Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 12:52 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 10:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Have women ASKED YOU to treat them unequally, or are you making excuses so you so have to do what they have asked. They have ASKED for equality.
You seem to think you "know what's best for them". Facepalm

Well, I just asked my wife and amazingly, she agreed with me (almost never happens lol!). Women have it tougher in many ways, so men can make the sacrifice on this one.

So now I've at least asked one woman. Smile

That's nice dear. You know what's best. Whatever you say, dear.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-02-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 01:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Given that women, on average, are not physically as strong as men, and given that half the population (roughly) are female, this point is very dubious.

Assuming approximately equal encounters of the genders, men would be physically disadvantaged in roughly one-quarter the situations they experience, not one-half.

With other men, as clearly stated in Chas's prompting comment. I didn't feel I needed to explicitly reiterate that context.

My apologies. I'd forgotten he'd written that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2016 02:03 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 01:28 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 12:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Unfortunately not offhand, no. I will try to track it down later.
(but it is one of those things that will also vary by jurisdiction due to differences in classification and reporting)

But it does follow fairly inevitably from the definition of sexual assault under the law - and I do mean explicitly sexual assault rather than rape, because only the former is defined as a category under Canadian law. And since anything other than ejaculation meets ovulation can't result in pregnancy (and even then doesn't always) but would still be sexual assault...

Except that I specifically stated "rape" not sexual assault, so I'd expect the stats where you formed your conjecture from to reflect that, in order to refute my statement on the risk and consequences.

Rape is not a clearly defined term under the law that I'm familiar with. That's why I already said it wasn't a good category for establishing statistics.
(to wit: I don't know what you meant by it)

Here is a simple survey from Virginia ~10 years ago. They refer to an FBI definition of rape (this may be representative of standard American practice, I wouldn't know - how does it compare to what you meant by the term?) that includes oral, anal, and non-penile sex acts, which I would assume you'd agree with me are rather unlikely to cause pregnancy. Of the sample they were able to contact 3.1% reported a resulting pregnancy.
(and here for contrast is a discussion on unintended pregnancy as it relates to intimate partner violence and coercive relationships, in which contexts 20% reported unwanted pregnancy)

I did not deny that some sexual assault results in pregnancy. I said only that it generally doesn't, by the definitions and studies I'm familiar with. What of the preceeding do you agree or disagree with?

EDIT: fixed link. Also potentially of interest (especially to those able to track citations) is here, among the first modern attempts to get reasonable data on the matter.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 01:46 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 01:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  With other men, as clearly stated in Chas's prompting comment. I didn't feel I needed to explicitly reiterate that context.

My apologies. I'd forgotten he'd written that.

Right - no worries, then.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
09-02-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 01:04 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 11:49 AM)cjlr Wrote:  By statistical necessity men are also physically disadvantaged in half of the situations they experience.

Given that women, on average, are not physically as strong as men, and given that half the population (roughly) are female, this point is very dubious.

Assuming approximately equal encounters of the genders, men would be physically disadvantaged in roughly one-quarter the situations they experience, not one-half.

Can we all please stop this ridiculous display of poor statistic? Who gives a shit about how the «average» men is compared to «average» women? This constitute the very core exemple of a fallacious appeal to probability.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 01:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 01:28 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Except that I specifically stated "rape" not sexual assault, so I'd expect the stats where you formed your conjecture from to reflect that, in order to refute my statement on the risk and consequences.

Rape is not a clearly defined term under the law that I'm familiar with. That's why I already said it wasn't a good category for establishing statistics.
(to wit: I don't know what you meant by it)

Here is a simple survey from Virginia ~10 years ago. They refer to an FBI definition of rape (this may be representative of standard American practice, I wouldn't know - how does it compare to what you meant by the term?) that includes oral, anal, and non-penile sex acts, which I would assume you'd agree with me are rather unlikely to cause pregnancy. Of the sample they were able to contact 3.1% reported a resulting pregnancy.
(and here for contrast is a discussion on unintended pregnancy as it relates to intimate partner violence and coercive relationships, in which contexts 20% reported unwanted pregnancy)

I did not deny that some sexual assault results in pregnancy. I said only that it generally doesn't, by the definitions and studies I'm familiar with. What of the preceeding do you agree or disagree with?

What I am saying is that while it may be a "small fraction of a percentage" in all sexual assault cases (which include many kinds of assault) it is not so small in rape cases. I was posting about rape and you used "sexual assault" which is not the same and a much broader subject to diminish my claim of risk and consequence.

You changed the parameters for which I was making my statement and used a different criteria to dismiss it. That is what I disagree with.

The actual stats for rape pregnancies is 6.4% and 8% where birth control is not used. That may sound small but that equals out to 83,000 rape pregnancies in 2010 when the study was done. That is not an insignificant number regardless of the percentages.

"More recently, in 2003, husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, then at St. Lawrence University, identified even higher rape-related pregnancy rates. Analyzing survey results from 8,000 women around the country, they determined that 6.4 percent of rapes in women of childbearing age resulted in pregnancy. In cases where no birth control was used, the rate increased to 8 percent.

Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010."

link:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/20...s-not-less

They also state they rape pregnancies are actually more likely than consensual pregnancies.

But again, my complaint was that you changed the parameters of my statement to suit your reply.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 02:43 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  What I am saying is that while it may be a "small fraction of a percentage" in all sexual assault cases (which include many kinds of assault) it is not so small in rape cases. I was posting about rape and you used "sexual assault" which is not the same and a much broader subject to diminish my claim of risk and consequence.

You changed the parameters for which I was making my statement and used a different criteria to dismiss it. That is what I disagree with.

I've explained that I was attempting to cast an ill-defined category into a well-defined category. Nor was it dismissal. I apologise if I was misconstrued.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  The actual stats for rape pregnancies is 6.4% and 8% where birth control is not used. That may sound small but that equals out to 83,000 rape pregnancies in 2010 when the study was done. That is not an insignificant number regardless of the percentages.

That seems to be a matter of semantics, then? If (by analogy) a medical condition is so rare as to only affect one person in ten million that makes it simultaneously insignificant for most people but does nothing to dismiss the experience of those for whom it occurs.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  "More recently, in 2003, husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, then at St. Lawrence University, identified even higher rape-related pregnancy rates. Analyzing survey results from 8,000 women around the country, they determined that 6.4 percent of rapes in women of childbearing age resulted in pregnancy. In cases where no birth control was used, the rate increased to 8 percent.

It is a little disingenuous to say that those constitute the "actual stats" (your words in the previous paragraph) when it is only a single small-scale study and is but one of many found in the literature. And for that matter I already gave a link to a study finding a significantly higher number in some contexts - albeit neither was intended to be definitive, only representative.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010."

Sure, but that's not directly related to the point of disagreement that may or may not exist here?

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  They also state they rape pregnancies are actually more likely than consensual pregnancies.

It is worth pointing out that that is by no means anything approaching a consensus on this in the literature.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  But again, my complaint was that you changed the parameters of my statement to suit your reply.

I do not feel that I did so.
(but surely the fact that the source you pulled gives a fairly low occurance rate regardless means we can accept that much?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 03:25 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 02:43 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  What I am saying is that while it may be a "small fraction of a percentage" in all sexual assault cases (which include many kinds of assault) it is not so small in rape cases. I was posting about rape and you used "sexual assault" which is not the same and a much broader subject to diminish my claim of risk and consequence.

You changed the parameters for which I was making my statement and used a different criteria to dismiss it. That is what I disagree with.

I've explained that I was attempting to cast an ill-defined category into a well-defined category. Nor was it dismissal. I apologise if I was misconstrued.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  The actual stats for rape pregnancies is 6.4% and 8% where birth control is not used. That may sound small but that equals out to 83,000 rape pregnancies in 2010 when the study was done. That is not an insignificant number regardless of the percentages.

That seems to be a matter of semantics, then? If (by analogy) a medical condition is so rare as to only affect one person in ten million that makes it simultaneously insignificant for most people but does nothing to dismiss the experience of those for whom it occurs.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  "More recently, in 2003, husband-and-wife team Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall, then at St. Lawrence University, identified even higher rape-related pregnancy rates. Analyzing survey results from 8,000 women around the country, they determined that 6.4 percent of rapes in women of childbearing age resulted in pregnancy. In cases where no birth control was used, the rate increased to 8 percent.

It is a little disingenuous to say that those constitute the "actual stats" (your words in the previous paragraph) when it is only a single small-scale study and is but one of many found in the literature. And for that matter I already gave a link to a study finding a significantly higher number in some contexts - albeit neither was intended to be definitive, only representative.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  Meanwhile, a CDC report released last November concluded that 1 in 5 women have been raped, with 1.3 million women age 18 and up raped in 2010 alone. Doing the math, allowing for the use of birth control, and only including adults, the most recent data suggests that more than 83,000 women became pregnant by a man who raped them in 2010."

Sure, but that's not directly related to the point of disagreement that may or may not exist here?

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  They also state they rape pregnancies are actually more likely than consensual pregnancies.

It is worth pointing out that that is by no means anything approaching a consensus on this in the literature.

(09-02-2016 02:12 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  But again, my complaint was that you changed the parameters of my statement to suit your reply.

I do not feel that I did so.
(but surely the fact that the source you pulled gives a fairly low occurance rate regardless means we can accept that much?)

It is not 1 in 10 million (Just throwing a miniscule number out there to diminish the relevance even further looks like you are pressing an agenda, to me. Are you just looking for an argument, if so, please say so because I don't want to have an arbitrary contrarian discussion just for the fun of it.)

And 83,000 rape pregnancies in a year is not an insignificant number by any standards no matter the percentage differences of actual rape to general sexual assaults.

I do not understand how you cannot feel you changed the parameters when you actually stated you did. "On the other hand, pregnancy is only the result in a small fraction of sexual assault cases." You used sexual assault, where my statement was about rape. They are not the same nor are the parameters for any stats assessing them. That's the same as saying 10% of the apples I purchased were rotten but it's of no matter because only .05 of the fruit was. When you changed the parameters or criteria you change the meaning and it's significance. Which is what you did.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  It is not 1 in 10 million (Just throwing a miniscule number out there to diminish the relevance even further looks like you are pressing an agenda, to me. Are you just looking for an argument, if so, please say so because I don't want to have an arbitrary contrarian discussion just for the fun of it.)

That was an analogy. As in, just an analogy. I explicitly framed it as such. I figured making it several orders of magnitude different would be clear without being at all ambiguous. I can only say the valence you impute is spurious. I once again regret the misunderstanding.

As for as argument goes, I'm still not clear just what you're objecting to. Your subjective interpretation of the imagined tone of a supplementary comment I added?

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  And 83,000 rape pregnancies in a year is not an insignificant number by any standards no matter the percentage differences of actual rape to general sexual assaults.

Semantic ambiguity again. What do you mean by significant? I do not call a 5% outcome significant, in a lot of contexts (it is, trivially, the boundary of a two-sigma). That is merely a content-agnostic statistical rule.

I also literally just said that acknowledging a very infrequent prevalence is not dismissal. So there's that?

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I do not understand how you cannot feel you changed the parameters when you actually stated you did. "On the other hand, pregnancy is only the result in a small fraction of sexual assault cases." You used sexual assault, where my statement was about rape. They are not the same nor are the parameters for any stats assessing them.

Yes, but you didn't define rape. And there is no single prevailing definition - so how is anyone supposed to know what you meant?
(I instead said sexual assault because that is the term I am more familiar with and because the way rape is often defined, including in the literature I cited here - go read it if you don't take my word for it - would fall under 'sexual assault' as per Canadian law)

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  That's the same as saying 10% of the apples I purchased were rotten but it's of no matter because only .05 of the fruit was. When you changed the parameters or criteria you change the meaning and it's significance. Which is what you did.

Facts are facts. Policy should be based on facts. If the relevant purview is all fruit then apple-specific data isn't immediately relevant. I don't see how that could possibly be in the least a controversial thing to observe? You don't need to filter the grapes better if it's the apples that are bad. That doesn't mean nobody should do anything about the apples.

You are free to believe I have some agenda to press even when I explicitly say otherwise. At the very least I'm now morbidly curious as to what you think that agenda is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Should women be required to register for the Selective Service System ?
(09-02-2016 03:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  It is not 1 in 10 million (Just throwing a miniscule number out there to diminish the relevance even further looks like you are pressing an agenda, to me. Are you just looking for an argument, if so, please say so because I don't want to have an arbitrary contrarian discussion just for the fun of it.)

That was an analogy. As in, just an analogy. I explicitly framed it as such. I figured making it several orders of magnitude different would be clear without being at all ambiguous. I can only say the valence you impute is spurious. I once again regret the misunderstanding.

As for as argument goes, I'm still not clear just what you're objecting to. Your subjective interpretation of the imagined tone of a supplementary comment I added?

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  And 83,000 rape pregnancies in a year is not an insignificant number by any standards no matter the percentage differences of actual rape to general sexual assaults.

Semantic ambiguity again. What do you mean by significant? I do not call a 5% outcome significant, in a lot of contexts (it is, trivially, the boundary of a two-sigma). That is merely a content-agnostic statistical rule.

I also literally just said that acknowledging a very infrequent prevalence is not dismissal. So there's that?

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  I do not understand how you cannot feel you changed the parameters when you actually stated you did. "On the other hand, pregnancy is only the result in a small fraction of sexual assault cases." You used sexual assault, where my statement was about rape. They are not the same nor are the parameters for any stats assessing them.

Yes, but you didn't define rape. And there is no single prevailing definition - so how is anyone supposed to know what you meant?
(I instead said sexual assault because that is the term I am more familiar with and because the way rape is often defined, including in the literature I cited here - go read it if you don't take my word for it - would fall under 'sexual assault' as per Canadian law)

(09-02-2016 03:25 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  That's the same as saying 10% of the apples I purchased were rotten but it's of no matter because only .05 of the fruit was. When you changed the parameters or criteria you change the meaning and it's significance. Which is what you did.

Facts are facts. Policy should be based on facts. If the relevant purview is all fruit then apple-specific data isn't immediately relevant. I don't see how that could possibly be in the least a controversial thing to observe? You don't need to filter the grapes better if it's the apples that are bad. That doesn't mean nobody should do anything about the apples.

You are free to believe I have some agenda to press even when I explicitly say otherwise. At the very least I'm now morbidly curious as to what you think that agenda is.

No, I'll not argue with you any further. I don't like rabbit holes and I'm not following you there anymore.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: