I found this illustrating a typically incoherent rant about “The Aphrodisiac of the False Rape Claim” on What Men Are Saying About Women, the blog of the infamous MRA double period. Whoever made it needs to stop making Demotivational posters because he doesn’t understand how these posters are supposed to work. Or how to communicate a coherent message to other human beings using language.
“No princess, that’s not how it works. If 1 in 8 men are rapists and at any point in time, say at my family get together there might be 20 men there. It will be statistically impossible for at least one of us to not be a rapist. In fact, it is extremely unlike there won’t be two rapists present. In other words, you and your fucking ilk are calling me and my family a pack of rapists. That pisses me the fuck off to no end.
And guess what? Remember how I’ve stated I would risk my life to save a woman from being raped. I now recind that offer to only the women I know. Why the fuck should I risk my safety for someone who might be exactly like the shits that reside here.
Fuck you, good day.”
Jesus.
This isn’t just throwing your rage at people and lacking empathy, this is also an example of refusing to think.
“For all NWO knows, there are some rapists in his family. But given how he is, I doubt they’d share or that he’d ask.”
Y’know, I actually think it’s a lot more likely that a rapist would reveal xirself to Slaveman than a person who’s been raped.
“I tell you what, these 16-year-olds wearing revealing clothes in public is just like waving a four-course dinner in front of a starving man!”
“Right on, bro!”
*brofive*
@NWOslave
You still fail statistics. Learn what a statistically impossibility vs improbability is bro.
Holy crap. Well, I learned some things from this discussion, even if slavey didn’t.
I do not think NWO slave would rescue anyone from anything, really.
NWOSlave, you said, “No princess, that’s not how it works. If 1 in 8 men are rapists and at any point in time, say at my family get together there might be 20 men there. It will be statistically impossible for at least one of us to not be a rapist.”
That is not at all true. To say something is statistically impossible is to say that it has a zero probability. Assuming a 1 in 8 frequency the chance of a group of 20 American men being gathered together not containing a rapist is 1 in 14. If you were to gather all American men into evenly distributed groups of 20 there would be 543,613 groups that contained no rapists or attempted rapists. Your family could be such a group.
There is another possibility though, one or more members of the 20 person group could have attempted or committed rape. If a member of your family had at some point in their life attempted or committed one or more rapes, do you think that they would tell you about it?
NWO – “It will be statistically impossible for at least one of us to not be a rapist.”
This is may be example # 93845734895 of this in this very thread, but NWO, you really do not understand how statistics works.
First: No, it would be statistically improbable. Not impossible.
Second: Your family may not be representative of the general population. If I were trying to publish a study generalizing from your family to the entire US population I couldn’t, because there is a confounding variable–it isn’t a RANDOM sample, it is PEOPLE IN YOUR FAMILY.
Now, people in your family may be representative of the general population. Or they may not. But when someone says “one in eight men in the United States has raped someone” they don’t mean one in any eight men – statistically, that means if you take a whole bunch of samples of eight RANDOM men, ON AVERAGE one in eight will be rapists.
So saying that everyone your family is full of rapists is utter bullcrap, and demonstrates that you really do not understand basic statistics.
Please, please pick up an intro statistics book. Please read the chapters on probability and sampling distributions. Please.
You know, Slavey, there probably is a rapist in your family. This is because carrying your genetic code doesn’t stop someone from being a rapist fuckhead. I mean, do you think rapists don’t have families? o.O
No kidding; once he found out that he might wind up in a room with an actual live rapist someday he sure backpeddled on that “I’d die to stop a rape” crap right quick! :p
NWOSlave, I think I see the concept that you are not understanding. Let me help. If you flip a fair coin it has a 1 in 2 chance of coming up heads. For your statement about it being a statistical impossibility for a group of 20 American men to contain 0 men that have attempted or committed rape to be true, it would also have to be true that if one were to flip a coin twice it would be impossible that both flips would come up tails.
Engineers have a basic knowledge of statistics.
NWOSlave doesn’t have basic knowledge of statistics.
Therefore NWOSlave isn’t an engineer.
He reminds me of the loons we got on sci.math or sci.physics. The neo-Newtonians that reject all QM and Relativity are particularly funny, but you should see the math loons trying to prove things that were proven impossible or shown to be unprovable by Godel’s Incompletude Theorem.
In NWO’s case, it probably increases the possibility. After all, the “fuckhead” part is practically a surety.
Also, LMAO at NWO’s inability to grasp statistics.
@NWOslave
I don’t know why I’m bothering, but:
1/8 – probability a man is a rapist
7/8 – probability a man is not a rapist
(7/8)^20 – probability a group of 20 men includes no rapists
1-((7/8)^20) – probability a group of 20 men includes at least one rapist
So actually, statistically there is a 93% chance at least one of you is a rapist. But sociologically it’s probably higher, since you presumably all have a similar set of attitudes.
“He reminds me of the loons we got on sci.math or sci.physics. The neo-Newtonians that reject all QM and Relativity are particularly funny, but you should see the math loons trying to prove things that were proven impossible or shown to be unprovable by Godel’s Incompletude Theorem.”
Hahaha, really? I’ve seen Nietzsche wannabes try to make a claim to authority while saying that there is no objective reality, but that right there sounds insane.
Nice, Hershele. If showing your work that tidily can’t teach him basic math nothing can! :p
Engineers are better with calculus, linear algebra, that kind of thing. Since most of what we have to do is based on calculus (I’m still in school- not paid up yet). I’m rusty when it comes to basic computation because I almost never do it.
But yes, engineers should have some basic stats down. I had to take stats.
Please, answer in barely related incoherent rants.
ON IT!
Humans and dinosaurs did live together on this earth…plain and simple. I’ve come to this conclusion through much research and personal reflection, I have come to except that modern science is not simply wrong about this fact…but actively covering it up and feeding the lie to protect their holy grail..aka…evolution.
I feel these reptilians ruled the planet, just prior to the arrival of the so called Ice Age — possibly around 2.5 million years ago (I keep getting 2.5, so this might be 2.5 mya or 250,000). I do not ascribe to the theory that dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid 65 millions of years ago – at least not all of them anyway. I believe many of them continued to live on, and some of them continued to evolve into an intelligent humanoid species (the reptilians).
The papists made a fortune selling moral indulgences. Today Al Sharpton makes a fortune selling racial indulgences.
Guess what. I’m not paying.
That’s why I support a global powerdown. People would just move out into the country, continue to consume current crop production turn over, and maybe start up an amature ration system run by government remnants. They would move back to agri labour- rebuild trade slowly and reclaim the cities after, building a new government from the ashes upon a wholehearted embrace of the Founding Fathers’ true principles.
NWO, you have been very sweet and patient. When someone says something like “Out of women I’ve talked to about rape, nearly 100 percent have been raped,” why do you bother? We must remember that, even when telling “sort-of-half-truths”, many women are self-indulgent creatures who love to work themselves into a lather, especially when they are drawing attention to themselves – and if there’s a grain of truth, like some dude looks at her in a rapey kind of way, that becomes rape, and froth for the lathering process. Integral to the lathering process is women’s famous rationalization hamster that enables a reception-attendee to make inferences that 1 in 500 of admissions to her hospital were raped. We never know the contexts, the circumstances, or whether or not she is even telling the truth. It’s not always necessarily deliberate lying, it can be based on nothing of more substance than a feeyaling she has.
Lisa Longstaff of the UK’s Women Against Rape claims that “90% of rapes are never reported.” How can she know that 90% of claims are never reported when… they are never reported? These are the sorts of morons that we are dealing with. In case we have to spell it out, among the rape claims that are not reported, there is no record upon which to base the percentages that are not reported. duh. And no, neither hospital reporting rooms issuing rape kits, nor someone’s anecdote at an ER counter “proving”, that one in 500 (or whatever) are raped, nor the number of gripes circulating around women’s shelters moaning about how awful rapists are does not count as reportable evidence from which to extrapolate anything meaningful. Why not? Not only do we not know anything about the contexts, but we also cannot rely on how these tasks (issuing rape kits) are administered (managed) and recorded, nor the hospital’s funding incentives and performance indicators that they play into.
We need to understand the dynamics of working oneself into a lather. It reminds me of the practice of self-flagellation among muslims. I don’t think that we can expect truth to emerge from within such a context among the faithful.
Tell ya what. With all these women getting raped everywhere on the streets, in the home, at the shopping mall and in church, what about their children? Women are the primary abusers of children. Any issuing of child abuse kits that feminists care to make inferences about? Of course not. If it’s not about them, they’re not interested.
Women are the primary abusers of children.
[citation needed]
No, princess
http://www.wordswarm.net/wordswarms/2004/01_19.html
Inharmoniously transferral greenish-grey argufy embryo- surloin incomprehensibleness reinter
Oh for… chuckadee, nobody was taking Holly’s claims at face value. NWO himself tried to work them into some mathematistical gibberish. The rest of us then tried to demonstrate why his “calculations” were flawed. Holly’s observations actually jibe pretty well with an ultra-conservative estimate of how many rapes occur in an average year, so I don’t know why you’re annoyed by that.
The estimated 10% report rate comes from surveys. In surveys, many more women admit to being raped than report rapes. In much the same way that many more men admit to coercing sex in surveys than there are men who are actually imprisoned for rape. There are all sorts of reasons why people don’t report rape, just as there all sorts of reasons why men are unwilling to admit to rape when they’re faced with criminal penalty. This is not rocket science.
Child abuse is obviously bad, and I’d love if there were some sort of special forensic kit for it. Rape kits are already used for children in ERs. Physical exams are used to determine physical violence. It’d be nice if there were a screen for emotional abuse. How is this inimical to feminism? Why can’t we talk about the rape of women AND the abuse of children? Why does it have to be one or the other with you lot?
Chuckadee:
Protip – you can find out about un-reported rapes by doing anonymous surveys in which you ask if people have been raped, and if they reported that rape. It’s not a made-up magic number. It is a widely used method for data collection in psychology and sociology.
Copy-pasted from an essay I wrote a coupla years ago (note that this does not address infanticide or munchausen’s syndrome by proxy, which are crimes overwhelmingly perpetrated by women):
Reference: Administration for Children and Families. Child Maltreatment 2002. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2002. Based on data collected via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information – Original data obtained from: Child Maltreant 2002 report downloaded from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm. As on April 28, 2006.
From Child Maltreatment 2002 , a document published by the Department of Health and Human Services in the United States, women comprised 58.3% of the perpetrators of child abuse and men comprised 41.7% (Figure 5-1 of the Child Maltreatment Report and accompanying Table 5-1, Age and Sex of Perpetrators ). Most of the abuse of children (Table 5-3 of the Child Maltreatment Report ) was broken down as follows:
” 53.3% of all perpetrators neglected children;
” 11.0% of all perpetrators physically abused children;
” 6.9% of all perpetrators sexually abused children.
Women were more likely to neglect children, while men were more likely to abuse children.
32.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, while 16.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the father acting alone (Figure 4-2 of the Child Maltreatment Report, Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship ). That is to say:
Approximately twice as many mothers as fathers are responsible for the fatalities of their children.
“Integral to the lathering process is women’s famous rationalization hamster that enables a reception-attendee to make inferences that 1 in 500 of admissions to her hospital were raped. We never know the contexts, the circumstances, or whether or not she is even telling the truth. It’s not always necessarily deliberate lying, it can be based on nothing of more substance than a feeyaling she has.”
Just, blisteringly stupid. Do you have a running bet with someone to see how many words you can use to say absolutely nothing?
<blockquote.It’d be nice if there were a screen for emotional abuse. How is this inimical to feminism? Why can’t we talk about the rape of women AND the abuse of children? Why does it have to be one or the other with you lot?
He believes that it is in feminism’s best interest to cover child abuse up, because most of it is done by women and one of the tenets of feminism is that women are never wrong and deserve special protection. Therefore, etc., QED.