Posted on 05/23/2018 3:00:55 PM PDT by NohSpinZone
I assume everyone here watched the long long video. Right?
Read the comments on the link that you provided, one of the commenters clearly explains the situation.
Assuming I lack analytical skills has worked for exactly zero people in nineteen and a half years here... the reality is that I read more of the document that you provided as counter-evidence than you did, and already understand it much better.
It is social justice garbage funded by taxpayers. This guy is working with the crazy kook that turned Evergreen State into a Stalinist purge site. What my keen analytics skills have made crystal clear is that these are manufacturers of political propaganda and therefore their arguments can be rejected out of hand as inherently dishonest, without further assessment.
This ain’t my first rodeo. Delving into the details of social justice arguments is a waste of time - these people need to be thrown out of helicopters.
Thanks for your specific, insightful and in-depth dissection of the rhetoric.
Since you got nothin’, I searched for another source that has an argument ending with the same claim you posited, but came up with nothing that FR would allow posted here. Too Storm-fronty, y’know.
Ah, well....
Did you try reading the comments on the link you posted? That’s where the refutation you say you are looking for is.
And I seriously have to ask, man... you signed up here in 2003 and now, 15 years later, in 2018, you read something from a far left social justice blog and think their arguments are genuine ones? Still? Were you in a coma during the Obama years and just woke up earlier this week?
OK I’ll made an effort.
Can you please explain why in the world the author wrote in paragraph 10 or so (just after the chart):
“Now, go back to the structure of the survey. If each respondent in the survey counts for about 1,700 people, ...”
What in the world is he saying there?
He is making lots of assertions.
I cannot follow his logic. At all.
But you wrote about how you how gone all through it and noted all the points that were incorrect. But yet, for some reason and oddly enough, you couldn’t come up with even one, though you claim to have done a thorough analysis.
Funny how those things work, ain’t it.
I won’t pressure you any further, though. You’re just tossing your 2 cents in and it’s a free country to have an opinion, be it a correct or incorrect one.
I’ll defer to someone who has gone over it and written on it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/stupid-racist-meme-rape-black-men-2016-10
Specifically to the point you brought up -
“Just 10 or fewer women made up some of the samples surveyed for this report, and their small number of experiences has been extrapolated to represent tens of thousands of assaults.
In other words, a sample size this tiny simply cannot be understood to tell us anything about what’s going on at the population level. The odds of picking any 10 or fewer women out of a crowd whose experiences have nothing to do with what’s typical are far, far too high.”
I find it interesting and weird how much you tried to get me to waste my time combing in detail through a link you threw at me yet didn’t even bother to read through, yourself.
Very strange behavior. Very disrespectful too, and not at all conservative in character.
I did. It’s more than obvious to me that the vast majority here did not.
Excuse me.
I asked a question. I am confused by what he wrote.
What did he say? Why is he saying “Now, go back to the structure of the survey. If each respondent in the survey counts for about 1,700 people, then...”
I am truly confused. I am not on this thread to bash you or what you are saying, or likewise I am not on this threat to support you, or what you write. I am simply confused.
I read the article frankly, because the two of you seemed to be partisans on opposite sides of something.
(you really did)
What did he say?
I am challenging you only to support the author, of this piece, in one sentence of his article.
Maybe you can. Please do, in fact.
But just waving off my challenge, is completely dishonest.
I am going out now.
Will check back with this article, when I return.
Have a good day. OK?
Well, it’s closing in on night for me here, so you have a good evenin’.
Likewise.
Have a good morning. :D
As a woman, (and I hate to have to use a disclaimer), I am sick and tired of any woman being able to accuse any man of anything.......and being believed just because she has a vagina.
I think and I hope that this woman gets charged and found guilty and does jail time.
That said, I’m going to partially defend the lawyer. Now, if the lawyer dreamed this up, which I doubt, he should go to jail too and be disbarred for lying to the court...…..just for starters.
I suspect though that this woman insisted to him that she had been assaulted by the cop. If that’s true, he is duty bound to advocate as strongly as possible for his client...….so, he’s only a scumbag if he made this up or helped her make it up.
I’m no lawyer but I have some good ones and this “scumbag” allegation does not apply to all lawyers.
Hmmmmm……...Eric Holder comes to mind or Rosenstein or x lawyer Hillary, or Obama, or Michael Obama...…...it’s a long list.
Basically he’s playing pretend-stupid that the official stats don’t reflect the real-world reality. Perhaps the real world number over many years is not zero - it doesn’t matter, it’s damn close to zero.
Somehow Louis here got it fixed in his mind that the arbitrarily(?) selected unsupported opinion of a hard left academic-activist who has spent his whole life promoting the entire slew of identity politics from gender to race to immigration, is the ground zero of the question which must be refuted or accepted.
Me, I’m now wondering if David Brock got a hold of a FR account.
I like police wearing cameras. Soon people will be more honest. It may lead to better manners and etiquette return.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.