In Interviews With 122 Rapists, Student Pursues Not-So-Simple Question: Why?

[Jack]

The point may not to be to demonize every male, but generalizing males that way does demonize males. Rape is no exception to violent crime, as primarily perpetrated by males; this is true, but the population percentages of violent criminals related to any type of violence in no way justify generalizing all males as potentially any type of violent criminal. Every male is a potential murder, batterer, robber, whatever; it's a bunch of demonizing crap.

Why?


I mean, we seem willing to demonize butter, smoking, and drinking and driving based upon such statistics, why not
clearly identifiable segments of a population? It may well be worth study - but for those who want a rule of thumb,
it seems reasonable to adjust based upon such data.

Missed this. Why what? Think there's a difference between demonizing butter and people. Maybe am just an optimist. Sure, people can walk around viewing everyone everywhere as potential demons, but it seems like doing that would be unhealthy in forming and maintaining interpersonal relationships. The facts show the overwhelming vast majority of people have the greatest potential to not be violent criminals. Rules of thumb are great and all, but they're also widely accurate.

[Calandale]

Yes. They are accurate. At least enough so to provide some protection.


Personally, I like butter a lot more than males.

[Walkie]

Might as well revert to the karma discussion. Can't be any more off-topic than butter 

I almost never notice Karma changes, I fear. If I did, I might behave differently - lots of people didn't like what I say.

Be afraid, Cal, be very afraid:

Top 5 smited users: Calandale 1159

You're no . 1 on the forum hate stats! Legendary!

On the other handm, subract this figure from your present karma (-173) and it's clear that you've had a total of 986 plusses.  Considerably more than I have,

Recent karma reveals that you're  going up fast, with plusses far exceeding negs;  which in turn betrays that you actually have changed your behaviour. So if this is bad thing, then tough. Get used to it.

On the bright side, though: I'm pretty sure that we all prefer the new improved Cal

If you want to continue looking badass , then you'll just have to revert to old behaviour berfore it's too late,  won't you.? But that would be a stupid reaction to a bunch of silly stats. Glad you're resisting

[Calandale]

I haven't changed. All those negs came from the democratic experiment really.




It was easier to get karma (in either direction) back then, so it could be quite volatile.

[Gopher Gary]

Yeah, it was everyone else. 

[odeon]

Of course it was everyone else. He didn't ghey himself.

[Lestat]

Is it even POSSIBLE to give karma by an account owner TO the same account? in either direction. I CBF testing it, so figured you'd probably know.

[odeon]

I doubt it. My account is speshul, though, so I can't test it.

[Calandale]

The interface doesn't support it. Should be able to fake a request, but there might be a constraint.
Not really interested in testing it.

[Jack]

Is it even POSSIBLE to give karma by an account owner TO the same account? in either direction. I CBF testing it, so figured you'd probably know.

A user doesn't see the option the change their own karma.

[Walkie]

I haven't changed. All those negs came from the democratic experiment really.




It was easier to get karma (in either direction) back then, so it could be quite volatile.

I was there, Cal. I wasn't  participiting much , cos it was a lot more fun chatting with Wolfie and Pyraxis on Yahoo! Heck, i  never even made it to the 500-post mark  til a couple of years or so back;  but i was there. and you've changed IMO. I think we all have. Grown up a tad, perhaps?   

...or not, if you insist. 

[Calandale]

I haven't changed. All those negs came from the democratic experiment really.




It was easier to get karma (in either direction) back then, so it could be quite volatile.

I was there, Cal. I wasn't  participiting much , cos it was a lot more fun chatting with Wolfie and Pyraxis on Yahoo! Heck, i  never even made it to the 500-post mark  til a couple of years or so back;  but i was there. and you've changed IMO. I think we all have. Grown up a tad, perhaps?   

...or not, if you insist.

I doubt it. I'm not capable.


If an opportunity exists to play the game of political formalism again, I am sure that
I would annoy everyone every bit as much.

[odeon]

Admitting that you would, and have, is progress. 

[Calandale]

I was completely aware that my special interest in that topic was driving people mad at the time.

[El]

The prevalence of alcohol and drugs is why Department of Justice in 2012 amended the definition of rape, to include anyone who is too mentally incapacitated to give consent. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Female risk factors are identified by the Center for Disease Control on pg. 11. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/global_campaign/en/chap6.pdf

As for the drug/alcohol percentages, it's a mixed bag. Sort of like rape stats in general; they're largely based on surveys. So even if one were to take the lowest numbers, 50% is about it.
The National Institute of Justice states 'at least half' https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/alcohol.aspx
The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse states 'about half' https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/campus/pages/alcohol.aspx
The US Department of Justice states 47% https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
This article cites 80% from a university age study that isn't open source so can't verify the quote, but here's the article and study.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/10/sexual_assault_and_drinking_teach_women_the_connection.html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JACH.57.6.639-649#.UliRFCSE6kA

I'd plus you if you didn't want blank karma.