"If you then claim that between 9% and 50% of accusations are false, you're saying that some people who were actually raped were not actually raped."
I think my above post already adequately explained why it's quite a stretch to go from linking to a document which mentions such numbers, even if you believe them to be false, to "called rape victims liars".
"Yeah, easily verified to be false."
Yes, if you're willing to read it honestly. Did you read the explanation in my first "My overall take on the discussion" post? I wonder what more to say if you read that but still fail to understand. I think it should be quite obvious if you're willing to read the post without preconceived notions of what you think it must be saying.
The context is that Ted was replying to a mail claiming that sex without informed consent would always be rape. He considered consequences of this "definition of rape" by applying it to different example cases ("thought experiment" as his mail said). The "So if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place, in either direction" sentence refers to one particular "thought experiment" case, which demonstrates that the suggested "definition of rape" is flawed, as it would produce absurd results.
So Ted was NOT saying "ALL cases where both people are drunk are not rape", but "there EXISTS AN example case with both people drunk (and not capable of giving informed consent), but where there is no rape". And this example case was relevant to the discussion as it served as a counterexample to the proposed definition.
"it sounds like you're admitting that Ted places some of the blame on the victim"
He was willing to criticize someone even if they are a victim. I would not use the phrasing "some of the blame", as to me that seems to incorrectly suggest there is some overall "the blame" to allocate, and criticizing someone would imply blaming others (such as the criminal) less. I think my above post already adequately explains my view on what his attitude is.
"46% figure"
I didn't look up what exactly you're referring to here.
Re: My overall take on the discussion
I think my above post already adequately explained why it's quite a stretch to go from linking to a document which mentions such numbers, even if you believe them to be false, to "called rape victims liars".
"Yeah, easily verified to be false."
Yes, if you're willing to read it honestly. Did you read the explanation in my first "My overall take on the discussion" post? I wonder what more to say if you read that but still fail to understand. I think it should be quite obvious if you're willing to read the post without preconceived notions of what you think it must be saying.
The context is that Ted was replying to a mail claiming that sex without informed consent would always be rape. He considered consequences of this "definition of rape" by applying it to different example cases ("thought experiment" as his mail said). The "So if both Alice and Bob were drunk, there's no rape that has taken place, in either direction" sentence refers to one particular "thought experiment" case, which demonstrates that the suggested "definition of rape" is flawed, as it would produce absurd results.
So Ted was NOT saying "ALL cases where both people are drunk are not rape", but "there EXISTS AN example case with both people drunk (and not capable of giving informed consent), but where there is no rape". And this example case was relevant to the discussion as it served as a counterexample to the proposed definition.
"it sounds like you're admitting that Ted places some of the blame on the victim"
He was willing to criticize someone even if they are a victim. I would not use the phrasing "some of the blame", as to me that seems to incorrectly suggest there is some overall "the blame" to allocate, and criticizing someone would imply blaming others (such as the criminal) less. I think my above post already adequately explains my view on what his attitude is.
"46% figure"
I didn't look up what exactly you're referring to here.