|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:So Wiki (care of this poster) has a bunch of info in the VA saying that staff and funds have been slashed. This article says otherwise. The wiki is talking about 1995 to 2000, and the article is citing the VA's public data which runs from 2000 to now.
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
Are there statistics on the rate of men getting raped compared to the rate of women? I just ran into this macro saying that the former was 25% while the latter was "only" 30%.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Are there statistics on the rate of men getting raped compared to the rate of women? I just ran into this macro saying that the former was 25% while the latter was "only" 30%. Was that some MRA thing? A government study from just a few years ago (PDF of summary) found that 18.7% of women have been subjected to attempted or complete rape and only 1.4% of men.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Was that some MRA thing? A government study from just a few years ago (PDF of summary) found that 18.7% of women have been subjected to attempted or complete rape and only 1.4% of men. Yeah, thought so. It was linked by a fairly liberal guy so I can just shoot this at him. Thanks! e: this might be great to put in the OP as well, under the women section e2: he just brought up "woman on man rape" and how the lack of inclusion for that statistic and the definition of rape as penetration skewed the study  e3: Here's the article, for reference; the argument that sexual assault is awful and needs to be worked against isn't bad http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 19:44 on May 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:e2: he just brought up "woman on man rape" and how the lack of inclusion for that statistic and the definition of rape as penetration skewed the study What's he trying to argue? For a more all-encompassing stat: "27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact"
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:e2: he just brought up "woman on man rape" and how the lack of inclusion for that statistic and the definition of rape as penetration skewed the study quote:Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime; most men who were made to penetrate someone else reported that the perpetrator was either an intimate partner (44.8%) or an acquaintance (44.7%) It doesn't equalize the figures, but taken in combination with the penetration figures, it would put the men at about a third of the women, for forcible penetration in either 'direction.' There are some other things in there that suggest more equal levels of victimization as well, such as quote:Approximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape by any perpetrator in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. quote:An estimated 1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, respectively) experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:What's he trying to argue? The crux of his argument was that "women do not face especially higher rates of sexual assault or rape than men do". Reading the study more, the argument doesn't seem too wrong on its head.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The crux of his argument was that "women do not face especially higher rates of sexual assault or rape than men do". Reading the study more, the argument doesn't seem too wrong on its head. One in three versus one in ten? Don't let it being a percentage throw your sense of scale off.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
If the actual respective rates are agreed upon, then talking about whether or not it's 'substantially' higher seems like it's nothing more than a semantic argument. Everyone involved should be able to agree, I imagine, that male victims of sexual assault are as deserving of support as female victims; the rates simply tell us how much support we should expect that to be, and for that purpose, they're far more useful as numbers than as qualitative judgements.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:If the actual respective rates are agreed upon, then talking about whether or not it's 'substantially' higher seems like it's nothing more than a semantic argument. Everyone involved should be able to agree, I imagine, that male victims of sexual assault are as deserving of support as female victims; the rates simply tell us how much support we should expect that to be, and for that purpose, they're far more useful as numbers than as qualitative judgements. "Men get raped just as much or more as women!" being defended really hard while ignoring the fact that rape as a whole is a problem tends to be a setup for a men's rights rant about ~The Matriarchy~ making all men out to be evil rapists. I mean I'm just guessing here, the friend might just be trying to share a story they thought was neat 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:The crux of his argument was that "women do not face especially higher rates of sexual assault or rape than men do". Reading the study more, the argument doesn't seem too wrong on its head. Depending on what you mean by "rates", prison rape dramatically affects the male rape numbers by increasing the number of rapes, although not much of the population is involved.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:"Men get raped just as much or more as women!" being defended really hard while ignoring the fact that rape as a whole is a problem tends to be a setup for a men's rights rant about ~The Matriarchy~ making all men out to be evil rapists. Eschewing the 'big picture' to bear down on the statistics is unglamorous, to say the least, but I think it has a better chance of resulting in a halfway productive dialogue. It doesn't immediately turn the discussion into a battleground, and if you agree that the victimization of men is a problem, the other person will have a hard time asserting that the higher rates of victimization of women in their own data isn't.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:I don't know. I feel like people on all sides of any particular issue tend to get really caught up in framing. To respond to a disagreement with how you would frame it just invites fairly vacuous arguments that can never be resolved, since they hinge upon the most subjective and semantic aspects of the issue. Oh I definitely agree with this and I'd say the statistics and facts based approach is way more productive than just going "ugh you're a fedora-clad redditor I don't want anything to do with you" or whatever. I just meant that it's a common argument I've seen used by MRA's so tread carefully. But yes I am framing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
How do you debate the notion that debating something gives it validity and therefore shouldn't be debated?
MrOnBicycle fucked around with this message at 14:21 on May 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:How do you debate the notion that debating something gives it validity and therefore shouldn't be debated? It depends if you are an authority on a subject or not, I suppose. Telling your mate his opinions are poo poo is not the same is having an Evolutionary Biologist debate a Creationist like they are on the same level.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:How do you debate the notion that debating something gives it validity and therefore shouldn't be debated?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Should have been more specific: In this case it's about political parties not debating the views and ideas of other parties, like the fascist and racist parties that exist have, because that will give those ideas validity. Maybe they shouldn't be debated? I might be wrong. I just think that surely you don't give something validity just because you debate something as long as you make it clear that it isn't a problem, and tell them why they are wrong to even think so. I can see where they are coming from though, but it also seems like a risky road to go down.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Yeah. It's a complicated subject. My general inclination, certainly, is to say that the cure for lies is the truth - that dangerous and incorrect ideas should indeed be debated and disproven. This doesn't necessarily mean, however, that major party candidates should appear next to fascists to argue against them. There is a certain element of validation there, after all. I suppose the responses of the major parties should be roughly calibrated to the legitimacy the fascists already enjoy. If they're just a minor player, they might merit no more than a small oppositional section in the party platform, or a press release or two. Or nothing whatsoever - leave it to the broader society to tell the fascists why they're idiots. If they're already getting substantial support, however, there isn't much damage done by appearing beside them in a debate, and if you can win it, you might be able to undercut their appeal. Of course, this is made more complex by the fact that political debates are only tangentially about who's actually in the right. The strong element of theater and populism means that a mainstream candidate who isn't terribly charismatic might still want to avoid debating fascists because he might not 'win,' despite holding a saner position.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
MrOnBicycle posted:Maybe they shouldn't be debated? I might be wrong. I just think that surely you don't give something validity just because you debate something as long as you make it clear that it isn't a problem, and tell them why they are wrong to even think so. If you're one side of the debate of course you'd say there isn't a problem and of course you'd be telling the other side they're wrong to think so. Meanwhile it's being debated - you clearly take the other side seriously enough to try to refute them - so there must be something there worth considering. MrOnBicycle posted:In this case it's about political parties not debating the views and ideas of other parties, like the fascist and racist parties that exist have, because that will give those ideas validity. In this case it's a very dangerous strategy because while it's easy to convince yourself and politically like minded people that there's nothing valid about the positions of the other side, the truth is you're less reasonable than you think and their positions are more reasonable than the straw men you construct for your side to dismiss. Reasonable people who don't already agree with you will need to be convinced that you're right and if you're not making arguments you'll lose them to the side that is.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Yeah. It's a complicated subject. My general inclination, certainly, is to say that the cure for lies is the truth - that dangerous and incorrect ideas should indeed be debated and disproven.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies and I agree that appearing next to the fascists to argue a specific point already puts you at a disadvantage and should be avoided. I appreciate both "sides" of the coin, but it also gives a sense of "You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't". I guess it's about limiting the damage done.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Can't believe I'm adding this but the link goes to an interesting study by the CATO institute of all places. It lists every instance of hyperinflation in modern history and is a wonderful thing to bust out when idiots try to play the 'oh no, but... but hyperinflation!' What is notable about it is that there is not a single instance of a country on that list that suffered hyperinflation without some major unrelated issue, ususally in the form of a war, or a massive shift of government etc. Its nice to be able to flash it and just say "Fyi, no stable democratic government has ever suffered hyperinflation."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Yes, that's a great reference. Hyperinflation in practice is always the consequence of a real economic collapse, not the cause of it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Yes, that's a great reference. Hyperinflation in practice is always the consequence of a real economic collapse, not the cause of it. Real economic collapse is highly correlated with bad economic decisions though. Printing money non-stop will absolutely cause hyper-inflation, but people misunderstand how badly you have to screw up before hyper-inflation happens. Even Venezuela is not in hyper-inflation, but merely very high inflation.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Caros posted:Can't believe I'm adding this but the link goes to an interesting study by the CATO institute of all places. It lists every instance of hyperinflation in modern history and is a wonderful thing to bust out when idiots try to play the 'oh no, but... but hyperinflation!' See also: Cullen Roche on the same topic.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Arguing with a "compassionate conservative" about the environment, he's using the usual "private entities are more efficient and we should put them in charge of managing the environment", anyone have any examples of private fuckups in environmental care or even better, some numbers or stats on private management of the environment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Arguing with a "compassionate conservative" about the environment, he's using the usual "private entities are more efficient and we should put them in charge of managing the environment", anyone have any examples of private fuckups in environmental care or even better, some numbers or stats on private management of the environment? Er, literally every oil spill ever? Pretty much every kind of modern resource extraction is disasterous as well (fracking, mountain decapitation, etc). Also for the theory behind private ownership being better, Coase theorum and its criticisms is your friend, or in more simple terms 'how do you define ownership of things like air and water, which are constantly moving and changing, in a way which is practical for a private entity to monitor, control, protect, fix and seek compensation if it is damaged?'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Yeah talk about externalities and how you'd even measure that poo poo let alone assign corporate responsibility without some kind of oversight from a larger entity. The magical hand of the free market would only work after poo poo had already been wrecked, and even then only work on things that are painfully obvious (like oil spills) and not subtle things where no one entity is fully responsible (like carbon emissions).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Ooh those are both cool. Cheers guys. When I mentioned examples I was thinking more of smaller things, like I dunno, local councils giving corporations jobs over water management or parks or something and them loving up, oil spills are an obvious one but I was thinking a bit closer to home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
I was reading a discussion about immigration on a local message board and this wiki link came up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime I've always thought of myself as socially liberal except on a couple of issues (immigration being one of them). To be honest, I'm here looking for someone who'll tell me "That's wrong, and here's why...". I mean, if the numbers are true then I see no problems in measures for lowering immigration. I live in Europe btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:I was reading a discussion about immigration on a local message board and this wiki link came up: It's wrong because the vast majority of those statistics do not consider economic background. For example, look at Germany: quote:The crime rate of immigrants is at first glimpse about 5 times higher than that for Germans (4,9 : 1). A differentiated analysis of the Bavarian police (Landeskriminalamt) shows that the relation of 4.9 : 1 drops to 2.7 : 1 if only the registered population of foreigners is taken into account. It further drops to 2.4 : 1 if offences that cannot be committed by Germans are taken off. If only 14–21 years old male juveniles and young adults are considered, the ratio is 1.9 : 1. 1.9:1 is still fairly high, but they're only 9% of the population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
computer parts posted:A differentiated analysis of the Bavarian police (Landeskriminalamt) shows that the relation of 4.9 : 1 drops to 2.7 : 1 if only the registered population of foreigners is taken into account. Why do this? Why is it important if foreigners are registered or not? Also: computer parts posted:1.9:1 is still fairly high, but they're only 9% of the population. I don't get this sentence. The first clause says that the 2:1 ratio is high, and the second clause starts with a "but" which implies that some kind of explanation or amelioration of the statement is following. But the fact that 9% of the population commits crimes at a 2:1 ratio in the 14-21 years old range is still very high. Or did I understand the whole ratio thing wrong? Are they comparing it like this: code:code:Doktor Avalanche fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:Why do this? Why is it important if foreigners are registered or not? Registration matters because it might be a confounding factor in how likely an immigrant is to commit crime or, depending on how stats are measured, might be counted as a crime itself. In the former case the argument is that by allowing more registered immigrants, you'll decrease other crimes they commit by letting them integrate more fully into the society they've moved to. In the latter case it seems like a type of circular reasoning or question begging, and you need a better study.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:Why do this? Why is it important if foreigners are registered or not? Illegal immigrants presumably. quote:
Yes, that's the methodology they seem to be using. In other words, if 14-21 year old Germans commit crime at say...10 crimes per 100,000 people, then 14-21 year old immigrants commit crimes at 20 crimes per 100,000 people. Based on this 14-21 year olds are ~3% of the population, or about 2.42 million. Let's assume that 14-21 year olds are twice as common in the immigrant population as the German population as a whole. In other words, they're 6% of the immigrant population (which is ~7.263 million as a whole). This gives them a population of 436,000 people, to ~2 million people in the non-immigrant population (2.42 million minus ~420,000). At a crime rate of 20 per 100,000 for immigrants, this means they would commit about 87 crimes total. Now, for the rest of the population, at 10 per 100,000 people you arrive at 200 crimes total. Now obviously I made up the crime rates but it doesn't really matter because the point is that if a group is extremely small they can have a high crime rate and still not be "the terror threatening society" Basically tl;dr - The fact that immigrants are a very small portion of the population makes it so that a high crime rate doesn't really matter that much. You're still a lot more likely to be robbed by a white dude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Thank you both.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Basically tl;dr - The fact that immigrants are a very small portion of the population makes it so that a high crime rate doesn't really matter that much. You're still a lot more likely to be robbed by a white dude. It matters when you have a choice of not having those people in the country to begin with. Immigration policy is explicitly concerned with the crime rate among admitted (and illegal) immigrants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
At least in the United States, immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, often have extremely low-paying, labor-intensive jobs, and have little recourse to social services, it wouldn't be surprising to find somewhat higher crime rates when compared to the non-immigrant population as a whole. You also have to consider that immigrant communities are often targeted by police for enforcement and many immigrants face xenophobia and racism in the court system as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
One great thing about illegal immigration is that the lack of documentation and active refusal to do anything about the problem results in some truly quality individuals coming to the US. One of my cousins from Guatemala is a legit violent rapist (multiple times! including a family member!) and he somehow made it over here. He was picked up on a DUI a couple years ago and sure enough, the police did nothing to try to get him out of the country. The DUI should have been enough, but since the police didn't check his immigration status, they surely weren't aware of his past and I am pretty sure he's technically wanted in Guatemala as well. It's such a great system that we tell talented people with advanced degrees to get the gently caress out of America while turning a blind eye to serious criminals taking advantage of sanctuary cities and the general lax attitudes towards illegal immigration.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Hey guys, I was wondering if anyone out there had articles or information related to the student loan problem, particularly a viable left-wing solution to it. See, ever since Elizabeth Warren proposed her ill-fated bill to lower interest rates, I've run into a lot of libertarian arguments saying that the reason student debt is so high is because the government is artificially tampering with the free market, and that if we switched to market-based loans that evaluated students as individuals (i.e. someone with a philosophy major at a bad college pays a higher interest rate than someone with a STEM major at Harvard), we'd all be better off. What are some articles that might shed some light on this topic from a more progressive point of view?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
I'd be curious to see that too, since I happen to agree with your libertarian friends at least on this point. The number of people who want to go to college is growing much faster than the number of admission slots. You can't just open up a new university with a 150 year tradition of excellence overnight, so supply and demand is going to drive the price up. Since supply is inelastic the incidence any government subsidies (which you can think of as a negative tax) here in the form of lower interest rates are going to go to the universities and not the students. More public universities (with cheaper tuition) is one potential solution, but seems unlikely given state budget constraints and the current political climate. I'm not sure what the realistic solutions are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 16:15
|
|