By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 08 October 2018
Edit Thread
eva01beserk said:
sundin13 said:

1) Do you have anything to back that up? It seems to me that your argument has largely become "I feel like that doesn't seem right, so it must be wrong", which honestly isn't much of an argument.

2) Just ignoring the fact that sexual violence is often unreported and pretending that those crimes didn't exist does not make your numbers any more accurate. You are ignoring the prevailing body of knowledge and literally everything we know about crime reporting which states that rape is widely under-reported, in order to twist the numbers to somewhat agree with you. Ignoring the majority of sexual violence does not make anything more accurate. While there may be some small portion of false reports in BJS statistics, there is no reason to assume that these outnumber cases which are unreported in BJS statistics or cases that occur before an individual turns 12, or even that these are statistically significant. If anything, these numbers provided by the NCVS are likely to be an underestimate, not an overestimate. To argue that we cannot use the best data we have is to argue that we should not be having this conversation because any alternative you present will be worse. Unless you have a more comprehensive estimate (using only reported crimes is less comprehensive, not more comprehensive), you are not adding to this discussion.

3) So, for my math to be correct, you have to assume that the best estimate available is accurate. I don't consider this to be an issue here...

4) Yes, there are high risk populations, but that doesn't really change anything. We are talking about the average person here. That means that some people will know more individuals who have been victimized and some will know less. Still, the number here is so high that such variation does little to really change the point.

So you will just keep making up things I say. O well.

What did I say that was inaccurate? It is kind of hard to refute anything when you don't tell me what I should be refuting.

As for your previous claim that I wasn't accurately representing your argument, I think that was a misunderstanding of what this sentence meant:

"The most you can count is the 20% as actual numbers, then say theres another 4x as many women who "probably" where asaulted"

My reading of that was to say "you can only assume 20% of the total is truthful", which would imply that the other 80% was not truthful, but I think I misunderstood. I will admit that I misunderstood that bit. The reason I didn't go into this earlier was because I don't believe it really changes anything within the discussion. It makes your side more clear, but I don't think it changes any of my arguments.

 

As for this post, the only thing I can think of would be the implication that you would choose to ignore the unreported figure. I think that is substantiated by this sentence of yours:

"I will be happy to use that reported number even if its a wrong cuz it will be closer to the real number."

Basically, I read that as you saying that you want me to be using the smaller number because you arbitrarily feel that it is more accurate despite all evidence suggesting that rape and sexual assault is highly under-reported.

But again, if I misunderstood that sentence, I don't believe that changes the argument. My reading of your argument is that you are criticizing the use of unreported crimes in this discussion and advocating for the use of only reported crimes, or at least suggesting that utilizing unreported crimes is a significant over-estimate. I do not see enough evidence to support either of these positions. That is where I am arguing from.