The forum has been archived
While the forum may not be active, the community still lives on Discord! Click here to join us.

Ucsb Shootings Prompt #yesallwomen Trend, Outrage Over Misogyny

Chat about anything
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

first off dogs are sentient

second lets break down the 1 in 1 million cookies
I know that the 1 in 1 million is not the exact statistic of murder-capable psychopaths to normal people
but consider this
if you ate one cookie a day, it would take over a thousand years for your chance of biting into the cyanide cookie to double. That is, for the probability to go from 0.000001 to 0.000002 - 1 in 1 million to 1 in 500,000.
Here's some other things that are 'one in a million'.

of course, each time you eat a cookie the chance gets slightly higher, but still. This is one cookie a day. Turn the cookies into men and the rate at which you are going to 'bite a cookie' dwindles.

now, from a quick google search I've found the statistic that the amount of people who die through domestic abuse in the US isabout 1,300. 2.5million people die in the US each year, roughly. Of these, 50,000 die of the flu. 120,000 of accidents. Many more from heart disease. Domestic Violence deaths account for a whopping 0.052% of the total deaths per year. 2% die from the flu, by comparison. Sure, it's a terrible thing and that percentage should really be zero, but still. Perspective.
I really do wish for a world where I can walk alone at 10pm at night, and not fear getting assaulted. I really do wish for a world where I could reject a man by simply saying 'I don't find you attractive,' instead of fearing his reaction and instead saying 'I have a boyfriend.'

hey guess what? you can do those things.
Do you really think that if you tell someone they're unattractive they'll go commit mass murder? Do you really think that every time you leave the house at 10pm you are going to get assaulted by someone?
There's a difference between being safe and being too safe.

so sure go ahead and distrust every man you meet. Just know that you are being way, way too cautious. Hell, you do things that could potentially kill you all the time. It's just that, like this, the chances are so insignificant it shouldn't bother you.

out of curiousity, what would it take for a man to become trustworthy in your eyes?
User avatar
totaldile
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 8:02 pm

Post by totaldile »

@papaya

okay all good was just try'na make sure you didn't get the wrong idea

As for the 1 in 1 million cookies...
My point isn't that there are 1 million cookies. My point isn't that there are 1 hundred cookies.
My point is that there is still at least one cyanide cookie.
You know what? I'll change my analogy, if this one isn't working for you.

I make 3.4 billion cookies. Some of them have cyanide, but I'm not going to tell you how many, or which ones they are. That's up for you to figure out.

All, every single one of these cookies has the potential to be poisonous. And you know what? Other than not eating the cookie, there's nothing you can do to stop it.

I'm glad you agree it should be zero, but I'm not quite convinced on the whole 'perspective' thing :l.
Just because there are worse problems in the world, it doesn't mean this isn't a problem. Hell, you could downplay pretty much anything by saying there are people in third world countries who don't have enough food or water.
I agree, flu deaths are much bigger. Accidents, the same. Does this change the fact that I'm just a little bit scared of men? No, not really. Frankly, the problem is big enough to me, and I've been personally threatened multiple times enough to feel as if this is a pretty large problem. Obviously I can't personally generate statistics, but it's not as simple as 'I'm scared of men because they're gonna kill me'. I acknowledge, you win, murder is definitely an extreme. You know what is a hell of a lot more common, though? Violence, abuse and rape.

'One woman in four will sexually assaulted during her lifetime.
  • 683,000 adult American women are forcibly raped each year. This equals 56,916 per month; 1,871 per day; 78 per hour; and 1.3 per minute.
  • Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police.
  • 5% of adult rape victims are male.
  • Sexual assault is reported by about 40% of women who are being physically assaulted by their husbands.
  • 4% of all female soldiers said they had been the victim of a completed or attempted rape or sexual assault during their military service. 61% of female soldiers said they had been sexually harassed in the Army.
  • 1 in 4 college women reported being victims of rape or attempted rape. 1 in 12 college men admitted to committing acts that met the legal definition of rape.'
  • From here:
    http://listen.nycagainstrape.org/learn.html

    I can't speak much for flu, as I personally have had the flu only once or twice and haven't had any lasting side-effects at all, let alone it becoming serious.

    Accidents? Well, those cover a lot of things :l.

    Regardless, rape and assault are still pretty huge issues.

    Murder is still a problem, but you do have a point, if you put it in perspective, it's not as severe as some issues, and I apologize if I made it out as if men were killing women left and right, and offended you. That was not my intention, hence I'll amend my argument.

    Whilst the prospects of a woman being murdered by a man for rejecting them is low, the prospects of getting raped or assaulted are actually pretty high. One in four women? That means, in my group of around sixteen female friends, four of us will be sexually abused by men at some point in our lives.

    Does my fear start to make a little more sense now? I hope it does.

    Let me re-enforce: I do not believe all men are evil, or rapists, or will do me personally harm. I do believe, however, that there are a very small number of men out there who will assault, rape or maybe even murder me. Until I know and trust a male, I think it's slightly justified that I be intimidated.

    As for what would make me 'trust' a male? Well, that's different for everyone. I do tend to take a lot of notice of what people say, and how they act towards people, so if a male is being generally as respectful of females as he is of males, and if when I talk to him about, say, feminist issues, I'm not immediately shot down with 'It's 2014, why are we still stressing over this' and instead I'm given a thought-out response that I can agree with, that can earn my trust.

    It's very difficult to narrow it down specifically, though, and it's different for every individual. Ultimately, I'd have to know the guy pretty well before I go anywhere alone with them :l.
User avatar
Rabbidfan236
Well-Known Member
Posts: 1084
Joined: February 28th, 2013, 9:55 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by Rabbidfan236 »

I don't think that cookies are a very good analogy because you can't do a background check on a cookie, nor will self-defense lessons help you defend yourself against cyanide.
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

oh god a two pronged attack
totaldile wrote: I make 3.4 billion cookies. Some of them have cyanide, but I'm not going to tell you how many, or which ones they are. That's up for you to figure out.

All, every single one of these cookies has the potential to be poisonous. And you know what? Other than not eating the cookie, there's nothing you can do to stop it.
It's very, very cookieist to assume that every cookie could be so disgusting as to contain cyanide. While it may be a simple conclusion to say that every cookie has an equal chance of having cyanide, not all cookies are baked equal. Some may not have the capacity to hold cyanide, and would much rather just be a simple oatmeal or even chocolate chip cookie.
There's also the fact that cyanide cookies have certain mannerisms about them that makes them stand out. They're noticeably crumbling from having the cyanide pill crushed into them, or they may be sporting a cartoonish moustache that they twiddle every so often while they entice you to bite into them.
Plus, if you make 3.4 billion cookies, and you fill up all, or even half of them with cyanide, then you're a bit stuffed if you tell someone they can have as many cookies as they can eat, and then they die of cyanide poisoning. It's anti-climatic. There's no thrill of knowing that they're eating into a cyanide cookie when there's loads of em anyway. Plus, once they die, what do you do with the other cyanide cookies? What a waste of flour.
Not to mention cyanide is expensive - you'd only want to make a few cookies with them in otherwise you'd run out of money to bake the other 3.4 billion.

the point is that this analogy is seriously wrong. You and I both know as sensible human beings that there is no chance that even 1 in a 1000 men would be able to be murderers (through violent intentional methods).
totaldile wrote: statistics
I'll expand on this a bit later but I did some digging and these statistics are using a defnition of rape such that having sex while drunk counts as rape, consensual or otherwise. You ask a woman if she's had sex while drunk and she says yes, you're speaking to a rape victim. Do you agree with that? I personally think that's way too broad. You have a glass of wine with your partner then sleep with them, well, you've just committed rape. Damn.

there's also the issue of whether or not the woman agrees that it was rape. In the same study that found that 1 in 4 college women were raped, a large proportion did not believe they were raped. But it fit the definition of the researcher, so it was marked down as rape. Is this right?

yes its a nice statistic to throw about, but take a closer look and you'll find that it's wildly exaggerated.
Yes, a horrifically high amount of rapes occur each year, but it is nowhere near 1 in 4. Nowhere near.

im not downplaying rape, it's a serious issue, but it's not as widespread as tumblr wants to make it seem.
User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5417
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Post by Phantomboy »

papaya wrote:I'll expand on this a bit later but I did some digging and these statistics are using a defnition of rape such that having sex while drunk counts as rape, consensual or otherwise. You ask a woman if she's had sex while drunk and she says yes, you're speaking to a rape victim. Do you agree with that? I personally think that's way too broad. You have a glass of wine with your partner then sleep with them, well, you've just committed rape. Damn.

there's also the issue of whether or not the woman agrees that it was rape. In the same study that found that 1 in 4 college women were raped, a large proportion did not believe they were raped. But it fit the definition of the researcher, so it was marked down as rape. Is this right?
I apologise if my response is sort of out of the blue.

In regards to legal terminology - we are dealing with the convoluted nature of humans, an arguably infinite gray-scale of actions, then attempting to fit a textbook definition to it. There is going to be cases, in which our legal systems terminology seems, unfitting. Personally I think the notion of, "Sexual interaction without consent of an uninhibited coherent, adult is illegal." is a fairly safe definition to stand by. Now, this is not helped by many court cases that I've seen publicly covered, being fairly gender-biased. That is certainly an argument to be made. But I think the terminology isn't at fault here, rather to societal imbalance which accentuates any terminological gaps.
Image
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

The thing is, the 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime is well known to be using a ridiculously broad definition as to what rape is.

the survey didn't ask "were you raped?" it asked, among other things, "have you had pity sex with someone?" (paraphrasing - it was roughly 'have you had sex with someone because they were unhappy'). Having sex to cheer someone up was considered non-physical coercion into sex, and thus rape. Would you agree with that definition? I wouldn't.

the problem is that if we make the definition broader, it causes more problems than it solves. It creates people like totaldile here who aren't currently victims but believe that they are at huge risk of being a victim. That's not right.
User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5417
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Post by Phantomboy »

In away, I think the push is in the wrong direction. Personally, I think while arguing statistics, personal experiences and public notions are easier, a less-ambiguous, perhaps farther-sighted push would be for a society where anything done against someone's will is at least, available to be adequately evaluated by skilled legal experts.

I don't think me, a legally uneducated kid from the internet, can do a complex legal, societal and in many cases political issue any major justice.

I will say this, which is just my personal opinion, we should have a system in which those who proceeded with sexual interactions without a clear coherent consent of their partner, regardless of gender, should be able to be legally punished. Ideally we would live in a society that treats sexual intimacy with a level of care and compassion in which both party members are attentive and any occurrences of coercion or physical abuse is decreased to zero, but we don't live in a perfect world. We can only build systems, and procedures to help those who need it, whilst attempting to improve our societies.
Image
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

on another note
i was quite impressed that totaldile had come up with a half-decent analogy with the cookies
until i realised she'd just ripped it from some tumblr and replaced the word m&m with the word cookie. I mean, props for making the statistic a little more believable at first.

however it lead me to these
Image
Image
which are in a similar vein to what rabbidfan posted on the first page and just as funny (good post btw)

not a personal attack (way to go on not copying the quote verbatim) but -1 for originality
anyway, carry on
User avatar
Phantomboy
Moderator
Posts: 5417
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 11:04 am

Post by Phantomboy »

Interesting to hear I guess, I don't think originality directs from the credibility of a particular argument. Perhaps this is a bit more on topic to the original article, I think it was mentioned before, but I am always kind of disheartened how loosely horrible acts are mentioned on the internet. I am no saint in this regard, but the way terminology of "murder", "kill" and etc.. especially by the younger generations, but many people in general, is sort of tossed around so light-heartedly, is kind of worth thinking about. I've been doing my best to tone down how I phrase things.

I know there is a point where terminology ends up being debated more than the actual debate - I don't mean to push towards that, but it is something to be respectful of or at least aware of.
Image
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

arguing semantics is one of the worst traps you can fall into while debating
User avatar
totaldile
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 8:02 pm

Post by totaldile »

@papaya
'oh god a two-pronged attack'
crikey maybe next time it's be a full-frontal fork

uhm
okay so you're still not liking my cookies huh
I agree, there are some 'warning' signs as to the more dangerous ones. But not all of them.
Isn't a common thing for relatives/friends of a murder to say 'But s/he was such a nice boy/girl...'?
That's the thing. Some will still commit murder even thought there were no warning signs.
You could say 'Oh, he was shy as a child' or he 'had mental issues' was a 'warning sign', but hell, 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health issue in the course of a year. Surprisingly, 1 in 4 people do not commit murder.
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-inf ... tatistics/

c:

As for your, uh, cookie-specific issues?
Uh
like
As for anti-climactic bit, yeah I guess it would.
Assuming we're offering the cookies to everyone attracted to cookies, it'd be a shame if they all died now wouldn't it :l.
Really in that situation, after seeing a number of people drop dead, they should just not take the damn cookies now, shouldn't they?
:l

Okay
New analogy
Sorry for the dog thing again but I take it you won't be offended

We teach our children not to approach strange dogs until we know they're safe, right? It's a common thing in society: you don't trust a dog you don't know. We've seen enough images of small children getting mauled.
In 2012, dogs killed 29 people in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_ ... ed_in_2014
In 2005, 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_v ... tes#Murder
Using stats I found here:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/r ... ansgender/

Let's do a bit of math, considering we only know the gender of the victims, not the killers. Around 4% of the United States population identifies as LGBT. 1181x0.94= 1110 women. Is that a fair enough estimate of how many women were killed by males because of domestic violence? If you disagree, please let me know and we can try and find a more suitable method.

Basically, dogs killed 29 people in the United States in 2005. Men domestically abused 1110 women, resulting in their deaths.
For every 1 death caused by a dog, 38 women died of domestic abuse.
Hmmm.
Why are we teaching our children to be so afraid of dogs, then? They're obviously a bit of a minority when it comes to death-causing.

As for the rape stats

That's fair enough; you've done your research. I definitely agree that the definition of rape used there is more than a little iffy.
What's a 'large proportion' of them though? 50%? 70%? 90%?
50%? 1 in 8 women.
70%? 1 in 28 women. That's still more than dogs killed in the US in 2005.
90%? 1 in 36 women. That's only one more than dogs killed in the US in 2012.

All of these figures remain substantially large :l. Even if 90% of those women didn't think they were raped, that's still almost 3 women per every hundred will be raped in their lifetimes.
0.02 x 3.4 billion = 6,800,000.

At absolute worst, based on that study, six million, eight hundred thousand women will be raped at some point in their lifetimes. That's over 1.5x the amount of people in my country, New Zealand (pop~4mill).
If more than an entire country of women will get raped, maybe it's still a pretty huge issue.

And that's just if 90% of the women in that survey didn't think they had been raped.

As for the cookie analogy 'ripped it from tumblr' sounds a bit harsh :l.
I disliked the MandM analogy; it sort of had the fundamental problem of using percentages rather than actual numbers, which is fine I guess but I came up with the cookies afterwards and mentally it sorta worked better for me.
(besides, m&ms are a bitch to count let's be honest)
and 10% is a ridiculous number

-1 for orignality
eh
i'll live
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

totaldile wrote: uhm
okay so you're still not liking my cookies huh
I agree, there are some 'warning' signs as to the more dangerous ones. But not all of them.
Isn't a common thing for relatives/friends of a murder to say 'But s/he was such a nice boy/girl...'?
That's the thing. Some will still commit murder even thought there were no warning signs.
You could say 'Oh, he was shy as a child' or he 'had mental issues' was a 'warning sign', but hell, 1 in 4 people will experience a mental health issue in the course of a year. Surprisingly, 1 in 4 people do not commit murder.
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-inf ... tatistics/

c:
ok sure 1 in 4 people suffer mental health issues over a year but . . .
not all mental health issues lead to being murderers. From the same link you gave me, the most common mental issues are anxiety and depression. While I can't from a quick search of the website find what the criteria for having these issues is, I'm going to assume it's quite non-specific. This would mean a lot of people have anxiety/depression, but not at a severe level.

I merely said he was deranged, not that he had autism or depression or schizophrenia. Deranged "may refer to psychosis, a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality".". Though he may not have a specific mental issue, it's plainly obvious that you need to have something wrong with you to go and stab/shoot 6 people.
totaldile wrote: Okay
New analogy
Sorry for the dog thing again but I take it you won't be offended

We teach our children not to approach strange dogs until we know they're safe, right? It's a common thing in society: you don't trust a dog you don't know. We've seen enough images of small children getting mauled.
In 2012, dogs killed 29 people in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_ ... ed_in_2014
In 2005, 1,181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_v ... tes#Murder
Using stats I found here:
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/r ... ansgender/

Let's do a bit of math, considering we only know the gender of the victims, not the killers. Around 4% of the United States population identifies as LGBT. 1181x0.94= 1110 women. Is that a fair enough estimate of how many women were killed by males because of domestic violence? If you disagree, please let me know and we can try and find a more suitable method.

Basically, dogs killed 29 people in the United States in 2005. Men domestically abused 1110 women, resulting in their deaths.
For every 1 death caused by a dog, 38 women died of domestic abuse.
Hmmm.
Why are we teaching our children to be so afraid of dogs, then? They're obviously a bit of a minority when it comes to death-causing.
why are we teaching our children to be afraid of dogs?
because dogs are more likely to kill young children than adults, and the chance of a child being killed by their spouse is basically zero. Come on.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the "HOW MANY MEN KILLED WOMEN" conclusion, either. bit sexist.
totaldile wrote: As for the rape stats

That's fair enough; you've done your research. I definitely agree that the definition of rape used there is more than a little iffy.
What's a 'large proportion' of them though? 50%? 70%? 90%?
50%? 1 in 8 women.
70%? 1 in 28 women. That's still more than dogs killed in the US in 2005.
90%? 1 in 36 women. That's only one more than dogs killed in the US in 2012.
I believe the figure was around 60%. This is when we eliminate all people who believe they weren't raped.
Now also consider that the definition was so broad that some people who believed they were actually raped, by definition of the law were not. This would reduce the percentage even more.
totaldile wrote: All of these figures remain substantially large :l. Even if 90% of those women didn't think they were raped, that's still almost 3 women per every hundred will be raped in their lifetimes.
0.02 x 3.4 billion = 6,800,000.

At absolute worst, based on that study, six million, eight hundred thousand women will be raped at some point in their lifetimes. That's over 1.5x the amount of people in my country, New Zealand (pop~4mill).
If more than an entire country of women will get raped, maybe it's still a pretty huge issue.
you made a huge mistake here.
you assumed that the rate of rape is the same in all countries as it is in US colleges. Which, surprisingly enough, it isn't.
In 2002, according to some wikipedia graph, 115 per 100,000 people were raped. It's a ridiculously high number, and sexual violence in south africa is a major issue.
Well, 115/100000 is 0.00115, multiply by 100 to get a percentage - 0.115%. 0.115% of 3.4billion is
3,910,000.
So, if the whole world had the same amount of rape per capita as South Africa, the country where 110 per 100,000 are raped, it would still equal a little over half of what it would be if we took the rate of college women who claimed they were raped.
thats a lot of muddling statistics but I hope it brings across the point - due to a number of factors, we cannot simply apply the rate at which women in college are considered to have been raped to the total number of women in the world. It doesn't work.
totaldile wrote: And that's just if 90% of the women in that survey didn't think they had been raped.

As for the codokie analogy 'ripped it from tumblr' sounds a bit harsh :l.
I disliked the MandM analogy; it sort of had the fundamental problem of using percentages rather than actual numbers, which is fine I guess but I came up with the cookies afterwards and mentally it sorta worked better for me.
(besides, m&ms are a bitch to count let's be honest)
and 10% is a ridiculous number

-1 for orignality
eh
i'll live
(1 in 100 is a percentage, it's 1%)

also as a bit of an aside I've looked a little further into the 1 in 4 college women statistic. Turns out, the study was from 1982 (which was, asthis graphshows, at a time when rape was much more common than it is now)
Here's a quote from a short article about the study:
Correcting for the biases in the original survey yields a radically different picture of the prevalence of rape in America. Subtract the women identified by the alcohol and drug question and those who didn't think they had been raped, and total victims fall to between 3 and 5 percent of the women surveyed. This remains an alarmingly high number, but significantly less alarming than the one-in-four figure.
It's an interesting read all the same - http://www.iwf.org/news/2432517/One-in- ... ustice-too
don't believe everything you read on tumblr. do your own research too.
User avatar
totaldile
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 8:02 pm

Post by totaldile »

@papaya

Oh, definitely, you have to have something 'wrong' with you, but my point was that it's not as simple as 'oh he has a cartoony moustache, better avoid that one'. Some people are very good at hiding what and how they think, and you'll never know until the deed is done, leaving a certain amount of ambiguity about who will be a killer and who will not be.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/rates-homicide-first-episode-psychosis-meta-analysis#
From here, it's got some stuff to support your point about psychosis affecting violence rates at a somewhat high rate if left untreated. 1 in 700 psychosis suffers will commit homicide prior to treatment.

However, it's been stated in multiple news articles (I had a really good news article on this, but I lost it. If I find it I'll edit this post.) that ER had multiple therapists and was undergoing treatment.

According to that study, 1 in 10,000 psychosis suffers will commit murder after or whilst receiving treatment.
Whilst there is definitely a link, that link is definitely nowhere near as strong as I understood you made it out to be.

Ergo, I don't think you can solely pin the brunt of ER's crime on the fact he was 'deranged'.

As for the dogs bit, I don't really understand what you're getting at? Sure, more small children are killed by dogs. However, excluding children younger than 1, most of which cannot walk and therefore cannot approach a dog, more adults were killed by dogs than children aged 1-10. Ergo, taking into account that this mantra of 'don't approach strange dogs' does not apply to those who cannot walk, the reverse is true: more adults are killed by dogs than small children.

Unfortunately, the final demographic included is 61+, which does not specify between those who are and are not physically capable of approaching a dog. However, I don't think this will skew the results much as you'd have to be very old or sick to be incapable of movement, and in both situations you'd very likely be in a rest home (most of which do not allow pets) or in a hospital (most of which, again, do not allow pets). I also think stray dogs would have a very difficult time making it into a resthome or hospital.

Also, I do understand the whole 'it must be a man who killed a women' may come off as sexist, but please do acknowledge I did account for LGBT partnerships in the fairest way I could come up with on the spot and without access to the raw data. Ergo, I tried to absolutely minimize sexism and I was not at all trying to imply only men kill woman :l.

As for the 60%, I understand that's a flawed percentage, and that the survey itself was flawed and skewed towards a particular result from the very beginning. Ergo, your results than '3-5% of woman surveyed' are also flawed as they come from a flawed result.

Pity sex may well have been rape, just as much as it may have been consensual. The fact is, the entire survey is flawed, so I don't think either of us can use it as evidence towards our respective arguments.

As for the South Africa bit, I do understand where you're coming from, and that's fair enough, I suppose. The stats are a bit muddled, but your point came across.

And yes, I know it's technically a percentage, but it's more than '1' that's important, rather than the '1 in 100' part that I was referring to.

I'll have a read of that article. I do have my doubts about what it says, for reasons I mentioned above about the survey being flawed, and thus all conclusions drawn from it will also be flawed. Regardless, I'm interested in the points it will raise.

Also, please note I've sourced every statistic I've provided except for my first post, which included the poem. None of these have I located from Tumblr, but from my own Google searches, and I apologize if that research isn't good enough for you :l.

I'd appreciate not to be labelled with the stereotype of 'Tumblr feminist', which you seem to be implying. If you're not, that's fine, but that is the impression I'm getting.
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

Alright, I'm gonna back out of this debate about rape statistics a little bit (researching all of this was actually quite interesting, so thanks), but I'd like to make a few points first.
totaldile wrote: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/rates-homicide-first-episode-psychosis-meta-analysis#
From here, it's got some stuff to support your point about psychosis affecting violence rates at a somewhat high rate if left untreated. 1 in 700 psychosis suffers will commit homicide prior to treatment.

However, it's been stated in multiple news articles (I had a really good news article on this, but I lost it. If I find it I'll edit this post.) that ER had multiple therapists and was undergoing treatment.

According to that study, 1 in 10,000 psychosis suffers will commit murder after or whilst receiving treatment.
Whilst there is definitely a link, that link is definitely nowhere near as strong as I understood you made it out to be.

Ergo, I don't think you can solely pin the brunt of ER's crime on the fact he was 'deranged'.
I wasn't linking mental illness to murder, rather I was linking murder to mental illness. There is a difference. So while a lot of psychosis sufferers won't commit murder, I'd imagine a lot of murderers suffer with psychosis. Does that make sense?
I have read that elliot was seeing therapists, but that similarly doesn't mean his murder was not due to some mental instability.
totaldile wrote:As for the dogs bit, I don't really understand what you're getting at? Sure, more small children are killed by dogs. However, excluding children younger than 1, most of which cannot walk and therefore cannot approach a dog, more adults were killed by dogs than children aged 1-10. Ergo, taking into account that this mantra of 'don't approach strange dogs' does not apply to those who cannot walk, the reverse is true: more adults are killed by dogs than small children.

Unfortunately, the final demographic included is 61+, which does not specify between those who are and are not physically capable of approaching a dog. However, I don't think this will skew the results much as you'd have to be very old or sick to be incapable of movement, and in both situations you'd very likely be in a rest home (most of which do not allow pets) or in a hospital (most of which, again, do not allow pets). I also think stray dogs would have a very difficult time making it into a resthome or hospital.
good point, did not consider that
but the fact remains that dogs are a bigger danger to children than their spouses. Hence, we should warn children about dogs. Dogs are a danger that can affect them right now.
What we should not do is warn children about rape. As this thread has proved, everyone has a few misconceptions and we can't accurately define rape. Especially if you explain to a young girl about rape through the statistics like '1 in 4 women are sexually abused their lifetime'. It makes her worry that she could easily be a victim. She may come to not trust men. Yes, they should be warned when they reach a mature enough age, but we should not scare them with sensationalist statistics.

the rest of your post is fair enough
totaldile wrote:Also, please note I've sourced every statistic I've provided except for my first post, which included the poem. None of these have I located from Tumblr, but from my own Google searches, and I apologize if that research isn't good enough for you :l.

I'd appreciate not to be labelled with the stereotype of 'Tumblr feminist', which you seem to be implying. If you're not, that's fine, but that is the impression I'm getting.
I appreciate that you've done your own research, but it does still feel like the kind of stats that are regurgitated on those kinds of blogs. So, sorry for jumping to that conclusion.
User avatar
ElectroYoshi
Well-Known Member
Posts: 11061
Joined: October 18th, 2012, 8:27 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by ElectroYoshi »

totaldile wrote:Thing is, whilst I agree it's unfair for genuine men, it'd be even more unfair if the women were forced into it.
I'll use my cookie analogy again: I bake a hundred cookies but I put cyanide in one, and I don't tell you which. Are you still going to take a cookie, even if my feelings are hurt?
I've said this again and again, mainly because it can't be stressed enough: It's very true that you can't force these things. Maybe "right to a romantic relationship" wasn't the best wording in hindsight.

On a more general note, I'm kind of taking a blind shot in the dark on this whole "rape" debate, but I really don't know if we should warn people about that from the get-go. Obviously, they should be warned once they get to be old enough, but that could just cause them to become generally paranoid. It's kind of like with those obesity charts you see online. A lot of those claim you're morbidly obese when you weigh something like 150 pounds, which is NOWHERE NEAR actual obesity level. My parents theorize that this is actually part of why the obesity rate is more than half, and I actually believe that myself. The generally accepted obesity rate implies that more than half of all people are overweight, but I see very, very, very few people who actually are.

It's the same kind of thing with rape. Everyone has this different idea of what actually qualifies as "rape". At its most basic level, it's forcing someone to have sex with you, but there's a bunch of other details that people may or may not consider that can increase or decrease the actual rate. I've always felt like that's played a role in how high the rate is. Because of all that, I feel like people shouldn't really cram the rape rate down people's quite as much at a younger rate. I think above all else, that can cause women to not trust men.

I dunno. Just my two cents.
I need a shot again, that sweet adrenaline.
User avatar
papaya
Member
Posts: 938
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Design Competitions Voted: 1

Post by papaya »

ElectroYoshi wrote:"rape is similar to obesity"

yeesh
we have actual scientific ways of measuring obesity (fyi it's when your bmi is 30+, and bmi is your height^2 vs your weight). obesity is not defined by being over a specific weight. To be obese and weigh 150 pounds, you would need to be 4ft 11in. or shorter

we don't have a similar kind of way of measuring rape.
User avatar
totaldile
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 8:02 pm

Post by totaldile »

@papaya

Agreed, stats aren't really valid so there's not much point

As for the linking psychosis to murder, that's a fair enough point. I'd like to say it isn't true, but being honest it probably is :l.
Regardless, considering there are people who have psychosis who have not attempted to commit/committed murder, I do not believe we can solely pin the blame of his crimes on mental illness.

As for the dogs, yeah I guess. I would like to know more about the context in which the adults and children were killed, though. It'd be interesting to know what were the primary causes in both groups.

To be honest, I'm a little torn over this point. I'd like to say I think it would be better if children were warned about rape from a young age, but that opens a whole new can of worms as to teaching them about sex, which is probably not a good idea because let's be honest some of them will try it :l. And, actually, it could probably do more harm than good considering children sometimes aren't mentally developed enough to consider the wants and needs of other people. I guess I'm with you on this one, though I'm still kind of torn because frankly neither is a great option.

As for scaring with sensationalist stats, of course not :l. But we've gone over how rape stats are invalid, so I won't say anything more there.

This might sound weird, but I do think a little bit of fear, especially when we're young is actually kind of healthy as a self-protection instinct. If we blindly trusted every person we met, we'd probably find a lot more crimes being committed, both by men and women. I'm not saying we should be totally petrified of the opposite sex, but I think a little bit of fear is somewhat good.

I don't really know what else to say :l. I mean, I don't really know much about rape culture, so all I can offer is that bullshit tumblr feminist crap, which I personally doubt. I appreciate the message of calling people out on rape jokes, but I don't know exactly how bad/whichever it is. I don't know about the psychology of rapists, and I feel as if I'd have to do a LOT of research before I'd be qualified to speak about that kind of stuff.

As for the research, I can get that. It's probably because we'e using similar arguments, but I'm trying to avoid falling into the 'all men are shit' hole because tbh I don't believe that my best friends are guys
let's be honest some dudes are pretty cool

just the whole concept of the cyanide cookie scares the fuck out of me because I've seen that kind of aggression in my dad and my brother :l, that whole possessive 'I'm the alpha male and I deserve this' crud. I see it a lot in others too, and that's kinda scary I guess.

@electroyoshi

yeah idk
comparing rape to obesity doesn't really sit right
I mean rape is in my head one of the most heinous crimes possible
and obesity is genuinely often self-inflicted (or caused by the parents). don't get me wrong, there are definitely lots of cases where obesity is caused by other factors such as poverty, illness etc
but a lot of the obesity I see is purely self-caused
whereas
rape just
is not
papaya summed it up pretty nicely
tta
Well-Known Member
Posts: 2211
Joined: October 9th, 2012, 5:01 pm

Post by tta »

papaya wrote:It's very, very cookieist to assume that every cookie could be so disgusting as to contain cyanide.

im pretty sure that would be 'snackist', 'sweetist', or 'treatist'
User avatar
Miniike
Well-Known Member
Posts: 10959
Joined: November 1st, 2012, 12:03 pm
Location: my beautiful house with my beautiful wife
Contact:

Re: Ucsb Shootings Prompt #yesallwomen Trend, Outrage Over Misogyny

Post by Miniike »

boy am i glad i never posted in this thread
:pigflag: for fricking fricks sake why do i still care :pigflag:
:lock: 1. Wild Life 2. China Pig 3. The Blimp (Mousetrapreplica) 4. Sugar N' Spikes 5. Ant Man Bee :lock:
:bomb: you'll love it, it's a way of life :bomb:
Post Reply