I am making the gender distinction because in our society it is relevant. want to talk about two women or two men where one is falsely accused of rape? ok but wouldn’t that statistic be even lower?
So that makes it okay? Not your problem? What about raped men? Sorry we lack ‘kits’ for that. Cowboy up.
My assertions are that rape is bad. On this we agree.
Rape accusations are bad too. By definition rape is a violation of your person, deeply damaging, and can leave someone permanently mentally scarred for their life:
I wonder if that false accusation resulted in that exact thing to the man? Nah. Doesn’t matter. Cowboy up. I’m sorry - we fundamentally disagree on this. No person deserves inequal treatment. People are capable of unthinkable acts of cruelty: sex, race, religion is irrelevant. This story is an example of that. Broaden your views. Apologists make the problem worse, not better.
You’re strawmanning my argument. Men are raped, and that’s a concern. The way society views men who are raped as less than men is a problem. Get your head out of your ass and stick to the topic: why should we create a culture of fear around something (false rape accusations against men from women) that does happen but happens so rarely that it’s only really ever brought up to propagandize?
A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”. Wikipedia
I am highlighting your own statement and showing you the flaw in your reasoning. Your response to every single person you’ve engaged in this thread is “strawman,” which isn’t correct. A good strawman would be to say: yeah it’s a shame that guy’s situation but… (insert diversion). Ponder that for a moment.
As I said. We agree in rape being awful… as we should. My views are unbiased. We won’t agree on this.
To your point on rape kits: ‘rape kits’ are multi part examinations. They ascertain if the party had sex. They look for “evidence” of the partner. They look for indications of injuries. They record a statement. The issue lies in all of this data being circumstantial. This isn’t some silver bullet that you think it is. Being an apologist for someone because, arbitrarily, bureaucracy and resources are a problem is a terrible platform to stand on. Which of us has our head buried in something here?
If that is what you gathered from what I said you are either a troll or beyond the point of being conversational with. Either way- I hope you find peace.
I gathered that you are spreading misinformation. I gathered that you decided you has nothing to reply with that wouldn’t admit that I am correct so you called me a troll. I gathered that you misunderstood how people have been strawmanning my argument.
I replied to the most obscene part of your comment first. No rebuttle? I hope you find peace.
Let’s start with your assertions that I am spreading misinformation: quote the statement. Explain your reasoning for believing that. If you cannot? Further conversation isn’t possible and you’ll have only reinforced my earlier assessment of you.
Assuming we can clarify your assessment of my statement we can continue to play. Your move.
To your point on rape kits: ‘rape kits’ are multi part examinations. They ascertain if the party had sex. They look for “evidence” of the partner. They look for indications of injuries. They record a statement. The issue lies in all of this data being circumstantial.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
Physical evidence that is intimately linked to the case facts is called real evidence. The jury must examine such proof tangibly. Common examples include guns, DNA, knives, blood samples, fingerprints, and other material artifacts.
https://dlplawyers.com/4-types-of-evidence-you-should-be-aware-of/
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it. Until then, I think the people’s encyclopedia is good enough for the sake of our discussion.
If you find fault in its information… I’m happy to cite other sources… but you will need to specifically point out what invalidates it.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
Very good. That aligns with what I said.
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it.
All evidence is circumstantial. DNA confirms the presence of a person. Hair and bodily fluids all indicate the presence of a person. Certainly that can include sex. Sex however does not immediately indicate rape - thus circumstances matter. This defines it as (wait for it) circumstantial evidence.
Now that we have clarified this basic fact: I cannot help but notice you have somehow not pointed out one incorrect thing with my statement. I’ll forgive you for getting lost in your hand waving- care to try again?
So that makes it okay? Not your problem? What about raped men? Sorry we lack ‘kits’ for that. Cowboy up.
My assertions are that rape is bad. On this we agree.
Rape accusations are bad too. By definition rape is a violation of your person, deeply damaging, and can leave someone permanently mentally scarred for their life:
I wonder if that false accusation resulted in that exact thing to the man? Nah. Doesn’t matter. Cowboy up. I’m sorry - we fundamentally disagree on this. No person deserves inequal treatment. People are capable of unthinkable acts of cruelty: sex, race, religion is irrelevant. This story is an example of that. Broaden your views. Apologists make the problem worse, not better.
You’re strawmanning my argument. Men are raped, and that’s a concern. The way society views men who are raped as less than men is a problem. Get your head out of your ass and stick to the topic: why should we create a culture of fear around something (false rape accusations against men from women) that does happen but happens so rarely that it’s only really ever brought up to propagandize?
I am highlighting your own statement and showing you the flaw in your reasoning. Your response to every single person you’ve engaged in this thread is “strawman,” which isn’t correct. A good strawman would be to say: yeah it’s a shame that guy’s situation but… (insert diversion). Ponder that for a moment.
As I said. We agree in rape being awful… as we should. My views are unbiased. We won’t agree on this.
To your point on rape kits: ‘rape kits’ are multi part examinations. They ascertain if the party had sex. They look for “evidence” of the partner. They look for indications of injuries. They record a statement. The issue lies in all of this data being circumstantial. This isn’t some silver bullet that you think it is. Being an apologist for someone because, arbitrarily, bureaucracy and resources are a problem is a terrible platform to stand on. Which of us has our head buried in something here?
You’re arguing against rape kits now? wild. Should we institute mandatory body cams for all women now?
You’re saying a man’s semen being in a woman when the woman said she did not want the man’s semen in her is not evidence of her being raped?
Absolutely wild, my man.
If that is what you gathered from what I said you are either a troll or beyond the point of being conversational with. Either way- I hope you find peace.
I gathered that you are spreading misinformation. I gathered that you decided you has nothing to reply with that wouldn’t admit that I am correct so you called me a troll. I gathered that you misunderstood how people have been strawmanning my argument.
I replied to the most obscene part of your comment first. No rebuttle? I hope you find peace.
Alright, I’ll let you entertain me more.
Let’s start with your assertions that I am spreading misinformation: quote the statement. Explain your reasoning for believing that. If you cannot? Further conversation isn’t possible and you’ll have only reinforced my earlier assessment of you.
Assuming we can clarify your assessment of my statement we can continue to play. Your move.
Rape kits take samples of DNA. DNA is a type of evidence known as “real evidence”.
You can’t just say, universally that all rape kits are circumstantial. Doing so would be misinformation.
Yes, the last link was pasted from wikipedia. If you’ve got a better source that says that all rape kit data is circumstantial, please provide it. Until then, I think the people’s encyclopedia is good enough for the sake of our discussion.
For reference: https://www.surviverape.org/forensics/sexual-assault-forensics/rape-exam
Educate yourself.
If you find fault in its information… I’m happy to cite other sources… but you will need to specifically point out what invalidates it.
Very good. That aligns with what I said.
All evidence is circumstantial. DNA confirms the presence of a person. Hair and bodily fluids all indicate the presence of a person. Certainly that can include sex. Sex however does not immediately indicate rape - thus circumstances matter. This defines it as (wait for it) circumstantial evidence.
Now that we have clarified this basic fact: I cannot help but notice you have somehow not pointed out one incorrect thing with my statement. I’ll forgive you for getting lost in your hand waving- care to try again?