well, yes.  If these stats are/were valid then they obviously can be used.  But the discussion of the stats in question has not started yet, or hadn't at the point where I commented on your process here.  And ....

 

17 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

You are basically supporting a ...

I am NOT supporting/unsupporting anything by simply calling our YOUR obligation to back up your assertions.  Until you do so, we can't start to have a conversation about why you believe your assertions, or why I should.  My statement has NOTHING to do with whether these stats are valid/invalid, it is a simply statement of the rules of discussion understood widely, and in fact are in the rules of this very forum.  

[Scott Mayers]

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Using the stats .... as 'valid'"  Well, yes.  If these stats are/were valid then they obviously can be used.  But the discussion of the stats in question has not started yet, or hadn't at the point where I commented on your process here.  And ....

 

I am NOT supporting/unsupporting anything by simply calling our YOUR obligation to back up your assertions.  Until you do so, we can't start to have a conversation about why you believe your assertions, or why I should.  My statement has NOTHING to do with whether these stats are valid/invalid, it is a simply statement of the rules of discussion understood widely, and in fact are in the rules of this very forum.  

You are the administrator here and whether I say more on this or not it won't matter to you. I fully backed my position without a NEED for further proof because it doesn't call for any. What is 'true' objectively is that many are using polls like this one to JUSTIFY as valid evidence to impose forceful decisions upon society in some way. It is a form of "witch hunt" mentality that imposes that CLAIMS made by select people are to be believed and require the accused to defend. I am NOT 'obligated' to prove THAT the statistic was TAKEN false....it doesn't need to be. I DID prove that it is LOGICALLY invalid as a KIND of valid proof, period.

I happen to watch the 20/20 Friday cover on this because I wasn't a close follower of this case. I'm even MORE disgusted now when this mentality is clear. Her act to include all claimants to a case which did NOT involve these particular people outside of the limited charges only adds force of this. But my limitation to the point about statistics here is NOT limited to this case. My opening post is about misusing statistics BY AUTHORITIES to justify real decisions that impact other's lives. 

If you support believing blindly in any woman's accusation and oppose a reversed bias against trusting men by default, you will FAVOR using any confirmed INTERPRETATION of a statistic that is used to make laws that are unfairly distributed to all people equally. 

The STAT asserts that "of all females assaulted, 2/3 of them do not report it." If it is 'unreported' how do you SUPPORT this as PROOF when it is itself UNSCIENTIFIC nor proven true by ACTUAL CONVICTIONS? It is used to justify faking further statistics. If the conviction rate is lower than the shock value intended, by falsely ADDING this stat to justify a higher REALITY of assaults is absurdly false by logic alone. That judge used it to justify her UNUSUAL use of illegitimate claimants against the defendant (160 of them!!) to violently abuse her power against this defendant based on this 'witch hunt' mentality against men as a class today.

How media manipulte statistics... (This points to how the UNSUBSTANTIATED proportion is ADDED to make one think there is a higher percentage of people AGAINST immigration. The 2/3 example here IS a kind of UNSUBSTANTIATED part of a whole: "Those women who ARE abused".

Unmasking the hidden paradox in data... [Shows how one can using a stat that appears to 'prove' female discrimination is actually proof of male discrimination by how one manipulates data. My example in this post was that 2/3 of males to not report could ALSO be equal coinciding data which invalidates the meaning of that statistic. Males would NOT even conventionally be thought of as reporting when such abuses occur to a higher degree. Certainly we don't get the convictions against women in the same level but no one suggests the inclusion of men who don't report.]

Noam Chompsky also covers many forms of manipulation by media and politics. I'll leave this here for you for now because you might not even bother with that.

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

1. You are the administrator here and whether I say more on this or not it won't matter to you.

2. I fully backed my position without a NEED for further proof because it doesn't call for any. 

1. Not true.

2. I didn't see any cites or evidence.

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

3.  My opening post is about misusing statistics BY AUTHORITIES to justify real decisions that impact other's lives. 

3.  The onus is on you to disprove the study that was quoted.

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

If you support believing blindly in any woman's accusation and oppose a reversed bias against trusting men by default, you will FAVOR using any confirmed INTERPRETATION of a statistic that is used to make laws that are unfairly distributed to all people equally. 

4.  Again, I have said nothing of the sort.  

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 If it is 'unreported' how do you SUPPORT this as PROOF  

5. You have SEVERE comprehension problems as I have repeatedly said that I am not commenting on the content of any study.  I need to see your cites and criticism of why the study was bad.

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

How media manipulte statistics... (This points to how the UNSUBSTANTIATED proportion is ADDED to make one think there is a higher percentage of people AGAINST immigration. The 2/3 example here IS a kind of UNSUBSTANTIATED part of a whole: "Those women who ARE abused".

 

6.  Of course statistics CAN be abused.  What about the 2/3 number ?

How many times do I have to ask you ?

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Unmasking the hidden paradox in data... [Shows how one can using a stat that appears to 'prove' female discrimination is actually proof of male discrimination by how one manipulates data. My example in this post was that 2/3 of males to not report could ALSO be equal coinciding data which invalidates the meaning of that statistic. Males would NOT even conventionally be thought of as reporting when such abuses occur to a higher degree. Certainly we don't get the convictions against women in the same level but no one suggests the inclusion of men who don't report.]

 

7.  First of all, I always have a problem with people posting videos as evidence.  If you can't think through logic without a narrator, music and animation then you are not used to discussing things seriously IMO.  Secondly, this doesn't seem to be about the 2/3 statistic of women reporting abuse.

 

7 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

 

Noam Chompsky also covers many forms of manipulation by media and politics. I'll leave this here for you for now because you might not even bother with that.

8.  You spelled his name wrong.  Far from not BOTHERING, I have asked you many times for some kind of cite and you just can't figure out how to do that.

Thanks for wasting my time.  Don't try to say I didn't give you a chance to back up the 2/3 number you say is invalid.  I asked you many times and you refused to provide it, so I have to assume you have nothing  -> IGNORE.

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not true.

2. I didn't see any cites or evidence.

 

3.  The onus is on you to disprove the study that was quoted.

 

4.  Again, I have said nothing of the sort.  

 

5. You have SEVERE comprehension problems as I have repeatedly said that I am not commenting on the content of any study.  I need to see your cites and criticism of why the study was bad.

 

6.  Of course statistics CAN be abused.  What about the 2/3 number ?

How many times do I have to ask you ?

 

7.  First of all, I always have a problem with people posting videos as evidence.  If you can't think through logic without a narrator, music and animation then you are not used to discussing things seriously IMO.  Secondly, this doesn't seem to be about the 2/3 statistic of women reporting abuse.

 

8.  You spelled his name wrong.  Far from not BOTHERING, I have asked you many times for some kind of cite and you just can't figure out how to do that.

Thanks for wasting my time.  Don't try to say I didn't give you a chance to back up the 2/3 number you say is invalid.  I asked you many times and you refused to provide it, so I have to assume you have nothing  -> IGNORE.

You are just proving your own ignorance, not mine. You can't demand 'support' of some view while at the same time condemning me to use OUTSIDE sources to help you,...given you (A) complain about DEPTH in anything I say that can't be summarized in a Tweet, and (B) that you then demand I argue MORE in context because you cannot seem to follow. 

I believe you are ignorant of logic. Logic and science go hand in hand. But science is about descriptive reality that we share. If you don't share the same observations, we cannot even argue. The claims made by the judge ARE objectively true. The Statistic she justifies her opinion on are ALSO 'evidence'. What is NOT 'evidence' is to suggest that I believe that the MEANING of the statistic you interpret speaks about the actual truth behind the claims. Just because one asserts they've been raped, for instance, doesn't PROVE they have been. You and others ARE contending this view simply because you BELIEVE blindly that what a woman says MUST be true simply because you can't imagine them to LIE on such an issue. But explain how you support the belief that it is alright for reversing the burden of proof in courts that you also demand of me to disprove. Your are no different than Betsy here with your rationality. 

For anyone to be held without charge is what became the Miranda rights and other related laws relating to due justice. You also reverse these rules when you think it alright to treat one's accusation by women sufficient to make the accused guilty-before-proven-innocent. That is what the claims of anyone being asked on a survey of this type irrelevant to the 'truth' of the matter. So why do you feel I require proving these anonymous people as lying? This is NOT even possible. I don't THINK one's charge is guilty of corruption anymore than the accused. All we can deal with realistically are those we CAN charge, to those who ARE fairly tried in a court of law, and to those CONVICTED. No amount of 'surveys' can prove (nor disprove) whether what one claims or confirms is or is not true. 

I also PROVED to you logically that you can have a survey that is completely ISOLATED from any data that also INVALIDATES any interpretation of that one even IF the statistic is 'sincere' (where we trust no one lied). The link about the women's statistic claiming abuse based on such data IS what demonstrates HOW by using a different argument I present here. If you don't like it, then be fair and argue here yourself rather than expect me to do what is impossible by your expectation.

 

Ask yourself this: Is there ANY kind of proof that I could present, whether scientifically or through careful logical analysis, could make you change YOUR mind about what I say here? What KIND of 'evidence' do you expect of me to present to you that could make you confident that the reasoning I present to you is valid? What do you THINK I'm claiming here in your own words that you have a contention with?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

On assuming you an admin here, I apologize. I recall seeing your name here most prevalent since I came here originally...even with links to some podcast or something? 

So cancel that assumption. I also said this in another thread before I read this of you. 

 

On spelling of "Chomsky" as "Chompsky", I apologize too. I'm not sure how you managed to treat this trivial factor relevant. Or did you think I had someone else in mind?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Added note about spelling...

[Goddess]

1.  You think the study results are invalid.  But you present no proof of that.

2.  You think the judge should not have mentioned the study in her sentencing.  I disagree because she was presiding over a trial in which 150 girls had been molested and who either were too afraid to report or they reported and were ignored.  How is that study NOT valid in regard to this situation?

3.  You seem much more bothered and upset about a "woman" judge passing sentence on a proven serial rapist/molester than you are bothered  by the guy who actually molested over 150 young women.  You do understand that the guy ACTUALLY RAPED/MOLESTED 150 young women, right?  But here you are more concerned about comments that a "woman" judge made at the sentencing?  Makes no sense.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Goddess

[Argus]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 3:03 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1.  That sentence is beyond readable. 

Clarify?

The judge rather sneeringly said to him "I just signed your death warrant."

I thought the sentence kind of goofy, myself. He is serving more time than almost any murderer in the US. And as far as I've seen he molested college girls by touching them inappropriately and putting his fingers where he shouldn't have.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to go to jail for it, but seriously, 60 years for taking pictures and 40-175 years on top of that? If he had murdered each and every one of them, raped and tortured each of them to death, they couldn't have done more to him. And I think there ought to be a scale to these things.

[Argus]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 2:10 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I just saw that Judge sentencing Larry Nassar and she mentions statistics that I question regarding women. In particular, HOW does one interpret the statistic that "2/3 of women" are unreported incidents of rape and sexual assault? If they are 'unreported', how do these idiots interpret these as valid statistics. ...especially by a judge!? I automatically dismiss any credibility to those using these conveniently made up stats in their position of authority. If they can't appropriately keep out unproven claims as 'true' without evidence, how do they have a right to be authoritative? 

A big chunk of crime is unreported. Statistics Canada does a formal study every five years which surveys Canadian families and asks questions about whether anyone has been a victim of crime in the previous year, what it was and whether they reported it. Here. You can have a look at it and its methodology.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.htm

Here is the information specific to sexual assault and the reporting of it. It quotes a number of other surveys as well.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm

Edited January 29, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I thought the sentence kind of goofy, myself. He is serving more time than almost any murderer in the US. And as far as I've seen he molested college girls by touching them inappropriately and putting his fingers where he shouldn't have.

I'm saying the sentence that the poster wrote is not readable.  I could not read it and discern what exactly was being said.  The sentence is excessive, though, and I don't agree with concurrent sentences as it seems like a loophole for judges to inject personal feelings into judgments.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

A big chunk of crime is unreported

I was thinking about NYC in the 1970s where mugging was so endemic that there was no point in reporting it.  There are limits to metrics and non-reporting is a sign that problems are bad, not that there are no problems.

People need to out these guys on social media, tell their friends and their families and then ... prepare for something we haven't dealt with in a long time: forgiveness.  It's the back end of crime, and usually involves some kind of restitution, penance, admission of guilt.  

 

[Scott Mayers]

21 hours ago, Goddess said:

1.  You think the study results are invalid.  But you present no proof of that.

2.  You think the judge should not have mentioned the study in her sentencing.  I disagree because she was presiding over a trial in which 150 girls had been molested and who either were too afraid to report or they reported and were ignored.  How is that study NOT valid in regard to this situation?

3.  You seem much more bothered and upset about a "woman" judge passing sentence on a proven serial rapist/molester than you are bothered  by the guy who actually molested over 150 young women.  You do understand that the guy ACTUALLY RAPED/MOLESTED 150 young women, right?  But here you are more concerned about comments that a "woman" judge made at the sentencing?  Makes no sense.

1. Let me take a step by step approach here.

(a) If I asserted some person named, "(put any name here)", harmed me and you don't know me, while you may relate to me conditionally (pretending IF it was true), do you think my claim requires ANY doubt by default?

(b) If the KIND of harm is bad IF TRUE, does my accusation mean that I am more likely to be telling you the truth? Does the degree of an accusation suffice to believe it?

(c) If further I am allowed to accuse someone anonymously is it 'fair' (just) for the one being accused to be prevented from knowing who I am, what evidence I have against the person, and to be arrested and locked up UNTIL they are able to DISPROVE my accusation? Am I protected from criminal slander or libel should the person I'm accusing has no capacity to prove me wrong?

(d) If I'm potentially lying, should what I have to say COUNT as ONE TRUTH conviction against the one I'm accusing even if I don't officially charge them? That is, does my accusation count as a proven truth that gets added to a stat about abuses?

2. In the case, did the accused get charged by ALL 150 (I thought it was 160?) with the defendant able to challenge each person? That is, was the defendant convicted with PROOF that ALL 160 people were in FACT telling the truth? 

3. If one person is charged by ONE accuser in a court of law, does this PROVE that anyone else who is NOT a part of the trial's charge is defaulted to telling the truth? Note that the 'evidence' by all people here are NOT presentable but "testimonial"? 

For your assumption that I am judging the judge's sex as relevant is not justified. If the judge was male I still would be against the judge, its court integrity AND to the media presenting such faulty reasoning. You are imposing some personal EMOTIVE reason when I am against the LOGICAL reasons. While I have an 'emotive' reason to loathe illogical justifications for many reason regarding the present trends of accusations without physical proofs, I have no baggage with regards to this judge, any accusers, or even to the convicted offender himself. 

Extended question on this: While the defendant plead no contest and/or guilt, it appeared that the letter he wrote to the judge asserted that he was recommended to accept a guilty plea or risk worse consequences. The judge proved in her own CHALLENGE to him to opt to reverse this with an implied "I DARE you". Do you believe that IF he took the reversed offer, that he'd get a better sentence given he's already been convicted? Had he actually NOT plead guilty or no contest, would he have had a fairer trial? HOW do you KNOW that all 160 accusers were telling the truth? Is it POSSIBLE they were acting with a form of social hysteria given that people ONLY came forward AFTER single charges? 

 

Note that 'water-boarding' derived from the Witch Trials of the past. The original technique was to tie the accused to a board and challenge the accused to either admit that they were a witch OR opt to be dunked. Should she/he die from such treatment, this was interpreted to be proof of guilt by God. They would ask him/her again until either they drowned from continued dunking or accept their accusation AS CHARGED. So given the above and this example of reality of the psychology of people, would the accused have any actual defense given the climate.

 

What KIND of 'evidence' do you think is 'valid'? Do you know the difference between 'valid' and 'soundness' of an argument?

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

Clarify?

The judge rather sneeringly said to him "I just signed your death warrant."

I thought the sentence kind of goofy, myself. He is serving more time than almost any murderer in the US. And as far as I've seen he molested college girls by touching them inappropriately and putting his fingers where he shouldn't have.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to go to jail for it, but seriously, 60 years for taking pictures and 40-175 years on top of that? If he had murdered each and every one of them, raped and tortured each of them to death, they couldn't have done more to him. And I think there ought to be a scale to these things.

Yes! Bill Maher even mentioned this recently. See Bill Maher on #MeToo...

Are there not 'degrees' that matter today? If 'touching' logically equals 'rape', then everyone is certainly a victim. The guy was NOT charged for any actual 'rape' and the girls only 're-evaluated' the harm AS harm when the present conditions of this climate allowed them too without accountability to their words. Today women are actually being DEMEANED when they are treated as though they are more significantly 'sensitive' to internalize harm versus men. It can't be both true that one wants equality and yet MORE power over another class. (Thus my earlier comment about Animal Farm.)

The "death warrant" assertion also proved her EMOTIONAL bias in a position she is supposed to be 'impartial' to. And it also goes with the Witch trial point I mentioned above.

[Goddess]

You're absolutely right. There is zero evidence this man did anything wrong. He's the victim here and we should let him go free immediately.

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Argus said:

A big chunk of crime is unreported. Statistics Canada does a formal study every five years which surveys Canadian families and asks questions about whether anyone has been a victim of crime in the previous year, what it was and whether they reported it. Here. You can have a look at it and its methodology.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14241-eng.htm

Here is the information specific to sexual assault and the reporting of it. It quotes a number of other surveys as well.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm

Thank you. I'm familiar with the methods but can't understand how even many 'intelligent' people overlook the depth of HOW stats are to be interpreted with regards to social issues, ...especially with polls or surveys. It's worse when they quote margin-of-errors when these do not reflect 'truth' of the statistic but only measures to what degree all the respondents 'agreed'. If one shoots some target, they could be 'precise' but completely miss the target all together. Precision measures how close all the shots were together only. This can occur in social circumstances where some hysteria exists.

[Scott Mayers]

18 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You're absolutely right. There is zero evidence this man did anything wrong. He's the victim here and we should let him go free immediately.

Wow. Is it an all or nothing situation here? 

(All charges are proven true) versus (No charges are proven true) is not valid here. These opposites are "contrary". 

This case is actually a "contradictory" situation: 

(All charges are proven true) versus (Some charges are NOT proven true). 

Note that if I were his lawyer, I'd challenge to throw this case out on the grounds of HOW this case was tried. I disagree that the guy is 'innocent'. But the charges and sentences don't fit the crime and now DOES make him AND the rest of society rightfully FEAR mere accusations. The courts often throw out cases that have 'technical' issues because the precedence of such justice makes society LESS secure and confident when we are violated of our rights for the sake of social justice taken on by ZEALOTS of their own hatred. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I was thinking about NYC in the 1970s where mugging was so endemic that there was no point in reporting it.  There are limits to metrics and non-reporting is a sign that problems are bad, not that there are no problems.

People need to out these guys on social media, tell their friends and their families and then ... prepare for something we haven't dealt with in a long time: forgiveness.  It's the back end of crime, and usually involves some kind of restitution, penance, admission of guilt.  

 

But it makes men (or other people in similar kinds of problems today) FEAR even ADMITTING the remote guilt. Canadian politics is proving this. When the government 'apologizes' for ANY problem of the past, this sets the stage for the 'victim' class to actually demand retribution as a whole class WITHOUT a need for a hearing. 

Have you never noticed how 'apologizing' to some relatively trivial fault in some relationships don't actually encourage the other to an improved counterproductive behavior? instead, this often only encourages these people to feel validated to throw any and all accusations back with a vengeance. This psychology means that we have to try to be assured that the apology is "EQUALLY" reciprocated for their own roles in any abuses, not avenged. It's hard to avoid and can be repaired in healthy relationships. But to those that act as 'group-classes', like all men or all women, there is no actual single person that is the CLASS. As such, the vengeance is the ONLY means by which people opt for. When society as a whole is already 'abusive', the relationship between whole classes treats each member of those classes as ONE being. And any guilt or innocence gets distributed to EACH member of those classes without concern for fairness. It is the root of ALL socially ill stereotypes. The last abused class becomes the new abuser class.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[Hal 9000]

On 1/29/2018 at 7:28 AM, Goddess said:

1.  You think the study results are invalid.  But you present no proof of that.

2.  You think the judge should not have mentioned the study in her sentencing.  I disagree because she was presiding over a trial in which 150 girls had been molested and who either were too afraid to report or they reported and were ignored.  How is that study NOT valid in regard to this situation?

3.  You seem much more bothered and upset about a "woman" judge passing sentence on a proven serial rapist/molester than you are bothered  by the guy who actually molested over 150 young women.  You do understand that the guy ACTUALLY RAPED/MOLESTED 150 young women, right?  But here you are more concerned about comments that a "woman" judge made at the sentencing?  Makes no sense.

He admitted guilt to sexual misconduct of 7 girls and was given 175 years.  The fact that 150 girls spoke up is clearly evidence of his guilt, but the fact is; it was a crime against 7 girls, not 150.  What if he (or someone else) was charged with one count of sexual misconduct, but 10 women gave testimony to abusing them?  What should that guy get for one count of sexual misconduct? 

[?Impact]

On 2/1/2018 at 7:40 PM, Hal 9000 said:

but the fact is; it was a crime against 7 girls, not 150

In law the concept of extenuating circumstances if often used by the defense to argue for a lighter than normal sentence, is this not the same here except being used by the prosecution to argue for a more severe sentence.