Turn on thread page Beta

Why do feminists say 'teach men not to rape'? watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elizah)
    Except, no, it didn't. It mentions a CDC 2010 study. The one I'm referring to was made in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6308a1_e
    Alcohol and drug-facilitated penetration is never mentioned in the second study.
    Cheers.
    Yes it is.
    Thanks.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elizah)
    Except, no, it didn't. It mentions a CDC 2010 study. The one I'm referring to was made in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss6308a1_e
    Alcohol and drug-facilitated penetration is never mentioned in the second study.
    Cheers.
    Upon digging up a pdf of the questions on the internet: http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/24726

    Still ambiguous af questioning. "have you been raped fam" would've been sufficient. Also certain questions about sex while drunk, high or unconcous doesn't really specify if the attention was unwanted or not. A lot of women are gonna quite happily have drunk/drugged sex without thinking they were raped. Plus it seems to class repeatedly asking for sex until you give in and lying about the future as coercion, and idk how I feel bout dat.

    The study even admits a separate issue: "First, the overall response rate for the 2011 NISVS survey was relatively low (33.1%)"

    So errr... hm.
    Offline

    18
    The only thing you've proven so far, eight pages later, is that you're willing to take every bloody thing out of context to make a point. It's often a symptom of idiocy that you reduce everything to bits and then make a bunch of misrepresentations about what somebody said. I'm going to take one more shot at trying to convince you and if you reply with another essay full of nonsense, I'm just not going to reply.

    (Original post by elizah)
    Oh, Jesus ****ing christ. Now who's getting "offended" over a simple argument?Stop being a hypocrite. There are no studies whatsoever to support the statement that gang rape is a common type of rape.
    I didn't say it was. I merely acknowledged its existence. Nice to know that you're willing to confuse the two, though. I need a 'study' to prove that gang rapes exist. Un****ingbelievable. This coming from the person who suggests that people Google the studies to support your points, most of which don't end up doing so anyway.

    I'm not getting offended over a simple argument, I'm getting offended over your dishonest tactics and misrepresentations of what I've been saying for quite some time now. More on that below.

    In most cases, the victim knows her perpetrator. Just like SophieSmall said, in most instances, the rapist is an ex-boyfriend, aquaintances, etc. According to a study, 20% of rape cases are gang rapes, that leaves 80% that are not, meaning that using simple logic, serial rapists are far more common than gang rapes are. So no, you're wrong. You did not use "evidence" as you say, because guess what, there are more factors that play part. This isn't "logic and evidence", you're ignoring the FACT that most rapists are serial rapists, that is evidence because it's supported by valid sources.
    Bold bit: Oh there are, are there? What happened to 'there are no studies showing that gang rape is a common type of rape?' Ha, if that 20 percent figure is correct (again, no source provided because I'm supposed to Google stuff to support your assertions), it's not uncommon at all. It would have to be much less for any reasonable person to call it so uncommon that it doesn't deserve to even be mentioned.

    As for not using evidence because more factors play a part, that's why I called it an estimate, but I guess that went right over your head in your hurry to come out with more nonsense, didn't it?

    Except, she didn't say that they appeared to be normal with families and jobs, you said that yourself, neither she nor I ever mentioned that, she said that they were completely normal people who made mistakes/did bad things. Not all people with mental health issues are unemployed and not all unemployed people are rapists, that's a ridiculous generalization.
    Let's go over the chronology of events, since you've completely mucked this up in your bid to derail attention from the fact that you got proven wrong using your own bloody statistic (suddenly 'more factors' need to be considered to save you having to concede anything):

    1. SophieSmall says that most rapists are normal people, not psychopaths.
    2. You went ape**** on her with bad sarcasm and emotional misrepresentation (not unlike you've done here).
    3. Numerous people including SophieSmall herself respond to you. This includes me, and I say that she probably meant normal in the sense that we consider people to have normal lives i.e. having jobs, families, commitments. You know, like most people. Hence it's considered a 'normal' life in the same way that having committed an imprisonable offence would be 'normal' in a prison. You fail to understand the analogy and go ape**** on me.
    4. SophieSmall confirms that your assertions were false.
    5. I do some arithmetic that you clearly struggled to follow that shows that, if we use the metrics (and SophieSmall is long out of the discussion by now, despite your despicable attempt to use the fact that I defended her earlier to avoid conceding anything like the troll you are) of employment, family life, and commitment to measure how many of the rapists, according to your claims, could realistically be expected not to have either of these things and be 'psychos' or 'not having a normal lives.' The result comes out as 37 percent (as the number of rapists exceed the number of people who don't satisfy at least one of the metrics I used - employment in this case), destroying your claim that most rapists are '****ed up in the head' and are 'psychos.'
    6. You go ape**** again, grasping at straws to turn it on me.
    7. I reply again explaining why you're wrong.
    8. You type the nonsense I'm currently replying to.

    "You either give up this figure, or admit you're wrong. There's no two ways about it."
    We don't know the number of rapists there are in the UK or anywhere else and furthermore, even if we would be able to estimate the number (which we're not) your ludicrous generalization that just because a person is employed, that means that that person is what society deems as normal makes zero sense.
    Why don't we know the number of rapists there are in the UK? We clearly know that 20 percent of women anywhere in the world (since you claimed that it's static, in complete contravention of the statistics and the fact that there is such a thing as a 'rape capital'), that's good enough to get an estimate. But you're too good for that when you don't like the numbers, aren't you? 'There are too many factors!' Pathetic.

    Bold bit: I've made no such generalisation, you simpleton. I've stated, quite clearly and many times, that what immediately comes to mind as having a normal life includes, among other things, having a job, a family, or other commitment because the majority of people have one or more of these things. That's where the oft-asked question, 'what do you do for a living?' comes from. I did not suggest that unemployed people are necessarily rapists or any of the nonsense you've accused me of. If you're denying that these are the things that society views as normal, then it is you who is making zero sense. Go read a bloody newspaper about the latest scandal from the Job Centre.

    I admitted that I was wrong, 20% of all women have been sexually assaulted, stop nit-picking irrelevant things when I've already said that I made a small error. Jesus.
    Not until the last post, you didn't. It's no small error to claim that 20 percent of all women will be raped in their lifetime and then repeat that, coupled with all manner of guttersnipe abuse directed at various people, for eight bloody pages and then quietly claim that you admitted you were wrong a long time ago. I wouldn't nitpick a typo or a small mistake but this was neither and so I did. Don't try to turn your stupid mistakes on me by accusing me of nitpicking.

    Of course they're big concerns, and false rape allegations, are very problematic when they do happen, but the rates for false rape allegations are the same for false crime allegations in general. It's ridiculous to believe that a woman who says she was raped is more likely to be lying than a woman who says she was robbed, because this isn't backed up by any kind of statistics at all, (which we still do, because while a small amount of rape allegations are false, college students believe that up to 50% of rape reports are fabricated), but then again, that doesn't say anything, since you've never been a big fan of using sources anyway, but would rather make up your own sources as you go, without looking into what actually is there, and then accusing me for being "emotional", while throwing a big and childish tantrum when someone doesn't agree with you.
    Oh look. I'm being lectured on sources by somebody who has, in this very post, not supplied any sources for any of the statistics claimed. I used your statistic of 20 percent to do some simple arithmetic based on some assumptions that I clearly stated which you first tried to deflect and, when that failed, threw your hands up and tried to discredit by stating 'there're too many factors for us to know!' But obviously, anything's wrong unless it came from the CDC, isn't it? I've 'made up' sources. Please, name just one. Just one.

    And well done for ignoring the larger mitigating factor than the gang rapes: the under-reported rapes. False accusations of rape equivalent to false accusations of robbery? Bull****. A false rape accusation can destroy the accused's life, whether you want to admit it or not. You may not care about the fallout because they're just numbers from a poorly-conducted study but I do.

    As for tantrums, I refer you to your first post:

    (Original post by elizah)
    True. Rapists aren't bad, they just made a mistake, and shaming them like that is wrong! Instead, teach women to not walk alone at night, to not wear too revealing clothes, cause it may make those poor men make mistakes and rape them, and if they do, it's on them!
    Real tantrum I threw, blasting you with all those reasonable arguments. No, really, I should be sent to jail for it.

    Don't expect any further reply. I'm not interested in wasting my time with an idiot who came with a closed mind and is determined to leave with one.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slade p)
    You can't refute what I say, so you make an irrelevant point. You know deep down that feminism is a self serving anti male movement.
    Refute what exactly??? There was absolutely nothing of substance to refute. I need an argument to be presented to me before I can even try to refute anything. ****ing hell I can't even...
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.