3 ms·
I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling and focus on where we can agree, specifically: > You have an implicit claim > that se
by peteretep 9y ago
I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling and focus on where we can agree, specifically:
> You have an implicit claim
> that sexual assault is
> somehow magical, and
> deserving of different
> standards than insurance
> fraud
Yes I do.
Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported.
Taking those back-to-front, an insurance claim that's unreported doesn't endanger wider society, where a serial rapist abusing his position of power does.
As to under-reporting of sexual crimes, evidence is easily Googleable. But even if it wasn't, one looks at cases like Jimmy Saville where alleged victims didn't come out until others did; largely due to their feeling they wouldn't be believed.
- adekok 9y ago> I think it's probably easiest to ignore the inchoate name calling Because it didn't happen. But you're free to feel superior to me based on lies about what I said. > Specifically I believe sexual assaults are under-reported, Yes... look at the numbers from Statistics Canada for one. In interviews, people claim sexual assault rates that are about 10x the rate of police reports. Why are those crimes not reported? Statistics Canada asked... the #1 answer is "because the assault was too minor to bother with". i.e. grabbing an ass in a bar is legally sexual assault. But few people are going to file a police report about it. > and that more assaults happen because they're under-reported. No such evidence exists. There is evidence that there are massive programs to encourage people to report sexual assault. All such programs have not increased the reporting rate to police. Which makes it look like the rate of police reports of serious crimes is pretty close to the real rate of serious crimes.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]