Counsellor, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that you want a test with both 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity?
Ghomeshi?
- Thread starter notthemama
- Start date
Counsellor, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that you want a test with both 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity?
Nope… this is not the right forum. As I said to Butler:
I have neither the time, energy nor inclination to waste. If I thought that debating it here could accomplish anything, I would gladly do so…
Take what I said for whatever it is worth to you… treat it as my unsupported personal opinion without merit of any kind, if you wish… but remember that I have many years experience working with the system: I am not reading it from a book or making it up as I go along! :Eek:
Perry
I would never doubt a criminal record could provide a unique insight into our justice system.
(Joking)You are taking the time to read & respond to these posts so I'm at a loss on how a simple narrative of a few sentences couldn't convey your ideas for improvement to the current judicial system. I admit that my personal experience involves traffic violations but if your concept is described in basic succinct terms, I might be able to grasp the concept. If not - there are a few mensa members who could enlighten me.
Because a few sentences about the judicial system could not even remotely begin to adequately convey intelligent ideas about such a huge and complex subject.
This is not a question of "Justice for Dummies"!
Perry
Likewise, not looking for debate. Not questioning your merit and experience. My only comment is going to be this: you are asking for something very difficult (potentially impossible) from a mathematical and statistical point of view.
Should anybody care to read about why even a test with 99.9% sensitivity and specificity can perform poorly, this article is a good start: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity
Several people have asked you to make a point. You refuse, and just mysteriously wave your hands and intone that there is a better way. I pointed out the impossibility of having a definitive result where evidence is lacking and pointed out "science" has gotten a lot of cases wrong.
You have had nothing to say for yourself. Maybe you have some wonderful idea in mind but all you have done here is post frilly rhetoric with no substance.
If you actually DO have any ideas how we could do better please share!
Ah sir, I think that had you anticipated my response you would not have mentioned Japan in your thread! If Japan is not a positive, then is it a negative example? Please clarify your post. Many Japanese women wish to exit Japan for the reason I mentioned a wealthy nation, much richer than Canada, yet a bastion of misogyny.
I brought up Japan specifically in the context of Perry asking for a system where few guilty are aquitted and few innocents are convicted. My comment had nothing to do with the Ghomeshi case or women whatsoever.
I pointed out that the Japanese system accomplished what Perry wants, but at a steep cost: the police don't lay charges unless they have a slam dunk case which results in a lot of yakuza criminals operating almost openly.
You really need to reread my post and rewrite your reply because your comments have almost nothing to do with my post.
Here's the content (written to Perry):
I don't think you have a real answer for what to do when the evidence is simply lacking.
One thing you could do is what the Japanese do, which is have a much higher standard for charging people. They have a conviction rate around 99% because the police there don't charge you unless the case is a slam dunk.
The flip side is that while they achieve in a way what you want, fewer innocents found guilty and fewer guilty found innocent, they achieve that by failing to even charge a lot of guilty people, lots of yakuza guys walking around found serious crimes but the police don't act because some evidence is lacking. Is that better? And they still have wrongful cases.
If there isnt enough data to make a decision what do you do? You can't just say "science!" In most cases the data you need just doesn't exist no matter how you look for it, and there have been lots of convictions from faulty science (Motherisk, Charles Smith). It isn't a miracle answer.
The Japanese court system is not consistent with democracy, in fact is highly totalitarian and is full of bureaucratic elite males who do not think much of women. Cases are decided at the time of an arrest. Sexual harassment in these circles is rampant among judges and court officials.
The Yakuza are an inherent part of many aspects of the Japanese economy and have a working relationship with the police. Your mentioning of Japan vis a visit the Ghomeshi trial is still non-sequitur. The Toronto Police had ample evidence to arrest Ghomeshi. It was some of the accuser who mislead the police and the court that caused this result by sabotaging their own cases. LE did not know what the plaintiffs might say under oath nor what evidence that they had concealed only to be revealed in court.
canada-man
Well-known member
http://judgybitch.com/2016/03/29/what-is-the-feminist-rape-end-game/
It seems that every single day brings a new insanity level to the feminist ‘conversation’ about rape and sexual assault. There’s Jackie, the famous UVA rape hoaxer and Emma Sulkybitch who got a little Aryan fever and didn’t take being rebuffed all that well. Then there’s the man expelled from college for sexually assaulting the woman who decided to engage in sex with him while he was blacked out. The Captain of the Yale basketball team has been suspended after this series of events:
And of course, there’s the Jian Ghomeshi verdict, which has feminists engaging in lynch mob hysterics.
All of these cases have led me to ask: what is the feminist end game when it comes to rape? Let’s consider for a second the implications, had all of the aforementioned ‘rapes’ fallen in feminism’s favor.
So Jackie was able to dismantle an entire fraternity based on a completely fabricated allegation of gang rape. Let’s assume she had won, and the courts held that disbanding the fraternity was the right and proper thing to do given the terrible rape that took place. So now what? What are the options for fraternities or even groups of men who share housing, given that any woman can make up horrific stories about violent sexual assaults and the men will be held liable? Clearly, the only solution will be to strictly limit the spaces to men only. It’s a return to the era of private clubs segregated by gender, particularly if the activities in the club involve the consumption of alcohol
So, we’re back to Gentlemen’s Clubs and women are shut out of the networking and relationship building opportunities afforded therein. Smart move, ladies.
Emma found her German classmate Paul terribly attractive and while he seemed perfectly contented to leave her in the friendzone, Emma was insistent. They had sex a number of times and she moaned about her love for him on social media, but it appears Paul found the charms of Emma entirely resistible beyond some crass physical pleasure.
Oh dear.
Emma didn’t take to that very well. We all know what happened, with Emma increasing her hysterics as Paul carried on not being in love with her, and quite possibly much worse. One can forgive Paul, I think, if he occasionally hoped a city bus might go astray and land on a stolen mattress. Had Emma won her case, it would have a victory for women scorned everywhere.
And then what?
Men would have to understand that if the lady he enjoyed getting to know in the Biblical sense became attached in an emotional and romantic way, failing to live up to her expectations could result in a rape charge. No sane man would ever engage in sex with a woman he wasn’t prepared to form a long term attachment to. It’s a perfect reversal of the traditional gatekeeping of sexuality performed by women. Under traditional sexual norms, men would have to prove their devotion to women before women would allow access to sex. Under feminist sex, it would be the complete opposite. Women would have to prove to be worthy of sustained romantic interest before a man would ever consent to have sex with her. The only way to catch a D would be to be girlfriend material.
How interesting.
The blacked out drunk guy confirms that feminists want men to understand that even when they are preyed upon by slutty women, they will still be held accountable for any sex that happens, even if they are blacked out. Clearly, feminists want a world in which men understand that there is no safe moment to be alone with women. The correct time to trust women sexually, and expect them to behave as adults is never. The only sane response from men is to severely restrict their contact with women, particularly if any opportunity for rapacious women to take advantage of men is present. This is Nathaniel Hawthorne territory: women as lust-crazed beasts who must be contained and tamed, and if men fail to do that, the men will be charged with rape.
That ended well for Hester Prynne.
Ghomeshi makes it clear that if successful and wealthy men refuse to share their assets with women who feel entitled to them, that man will be charged with sexual assault and hauled through the courts. Had the judge found Ghomeshi guilty as charged, how many nanoseconds would it have taken his accusers to file a civil suit in pursuit of monetary damages? The feminist hysterics over Ghomeshi indicate this is precisely the outcome feminists were hoping for: in cases where men have assets women would like to access, and the rich man seems in no hurry to wife up, women can access the assets through the rape narrative. Sane men will understand that the only women he should even consider having sex with are those equal in wealth and status to himself, but with all the attendant dangers of bored, attention-seeking, scorned or slutty women still in effect.
Sad news for gold diggers.
To recap, feminists would like to be able to charge men with rape:
Just because
Because he didn’t love them back
Because the women were slutty
Because he wouldn’t share his money or fame
It’s kind of interesting, because in demanding this level of control over men and sexuality, feminists are actually encouraging a return to the days of chastity, virginity and sex segregated spaces that allowed for minimal distractions of a sexual nature (unless you’re gay, but that’s a different story). The difference is that if feminists succeed in harnessing the courts to do their bidding (which seems unlikely), it is men who will control access to sex. Only women who have something of value to offer will be considered by men, given the consequences of choosing a woman poorly.
That’s kind of hilarious, really. Those of us who already cultivate qualities, skills and personalities likely to appeal to the kind of men we wish to attract are unaffected by such shenanigans. The empowered sluts who don’t need no man may find their world increasingly arid and parched of solid – ahem – structures.
Stock up on batteries, ladies.
And expect to find your missing self-esteem somewhere other than the football Captain’s bed.
Vindictive sluts are way more trouble that they’re worth.
Lots of love,
JB
It seems that every single day brings a new insanity level to the feminist ‘conversation’ about rape and sexual assault. There’s Jackie, the famous UVA rape hoaxer and Emma Sulkybitch who got a little Aryan fever and didn’t take being rebuffed all that well. Then there’s the man expelled from college for sexually assaulting the woman who decided to engage in sex with him while he was blacked out. The Captain of the Yale basketball team has been suspended after this series of events:
And of course, there’s the Jian Ghomeshi verdict, which has feminists engaging in lynch mob hysterics.
All of these cases have led me to ask: what is the feminist end game when it comes to rape? Let’s consider for a second the implications, had all of the aforementioned ‘rapes’ fallen in feminism’s favor.
So Jackie was able to dismantle an entire fraternity based on a completely fabricated allegation of gang rape. Let’s assume she had won, and the courts held that disbanding the fraternity was the right and proper thing to do given the terrible rape that took place. So now what? What are the options for fraternities or even groups of men who share housing, given that any woman can make up horrific stories about violent sexual assaults and the men will be held liable? Clearly, the only solution will be to strictly limit the spaces to men only. It’s a return to the era of private clubs segregated by gender, particularly if the activities in the club involve the consumption of alcohol
So, we’re back to Gentlemen’s Clubs and women are shut out of the networking and relationship building opportunities afforded therein. Smart move, ladies.
Emma found her German classmate Paul terribly attractive and while he seemed perfectly contented to leave her in the friendzone, Emma was insistent. They had sex a number of times and she moaned about her love for him on social media, but it appears Paul found the charms of Emma entirely resistible beyond some crass physical pleasure.
Oh dear.
Emma didn’t take to that very well. We all know what happened, with Emma increasing her hysterics as Paul carried on not being in love with her, and quite possibly much worse. One can forgive Paul, I think, if he occasionally hoped a city bus might go astray and land on a stolen mattress. Had Emma won her case, it would have a victory for women scorned everywhere.
And then what?
Men would have to understand that if the lady he enjoyed getting to know in the Biblical sense became attached in an emotional and romantic way, failing to live up to her expectations could result in a rape charge. No sane man would ever engage in sex with a woman he wasn’t prepared to form a long term attachment to. It’s a perfect reversal of the traditional gatekeeping of sexuality performed by women. Under traditional sexual norms, men would have to prove their devotion to women before women would allow access to sex. Under feminist sex, it would be the complete opposite. Women would have to prove to be worthy of sustained romantic interest before a man would ever consent to have sex with her. The only way to catch a D would be to be girlfriend material.
How interesting.
The blacked out drunk guy confirms that feminists want men to understand that even when they are preyed upon by slutty women, they will still be held accountable for any sex that happens, even if they are blacked out. Clearly, feminists want a world in which men understand that there is no safe moment to be alone with women. The correct time to trust women sexually, and expect them to behave as adults is never. The only sane response from men is to severely restrict their contact with women, particularly if any opportunity for rapacious women to take advantage of men is present. This is Nathaniel Hawthorne territory: women as lust-crazed beasts who must be contained and tamed, and if men fail to do that, the men will be charged with rape.
That ended well for Hester Prynne.
Ghomeshi makes it clear that if successful and wealthy men refuse to share their assets with women who feel entitled to them, that man will be charged with sexual assault and hauled through the courts. Had the judge found Ghomeshi guilty as charged, how many nanoseconds would it have taken his accusers to file a civil suit in pursuit of monetary damages? The feminist hysterics over Ghomeshi indicate this is precisely the outcome feminists were hoping for: in cases where men have assets women would like to access, and the rich man seems in no hurry to wife up, women can access the assets through the rape narrative. Sane men will understand that the only women he should even consider having sex with are those equal in wealth and status to himself, but with all the attendant dangers of bored, attention-seeking, scorned or slutty women still in effect.
Sad news for gold diggers.
To recap, feminists would like to be able to charge men with rape:
Just because
Because he didn’t love them back
Because the women were slutty
Because he wouldn’t share his money or fame
It’s kind of interesting, because in demanding this level of control over men and sexuality, feminists are actually encouraging a return to the days of chastity, virginity and sex segregated spaces that allowed for minimal distractions of a sexual nature (unless you’re gay, but that’s a different story). The difference is that if feminists succeed in harnessing the courts to do their bidding (which seems unlikely), it is men who will control access to sex. Only women who have something of value to offer will be considered by men, given the consequences of choosing a woman poorly.
That’s kind of hilarious, really. Those of us who already cultivate qualities, skills and personalities likely to appeal to the kind of men we wish to attract are unaffected by such shenanigans. The empowered sluts who don’t need no man may find their world increasingly arid and parched of solid – ahem – structures.
Stock up on batteries, ladies.
And expect to find your missing self-esteem somewhere other than the football Captain’s bed.
Vindictive sluts are way more trouble that they’re worth.
Lots of love,
JB
canada-man
Well-known member
a comment under the article
The end game?
To return the balance of sexual power to women.
That's the end game. Sexual power has always been the preserve of women.
Unfortunately, as with a lot of things...feminists kinda shot themselves in the foot with that one. Heh.
By creating an air of permissive sexuality, feminists thought they were consolidating their power, by allowing their power to operate in the open - going from, as it were, clandestine, guerrilla warfare to full-on open-combat. Instead of having to (more) subtly hint and bat her eyelashes to get men to do what she wanted, she now had to step up her game sexually.
After they made sex so permissive, basic economics kicked in: they'd deflated the value of what they were selling so much. Flood the market, the price goes down. De Beers over in South Africa would've been laughing. Of course, they had all the foresight of a sawn-off shotgun in this regard. Permissive, overt sexuality was meant to be their ticket to being acknowledge as Venus-mother-goddesses (or some such bollocks).
So, their sexuality bought them even less than it did before. Removing the taboos from sexuality, bringing it out in the open...
(...wait for it...)
(...WAIT...)
(...drumroll, please...)
...actually EMPOWERED MEN.
Oh, crap.
Now, guys no longer had to expand a bunch of time, effort, and (of course!) money on a single woman before he got to see her naked. No more house, pin money, diamond ring, fancy wedding, mortgage, and new kitchen (because that BITCH Sarah Watson's husband got her kitchen redone!), instead, welp, if she wasn't putting out in a timely fashion, if the C/B analysis sucked, there were plenty of women who would.
But what to do?
Feminists still had to maintain the facade of their sex-positivity that they'd worked so hard to create...rejecting it now would be a massive loss of face, outing them as hypocrites. They needed a way to bring raise the value of their sexuality again.
Enter the "rape culture" ("culture", because if it were something tangible, we could disprove it).
The rape culture enables feminists to still maintain the image of being totally open-minded, sexually liberated, gatekeepers and wardens and nurturers of positive sexuality...but then blame men if/when that all goes wrong for them - sex is a beautiful thing, but OF COURSE, those filthy males ruin it!
In other words, when leveraging their sexuality didn't work out how they want.
This what the Ghomeshi was meant to say, had it worked out well for the Trailer Park Girl, was if a woman lets you fuck her, then you had best pay the correct tithe to the goddess. You'd better give her what you want.
It an inversion of the old status quo: previously, it was normally men who were strung along by women who exploited them for all they could, on the implied (but not guaranteed!) possibility of sex..."Just because you a girl lets you buy her a drink, sweetie, doesn't mean she's obliged to sleep with you! Thanks for the appletini!"
Now, the situation is reversed.
And of course the feminists can't fucking handle it when they're treated the exact same way as they treat men: because that sort of power should remain solely and wholly the domain of women.
And that's why they're losing their shit.
The end game?
To return the balance of sexual power to women.
That's the end game. Sexual power has always been the preserve of women.
Unfortunately, as with a lot of things...feminists kinda shot themselves in the foot with that one. Heh.
By creating an air of permissive sexuality, feminists thought they were consolidating their power, by allowing their power to operate in the open - going from, as it were, clandestine, guerrilla warfare to full-on open-combat. Instead of having to (more) subtly hint and bat her eyelashes to get men to do what she wanted, she now had to step up her game sexually.
After they made sex so permissive, basic economics kicked in: they'd deflated the value of what they were selling so much. Flood the market, the price goes down. De Beers over in South Africa would've been laughing. Of course, they had all the foresight of a sawn-off shotgun in this regard. Permissive, overt sexuality was meant to be their ticket to being acknowledge as Venus-mother-goddesses (or some such bollocks).
So, their sexuality bought them even less than it did before. Removing the taboos from sexuality, bringing it out in the open...
(...wait for it...)
(...WAIT...)
(...drumroll, please...)
...actually EMPOWERED MEN.
Oh, crap.
Now, guys no longer had to expand a bunch of time, effort, and (of course!) money on a single woman before he got to see her naked. No more house, pin money, diamond ring, fancy wedding, mortgage, and new kitchen (because that BITCH Sarah Watson's husband got her kitchen redone!), instead, welp, if she wasn't putting out in a timely fashion, if the C/B analysis sucked, there were plenty of women who would.
But what to do?
Feminists still had to maintain the facade of their sex-positivity that they'd worked so hard to create...rejecting it now would be a massive loss of face, outing them as hypocrites. They needed a way to bring raise the value of their sexuality again.
Enter the "rape culture" ("culture", because if it were something tangible, we could disprove it).
The rape culture enables feminists to still maintain the image of being totally open-minded, sexually liberated, gatekeepers and wardens and nurturers of positive sexuality...but then blame men if/when that all goes wrong for them - sex is a beautiful thing, but OF COURSE, those filthy males ruin it!
In other words, when leveraging their sexuality didn't work out how they want.
This what the Ghomeshi was meant to say, had it worked out well for the Trailer Park Girl, was if a woman lets you fuck her, then you had best pay the correct tithe to the goddess. You'd better give her what you want.
It an inversion of the old status quo: previously, it was normally men who were strung along by women who exploited them for all they could, on the implied (but not guaranteed!) possibility of sex..."Just because you a girl lets you buy her a drink, sweetie, doesn't mean she's obliged to sleep with you! Thanks for the appletini!"
Now, the situation is reversed.
And of course the feminists can't fucking handle it when they're treated the exact same way as they treat men: because that sort of power should remain solely and wholly the domain of women.
And that's why they're losing their shit.
Your credibility as a savvy legal source of information has dropped significantly. No one is asking for a 120 page research paper 'Designing Emotional and Psychological Means into Truth Recognition' for Osgood Hall - in fact - all we would be interested in is the Abstract that would precede the paper.
You have the Perry Mason moniker - you have 12 people without legal backgrounds listen as you present a complex concept - do you have the ability to simplify that idea into a format without charts, graphs or do you simple suggest 'your honour - this is too hard for the jury to digest - the defence rests it's case.'
We (terb) are that jury - go ahead - tell us a system of justice that will 100% sort the guilty from the innocent. I'll help ... is there a jury ? Is there a Judge ? Is it a tribunal ? Do we put the guilty submerged in a tub of water with stones on his chest and if he is innocent - he will survive ? Perhaps holographic brain scans ?
Just give us the Abstract of this improved system of justice - the details, analysis, legal ramifications .... we don't need (and couldn't fathom).
Perry, I'm not just asking out of my own curiosity but on behalf of all the current innocent men and women languishing in jail for crimes they did not commit. Save them Perry !
