Re: ASCII Art Fart for Thu, 2004 Nov 25

ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Bateau wrote:
>> News server fucked up.
>> 
>> ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>ABCGi wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bateau wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>ABCGi <abc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Simon Williams wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission:
>>>>>>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are 
>>>>>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of 
>>>>>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There 
>>>>>>is nothing PC about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Priority in problem solving? Violence is ONE problem not two.
>>>>>You are the one who needs to examine the stats. If you want to split it
>>>>>into sexes then you are focussing on the lesser problem. Go to any E.R.
>>>>>or police station and ask them who is more often seriously injured or
>>>>>killed by violent acts. The answer is overwhelmingly "men." To be as
>>>>>wrong as you are about this you must be ignorant, stupid, or sexist.
>>>>
>>>>The above is anecdotal not statistical, do you have any studies or 
>>>>statistics?
>> 
>> Wow. I thought it was so obvious that even my reference to the anecdotal
>> evidence of experts was overkill. I thought merely pointing out
>> something so obvious would force you to abandon your sexist position but
>> you made the unexpected move of denying something that is beyond
>> question to every other person on Earth. It takes me back to my days of
>> debating on religious newsgroups.
>
>Yeah well I'm a scientist, there are plenty of examples in man's history 
>of things at the time that were thought to be "obvious" and "common 
>sense" or "natural" that were wrong. I think we get fooled into because 
>about 90 to 95% of "obvious" things turn out to be true, but the other 5 
>to 10% is dangerously misunderstood - and thus unsolvable. A first step 
>to solving any problem is identify and understand it.

So where did you go wrong?

>> But anyway..
>> In 1998 the National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease
>> Control and Prevention published their findings into violence against
>> women. Some excerpts:
>> 
>> "52 percent of surveyed women and 66 percent of surveyed men said they
>> were physically assaulted as a child by an adult caretaker and/or as an
>> adult by any type of perpetrator."
>> 
>> "1.9 percent of surveyed women and 3.4 percent of surveyed men
>> said they were physically assaulted in the previous 12 months. These
>> estimates equate to approximately 1.9 million women and 3.2 million
>> men who are physically assaulted annually in the United States"
>> 
>> "approximately 5.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against women
>> and 7.9 million physical assaults perpetrated against men in the 12
>> months preceding the survey"
>> 
>> And from a 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics report:
>> 
>> "A greater percentage of victimizations against males than females were
>> committed by multiple offenders. Multiple offenders committed 27% of the
>> violent victimizations against men and 16% of those against women."
>> 
>> "Homicides in 1992
>> Female victims   Male victims
>> 5,001            17,835"
>> 
>> What these studies tell us is that:
>> Most victims of violence are male.
>> Most people injured by violence are male.
>> Most assaults are perpetrated against men.
>> Most victims of violence by multiple people are men.
>> Most victims of homicide are men.
>
>Interesting, thanks. But not the insignificant number of female victims 
>that you had earlier claimed.

In other words "You were right but you exaggerated, so I am going to
focus on that rather than acknowledge that I was arguing the EXACT
opposite of the truth you provided me with."
When you claim to have logically arrived at a position which is actually
completely illogical, based on no facts and clearly wrong you have no
place criticizing my methods.

>> You said:
>> 
>>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are 
>>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of 
>>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There is 
>>>nothing PC about it.
>> 
>> Wow.
>> Now I think the most interesting thing about this discussion is how you
>> could be so completely wrong. What the hell were you thinking?
>
>Again priority was discussed below.

I want to know what you were thinking when you got the situation
completely backwards and said this:

>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are 
>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of 
>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows. There 
>is nothing PC about it.

>>>>And again, the point was not that violence against men is 
>>>>better/worse than violence against women.
>> 
>> I never said violence against men was worse. I said it was more
>> prevalent and a bigger problem.
>
>As stated below there are issues where the priority is the other way around.

The issue that has always been under discussion is "violence". The
separation of that issue into sexes that you insist on would make
combatting violence against males a priority. I wonder what issues you
are going to pretend we have been discussing if not "violence"?

>>>Another issue for priority is that sexual assault in the courts has the 
>>>lowest conviction rate by far of any crime, clearly this makes it first 
>>>on the list of things to correct.
>> 
>> You are looking at the ratio of accusations to convictions, not the
>> ratio of crimes to convictions. Sexual assault also has the highest
>> false accusation rate of any crime by far. Some experts have put the
>> figure at 40%.
>
>Still puts the conviction rate hopelessly low.

Because it is difficult to prove. Therefor possible victims should take
more care. I'm guessing you think the answer is to require less proof to
decide someone's life should be destroyed.

>And I would question that 
>figure and its source, that is a classically false arguement.

Says the man who claimed violence against women was more common than
violence against men. Your track record proves that you are incapable of
judging the validity of an argument.

>If women 
>who are really raped find the system too difficult, why would that 
>number who weren't be encouraged?

How should the system be made easier? Oh, wait, you're stupid so don't
bother.

>>>Also looking statistically at X and Y's - if;
>>>
>>>X -> X = 50v
>>>X -> Y = 49.8v
>>>Y -> X = 0.2v
>>>
>>>Then I'd say the priority is to protect Y.
>> 
>> Number of men assaulted per year: 3.2 million.
>> Number of women assaulted per year: 1.9 million.
>> So how does someone with a knowledge of statistics get it so wrong?
>
>You missed the point of the above analysis, it shows women don't assault 
>men.
>
>And it was based on my source that put victims of violence at 
>around 50/50. Using your figures above would still show that the 
>priority would be to protect Y - indeed your figures make it look even 
>more like Lions X in a cage with Rabbits Y.

I don't know what to say. Is this your programmers' logic at work again?
It will probably take me a few minutes to describe what a complete idiot
you just made of yourself. I can't imagine there is anyone stupider than
you reading this group so this isn't even to make you look like an
imbecile. Everyone can see that already. It is to help you.
I should have known you were going in this direction when you insisted
on separating the issue of violence into men and women. You are a true
sexist.
So this is basically what is wrong with you:
You are blaming male victims of violence for violence against women
perpetrated by OTHER males.

>>>X -> Y = 49.8v

This X...

>>>X -> X = 50v

... is NOT the same as this X...

>>>Y -> X = 0.2v

... OR this X.

Those 2 Xs are victims too. They are not perpetrators.
You are saying male VICTIMS of violence deserve less help because of
what male PERPETRATORS do. Even in your example you imply that there are
more male victims of violence. But you dismiss the problem they
represent because they are the same sex as their attackers.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I have heard that is how you teach
mentally disabled people.

>>>>>>>Violence against _anyone_ is fundamentally a bad thing... wonder why we
>>>>>>>get more excited when it's based on sex, race or religion?
>>>>>>>  /\
>>>>>>> /oo\     _|_
>>>>>>>_\^^/____  |
>>>>>>>/     ,__ |PB
>>>>>>>|     |  \| |
>>>>>>>||.  ,|
>>>>>>>| ====
>>>>>>>`|'  `|
>>>>>>>|    |
>>>>>>>|    |
>>>>>>>|    |
>>>>>>>^^^^^^
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One idea raised by the UN day for stopping violence against women is 
>>>>>>that the majority of men, who don't think it is ok, speak up more so 
>>>>>>that that minority doesn't get the mistaken idea that it is perhaps 
>>>>>>socially acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have now officially done my part of that.
>>>>>
>>>>>You have attempted to draw attention away from the more pressing
>>>>>problem. You have also perpetuated the myth that there is no problem of
>>>>>violence against men by pretending that the comparably tiny amount of
>>>>>violence against women is the most violence anyone is suffering.
>>>
>>>I asked a friend at university to look up figures on this, the study is 
>>>a bit dated and doesn't include war I don't think but victims of 
>>>violence is actually about half - half, certainly nothing like 
>>>"comparably tiny" for women, obviously this is a bit of a misconception 
>>>or myth (not the other way around).
>> 
>> That will teach you to do your own research then because your friend is
>> as stupid as you.
>
>ad hominem

Don't tell me how to argue Mr "Y2 < X2 = X1 = Y2".

>> Older national surveys showed that the number of male and female victims
>> of violence PERPETRATED BY INTIMATE PARTNERS was rougly equal. Even
>> among women that is only 25% of the total number of victims. It would be
>> no indicator of the number of male and female victims of violence even
>> if it hadn't been refuted by two more recent and thorough surveys. I
>> thought you knew something about statistics?
>> And if they were equal why would you say that violence against women was
>> "by far, the most pressing problem"?
>
>I grant you that may not of been a convincing arguement,

Because it was completely illogical and untrue. How could a your
programmers' logic fail you? Why did you ever believe it?

>and I withdraw 
>it. Given that can we agree that violence against men *and* violence 
>against women are worthy of being worked on?

No let's use your logic and ignore female victims! If Y < 50% let Y = 0!

>>>Of course if you talking just the sexual assault category then the 
>>>victims are almost all women and the perpetrator is a man (99.9% of the 
>>>time).
>> 
>> Your statistical errors are just amusing now. The 1998 survey found that
>> approximately 76% of the people who are forcibly raped each year are
>
>Sorry yes, I meant to say that where the victim is a woman and 
>perpetrator is a man.

I still disagree with "Of course if you [are] talking [about] the sexual
assault category where the victims are almost all women and the
perpetrators is a man (99.9% of the time)."
Like I said 76% is not "almost all".

>> women. Other studies which give higher numbers have included things like
>> "verbal threats of a sexual nature" in their results.
>> But you are just trying to narrow the debate down to sexual assault in
>> order to focus on female victims of violence. That is probably a
>
>Like you are trying to broaden it to dismiss it?

When have I tried to broaden the debate from "victims of violence" in
order to dismiss female victims? Except those times I have done it
insincerely to hold a mirror to your own beliefs.

>> consequence of "politically correct" feminist social conditioning.
>> Sexual assault is just a fraction of the violence suffered by men and
>
>Fine, do you still agree it is a bad thing? Or are you using your 
>arguments out of some other kind of motivation?

I must have done a good job demolishing your arguments if you are this
desperate to find something to oppose me on. My point in saying that
sexual assault is just a fraction of the total violence committed
against people was not to dismiss it as a "lesser problem" the way you
would. It was to point out that your anti male sexism has made you
attempt to narrow the debate to a slice of the violence pie which has
mostly female victims and then use it to represent the whole issue.

>> women each year. The sex of the perpetrator is irrelevant to this
>> discussion of whether most victims of violence are ignored because they
>> are not female. It is only useful in a pointless "women vs men" argument
>> which this probably is in a mind like yours that is twisted by feminist
>> propoganda.
>
>It is you who are totally wrong, as my position that it is a problem is 
>backed up by many intellectuals. Taking all your stats as true there is 
>still a problem, if it were a computer program I would call it buggy.

Don't try to be witty back. You're not good at it. All people who tend
to make crazy irrational statements should avoid trying to sound clever
really.
Your position isn't that "it's a problem". It's that "it's the most
pressing problem".
I don't understand that last sentence at all. Did I say that because
there are more male victims of violence than female victims of violence
there is no problem?
So what am I meant to be "totally wrong" about anyway?

>>>>I have never insinuated anything of the sort IIRC. For instance, war, 
>>>>has a great number of men suffering violence.
>> 
>> You wrote:
>> 
>>>Bateau <Gam...@work.stomping.aza> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You, the UN, and all the other PC pusstards are sexist by omission:
>>>>violence against men is just as bad as violence against women.
>>>
>>>Yeah not the point dude, if you knew the stats you'd know we are 
>>>addressing, by far, the most pressing problem first. A simple case of 
>>>priority in problem solving, something every programmer knows.
>> 
>> Tell me how you can claim that violence against 37% of victims is a
>> bigger problem than the same crime against the remaining 63% without
>> making people believe that the first group is the larger one?
>
>Because men are the ones perpetrating all the violence on the women and 
>none the other way around.

Or to restate that without lying - some men are perpetrating most of the
violence that some women suffer, and a little the other way around, and
even more men are perpetrating even more violence which is suffered by
some other men, and a few women are perpetrating violence on a few men.
Could you point out the "biggest problem" in there please? And could you
please explain why you think a lot of same sex violence is less of a
problem than much less violence between the sexes?

>Because men can get better justice in the 
>courts in some cases.

If that was true it's certainly not enough because male victims of
violence are still so much more common than female victims of violence.
It's still 63% being ignored so you can give special treatment to 37%
who, by your own reasoning, do not represent as pressing a problem.

>>>>>>       ^   ^
>>>>>>       /---\
>>>>>>      / * * \
>>>>>>      \  ^  /
>>>>>>        v=v
>>>>>>       {+++}
>>>>>>        ( )          ObA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok lets say you are correct, shall we now move on and solve violence 
>>>>against women *and* violence against men (less war would help)? To 
>>>>labour on the above point is specious.
>> 
>> I am correct. If this debate has shown anything it is that you can not
>> trust your own judgement. So take my word for it when I say you will do
>> nothing to solve violence against men. You are too feminist for that.
>
>Not true, I have in my time intervened to help those being assaulted, 
>whether male or female. And I don't believe in either type of violence.

So where are your usenet posts encouraging others not to be a bystander
when males are being victimized?

>> BTW in these government studies you can find a clue to why there is an
>> irrational focus on violence against females. There is evidence of a
>> vicious circle. The aim of a particular study is to find out about
>> violence against women. So they disregard the evidence of violence
>> against males when making their recommendations, so their
>> recommendations are violence prevention policies focussed on female
>> demographics. Then, because the new policies are focussed on women,
>> subsequent studies are made with the aim to find out about violence
>> against women etc.
>
>I will grant you we should not ignore the problem of male on male 
>violence, or war violence.

I have a funny feeling you are blaming the high stats for male victims
of violence on war but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And now you are completely disregarding female on male violence. Sexism
is a hard habit to kick.

>But it wasn't really the problem I was 
>tackling

Why not? When do you tackle it and give it special treatment?

>and is another issue.

It is? You couldn't have included men in your little "discourage
violence and don't be a bystander" speech? I think a unisex campaign
against violence would be seen as more noble and therefor be more
effective.

>And you make some other points that I 
>don't object to, too bad its laced in vitriol.

That's the price you pay for being stupid where people can spend as long
as they like typing nasty replies.

>> It all started in the 1970s when feminists decided that they were the
>> most important people in the world and everyone should only pay
>> attention to them. If someone had done a study on violence against males
>> they would have gone nuts.
>
>Who's the victim of propaganda now? The conservative government stats I 
>stated were only just released,

You stated some stats? That 50/50 thing? Not only did you fail to
mention your source (apart from "some guy who got a better education
than me") but I fairly accurately identified those sources and provided
you with a refutation of them.

>were totally accurate, and any way you 
>slice it identify a problem to be solved. Bringing sexism into it is 
>specious and distracting from problem solving.

...
Then why are you being sexist about it?

Related ASCII art in the Gallery

Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:

(    )
|\^^/|
(0::0)
 \\// 
 (oo) 
/ \/ \

(\  _  /)
( \( )/ )
(       )
 `>   <' 
 /     \ 
 `-._.-' 

(‘-‘)

   _
 _(_)_
(_)@(_)
  (_)\
     |
    \|/
  \\\|//jgs
^^^^^^^^^^^

    \\__  o
|\/    o\  o
>       < o
|/\   __/
    //

 |\__/,|   (`\
 |_ _  |.--.) )
 ( T   )     /
(((^_(((/(((_/

Make your own ASCII art

Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.