What's bullshit is the claim that if you mention any estimate of a percentage, you're personally attacking someone unless your estimate is exactly correct.
He's supporting a claim that close to 50% of rape accusations are false. The most rigorous numbers suggest that the actual number is 2%, and with fuzzier definitions you get to 8%. Are you entirely unable to see why this is objectionable?
I don't believe he'd extend that to all cases with both people drunk beyond a certain level
"the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give legal consent" - so sure, if there's a level of drunkenness that prevents you from knowing that an unconscious individual is failing to provide informed consent, Ted doesn't think that it's rape.
I stand by what I said in the first post in this subthread, and I can't see why you'd think my position has changed (or how).
My apologies - you're right. You were disagreeing with something that nobody had actually said.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: My overall take on the discussion
Date: 2012-11-07 09:11 pm (UTC)He's supporting a claim that close to 50% of rape accusations are false. The most rigorous numbers suggest that the actual number is 2%, and with fuzzier definitions you get to 8%. Are you entirely unable to see why this is objectionable?
"the rapist has to know that the the other person was not able to give
legal consent" - so sure, if there's a level of drunkenness that prevents you from knowing that an unconscious individual is failing to provide informed consent, Ted doesn't think that it's rape.
My apologies - you're right. You were disagreeing with something that nobody had actually said.