Re: Bad idea: Punishing false rape accusers

Rauni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:38:39 -0800, "Sir Jessy of Anti"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Sir Jessy of Anti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >
>>> > "Rauni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:16:39 GMT, "MMET572" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> > > wrote:

>>> > > >> Let's not forget that over 50% of domestic abuse is committed
>>> > > >> by women.
>>> > > >>
>>> > > >
>>> > > >Do tell. And are the 50% of these "abuse victims" who happen to
>>> > > >be male hospitalized or embalmed in the same proportions as the 
>>> > > >50% who happen to be women?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > Typical soc.men twisting of the facts, data collected from the
>>> > > National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice
>>> > > Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of
>>> > > violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times
>>> > > more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are
>>> > > men. 
>>> >
>>> > Still peddling the same ol' shtick here, eh Rauni?
>>> >
>>> > Men are bigger and stronger than women for the most part.  It
>>> > stands to reason when you start a fight with a Mac truck, you 
>>> > lose, and lose badly.
>>> > I've asked you before to give us some insight into what this 
>>> > might mean other than the obvious.
>>> > But no, you just keep throwing this out there - kind of like the
>>> > soc.men you accuse of doing the exact same thing.  Women are hurt 
>>> > more!  This proves everything! 
>>> > Well in fact it does little to prove who initiated what, and it 
>>> > simply reaffirms the obvious:  most men are physically
>>> > stronger than most women.
>>>
>>> Okay - using your analogy.
>>>
>>> You have a Mac truck and  a subcompact. Which would you think would
>>> be more risky and potentially damaging to use if you planned to weave
>>> in and out of traffic?

"... if you *planned* to weave in and out of traffic ..."

Is the author of this remark seriously trying to use tit in an analogy 
for domestic violence?

>>> Rules of the road (as in all things) apply equally, but practical
>>> allowance is made for capability (ya don't see too many Coopers at
>>> weigh in stations -
>>> even though highway weight codes technically apply to them as well).
>>
>>No, but occationally I see one of the fly in front of a Mac, slam on
>>the brakes, and nearly cause an accident.  You see, the Mac truck 
>>being built as it is - can't stop on a dime.
>>
>>>
>>> If you're driving a Mac, its a given that you're expected to keep
>>> that fact in mind. If you're capable of putting another person in 
>>> the hospital with your greater upper body strength keep that in 
>>> mind as well.
>>
>>I see your point, but like I said, there are many variables to
>>consider. My point was that Rauni's trotting out of that statistic
>>does little to show the interpersonal
> 
> I trotted out the *actual* statistic because of the sloppy research
> reported on this newsgroup. 

You trotted, alright, but as far as sloppiness goes, you're holding the 
lead slot.

> The 50% of domestic abuse is committed by women that the men on this 
> newsgroup keeps reporting is just as misleading.

And how is it misleading?  Have the "men on this newsgroup" claimed that 
all forms of abuse are indistinguishable?  

What the 50/50 claim _suggests_ is that women can be, and in fact ARE, 
just as irrational and combative as men.  The 70/30 claim about injuries 
should be no suprise to anyone, but you use it as if it were a magic 
oracle, which it certainly is not.  When a weaker person engages a 
stronger one in physical battle, the weaker is more likely to suffer.  
The 70/30 claim suggests NOTHING about who attacked whom or why the 
attacks occured; it just shows who came out of the encounter with more 
injuries.

And, of course, that is EXACTLY where a victimist fool like yourself 
would prefer to end the analysis.  Who got hurt more often?  NEVER ask 
the question WHY they got hurt more often.

 
>>dynamics that exist in violent relationships, or the rate of DV
>>comitted and/or initiated by both men and women.
>>On top of this, men are socially conditioned to 'never hit a woman',
>>whereas the reverse does not apply.
>>Add to this the hundreds of empirical studies that have shown violence
>>to be intiated at relatively equal
>>rates in intimate relationships, and you have a different picture than
>>what Rauni would like to present.
> 
> I didn't present *anything* I quoted the *actual* statistic no more or
> less. You chose to give that number all sorts of emotional
> implications.

Which "emotional implications" do you prefer?  (Rhetorical question, but 
apply spin to the response as you see fit.)

So you presented a worthless statistic?  For without some critical 
analysis, such statistics mean nothing at all.  For example, examining 
annual road fatalities on Route 66 as compared to Highway 61, you get 82% 
for 66 and 18% for 61 (imaginary figures).  Now, WHY are those numbers 
significant?   Does the higher rate for Route 66 bestow some sort of 
value judgement upon it that is not equally valid for Hwy 61?

You're playing a worn-out, feminist propaganda game.  Quote the statistic 
without context, and hope for a knee-jerk reaction in your political 
favour.  The LAST thing you'd want is an unbiased analysis of what's 
going on behind the statistics.  That might dilute your victimist piety.


> More of the soc.men's victim mentality

How so?
And have you ever met this "soc.men" entity?  What does she/he/it look 
like?

>>For instance, were the wounds inflicted in self-defense?   If a woman
>>punches a man in the face, and he strikes her back,
>>as a generalization - who do you think will be hurt more?  Are these
>>violent acts somehow 'less' or 'more' than equal to one another?
>>
>>You raise an interesting question though.  If men are required to
>>restrain themselves in violent altercations with women,
>>than what are women doing in the military?  I can assure you the enemy
>>makes no such fru-fru distinctions.  This is an example of claiming
>>victim status where suitable, and equality when convienent.
> 
> Pot kettle black

Pot.  Feminist.  Stinks.





TR  II


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---