user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Actually, one would have to be a complete moron to play statistics with things like their own physical security.
Just because a guy is in a group that is 'statistically less dangerous' one should just abandon all caution?!?
She either takes precautions or she doesn't.
Let's see, in the last few days ballots on female genital mutilation, botched abortions, and rape.
Ecchh.
Unfortunately, I have always avoided being out alone at night because I am a woman.
by mojo on Wed Jun 07, 06 9:11am
[+]
If they have any sense, yes. Only a moron wouldnt be more wary of a young group of black males, than say a group of 80 year old male paraplegics.
If political correctness so distorts their thinking to the point where they cant exercise common sense and judgement to protect themselves, then perhaps they deserve to be raped.
Very similar in many respects to the whole racial profiling debate.
Fact- The majority of terrorist attacks on western countries in recent years have been carried out by young, Muslim Males, of Arabic appearance.
Fact- Airport security have a finite amount of resources at their disposal to profile flyers, i.e. they cant stop and investigate every passenger.
Now, you can insist they pick a random selection of people, including little old men and women, professional looking middle aged business men, and young babies. Or you can devote your limited resources to the statistically most likely candiates.
One makes you a politically correct Moron, who values their unrealistic leftist views over peoples LIVES.
The other makes you a racist, who understands statistics, and values peoples lives. But still a racist.
I know what id rather be.
and yes *shock, horror* I said they deserve to be raped if they are that incredibly stupid and naive. I have little sympathy for people who succumb to the insidious lures of political correctness so readily, like fat pigs happily munching hay all the way to the slaughter house.
People like that will be the death of us all, so if it takes them being raped to change their views, its for the good of mankind.
^ Why pigs would be munching hay, I have no idea. _Beelzebubba_chimp
Cathexis- are you... serious?
You don't think that women should be more cautious around certain groups? Most women don't even need to know to be more cautious around certain groups such as this.
Are you implying that women should be cautious of ALL groups equally? How strange. That kind of thing is what pushed me away from leftism.
Cathexis- for example- there is hypothetically a woman who is alone out at night. She is to take a bus. There are two bus stops in her sight- one is directly in front of her- another is further up. The one closest to her has only a bunch of guys in their twenties. They are laughing and fooling around and look like they could be drunk. The bus stop further away has only a bunch of women in their twenties laughing, fooling around, and they look drunk. Should the woman go to the first bus stop or the second?
By your logic, she should go to the first one, because all groups are theoretically equal, and that bus stop is closer to her and is thus by that theory the better one.
Or should she have some common sense and go to bus stop no.2?
B1= Bus stop 1
B2= Bus stop 2
W= Woman
B1 W B2
B1 .... W ........ B2
Soc: Actually, no. I submit that it depends on the neighborhood you're in moreso than the age of the encounters.
Which is more of a cause for alarm ...
* Passing a group of clean-cut college-age young men, eagerly debating Impressionism as they exit an Art Museum?
* Passing a group of disheveled older guys, in a 'bad section of town,' late at night?
By arbitrarily splitting the groups into:
A: Young and Middle aged
B: Elderly
... all I can say is ... WTF?
That ranks up there with using the groups:
A: Healthy males
B: Quadripelegics
... and asking which is the greater danger.
Let's be honest ... this is yet another tortured attempt to defend racial profiling ... and, again, using seriously tortured 'examples' that just don't cut it.
I have pointed out the logic flaw of this kind of ballot repeatedly. But ... allow me to do it yet again.
This logic flaw is called Spurious Association or Assumed Casual Relation.
In the ballot example, they use an inherent characteristic as a basis ... which may be valid (which has the greater threat ... a healthy 20 year old or a feeble 80 year old).
However, racial profiling profiles on inherent qualities in an effort to forfend an alleged danger -- not an inherent one. By unspokenly taking the 'inherent danger' as an 'assumption,' the balloteer seeks to sidestep the actual thrust of the debate -- establishing that the CAUSE of the danger is the inherent characteristics.
And that is because that is false.
I'd just save this explanation for the next time, but cut-n-paste rarely resolves bigotry.
You cant spend your life looking over your shoulder to see if the people around you may be dangerous. That is allowing yourself to be controlled by fear. Stupid idea and completely self defeating. Do you worry when you pass a group of muslims Herzog? do you assume they are all out to get you? Low level paranoia is sensible. Constant existential paranoia is probably worse for you in the long run than the vague chance something bad might happen to you.
Cathexis- your focus was on age, whereas my focus was on gender.
Yes or no, women should be more fearful of being raped by men than by other women, based on statistics?
^ In fact why just raped? In general, they are more likely to be harassed, mugged, abused, killed, etc by males rather than females. Correct, Cathexis? Or should women ignore this statistic and common sense?
cathexis- "Just because a guy is in a group that is 'statistically less dangerous' one should just abandon all caution?!?"
- No, it is an issue of varying degrees of caution.
Soc: I had first perceived the situation as limited to a date situation, hence my intial response.
As for your question re: the threat of rape based on gender ... are you serious? Is that a question?
Conceded: Males would be a bigger threat.
And the point is ...?
Anyway, most girls I know are more cautious around male strangers than they are around female strangers. Is that stupid? Or is it logical?
Cathexis
You are entirely missing the point here im afraid. There was no direct assertion here that the "danger" groups that have been described have "inherent" tendencies towards the crimes they have been associated with, i.e. young males with rape, young male muslims with terrorist attacks. That inference is entirely the product of your own mind. Whether you think thats what the ballot author or others believe, there has been no suggestion of direct causality here, except from yourself.
You also miss the point in that causality DOES NOT MATTER when talking of a hypothetical situation as we have in this ballot. Its a matter of combining common statistics with common sense, not assessing the REASONS behind the statistical associations between certain crimes and certain "danger" groups.
And, again, the simple fact is that if a woman doesnt want to get raped, she will pay more attention to avoiding a group of young males than she will to avoiding a group of frail, elderly men. And if she has a choice between the two, then she will walk through the group of old men, if she doesnt want to get raped.
The same applies for racial profiling. The STATISTICAL fact is, the majority of terrorist attacks on western nations recently have been my Islamic terrorist i.e young muslim males of arabic appearance. The subject here is not WHY this section of humanity are associated with terrorsit attacks, that can be the subject of another ballot. Its about decreasing the probability of many lives being lost.
Now, I say again, if you want to maximise your chances of preventing a terorist attack, you will include race in your risk assessment.
cathexis
Cathexis- my point is that 'This is horrible, women should expect everyone or no one to rape them equally' - is an unrealistic notion. Gender is an important factor.
See the distinction here? This is the sort of moral procrastination and sidetracking that stops people using their common sense to do their Jobs.
You can theorise all you like about the direction of causality, slection bias, spurious associations in your own time, but when it comes to security those distinctions have no place, and merely confuse the issue.
Soc: I agree with your point. I was looking at it from the other point -- from a dating perspective, why would they *increase* precautions for any particular group. If the risk was perceived as that great, they wouldn't go out with them.
My earlier response was because of how I mentally framed the situation.
And I will state again, lil_ape: Religion is most probably an incidental, not causal, attribute.
The real causal attribute will most likely be found in terms of perceived relative powerlessness amongst a group of disaffected people.
If this is occurring in a region which is relatively homogeneous in religion, then there will be a surface appearance that this is a link, but it will be spurious.
By reacting to surface appearances, we malign the general Muslim populace and fail to identify the real roots of the problem -- not religion, but geopolitical and economic factors.
Cathexis- Don't foget cultural attributes.
Trait A is visual, easy to detect in anyone within sight. Traits C & D are not visual and require careful investigation to find out about any single person. Traits C & D predict who commits crime B with 90% accuracy, trait A predicts it with 70% accuracy. What idiot is going to spend time concentrating on traits C & D when time is scarce? Worse yet, what idiot is going to investigate people at random for crime B?
Cathexis
And again, I will say that you are missing the point. Im not trying to argue against the fact that its a potentially spurious relation, and im not trying to debate WHY most terrorist bombers happen to be young, male, Muslim and Arabic in appearance. Im just saying that they ARE, and as such this is a reasonable basis for screening individuals with such an appearance.
You see? As I said, this is not about the direction of causality, this is about sensible behaviour if you dont want your planes to get bombed.
Like THC said, its very simple.
"geopolitical and economic factors" Cannot be ascertained without a lengthy interrogation. Racial/gender characteristics FACTUALLY and STATISTICALLY associated with terrorists, CAN.
Its not about causality, its about common sense. Which, at risk of offence, you seem to lack when it comes to this matter. Either that or you are being deliberately obtuse, though why you would do so eludes me at this juncture.
Now, I dont want to hear abnother irrelevant argument about causality or political motivations etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, I just want you to confirm the Logic of the racial profiling argument, from a STATISTICAL point of view.
Lets say you had to put your hand in a bag and draw out the first thing that you grab. You have a choice of two bags, and you know that 80% of the times people before you have chosen the brown bag, they have drawn out a golden nugget. Whereas the other 20% of the time people have chosen the white bag, and drawn out a lump of rock.
Now, assuming you prefer gold to rock, which bag will you choose?
The Blue or the Red?
IT.IS.THAT.SIMPLE.
Political correctness gone awry. Anyone with vision is going to have some preconceived judgements or ideas about groups of people. If one claims not to have any or that they have next to none, then they are in complete denial. People make judgments about others, who they will feel more safe around. A bunch of drag queens aren't going to prance by a bunch of 20 year olds having a kegger (and whose trucks have gun racks) in a rural southern town. It just ain't gonna happen.
Time to stop the ridiculous "I'm not racist or prejudicial in anyway nonsense". It is time to stop it in regards to public safety as well.
change that to " 80% of the time people had chosen the Blue bag, they had drawn out a golden nugget, and only 20% of the time had people drawn a golden nugget out of the red bag, the other 805 of the time they had drawn out a lump of rock"
How thin the disguise, Herzog. All the Southern pejoratives for Blacks -- and the implicit, ever so sly, intimation that we need to protect our wimminfolk from middle aged Black men.
Tsk, tsk.
Cath: so a woman should be just as weary of a 20 year old guy who looks like an ex-con as she should be of a 13 year old girl scouting raping her? Come on, try to have just an ounce of objectivity here.
An no, I did not use race at all, grif, cath, et al.
Please, find where I said young to middle age *black* males.
Griffon
How thin the accusation more like! Herzog made noi reference whatsoever to race in the ballot title. I on the other hand, did. And justly so.
The comments on this ballot really are a perfect example of how political correctness dulls the senses and corrupts peoples basic logic abilities.
'Conceded: Males would be a bigger threat.'
Cath: so you approve of profiling males in cases of rape. Why? Are all males guilty of rape? Are you sexist against men? Don't you realize that most men have never done such a horrible thing?
Women should be especially careful around sexually frustrated neo-cons.
What's especially funny about this ballot is that the connection that Duke was trying make between sexual profiling and racial profiling (i.e. "lets discriminate against all Muslims because .000004 percent of them are terrorists) was so tenuous that almost no one made the connection. Heh.
|
|
