Another Trump Rape Surfaces

[Derec]

Unfounded claims are claims for which there is insufficient supporting evidence or no supporting evidence, either because the evidence has been obscured, lost, never existed, or was never collected.

Which means that it doesn't count cases where the prosecutors took cases to trial or even obtained convictions that were nevertheless false claims.
In other words, you have not refuted that the "unfounded" is not a ceiling.

For example, suppose a man said a woman pulled a knife on him and she says she didn't. No one else saw what happened, there was no record of events, and no knife was found. His claim is unfounded. That doesn't mean he's lying or mistaken or that a crime wasn't committed. It means there's no evidence other than his say-so which is disputed, therefore the evidence of a crime is insufficient to support the claim.

Nevertheless, many prosecutors believe the woman in "he said she said" situations and prosecute the man even if there is no or insufficient evidence. And some juries even vote to convict, even if the man is innocent. Those claims are not counted under "unfounded" even though they are lies.

Also, it should be noted that not all false claims are deliberately, knowingly false. A victim might be genuinely mistaken about the identity of his/her attacker, or have only a hazy recollection of an incident due to alcohol or drug use, or having been slipped a roofie.

True. But many are deliberate lies. Why is it so important for feminists to downplay those?

Drawing from the last published Uniform Crime Reporting data on "unfounded" reports in 1996, the FBI says the unfounded rate for "forcible rape," at 8 percent, is higher than the average for all other crimes measured, at 2 percent.

FOUR TIMES higher than average for other crimes. That is very significant.

Criminal justice professor Philip Rumney,

Who is he? A radical feminist who thinks females who accuse men of rape should be automatically believed?

Where are you getting your data?

Certainly not from radical feminist bullshitters like Emily Moon. The data I saw shows that estimates of false allegations vary widely, from 2% claims by radical feminists to as much as 40% by some law enforcement agencies. The truth is probably somewhere between these two, but we can't know for sure, because we are not omniscient observers knowing for sure which claims are true and which are false.

Are we talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a criminal trial, or are we talking about a man believing his own daughter is reporting the truth as she knows it?

This thread is in the context of a woman accusing a man of raping her ~25 years ago, but she doesn't know exactly when.

The "I would believe my daughter" is irrelevant to the question of whether we should believe EJC. If you or Jimmy had a son, would you not also be inclined to believe him if he was accused of raping somebody?

Because if you think men should only believe their daughters if they can mount an effective prosecution complete with DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a compelling argument for conviction, I think you're being ridiculous. But if you're just substituting one for the other in order to score a rhetorical point, I think you're being disingenuous.

I would expect a father to believe their child. That is understandable. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether we should automatically believe women as feminists demand we do.

So, just to be clear: if your own kid said she'd been raped, you would demand that she preserve the evidence before you believed her.

What if your kid was accused of raping a woman who did not preserve any evidence and yet demands people believe her because she is a female?

But you don't believe a woman who said she was raped and preserved the evidence, and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

If EJC was really raped, she should have gone to the police right then and there. A 25 year old dress, with no chain of custody, is pretty much useless as evidence.

Sounds like you just prefer to disbelieve rape claims, period.

This claim is not very believable, PERIOD.

No one is suggesting that all claims must be automatically believed to be 100% true, accurate, and complete or that trials are unnecessary.

Your own trial has protesters holding placards saying "believe women". That's basically what they are saying.

No one, that is, except for hysterical extremists who either don't understand or don't want others to understand that believing someone is telling you the truth as they know it is

By the way, why are we supposed to believe the women when they claim rape, but not the man when he says he didn't.

not the same as believing they couldn't possibly be mistaken in whole or in part, or that they couldn't possibly be one of those rare two-percenters who tell lies.

The rate of false rape accusations is far more than the 2% radfems claim and you know that.

 

[Arctish]

Unfounded claims are claims for which there is insufficient supporting evidence or no supporting evidence, either because the evidence has been obscured, lost, never existed, or was never collected.

Which means that it doesn't count cases where the prosecutors took cases to trial or even obtained convictions that were nevertheless false claims.
In other words, you have not refuted that the "unfounded" is not a ceiling.

I put that link in for a reason. It was to refresh everyone's memory of our prior discussions of the issue of 'unfounded' claims and the definition of the term used in the studies being cited. The thread I linked to contained a link to an even earlier discussion. Loren was using an incorrect definition in both, just as you are here, resulting in him not accurately describing what the Harvard study and the FBI data showed.

Unfounded claims as defined by the Harvard study authors are claims for which insufficient evidence is collected to proceed with an investigation and/or prosecution. The term does not mean lies or mistakes or inconsistencies or some other defect in the evidence itself. It doesn't count "cases where the prosecutors took cases to trial or even obtained convictions that were nevertheless false claims" because those cases don't fit the definition of 'unfounded' being used.

You might think the authors of the Harvard study should have used a different term. You might think 'unfounded' should apply to cases where the evidence led people to reach the wrong conclusions. It doesn't really matter because the authors did use the term and they didn't use it the way you're using it, which is why bringing up the conviction of an innocent person is irrelevant to the discussion of the percent of 'unfounded' claims in the FBI data and the Harvard study.

Nevertheless, many prosecutors believe the woman in "he said she said" situations and prosecute the man even if there is no or insufficient evidence. And some juries even vote to convict, even if the man is innocent. Those claims are not counted under "unfounded" even though they are lies

They aren't counted as 'unfounded' in the studies because they don't fit the definition being used.

And they aren't necessarily lies. It could be "he said" what he believed was true and "she said" what she believed was true and the jury decided which version of events they believed was more objectively true than the other.

Also, it should be noted that not all false claims are deliberately, knowingly false. A victim might be genuinely mistaken about the identity of his/her attacker, or have only a hazy recollection of an incident due to alcohol or drug use, or having been slipped a roofie.

True. But many are deliberate lies. Why is it so important for feminists to downplay those?

I don't know about downplaying, but when the best data available indicates something happens 2% of the time, it shouldn't be considered more commonplace than what happens 90% of the time. The data indicates that the overwhelming majority of reports of rape are truthful which is why investigators should take them seriously and investigate them conscientiously. That does not mean adopting a stupid doctrine about the Infallibility of Rape Victims.

Drawing from the last published Uniform Crime Reporting data on "unfounded" reports in 1996, the FBI says the unfounded rate for "forcible rape," at 8 percent, is higher than the average for all other crimes measured, at 2 percent.

FOUR TIMES higher than average for other crimes. That is very significant.

Criminal justice professor Philip Rumney,

Who is he? A radical feminist who thinks females who accuse men of rape should be automatically believed?

Where are you getting your data?

Certainly not from radical feminist bullshitters like Emily Moon. The data I saw shows that estimates of false allegations vary widely, from 2% claims by radical feminists to as much as 40% by some law enforcement agencies. The truth is probably somewhere between these two, but we can't know for sure, because we are not omniscient observers knowing for sure which claims are true and which are false.

I would like to see the data you saw. And I would like to see the breakdown in false vs. unfounded, and what criteria was used. If your source conflates false with unproven (as you often do), that's a major flaw.

The link I provided to the previous discussions has links to the Harvard study and the FBI data. AFAIK there were no radical feminists involved in either, and even if there were, that by itself wouldn't mean their methodology was flawed.

Are we talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a criminal trial, or are we talking about a man believing his own daughter is reporting the truth as she knows it?

This thread is in the context of a woman accusing a man of raping her ~25 years ago, but she doesn't know exactly when.

These remarks are in the context of the question posed to Jolly_Penguin about believing his daughter if she said she'd been raped, and his response.

The "I would believe my daughter" is irrelevant to the question of whether we should believe EJC. If you or Jimmy had a son, would you not also be inclined to believe him if he was accused of raping somebody?

I would.

I would also believe him if he said he'd been raped, and I wouldn't be an a-hole about it and demand he present the evidence before I took his claim seriously.

Because if you think men should only believe their daughters if they can mount an effective prosecution complete with DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a compelling argument for conviction, I think you're being ridiculous. But if you're just substituting one for the other in order to score a rhetorical point, I think you're being disingenuous.

I would expect a father to believe their child. That is understandable. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether we should automatically believe women as feminists demand we do.

No one is suggesting we do away with investigations or lower the bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That's a fallacious argument made by extremists.

Believe the victims means believe they are reporting what they genuinely believe to be true. The reasons to believe them are

1) data indicates that 90% of victims reporting a rape genuinely believe what they are saying is both true and accurate
2) data indicates only 2% are deliberately lying
3) it's better to start out making a genuine effort to investigate a reported rape than to play catch-up later if/when there are more victims

And once again, this does not mean automatically believing every bit of every report is 100% true, accurate, and complete. It does not mean eliminating due process or establishing kangaroo courts.

So, just to be clear: if your own kid said she'd been raped, you would demand that she preserve the evidence before you believed her.

What if your kid was accused of raping a woman who did not preserve any evidence and yet demands people believe her because she is a female?

I once presented a scenario about two guys, one of whom said the other raped him and the other denied it. I did that so we could examine the questions posed without having to muck out the misogynist dreck like what you just posted. I'm going to recast your question for the same reason:

"What if your kid was accused of raping a man who did not preserve any evidence and yet demands people believe him?"

I would want the police do their effing jobs and conduct a thorough, conscientious investigation because I would believe my son when he said he didn't do it, therefore I would expect the claim would be ruled 'unfounded'. I would also get him a lawyer.

But you don't believe a woman who said she was raped and preserved the evidence, and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

If EJC was really raped, she should have gone to the police right then and there. A 25 year old dress, with no chain of custody, is pretty much useless as evidence.

So, like I said. If your own kid said she'd been raped, you would demand that she preserve the evidence before you believed her, but you don't believe a woman who said she was raped and preserved the evidence, and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

Got it.

Sounds like you just prefer to disbelieve rape claims, period.

This claim is not very believable, PERIOD.

I find it somewhat believable. It will be even more believable if the DNA evidence pans out. I don't think the evidence I've heard about is enough for a successful prosecution but there could be more out there.

No one is suggesting that all claims must be automatically believed to be 100% true, accurate, and complete or that trials are unnecessary.

Your own trial has protesters holding placards saying "believe women". That's basically what they are saying.

No one, that is, except for hysterical extremists who either don't understand or don't want others to understand that believing someone is telling you the truth as they know it is

By the way, why are we supposed to believe the women when they claim rape, but not the man when he says he didn't.

The word 'believe' has more than one meaning, just like the word 'unfounded' does. "Believe self-identified victim are honestly trying to report things they think actually happened" is not the same as "believe self-identified victims are infallible reporters of objective truth", and I can scarcely believe I have to type that out for you.

not the same as believing they couldn't possibly be mistaken in whole or in part, or that they couldn't possibly be one of those rare two-percenters who tell lies.

The rate of false rape accusations is far more than the 2% radfems claim and you know that.

Show me your evidence.

 

[Derec]

resulting in him not accurately describing what the Harvard study and the FBI data showed.

So do you. You are claiming that the real rate of false claims is lower than the "unfounded" number, when that is not the case.

It doesn't count "cases where the prosecutors took cases to trial or even obtained convictions that were nevertheless false claims" because those cases don't fit the definition of 'unfounded' being used.

Which means that the true rate of false claims is HIGHER than this unfounded number, not lower.

They aren't counted as 'unfounded' in the studies because they don't fit the definition being used.

Exactly my point. The rate of false claims is higher than the 'unfounded' number, because 'unfounded' does not count cases where a false rape claim survived initial scrutiny and let to prosecution or even conviction.

And they aren't necessarily lies. It could be "he said" what he believed was true and "she said" what she believed was true and the jury decided which version of events they believed was more objectively true than the other.

I did not say "he said she said" are necessarily lies. But those are the cases among which there are false claims of rape that are nevertheless not counted under the "unfounded" number.

I don't know about downplaying,

Always bringing up the made up "only 2% of rape claims are false" as a reason why women should automatically be believed about rape is definitely downplaying.
Example:
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see [Jackie Coakley lying about being raped] as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players. In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.

Who is Jackie? Rolling Stone's rape story is about a person – and I believe her

fter publishing a 9,000-word feature revolving around Jackie’s story and coming under increasing pressure from multiple media outlets, Rolling Stone later said it had “misplaced” trust in Jackie, citing “inconsistencies” in her story – even though disjointed and unreliable memories are not uncommon in trauma victims. Then, without acknowledgement or apology, the magazine changed its statement to read that any reporting failures “are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie”.
But it doesn’t matter. Jackie is now another woman who is not believed.
Whether she is able to remain anonymous or not, and even though her story of being raped has not been disproven, the fact that Jackie is not and was not a symbol or a cause, but a person, has been lost in the rush to indict her and anyone who believes her. I choose to believe Jackie. I lose nothing by doing so, even if I’m later proven wrong – but at least I will still be able to sleep at night for having stood by a young woman who may have been through an awful trauma.

By the time Valenti was writing, it was clear to anybody with a brain that she was lying about being raped. And yet she "chose" to believe her.

but when the best data available indicates something happens 2% of the time, it shouldn't be considered more commonplace than what happens 90% of the time.

Except that the data does not show it happening only 2% of the time. And even if it did, it's still no reason to blindly believe accusers.

The data indicates that the overwhelming majority of reports of rape are truthful which is why investigators should take them seriously and investigate them conscientiously. That does not mean adopting a stupid doctrine about the Infallibility of Rape Victims.

The data does not show that "overwhelming majority" are truthful. However, yes, rape claims should be investigated conscientiously. And if evidence appears that the accuser is lying, that should be investigated, and if appropriate, prosecuted. Jackie Coakley should have been prosecuted. Same goes for Crystal Mangum.

I would like to see the data you saw. And I would like to see the breakdown in false vs. unfounded, and what criteria was used. If your source conflates false with unproven (as you often do), that's a major flaw.

It's not hard data, it is estimates. We cannot know true data. We can know how many are proven false, but that is not the same as the number which are false in actuality.
So the number of false rape claims are by necessity estimates and guesses.
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that just because a claim was not declared unfounded, and led to investigation and prosecution, it must be true. But a lot of cases taken up by prosecutors later are shown to be false. It is unknown, but certainly that number is not zero, how many of rape cases that go to prosecution and even conviction are based on false claims.
In contemporary US, corroborating evidence is no longer required to obtain a rape conviction. A woman's claim can be enough, if a prosecutor can persuade a jury to convict or if a judge blocks defense from introducing exculpatory evidence.

The link I provided to the previous discussions has links to the Harvard study and the FBI data. AFAIK there were no radical feminists involved in either, and even if there were, that by itself wouldn't mean their methodology was flawed.

Pretending that unfounded is ceiling for false claims is in itself a fatal flaw in methodology.

These remarks are in the context of the question posed to Jolly_Penguin about believing his daughter if she said she'd been raped, and his response.

This is a case of a 3rd rate advice columnist spinning an incredible (in the sense of not credible) yarn about having been raped in a Bergdorff changing room, similar to a plot point of a Law and Order episode. EJC is way to old to be any of ours daughter I believe, so I still don't know what the "daughter" digression was in aid of.

I would also believe him if he said he'd been raped, and I wouldn't be an a-hole about it and demand he present the evidence before I took his claim seriously.

But what if he wasn't your son but it was some 3rd rate conservative columnist who alleged that (in an alternate universe) President Hillary Clinton sexually assaulted him in a NYC department store in 1995, or maybe 1996, his memory is fuzzy. Oh, and his book called "What Do We Need Women For?" is "coincidentally" just about to be released for sale.
And he is claiming that the pants he was wearing then he didn't wear again except for a photo shoot to promote that book. And the pants have some touch DNA that he wants to test against Hillary.

All pretty incredible, yes?

No one is suggesting we do away with investigations or lower the bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That's a fallacious argument made by extremists.

Radical feminists are making just that suggestion. So to say that "no one" is suggesting that is quite disingenuous.

Believe the victims means believe they are reporting what they genuinely believe to be true. The reasons to believe them are

Believing the accuser is prejudging the case. It is important to keep an open mind, by for example not presupposing an accuser is automatically a "victim".

1) data indicates that 90% of victims reporting a rape genuinely believe what they are saying is both true and accurate

Wrong. Data indicates that 90% of claims by accusers reporting rape cannot be immediately dismissed as unfounded. That is not the same as saying that we know that 90% "genuinely believe what they are saying".

2) data indicates only 2% are deliberately lying

It does no such thing!

3) it's better to start out making a genuine effort to investigate a reported rape than to play catch-up later if/when there are more victims

We should make a genuine effort to investigate a reported rape, but that does not mean we should prejudge the case by automatically believing the accuser, which also means that you automatically believe the accused is a rapist.

And once again, this does not mean automatically believing every bit of every report is 100% true, accurate, and complete. It does not mean eliminating due process or establishing kangaroo courts.

It can definitely mean that, if the case is prejudged from the beginning.

I once presented a scenario about two guys, one of whom said the other raped him and the other denied it. I did that so we could examine the questions posed without having to muck out the misogynist dreck like what you just posted. I'm going to recast your question for the same reason:

So if there is a scenario where a woman lies about rape, that is automatically "misogynist"? We must always treat women as these perfect beings who never lie?

I would want the police do their effing jobs and conduct a thorough, conscientious investigation because I would believe my son when he said he didn't do it, therefore I would expect the claim would be ruled 'unfounded'. I would also get him a lawyer.

Again, not all claims not ruled "unfounded" are true.

and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

EJC's claims are quite unbelievable and there is no chain of custody on supposed dress evidence, and touch DNA, even if present and preserved, would not be indicative that anything sexual happened, and it certainly would not be evidence of rape.
Had EJC really been raped and went to police right away, there would be hope some real evidence would be collected. 25 years later? Not a chance!

I find it somewhat believable. It will be even more believable if the DNA evidence pans out. I don't think the evidence I've heard about is enough for a successful prosecution but there could be more out there.

I find the whole scenario just baffling. She was raped in a dressing room, but no other customers or employees heard or saw anything amiss? Note also that there is no evidence of seminal fluid on the dress, so what would DNA indicate, even if present? That Trump touched the dress at some point? Like at least 3 other people? If touch DNA proved rape, then she must have been raped at least 3 more times wearing that same dress ...

The word 'believe' has more than one meaning, just like the word 'unfounded' does. "Believe self-identified victim are honestly trying to report things they think actually happened" is not the same as "believe self-identified victims are infallible reporters of objective truth", and I can scarcely believe I have to type that out for you.

Either way, believing one party means disbelieving the other. It is not neutral. It is not unbiased.

Show me your evidence.

You are making the positive claim for 2%. My claim is that we, not being omniscient observers, cannot really know for sure. My guess would be about 25-30% though, based on several estimates I have seen made.

 

[Toni]

So do you. You are claiming that the real rate of false claims is lower than the "unfounded" number, when that is not the case.


Which means that the true rate of false claims is HIGHER than this unfounded number, not lower.

They aren't counted as 'unfounded' in the studies because they don't fit the definition being used.

Exactly my point. The rate of false claims is higher than the 'unfounded' number, because 'unfounded' does not count cases where a false rape claim survived initial scrutiny and let to prosecution or even conviction

And they aren't necessarily lies. It could be "he said" what he believed was true and "she said" what she believed was true and the jury decided which version of events they believed was more objectively true than the other.

I did not say "he said she said" are necessarily lies. But those are the cases among which there are false claims of rape that are nevertheless not counted under the "unfounded" number.

I don't know about downplaying,

Always bringing up the made up "only 2% of rape claims are false" as a reason why women should automatically be believed about rape is definitely downplaying.
Example:
No matter what Jackie said, we should generally believe rape claims

Many people (not least U-Va. administrators) will be tempted to see [Jackie Coakley lying about being raped] as a reminder that officials, reporters and the general public should hear both sides of the story and collect all the evidence before coming to a conclusion in rape cases. This is what we mean in America when we say someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” After all, look what happened to the Duke lacrosse players. In important ways, this is wrong. We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says.


but when the best data available indicates something happens 2% of the time, it shouldn't be considered more commonplace than what happens 90% of the time. The data indicates that the overwhelming majority of reports of rape are truthful which is why investigators should take them seriously and investigate them conscientiously. That does not mean adopting a stupid doctrine about the Infallibility of Rape Victims.

Drawing from the last published Uniform Crime Reporting data on "unfounded" reports in 1996, the FBI says the unfounded rate for "forcible rape," at 8 percent, is higher than the average for all other crimes measured, at 2 percent.

FOUR TIMES higher than average for other crimes. That is very significant.

Criminal justice professor Philip Rumney,

Who is he? A radical feminist who thinks females who accuse men of rape should be automatically believed?

Where are you getting your data?

Certainly not from radical feminist bullshitters like Emily Moon. The data I saw shows that estimates of false allegations vary widely, from 2% claims by radical feminists to as much as 40% by some law enforcement agencies. The truth is probably somewhere between these two, but we can't know for sure, because we are not omniscient observers knowing for sure which claims are true and which are false.

I would like to see the data you saw. And I would like to see the breakdown in false vs. unfounded, and what criteria was used. If your source conflates false with unproven (as you often do), that's a major flaw.

The link I provided to the previous discussions has links to the Harvard study and the FBI data. AFAIK there were no radical feminists involved in either, and even if there were, that by itself wouldn't mean their methodology was flawed.

Are we talking about proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a criminal trial, or are we talking about a man believing his own daughter is reporting the truth as she knows it?

This thread is in the context of a woman accusing a man of raping her ~25 years ago, but she doesn't know exactly when.

These remarks are in the context of the question posed to Jolly_Penguin about believing his daughter if she said she'd been raped, and his response.

The "I would believe my daughter" is irrelevant to the question of whether we should believe EJC. If you or Jimmy had a son, would you not also be inclined to believe him if he was accused of raping somebody?

I would.

I would also believe him if he said he'd been raped, and I wouldn't be an a-hole about it and demand he present the evidence before I took his claim seriously.

Because if you think men should only believe their daughters if they can mount an effective prosecution complete with DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and a compelling argument for conviction, I think you're being ridiculous. But if you're just substituting one for the other in order to score a rhetorical point, I think you're being disingenuous.

I would expect a father to believe their child. That is understandable. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether we should automatically believe women as feminists demand we do.

No one is suggesting we do away with investigations or lower the bar of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That's a fallacious argument made by extremists.

Believe the victims means believe they are reporting what they genuinely believe to be true. The reasons to believe them are

1) data indicates that 90% of victims reporting a rape genuinely believe what they are saying is both true and accurate
2) data indicates only 2% are deliberately lying
3) it's better to start out making a genuine effort to investigate a reported rape than to play catch-up later if/when there are more victims

And once again, this does not mean automatically believing every bit of every report is 100% true, accurate, and complete. It does not mean eliminating due process or establishing kangaroo courts.

So, just to be clear: if your own kid said she'd been raped, you would demand that she preserve the evidence before you believed her.

What if your kid was accused of raping a woman who did not preserve any evidence and yet demands people believe her because she is a female?

I once presented a scenario about two guys, one of whom said the other raped him and the other denied it. I did that so we could examine the questions posed without having to muck out the misogynist dreck like what you just posted. I'm going to recast your question for the same reason:

"What if your kid was accused of raping a man who did not preserve any evidence and yet demands people believe him?"

I would want the police do their effing jobs and conduct a thorough, conscientious investigation because I would believe my son when he said he didn't do it, therefore I would expect the claim would be ruled 'unfounded'. I would also get him a lawyer.

But you don't believe a woman who said she was raped and preserved the evidence, and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

If EJC was really raped, she should have gone to the police right then and there. A 25 year old dress, with no chain of custody, is pretty much useless as evidence.

So, like I said. If your own kid said she'd been raped, you would demand that she preserve the evidence before you believed her, but you don't believe a woman who said she was raped and preserved the evidence, and you oppose her attempt to secure DNA in order to support her claims.

Got it.

Sounds like you just prefer to disbelieve rape claims, period.

This claim is not very believable, PERIOD.

I find it somewhat believable. It will be even more believable if the DNA evidence pans out. I don't think the evidence I've heard about is enough for a successful prosecution but there could be more out there.

No one is suggesting that all claims must be automatically believed to be 100% true, accurate, and complete or that trials are unnecessary.

Your own trial has protesters holding placards saying "believe women". That's basically what they are saying.

No one, that is, except for hysterical extremists who either don't understand or don't want others to understand that believing someone is telling you the truth as they know it is

By the way, why are we supposed to believe the women when they claim rape, but not the man when he says he didn't.

The word 'believe' has more than one meaning, just like the word 'unfounded' does. "Believe self-identified victim are honestly trying to report things they think actually happened" is not the same as "believe self-identified victims are infallible reporters of objective truth", and I can scarcely believe I have to type that out for you.

not the same as believing they couldn't possibly be mistaken in whole or in part, or that they couldn't possibly be one of those rare two-percenters who tell lies.

The rate of false rape accusations is far more than the 2% radfems claim and you know that.

Show me your evidence.

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

 

[Arctish]

resulting in him not accurately describing what the Harvard study and the FBI data showed.

So do you. You are claiming that the real rate of false claims is lower than the "unfounded" number, when that is not the case.

Wrong.

Please review the thread I linked to and follow its link to the earlier discussion. In it you will find the FBI data and the Harvard study with the footnote containing the definition of 'unfounded' that was used (page 53 iirc).

It doesn't count "cases where the prosecutors took cases to trial or even obtained convictions that were nevertheless false claims" because those cases don't fit the definition of 'unfounded' being used.

Which means that the true rate of false claims is HIGHER than this unfounded number, not lower.

Well, if you follow the links and read the actual studies you will find that the ~10% figure is the number of false and unfounded claims put together, which is higher than the unfounded claims alone. Because definitions matter, and you're using the wrong one.

Discussing this with you is pointless if you don't understand that the definition you're using is not the definition used in the study and that's why your criticisms of it are completely off-base.

Let me know when you've read it.

 

[Derec]

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

I accidentally clicked post while mid-writing, but I understand the FBI definition, unlike Arctish, and presumably you.

"Unfounded" simply does not mean what Arctish wants it to believe, i.e. a ceiling on false claims. A rape claim can be not ruled "unfounded" and still be a result of a lie.

 

[Derec]

Discussing this with you is pointless if you don't understand that the definition you're using is not the definition used in the study and that's why your criticisms of it are completely off-base.

I am not misusing that word. You are simply misunderstanding what it means. I agree it is pointless discussing this with you until you rectify that.

 

[Arctish]

Discussing this with you is pointless if you don't understand that the definition you're using is not the definition used in the study and that's why your criticisms of it are completely off-base.

I am not misusing that word. You are simply misunderstanding what it means. I agree it is pointless discussing this with you until you rectify that.

You are not using the word as it was used in the studies under discussion. You are using a definition that, while valid in common parlance, is not the definition provided by the authors. They put that definition in a footnote to their study to avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the data.

You are wrong about what the term 'unfounded' meant in that study, and it appears deliberately so.

 

[Derec]

You are wrong about what the term 'unfounded' meant in that study, and it appears deliberately so.

You are wrong to think that the term "unfounded" in the study means that the number of false claims is necessarily lower than the number of those ruled "unfounded". Until you realize just how wrong you are to think that this conversation is pointless.

 

[Arctish]

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

I accidentally clicked post while mid-writing, but I understand the FBI definition, unlike Arctish, and presumably you.

"Unfounded" simply does not mean what Arctish wants it to believe, i.e. a ceiling on false claims. A rape claim can be not ruled "unfounded" and still be a result of a lie.

Let me know when you finish reading the Harvard study and the FBI data. Then we can discuss the terms that were used. The authors very helpfully provided definitions, so simply reading them should clear this up pretty quickly.

 

[Derec]

Let me know when you finish reading the Harvard study and the FBI data. Then we can discuss the terms that were used. The authors very helpfully provided definitions, so simply reading them should clear this up pretty quickly.

No part of their definitions means what you think it means. Your interpretation would be true iff all claims not found to be "unfounded" were always true. But that is definitely not the case. You are the one with the comprehension problem, not I.

Besides, I am pretty sure FBI would have judged EJC's Munchausenesque tale as "unfounded".

 

[Toni]

Let me know when you finish reading the Harvard study and the FBI data. Then we can discuss the terms that were used. The authors very helpfully provided definitions, so simply reading them should clear this up pretty quickly.

No part of their definitions means what you think it means. Your interpretation would be true iff all claims not found to be "unfounded" were always true. But that is definitely not the case. You are the one with the comprehension problem, not I.

Besides, I am pretty sure FBI would have judged EJC's Munchausenesque tale as "unfounded".

Munchauseneque?

Wonder what the FBI would think of you?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would. I don't know her and have no reason to take her accusations as fact, especially if that means prejudging the accused.

Sounds like you're prejudging the accuser.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You've seen the links to data on false accusations of rape. You know the rate of 'false and unfounded' claims is less than 10%, and when unfounded claims (aka claims lacking evidence) are separated out, the false claims amount to somewhere around 2%.

We have seen you using the lowest possible data point you can find. The true value is much more likely to be somewhere in the middle, not at either extreme.

As for demanding a rape victim preserve DNA evidence before showering off the residue of a rapist's attack, otherwise you won't believe him/her, that's not only unreasonable, it's cruel.

It's perfectly reasonable. Any other alleged crime and you destroy evidence before reporting it, you're not likely to be believed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

True, snd a rape apologist can also bring up every imaginable excuse to dismiss a rape allegation.

It's not rape apologia to demand evidence before believing an allegation.

It is when your default stance, even in the face of evidence, is to deny or excuse the alleged rapist.

Here, you are actually using Trump’s well known admissions of sexually assaulting women as evidence that Caroll’s accusation is false.

No. What he's saying is that just because His Flatulence has faced other accusations doesn't automatically make hers believable. It still needs evidence--of which we appear to have none.

 

[Arctish]

Let me know when you finish reading the Harvard study and the FBI data. Then we can discuss the terms that were used. The authors very helpfully provided definitions, so simply reading them should clear this up pretty quickly.

No part of their definitions means what you think it means. Your interpretation would be true iff all claims not found to be "unfounded" were always true. But that is definitely not the case. You are the one with the comprehension problem, not I.

Besides, I am pretty sure FBI would have judged EJC's Munchausenesque tale as "unfounded".

Just so we're clear: you are refusing to read the Harvard study and the FBI data, you do not know, understand, or care what specific definition of 'unfounded' was used when the authors sorted reports of rape into that category, and you are continuing to use your own definition in order to criticize the documents you didn't read.

I can't say I'm surprised. Frankly, I think you are just defending your habit of calling all rape allegations 'unfounded' so you can then call the reported victims liars. Anyway, I'm not going to pretend your argumentum ad ignorantiam has even the slightest merit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

You have a very selective interpretation of what the FBI said.

And note that the FBI is going to be a substantial undercount as it's not going to see the cases that are quickly discredited by law enforcement. The very high false report rates include those quickly-discredited cases.

 

[Arctish]

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

You have a very selective interpretation of what the FBI said.

And note that the FBI is going to be a substantial undercount as it's not going to see the cases that are quickly discredited by law enforcement. The very high false report rates include those quickly-discredited cases.

You're bullshitting, Loren. Just like you did in the thread I linked to, and in the thread that one was linked to.

You haven't the slightest clue about the quality of the data the FBI collected or how it was organized because you never followed the links and read their report. You have no idea how many cases were "quickly discounted by law enforcement" after an initial investigation or how many weren't investigated at all, although one of the quotes I provided upthread would have given you a clue had you bothered to read it.

If you ever get around to actually reading the FBI and Harvard reports, let me know.

 

[Toni]

It is when your default stance, even in the face of evidence, is to deny or excuse the alleged rapist.

Here, you are actually using Trump’s well known admissions of sexually assaulting women as evidence that Caroll’s accusation is false.

No. What he's saying is that just because His Flatulence has faced other accusations doesn't automatically make hers believable. It still needs evidence--of which we appear to have none.

No, what he said was the fact that Trump has so many allegations against him has caused a well to do professional woman years past middle age to make false allegations against Trump to better sell a book. Ms Carroll has long been a well established author in major publications.

We are not a jury who is charged with determining whether allegations are true, nor are we a prosecutor trying to determine if charges should be brought. If there were stains on the dress which were determined to be semen left by Donald Trump, Derec would still claim that it is impossible to know which date they were left and besides she’s just a lying slut who wanted it. We know this because we’ve all read Derec’s posts about rape victims and allegations for years.

The fact that Trump has been credibly accused of various sexual assaults and indeed has publicly bragged about sexually assaulting women does not prove that he assaulted Ms Carroll. We also have Trumps daily twitter rages about not knowing people that he obviously knows and has had many dealings with. We know that he frequently lies. Of course this does not prove, in a legal sense, that Trump raped Ms Carroll in a dressing room years ago. But it does allow us to consider this when forming a non-legal in the criminal justice sense opinion of who to believe.

 

[Toni]

So you have no evidence or any links demonstrating that your personal definitions are in accordance with FBI standards. Got it.

You have a very selective interpretation of what the FBI said.

And note that the FBI is going to be a substantial undercount as it's not going to see the cases that are quickly discredited by law enforcement. The very high false report rates include those quickly-discredited cases.

What Arctic said.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We discuss these stats once per year. Been going on for several years now. Each time Derec's claims get debunked. For some reason Loren still supports the debunked claims. Then another year. Round and round we go.