Anatomy of a False Rape Accusation

[Ninjavitis]

Analogies aren't tautologies. There are always differences. Focusing on them like this means you either don't know what analogy is, or you're deliberately trying to derail.

Irrelevant. You said they're both similar, or rather that one is no more severe than the other. When, in fact, one is more severe than the other.

[Endus]

Irrelevant. You said they're both similar, or rather that one is no more severe than the other. When, in fact, one is more severe than the other.

Saying that they are similar in some respect is not a statement that they are of the same severity. You are attacking a straw man.

[Ninjavitis]

You are attacking a straw man.

but there's simply no evidence that it's a major issue over, say, false theft accusations.

So false rape accusations are no more a major issue than false theft accusations. That's pretty clearly dismissing that one is more severe than the other. Be serious for once.

[xChurch]

So false rape accusations are no more a major issue than false theft accusations. That's pretty clearly dismissing that one is more severe than the other. Be serious for once.

Scale not severity, really not that hard.

[Ninjavitis]

Scale not severity, really not that hard.

You realize right, that a false rape accusation affects much more than just the person who is falsely accused?

[xChurch]

You realize right, that a false rape accusation affects much more than just the person who is falsely accused?

He wasn't talking about severity! Holy hell man, you're just making up a target to attack.

[Ninjavitis]

He wasn't talking about severity! Holy hell man, you're just making up a target to attack.

We're beyond that. I'm talking about dismissing them as a whole, that they are no more an issue than false theft accusations. When they very much are. You people have a raging hard on for semantics, that borders on disturbing.

[Endus]

We're beyond that. I'm talking about dismissing them as a whole, that they are no more an issue than false theft accusations. When they very much are. You people have a raging hard on for semantics, that borders on disturbing.

We're not beyond anything.

You've invented a delusional fantasy about what you think I said, and you're attacking that fantasy, rather than my actual argument. That's all this is.

[Barbariangreataxe]

We're beyond that. I'm talking about dismissing them as a whole, that they are no more an issue than false theft accusations. When they very much are. You people have a raging hard on for semantics, that borders on disturbing.

You've been here since 2009, you should know better than to engage Endus.

[Random010203]

You're making things up and pretending I said them. No, the first sentence you're talking about does NOT mean they can do so without any cause at all. That's what you're making up. You cannot read that into what I said, because I clearly did NOT say that.

Of course it does, you clearly state they "aren't obliged," I'm not sure what that means in your fairy-tale world, but in the real world that means they COULD or can do something. Which is exactly the word you used: "could."

No one is making anything up except you and your concept of the English language.

[Noradin]

No, but "the same standard" means you need to prove beyond that same reasonable doubt that the accuser made that accusation fraudulently, and with malicious intent. Which is arguably even more difficult than proving the actual rape, since you need the accuser to essentially admit fault, or have video that conclusively demonstrates that events weren't even remotely close to the accusation. The accuser being mistaken about her supposed rapist's identity is not evidence of a false claim, for instance.

That is true and thus we should make sure to try and counteract the fallout false accusations of any kind have on all parties involved and the only way I see to do this is by trying to keep the identites of said parties under wraps until the investigation is complete. If it is not an active search there is no need for the general public to know of the exact identity of the parties involved anyway, knowing about what happened in general terms should be enough until afterwards.
We already have rules based on concepts like copyright that disallow the unchecked distribution of certain information (pictures for example) in all civilized countries (that I know of). No reason not to include the identity of people accused but not yet convicted of a crime as well as the identity of the allenged civtims. Especially if minors are involved.

Yes, that opens the door for temporary claims of cover ups like Russia tried on Germany where such laws exists (Opferschutz (~"victim protection") forbids the police from giving information that could be used to identify the victim to the media, especially in the case of minors), but I do think that is a small price to pay.

Media are also required to change the names of people not "of public interest" unless they have given consent. Same goes for pictures.

- - - Updated - - -

False allegations should carry a mandatory $100,000 fine and 5 years in jail.

That would make it even more likely that people falsely accused of rape get convited because it makes it less likely that anyone would admit an accusation was false and in some cases that is the only thing that can clear the accused.

[Random010203]

Surveys are an incredibly rigorous and well-documented data-generation methodology. It's one thing to take issue with a specific survey's question format or the like, it's another to just straight-up dismiss surveys like you did, which has no rational basis whatsoever.

It certainly is rational to dismiss surveys except if you're in a liberal arts MA program that actually utilizes them.

Surveys are one of the worst forms of "data-generation methodology," they are subject to: confirmation bias, misrepresenting a group, test deception, etc. Outside of polling (which we saw has been completely inaccurate this year) and stay-at-home mom's blogs, I've never heard of any intelligent person seriously consider surveys for anything worth while, other than the aforementioned psych/socio fields. Surveys have no business being in the empirical, qualitative field.

Surveys will always be limited by the people taking them and the people administrating them.

[nextormento]

I didn't say they were exactly the same in every way, now did I?

If I'd said an apple was like an orange, in that they're both fruit, you're here saying you don't have to peel an apple to eat it so clearly they aren't both fruit.

You were retorting to a claim that they were not even remotely the same.
Using a characteristic whereby they are superficially the same.

Obama is not remotely the same as Stalin
Except for both of them being humans.

Your fruit analogy is just the culmination of the deflection.
-there's simply no evidence that it's a major issue over, say, false theft accusations.
-[the severity] aren't even remotely similar
-they're both felonies, see fruits.

Your oversimplification of Ninjavitis' concern is the only strawman here.
The fruit analogy only adds salt over your gross deflection.

You didn't say any falsehood, of course. You were just wildly inappropriate in the retort.

you either don't know what analogy is, or you're deliberately trying to derail.

Your analogy was the derailment.

See, the only problem here is that you think your rhetoric has any merit.
It functions only within the boundaries of your mind. When you spout it, it becomes quite clear why your argument is deficient from the onset.


Your first post was ok, I guess.

The issue is that false rape accusations don't really occur at any appreciable rate greater than that of other false claims.

This needs be acknowledged. It's necessary. Incidentally it is explicitly mentioned in the article. Leave it at that.
Further exploration of this point is not an argument: it's sanctimonious derailment. Because this is the caveat over the thread, not the topic. The debate is how that doesn't tell the entire picture; you are simply pretending it does to any meaningful degree for the sake of obstruction.

- - - Updated - - -

You people have a raging hard on for semantics, that borders on disturbing.

It's not just disturbing.
It's indistinguishable from malice.

[Deleted]

I really don't know why you've once again replied to my post with something completely unrelated.

The only people I have seen claim the ridiculous notion that drunk sex is equal to rape are those who use the term SJW in a non-ironic manner.

The CDC study - That would be the Centre for disease control - They used that definition.

[Theodarzna]

Should have just claimed God did it, worked for the Virgin Mary!

Totally worth the coming infraction.

In the infidelity case cited, she was caught IN THE ACT.

[Ninjavitis]

You've invented a delusional fantasy about what you think I said, and you're attacking that fantasy, rather than my actual argument. That's all this is.

It seems like you keep ignoring your original comment that I quoted multiple times, tell me I'm making things up though. Good way to dodge the point I'm trying to make. All the while arguing semantics as if they have any importance. And you think I'm derailing?

You've been here since 2009, you should know better than to engage Endus.

I only started really reading the forums and posting recently. But you're right, I see him do the same crap in every thread he posts in. I really don't know what I expected.

[Pann]

The CDC study - That would be the Centre for disease control - They used that definition.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove with this irrelevance but even if true that is not what you originally said nor it does not discount my original post.

[Theodarzna]

Oh, so sorry that forever tarnishing the reputations of innocent students was "distracting" for you, Mr. president.

In 2007, Brodhead showed a little more remorse, calling his actions "a mistake" and apologizing for what he had done. Yet now, Brodhead appears to be just fine with what he had done to the students and their families.

K.C. Johnson, who co-wrote the book on the case, pointed to a statement Brodhead made in 2006, in the heat of the accusation, where he presumed the guilt of his own students and blamed them for possibly being falsely accused.

"If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree," Brodhead said back then. "If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough."

This is victim-blaming, yet those who perpetuate the belief that rape is rampant on college campuses won't admit that the falsely accused are victims, too.

Source: No remorse from administrators in Duke lacrosse rape hoax

Interestingly enough in high profile false cases there is a lack of remorse from accusers.

[Hana Song]

False accusations are rare enough that you don't need to worry about them really

[Noradin]

There's really only one way to prevent that. And that's to attack the freedom of the press, and prevent them from reporting on rape accusations, unlike any other crime. Or prevent them reporting on ANY criminal accusations. Either way, that's an attack on the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and I find that far more of an issue.

No need to prevent them from reporting, just have them leave out the identity of the person until the case is decided (exceptions for people of public interest as always).
They aren't allowed to print copyrighted pictures on every page of a leaflet and call it a "newspaper" reporting on the "state of the art" or something either, are they?

Also, where in freedom of the press does it say that everyone can tell them anything they want?
I cannot tell a reporter about company secrets without consequences just because they are a "reporter" and not an industrial spy, can I?