Nearly 70% of rapes aren't reported. Republicans are showing you why

[laughing dog]

Explain.

Your claim is bs.

If you're asking for more effort to be devoted to rape but you aren't asking for an overall increase you are asking for the effort devoted to other crimes to be lowered.

I am asking for more effort to be devoted to rape. If that means more resources, then fine. If it does not, then fine - it means reprioritization. But, in this state, the police are not complaining they don't have enough resources to catch speeders or burglars but they are saying that they don't have enough to properly handle the volume of rape allegations to do the job properly.

Now, from your handwaving and excuse-making, it appear that you do not view that rape is a more heinous crime than speeding, burglary or loitering. If so, rational discussion is not possible.

 

[Elixir]

I was hoping for an answer with substance.

Not with a comment like that, you weren't.

Xactly.
If JM really wanted to know how Republicans are continuing to try to suppress the likelihood of rape (actual rapes) being reported, all he'd have to do would be to muster some tiny level of empathy, and keep it in place while watching his precious Republicans trying to eviscerate a woman for telling a very apparently true story of abuse, while the perp is being deified for his angry, aggressive display of classical behavior by a guilty accused party.

 

[Lion IRC]

The reason they gave in the survey is that they thought their report wouldn't be believed.
I don't understand that.
Report it to social media - expect to be believed.
Phone a talkback radio station - expect to be believed.
Answer an anonymous opinion poll - expect to be believed.
Use a zinger slacktivism #hashtag- expect to be believed.

Whatever you do, don't report it to the legal authorities with the power to actually prevent your rapist from raping their next potential victim. Because they won't believe you.

The bitter irony in this forum is how, on some issues, skepticism and testing the evidence is revered. Disbelief is the default starting position. Doubt is not a dirty word. Corroboration is expected. And the objective, empirical definition of words like bat or bird is not up for debate.

But here in yet another #MeeToo gender-wars thread, we have a subjective definition of the word 'rape', we have presuppositions of belief, we have anger towards folks who demand evidence...

Where else in the legal system is it considered a problem that the police and judiciary don't prosecute and convict 100% of cases alleged.

That is completely unsurprising, since the rules of basic logic are not evident in any of your posts.

Sorry you can't see my posts. Why not take me off ignore?
Hang on! How can you reply to one of my posts if I'm on ignore?

 

[Jarhyn]

The reason they gave in the survey is that they thought their report wouldn't be believed.
I don't understand that.
Report it to social media - expect to be believed.
Phone a talkback radio station - expect to be believed.
Answer an anonymous opinion poll - expect to be believed.
Use a zinger slacktivism #hashtag- expect to be believed.

Whatever you do, don't report it to the legal authorities with the power to actually prevent your rapist from raping their next potential victim. Because they won't believe you.

The bitter irony in this forum is how, on some issues, skepticism and testing the evidence is revered. Disbelief is the default starting position. Doubt is not a dirty word. Corroboration is expected. And the objective, empirical definition of words like bat or bird is not up for debate.

But here in yet another #MeeToo gender-wars thread, we have a subjective definition of the word 'rape', we have presuppositions of belief, we have anger towards folks who demand evidence...

Where else in the legal system is it considered a problem that the police and judiciary don't prosecute and convict 100% of cases alleged.

That is completely unsurprising, since the rules of basic logic are not evident in any of your posts.

Sorry you can't see my posts. Why not take me off ignore?
Hang on! How can you reply to one of my posts if I'm on ignore?

If he sees your post in context as something someone else replied to, he can see and thus reply to the post you made.

So let's say he sees your post quoted by someone else, he can take that quote to use for himself.

Anyway, we've been missing you over in our discussion of where you claimed through implication that abortions are done to to make money, specifically as a profit motive for those HAVING them

 

[phands]

If he sees your post in context as something someone else replied to, he can see and thus reply to the post you made.

Something I have explained on multiple occasions. I only see his thread-pollution when someone else quotes it, and he knows it...this was another distraction attempt.

 

[Jarhyn]

If he sees your post in context as something someone else replied to, he can see and thus reply to the post you made.

Something I have explained on multiple occasions. I only see his thread-pollution when someone else quotes it, and he knows it...this was another distraction attempt.

Something I have noticed particularly from conservatives and fundamentalists, mostly from my time here, is that they will say the same garbage over and over again. You can explain in a thousand different threads that radiometric dating doesn't work the way they think it does, that it isn't merely a strict ratio of A to B, but rather that we can look at the physical decay paths between the As and the Bs, and see that decay happened at the ratios and apparent rates that we expect from the model of radio decay, yet the next thread they are back to talking about how we don't know what the starting ratios were.. despite the fact that we can just literally fucking look at the shape of the material and prove it.

It doesn't matter how many times. Never will a fundamentalist abandon the bad argument, no matter how many times you explain the badness of it. Sure they may disappear or even agree once, but they will just go back. It's all they know. This seems an extension of that.

 

[untermensche]

That is the key.

The right wing, meaning Republican party, in the US is now so radical it is fundamentalism. It is a religion.

Perhaps a reason why the Christians buy into it so easily.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is the key.

The right wing, meaning Republican party, in the US is now so radical it is fundamentalism. It is a religion.

Perhaps a reason why the Christians buy into it so easily.

Conservativism has ALWAYS been a religion, as it has always been "do what we have always been doing because we have always been doing it". It doesn't say Do X because reasons founded on observations which are vulnerable to reconsideration based on new observations. It says "ignore new observations, keep everything the same", just like any religion.

I prefer to base my understanding on models, generated from observations from people who are and also others who are NOT me. I look at nature rather than books written by men; not that I don't read. I do... but I also compare those observations from my reading back to nature. It is the difference between "Trust" and "Trust but Verify".

 

[untermensche]

Not true.

Conservatives at one time were sane.

They did not raise spending and lower taxes and only talk about the lowering of taxes part.

If they spent they taxed to pay for it. They were conservative. They did not like huge debt.

They did not believe in attacking other nations for no reason.

They did not talk about Jesus.

They were not racists and fear mongers.

But because they were sane they were always a minority because of some of their social views, especially the role of government in helping the poor.

 

[Elixir]

...we've been missing you over in our discussion of where you claimed through implication that abortions are done to to make money, specifically as a profit motive for those HAVING them

Oh, but it IS a profit center - that's why we see abortion doctors on the street corners handing out Viagra. Oh, wait - no we don't. Never mind.

 

[bilby]

...we've been missing you over in our discussion of where you claimed through implication that abortions are done to to make money, specifically as a profit motive for those HAVING them

Oh, but it IS a profit center - that's why we see abortion doctors on the street corners handing out Viagra. Oh, wait - no we don't. Never mind.

The claim that abortions are done to make money is an inevitable consequence of the false axiom that 'everyone knows that abortion is murder'.

Starting from that premise, it follows that as people actually do have abortions, they must have a motive - a motive strong enough to overcome their moral scruples about killing people. After all, everyone is really a Christian, and everyone really knows that abortion (and even many forms of contraception) are murder. So why do people commit murder?

Most of the motives for murder don't apply to fetuses - they rarely sleep with other men's wives, or renege on drug deals, or uncover a long buried secret that must be kept at all costs. In fact, when you start with the premise that abortion is murder, you find yourself rapidly running out of ideas about why it occurs at all - but money, greed, avarice - these are universal motives for almost all crimes.

Therefore we conclude that if abortion is murder, and abortions happen, abortion must be profitable. QED.

It's a fine example of how rapidly you can reach absurd conclusions when you start from a false premise. As such, it is in fact a rare instance where LionIRC has actually attempted to apply consistent and reasonable logic. Unfortunately, he missed step one - examine and question your premises, particularly if they conform to your prejudices.

Of course the conclusion "abortion must be profitable" is itself a testable hypothesis; But you don't get to remain devoutly religious by actually testing the hypotheses upon which you depend. So the fact that abortion is NOT profitable must be avoided at all costs. After all, as long as you don't test your hypotheses, they remain true, right?

If abortion were NOT profitable, then we would need to reconsider the premises from which we concluded it must be, and those are precious and inviolate. You can't let people go around disproving them, or demonstrating that they lead to contradictions and counterfactual conclusions.

 

[Lion IRC]

If he sees your post in context as something someone else replied to, he can see and thus reply to the post you made.

Something I have explained on multiple occasions. I only see his thread-pollution when someone else quotes it, and he knows it...this was another distraction attempt.

I'm gonna totally ignore this post OK!
...just sayin'

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Explain.

Your claim is bs.

If you're asking for more effort to be devoted to rape but you aren't asking for an overall increase you are asking for the effort devoted to other crimes to be lowered.

I am asking for more effort to be devoted to rape. If that means more resources, then fine. If it does not, then fine - it means reprioritization. But, in this state, the police are not complaining they don't have enough resources to catch speeders or burglars but they are saying that they don't have enough to properly handle the volume of rape allegations to do the job properly.

Now, from your handwaving and excuse-making, it appear that you do not view that rape is a more heinous crime than speeding, burglary or loitering. If so, rational discussion is not possible.

But you objected to me pointing out that it was merely an aspect of a lack of police resources in general.

And you're falling for the usual widows and orphans tactic. Cutting the things people want most is used as a tactic to get people to vote for increased funding. Likewise, look at bonds on the ballot--always for things people care about. Never for the things that those in power want, they always manage to find the money for those things without bonds.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your claim is bs.

I am asking for more effort to be devoted to rape. If that means more resources, then fine. If it does not, then fine - it means reprioritization. But, in this state, the police are not complaining they don't have enough resources to catch speeders or burglars but they are saying that they don't have enough to properly handle the volume of rape allegations to do the job properly.

Now, from your handwaving and excuse-making, it appear that you do not view that rape is a more heinous crime than speeding, burglary or loitering. If so, rational discussion is not possible.

But you objected to me pointing out that it was merely an aspect of a lack of police resources in general.

Because it isn't. As every study posted in these threads over the past few weeks abundantly proves, the problem hasn't been a lack of general resources; it has been a lack of proper guidelines from above and a too dismissive attitude on behalf of the police. The exact same attitude we just saw writ large on every screen and is now enshrined (again) in our Supreme Court. Too many cops are misogynists who don't care--and probably have done their share of raping/molesting/intoxicating women. When pressure is applied to them, however, and more direct scrutiny over their methods happens, then miracle of miracles we see dramatic decreases in cases formally considered "false" and equally dramatic increases in successfully prosecuting legitimate cases.

The only "police resources in general" that are being repurposed are police investigator's brains.

 

[laughing dog]

Your claim is bs.

I am asking for more effort to be devoted to rape. If that means more resources, then fine. If it does not, then fine - it means reprioritization. But, in this state, the police are not complaining they don't have enough resources to catch speeders or burglars but they are saying that they don't have enough to properly handle the volume of rape allegations to do the job properly.

Now, from your handwaving and excuse-making, it appear that you do not view that rape is a more heinous crime than speeding, burglary or loitering. If so, rational discussion is not possible.

But you objected to me pointing out that it was merely an aspect of a lack of police resources in general.

No. I did not. I pointed out that police resources and effort are a reason not the cause.

And you're falling for the usual widows and orphans tactic...

Nope. But thanks for coming up with yet another way to minimize the rape issue.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your claim is bs.

I am asking for more effort to be devoted to rape. If that means more resources, then fine. If it does not, then fine - it means reprioritization. But, in this state, the police are not complaining they don't have enough resources to catch speeders or burglars but they are saying that they don't have enough to properly handle the volume of rape allegations to do the job properly.

Now, from your handwaving and excuse-making, it appear that you do not view that rape is a more heinous crime than speeding, burglary or loitering. If so, rational discussion is not possible.

But you objected to me pointing out that it was merely an aspect of a lack of police resources in general.

And you're falling for the usual widows and orphans tactic. Cutting the things people want most is used as a tactic to get people to vote for increased funding. Likewise, look at bonds on the ballot--always for things people care about. Never for the things that those in power want, they always manage to find the money for those things without bonds.

How about this: I think the police should completely stop with the drug war and all the resources that they spend on that be redirected towards rape and murder investigation. There. Zero-sum-game solved.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The police don't have enough resources to devote the proper effort to any crime other than the high profile things that they really have to solve for PR reasons.

Why should rape be elevated in priority and others lowered?

Probably because it's a devastating, life-altering crime -- when it doesn't end in the victim's murder -- and is probably more deserving of investigation than an actress getting caught shoplifting. Seems pretty obvious to me.

I'd have to say as well that your first quoted sentence really needs to be supported. Have you done a breakdown for all the roughly 18,000 departments assessing their needs and comparing those needs to their budgets? Or is this all just PIDOOMA? Some PDs have plenty, others don't.