Julian Assange Rape Allegations

TheHedonist wrote:

I don't know why I'm even bothering, this is falling on deaf ears. Cy, I'm out. You're not going to hear anything that doesn't present the woman as a rosy-cheeked cherub because you hate men or just think women are morally better, or something. Seriously, for someone who claims to want gender equality you sure are wrapped up in the idea of women being somehow morally superior or something.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Also, here's a discussion of why 2% false rape claim is bullshit. With citations up the ass.

Psy-4 wrote:

Also, here's a discussion of why 2% false rape claim is bullshit. With citations up the ass.

Get off my side.

Fine, I'll take my facts, statistics and reasoning and go play somewhere else.

Psy-4 wrote:

Fine, I'll take my facts, statistics and reasoning and go play somewhere else.

Please do.

I would, but that leaves the thread entirely to Cyberwulf.

AHAHAHAHA CHRISTINA HOFF SUMMERS "LEGAL DOMINANCE FEMINISM" AND A WORK THAT USES "HETEROPHOBIA" AS A SERIOUS TERM

OH MY GOD they use the fact that some rape victims recant as "proof" that women are making it all up, making the same error as the discredited Kanin study.

Gee I wonder why some rape victims would feel under pressure to drop the whole thing? Damn, if you three dipshits were the cops interrogating them they'd probably back off quickly before you charge them with filing a false police report. If the person who raped them was famous and had rabid fans posting their identities all over the internet, they might back off. If their in-laws started to pressure them they might back off. I mean it's not like there are any cultural narratives about rape victims (male and female) that might come into play and have come into play in this very thread or anything, right?

Notice too how they excise the possibility of police exerting subtle pressure on a rape victim to identify the guy the cops "know" did it - particularly in the cases of stranger rape and where the suspect is non-white. There have been a couple of high profile cases where that happened and where the victim expressed doubts about the identity of her rapist but the cops went ahead anyway.

And of course male rape victims don't exist, because acknowledging them would interfere with the author's Mighty Crusade Against Lying Bitches Out To Ruin Good Men's Names.

My favourite part is where they insist that the bullshit rape victims have to put up with is a disincentive for women to lie about rape, except that they lie all the time, so it isn't a disincentive, except that it is. It's even better than the bit where they pronounce that it's totes not rape to fuck a drunk woman, and that a man has a right to "infer" consent when a woman is too scared to say no, as long as the man isn't wielding a knife.

Quote :

if consent required express verbal speech acts on the part of the woman, there would probably be hundreds of times as many acts defined as rape as there are today.

Quote :

in a society in which numerous women say "no" when they mean "yes"

Psy, are you fucking serious linking this shit? Do you honestly expect anyone to take it seriously?

OH GOD I WAS WRONG BEFORE THE BEST PART IS WHERE THEY CLAIM THAT REFORMING THE RAPE LAWS WOULD BE RACIST.

ps love the idea that thinking it's cruel to attack a rape victim's character (see how it's non-gendered?) to discredit his/her assertion that s/he was raped = man-hating. I wonder how many of you stupid fucks would be singing a different tune if a man was raped by a woman, who then took him to court for support for the resulting child. I wonder how many of you would think the fact that he once wrote a blog post about how unfair child support is was solid evidence that he was probably lying about being raped.

Cyberwulf wrote:

ps love the idea that thinking it's cruel to attack a rape victim's character (see how it's non-gendered?) to discredit his/her assertion that s/he was raped = man-hating.

I wonder what that assumption could have possibly been based on.

Quote :

I wonder how many of you stupid fucks would be singing a different tune if a man was raped by a woman, who then took him to court for support for the resulting child. I wonder how many of you would think the fact that he once wrote a blog post about how unfair child support is was solid evidence that he was probably lying about being raped.

... what?

Oooooooooooooh, I get it. You're trying to turn the roles around here and get us to see things from your perspective. The problem here, however, is that we (or I, at least) would count it as perfectly valid evidence as well. The problem with that, and the Assange case, is that the blog is just that- a blog. It's not 100% damning irrefutable proof or disproof of anything. There's a million other factors at play, and the blog is just one of them. That's what we've been saying all along, and that's what you keep on ignoring.

I've held out hope that somewhere, somewhere underneath the bitter, angry, psycho militant femnazi front of yours, there was a decent person equally capable of rational thought. How sad that I was wrong.

Right, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Here's the freshest study(or rather, discussion of the article) conducted by David Lisak, and published in Violence Against Women.

It puts False Rape percentage at 5.9%. WOW! Wait, it counts only the cases that have been investigated and proven false. Oops. With categories cutely chosen to imply everything else was genuine. Double Oops. Guess men are guilty until proven innocent, the pigs.

Cyberwulf wrote:

My favourite part is where they insist that the bullshit rape victims have to put up with is a disincentive for women to lie about rape, except that they lie all the time, so it isn't a disincentive, except that it is.

Not even nearly what was said. The bullshit is used as evidence that all rape allegations are by default true, because no woman would willingly subject themselves to the scorn of her peers over a false allegation (which, yes, is a real argument that is made). The report made the argument that as these consequences lessen and vanish, so with them goes the disincentive of making a false allegation. This is pretty simple behavioral psychology; if you stop punishing a behavior, that behavior becomes more common. I would still argue against the author's claim on the grounds that most people don't plot out a risk/reward matrix before committing a crime (like making a false allegation) and that the positive benefits of reducing/eliminating the bullshit rape victims face massively outweigh any potential negatives, but I doubt you'd have much argument with me there so let's move on.

Cyberwulf wrote:

It's even better than the bit where they pronounce that it's totes not rape to fuck a drunk woman,

When both parties are inebriated, I believe is the exact hypothetical used. Otherwise how would you determine who raped who? Are they both victims as well as both rapists? If I'm remembering wrong, then yes, Cyber, you are correct that getting a woman drunk so you can fuck her is totally rape.

Cyberwulf wrote:

THE BEST PART IS WHERE THEY CLAIM THAT REFORMING THE RAPE LAWS WOULD BE RACIST.

would have racist effects =/= racist

The criminal justice system of the United States is notoriously racist, from blacks being subject to more car stops and searches to blacks receiving more jailtime for identical offenses. Since blacks are on the receiving end of more false accusations for nearly every crime (including rape), making it easier to convict on smaller amounts of evidence will result in an even higher incarceration rate of blacks. This is solid fact, and an obvious outcome even if it is not intended.

I'm not a lawyer so I can barely glean the original intent of the report (he claims changing rape to a "liability felony" or whatever would put the burden of proof on the accused to prove it was not rape, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? ), but while much of it is bullshit not all of it is wrong. See, my worldview allows for the possibility that all the people involved (the writer of the report, Assange, and his accusers) are assholes.

ETA:

Psy-4 wrote:

Right, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Here's the freshest study(or rather, discussion of the article) conducted by David Lisak, and published in Violence Against Women.

I would argue that 136 reports is not enough to achieve statistical accuracy. Let's look at the data another way: 35.3% of allegations were justified enough after thorough review to proceed with disciplinary action. For that to be the final tally of "true" allegations, you would have to assume that every single case in which there was not enough information in the file or where disciplinary action was not pursued for whatever reason was false, which would be an outrageous assumption for many reasons. The flipside, assuming they were all true, is just as laughable. Simply throwing out all unknown and unknowable data is scientifically unacceptable; if 136 cases is insufficient, a mere 56 reports is positively anemic (for the curious, that method results in 14% of rape allegations being proven false but I will skullfuck you if you use that statistic in an argument).

TheHermit wrote:

I'm not a lawyer so I can barely glean the original intent of the report (he claims changing rape to a "liability felony" or whatever would put the burden of proof on the accused to prove it was not rape, but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? ), but while much of it is bullshit not all of it is wrong. See, my worldview allows for the possibility that all the people involved (the writer of the report, Assange, and his accusers) are assholes.

Marry me?

TheHermit wrote:

Simply throwing out all unknown and unknowable data is scientifically unacceptable;

But but but, didn't you hear about the study that proved no lesbian couples abuse children? There were 73 families, all volunteers, they had full knowledge the were monitored and there was no control group, that's totally legit, though, right?

TheHermit wrote:

(for the curious, that method results in 14% of rape allegations being proven false but I will skullfuck you if you use that statistic in an argument).

Don't worry, the most gracious estimate starts at 25% and goes up from there. (FBI report, fucked if I will go digging for it now, the investigation falls apart either before or after the women fail the lie-detector test; most common reason cited was "spite")

Psy-4 wrote:

But but but, didn't you hear about the study that proved no lesbian couples abuse children? There were 73 families, all volunteers, they had full knowledge the were monitored and there was no control group, that's totally legit, though, right?

And your point would be...? If you're trying to say the general public couldn't pick a scientific study out of a line-up, DUH. We knew that. Quit trying to derail.

Psy-4 wrote:

Don't worry, the most gracious estimate starts at 25% and goes up from there. (FBI report, fucked if I will go digging for it now, the investigation falls apart either before or after the women fail the lie-detector test; most common reason cited was "spite")

I've seen numbers anywhere from 2% to 44% (that last one involves discovering the "truth" through polygraph tests ). The only bit of info I've found marked with the FBI's seal is nearly fourteen years old, and pegs it at 8%. Gonna have to dig up that study if you want me to take that claim seriously, Psy. You know I'm fair.

Psy-4 wrote:

the investigation falls apart either before or after the women fail the lie-detector test;

OH MY GOD, THEY FAILED LIE DETECTOR TESTS??? Well, case closed! After all, polygraphy isn't considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community and certainly doesn't have a "detection" rate that's only slightly higher than chance or anything.

Quote :

most common reason cited was "spite")

Cited by whom, your MRA buddies who mentioned this supposed report in passing but failed to provide any links?

TheHermit, I highly doubt the author(s) of the report Psy linked are at all interested in the plight of non-white men being falsely imprisoned or disproportionately punished. If they were, they would have at least mentioned the occurrence of police pressuring victims of stranger rape to pick the guy the cops "know" did it out of a lineup. They only throw that in there as LOOK HOW RACIST FEMINISTS ARE BEING, THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE (because there are no black women, let alone black feminists, and the womanist movement doesn't exist). Interesting how the author(s) have no problem accepting the justice system as horrendously racist but completely deny the possibility that it could be misogynist.

TheHermit wrote:

I've seen numbers anywhere from 2% to 44% (that last one involves discovering the "truth" through polygraph tests ). The only bit of info I've found marked with the FBI's seal is nearly fourteen years old, and pegs it at 8%. Gonna have to dig up that study if you want me to take that claim seriously, Psy. You know I'm fair.

My bad, it's actually DNA testing. Sorry...

Yeap.

Quote :

Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by state and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have “matched” or included the primary suspect. The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that post-arrest and post-conviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.

Quote :

A study of rape allegations in Indiana over a nine-year period revealed that over 40% were shown to be false — not merely unproven. According to the author, “These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.” ( Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

But, the DNA evidence just proves that the accused man was the wrong one, not that a rape wasn't commited. How does that make a false rape claim?

Psy-4 wrote:

Quote :

The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26 percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that post-arrest and post-conviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions.

Hmm, hmm, could those problems perhaps lie with (as I mentioned before) cops putting pressure on victims of stranger rape to identify a particular suspect?

Quote :

Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations. )

Oh, the infamous Kanin study, long debunked for its shitty methodology, relying on polygraph tests, and never independently verifying whether any of the rape reports labelled "false" by investigators were actually false.

kexkex wrote:

But, the DNA evidence just proves that the accused man was the wrong one, not that a rape wasn't commited. How does that make a false rape claim?

Because the police are God-fearing paragons of righteousness who would never ever pressure a rape victim to identify the person they thought was the rapist. Clearly the woman (since male rape victims don't exist) is just making it all up, in much the same way unsolved murders are clearly suicides.

PS I can't believe anyone is objecting to a study because it only counts rape reports that were proven to be false as false rape reports.

This thread is silly. C:

Oh my god, Psy, this is why I told you to get off my side earlier. Polygraph tests are a joke, I wrote a paper on them for a forensic science class. A positive result means at best that there's a chance the person being put through the test is lying, and at worst they're made so nervous by the circumstances that you got a false positive as to whether or not they're lying. Seriously. They're bullshit. Don't trust them.

Here's a good roundup of the media bullshit surrounding this case. It also debunks the "blog post" that's been used to beat the accusers. Turns out neither of the women ever wrote a blog post about revenge. She just linked to an eHow article about getting legal revenge on anybody. Oops, looks like everyone who ever posted about how one of the accusers wrote a how-to on how to get revenge and therefore she's probably lying committed libel and didn't even bother to check any facts. But there's no such thing as rape culture.

TheHedonist wrote:

Oh my god, Psy, this is why I told you to get off my side earlier. Polygraph tests are a joke, I wrote a paper on them for a forensic science class. A positive result means at best that there's a chance the person being put through the test is lying, and at worst they're made so nervous by the circumstances that you got a false positive as to whether or not they're lying. Seriously. They're bullshit. Don't trust them.

But . . . but Maury uses them all the time to prove that people are cheating! Are you saying they aren't 100% correct? Oh noes! My worldview has shattered!

TheHedonist wrote:

Oh my god, Psy, this is why I told you to get off my side earlier. Polygraph tests are a joke, I wrote a paper on them for a forensic science class. A positive result means at best that there's a chance the person being put through the test is lying, and at worst they're made so nervous by the circumstances that you got a false positive as to whether or not they're lying. Seriously. They're bullshit. Don't trust them.

"Oh no I did not read the thread" edit in 5...

Anyway, fuck Julian Assange and the rape allegations that none of us can confirm or deny seeing as we weren't there. Let's talk about Bradley Manning, who is being held for leaking shit to Wikileaks without charge.

Or are we more interested in Assange?

^
lrn2Military law or GTFO of American business.

ZoZo wrote:

Let's talk about Bradley Manning, who is being held for leaking shit to Wikileaks without charge.

Except he's not. He's exactly where he belongs.