Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
It's a super small piece of the article that's painting a larger picture. You have probably already spent more time focusing on that sentence than anyone else on the internet
Only because you responded? And at worst I am tied with you in that honor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
It's a super small piece of the article that's and if you think every part of it needs to be accompanied by a logical proof based on first principles, I don't think internet articles are for you dude.
I think logically dubious parts that purport to support a conclusion need to be backed up with something at least or they would be better not mentioned at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Huh? You made an argument on some flawed premises that I corrected for you. Again, since for some reason you deliberately omitted from your quote the most important part of that paragraph:
"...I don't really care -
my point all along has been that it was lazy to have written off the rape exoneration number based on assuming that too many cases are he-said she-said."
1) I only omitted the bolded so not sure what you're talking about.
2) You're still wrong; my writing it off does not rely on "assuming that too many cases are he-said she-said" it relies on there being no basis for assuming the cases are similar enough to compare the numbers. This remains true, my speculation on reasons why they might not be comparable (and it's accuracy) notwithstanding.