|
On November 09 2013 03:55 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them. On November 09 2013 03:46 ComaDose wrote:On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote:I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place. edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake. On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a) What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get: p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a). But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with: p(a|b)=p(a) But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b). It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate. Some CaveatsINo one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing. IIThis isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.] Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent. IIIIt doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits. Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible. oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up. so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong? Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a. but he said it always increases tho rite? and his "evidence" doesn't show that.
The theorem on its own definitely doesn't show that. He's assuming (based on his "attracting mates" argument or something) that p(b|a)>p(a) (with that being your pre-update probability for a).
|
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?"
That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit.
A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too?
Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
|
On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them.
I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This should have nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ( )
|
On November 09 2013 03:57 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:55 ComaDose wrote:On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them. On November 09 2013 03:46 ComaDose wrote:On November 09 2013 02:58 frogrubdown wrote:I am extremely hesitant to join this thread, as it possibly the single worst I've ever seen on TL. But the anti-rape side of the thread is sadly very poorly representing itself by standing behind an argument of ComaDose that completely misconstrues how Bayesian updating works (severdevil's account doesn't actually spell out the problem). I'll explain what's wrong with it before outlining were the action should actually take place. edit: No offense to ComaDose by the way; it was an honest mistake. On November 09 2013 00:45 ComaDose wrote:
Actually if you're claiming the probability that she is wearing sexy clothes is 1 (which you would have to be) you can plug in the numbers and see that this edge case actually does the opposite
Applying bayes theorem; the probability of a women giving consent given that she is wearing sexy clothes is actually smaller than the probability she gave consent, when we know she is wearing sexy clothes! i guess this "rule" (read theorem) has inapplicable edge cases.
given 'a' is giving consent and 'b' is exposing skin
p(a|b) = p(b|a)p(a)/p(b)
if p(b) = 1
and 0 < p(b|a), p(a) < 1
then p(a|b) < p(a) What happens in the last part is supposed to be a Bayesian update on b, which is why we are assuming that p(b)=1. Given that p(b) equals one, we get: p(a|b)=p(b|a)p(a). But ComaDose then claims that p(b|a)<1. This is impossible. For all x,y, if p(x)=1 and p(y)!=0, then p(x|y)=1. This follows trivially from the definition of conditional probability. This means that we actually end up with: p(a|b)=p(a) But these aren't equal! Oh yeah, we're updating our beliefs. For Bayesians this means that we will change our original p(a) value to whatever p(a|b) is to make them equal. This is pretty intuitive; updating a on b just is making p(a) (your new prior probability for a) equal to p(a|b) (your old conditional probability of a given b). It's worth noting how obvious ComaDose's wrongness should have been to everyone. He didn't make any strong assumptions other than that we come to know b. Informally put, if ComaDose were right then nothing would be evidence for anything, which would be rather unfortunate. Some CaveatsINo one has given a compelling argument that the conditional probability of consent given that you wore sexy clothes is in fact higher than the prior probability of consent. I'm not aware of any statistics on this even existing. IIThis isn't the only relevant conditional probability. Another, plausibly more important one to consider is the probability of consent given that you both dressed sexily and claimed afterwords that it was rape. Even if the probability of consent given sexy-dress is higher than the prior of consenting, it wouldn't follow that the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and dressed sexily] is higher than the probability of consent given that [you claimed it was rape and did not dress sexily.] Maybe women who dress sexily are more likely to consent but less likely to falsely claim rape because they have less of a reputation to uphold than those who dress modestly? Who knows? I don't take there to be a strong reason to believe that is the case, but I hardly see how it is any less plausible than the arguments given earlier that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent. IIIIt doesn't follow immediately from one's dress potentially being evidence of consent (i.e., p(a|b)>p(a)) that it should be allowed as evidence in court. For it might be absurdly prejudicial evidence, whose prejudicial demerits vastly outweigh its evidential merits. Suppose that dressing sexily increases the probability of consent by 1/1000 of a percent but telling an average jury member that a person dressed sexily increases their belief in consent by 10% because of their biases. Surely the evidence is not worth enough to be allowed in such a case. These numbers were, of course, made up, but the idea that the "evidence" would have a far greater prejudicial effect than it warrants seems plausible. oh neat thanks its been a few years since i took the one statistics course and i've been working with different math with more erm... static methods. but as it relates to the original assertion: his claim was that the probability of a woman getting raped is higher if they are wearing revealing clothing and used Bayes theorem to back it up. so now that you have corrected me that the formula simplifies to p(a|b) = p(a) isn't he still wrong? Well, I think he's wrong, but it has nothing to do with p(a|b)=p(a). Because the p(a) in this equation is your new credence in a, the credence you get after you update. It's trivial that they will be equal. That doesn't say anything about whether they are equal because p(a) increased during the update or because p(a) decreased in the update, which is what is relevant to whether b is evidence of a. but he said it always increases tho rite? and his "evidence" doesn't show that. The theorem on its own definitely doesn't show that. He's assuming (based on his "attracting mates" argument or something) that p(b|a)>p(a) (with that being your pre-update probability for a).
oh good heh few i was worried.
On November 09 2013 03:56 Severedevil wrote:
certain modes of dress correlate with sexual intent
oh yeah sorry i misspoke about the claim trying to bring it back to relevancy. but you are more accurate. care to enlighten me about what modes of dress correlate with sexual intent?
|
On November 09 2013 04:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them. I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This has nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ( )
This example makes it seem like you take my position to be that it is in principle possible for the way you dress to justify being raped (because it increases the odds of it or something). I want to be as clear as possible that that is not my position. A rapist is a shitbag regardless of the dress of his or her victim.
My position is that it is in principle possible for it to be evidence that you in fact consented, though I don't take it to actually be evidence for this. At least not enough to justify inclusion in court.
|
On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
|
On November 09 2013 03:59 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes. What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?" Show nested quote +That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit. A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too? Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc...
Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world.
|
On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken.
Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
|
On November 09 2013 04:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them. I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This should have nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ( )
But how do you prove the shirt was the impetus of the assault? Any more than say entering their territory, random assault, attempted robbery, you saying something they disliked, etc...
|
At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress.
this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed.
|
On November 09 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress. this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed.
No, but I didn't want to single out the poster I was actually thinking of.
|
Pro-rapists and anti-rapists alike, let us set aside our differences and watch blizzcon!
|
On November 09 2013 04:06 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:00 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:48 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:45 farvacola wrote:On November 09 2013 03:32 frogrubdown wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 farvacola wrote:
The problem with utilizing conditional probability as a means of vetting evidence when it comes to a rape trial is that case law and precedent are exponentially heavier, in addition to the fact that juries, and to a lesser extent the justice system in general, does not privy probabilistic logic as a truth bearing standard, as it tends to get in the way of the streamlining of the legal process while also leading courtrooms dangerously close to the chasm of incertitude. In other words, trials carried out with a jury of ones' peers require demonstrations of logic/evidence that are (relatively) easy to digest, and though this may come as a surprise to some, Bayesian reasoning is a foreign language to many a layman.
Furthermore, I'm not buying the notion that, because DNA evidence and other types rely on a token degree of probabilistic reasoning in their implementation, a Bayesian demonstration of provocative clothing's effect on the possibility of consent is worth a thing, neither abstractly nor in practice. It serves as nothing more than an apparently solid ground with which to infringe upon the self-determination of women in choosing how they dress and appear in public, all because it brings with it the whispers of mathematical/logical legitimacy. I don't think we actually disagree because I don't think you actually believe the stronger claims you make. If the way rape victims dressed were as good evidence of their consent as DNA evidence is of who produced sperm, then it obviously would be ok to include it in court. The problem is that it isn't. We don't have any good reason to believe it is evidence to any degree, and even if it is it is likely more prejudicial than it is worth. In light of this, that does mean that claims to the contrary likely represent little more than "infringing upon the self-determination of women". But that is a result of the facts about it's evidential merit. It cannot be assumed before such results are established. Are you suggesting that Bayesian reason necessarily figures into the establishment of the evidential merit of risque clothing? I'm saying that if someone makes a Bayesian argument for that admissibility you need to actually assess the plausibility of the relevant conditional probabilities to refute them. I disagree. Such an argument can be dismissed out of hand on the basis that it is fundamentally irreconcilable with how the law and society recognizes the rights of the individual. If I were to wear a shirt that said something really inflammatory, say "I'm with Hitler" or something like that, I've no doubt that, in a Bayesian sense, the likelihood that I encounter violence or abuse increases, at least marginally. This has nothing to do with whether or not my shirt is a piece of evidence in the according trial that arises as a result of my having been assaulted by a violent Jewish street gang ( ) This example makes it seem like you take my position to be that it is in principle possible for the way you dress to justify being raped (because it increases the odds of it or something). I want to be as clear as possible that that is not my position. A rapist is a shitbag regardless of the dress of his or her victim. My position is that it is in principle possible for it to be evidence that you in fact consented, though I don't take it to actually be evidence for this. At least not enough to justify inclusion in court.
No worries, I know that that isn't your position. My scenario should have included that the shirt was being dismissed as evidence not because it does not say that I was asking for violence, rather it does not say one way or another whether or not I could have partook in actions that demanded violent reprisal.
Edit: And I'm already ahead of ya froggy Got blizzcon on the tv as we speak.
|
On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail?
In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
|
On November 09 2013 04:14 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:14 ComaDose wrote:At least one poster seems to be under the impression that these probabilities represent degrees of having been raped, and so if wearing sexy clothes increases the probability that means that (regardless of your actual consent) you weren't raped as much as someone who didn't so dress. this wasn't me right? i was trying to keep things in context of probability she consented given how she was dressed. No, but I didn't want to single out the poster I was actually thinking of.
alright well thanks for the math lesson =3 i tried to solve it like i would any other equation not remembering that if we knew p(b) = 1 we knew p(b|a) = 1 too. (thanks snarky writer  ) but for what its worth updating variables is less intuitive to me than deriving with laplace transforms.
|
On November 09 2013 03:59 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes. What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?" Show nested quote +That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit. A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too? Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it.
I am very familiar with, and very much appreciate, evolutionary psychology and I still am convinced that cultural elements contribute to the prevalence of rape. Acknowledging the importance of culture is not a rejection of evolutionary psychology.
Possibly our closest extant evolutionary relatives, Bonobos, are species with birth giving females and sperm producing males where males are not dominant sexually.
|
On November 09 2013 04:20 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case. So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail? In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly.
If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
|
On November 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:20 Severedevil wrote:On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case. So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail? In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly. If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
So, in cases of false rape accusation, you blame the victim?
EDIT: by similar argument, if your significant other rapes you, the problem isn't that they raped you. It's that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
|
On November 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:20 Severedevil wrote:On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case. So... if two people have consensual sex in private... and one of them later tells the police it was not consensual... the accused should be convicted of rape and go to jail? In that case, it sounds like the best defense against a rape charge is to file a counter-charge of rape. Bam! Now you either negotiate to drop charges, or you both go to jail, since it's almost impossible to prove consent. That's silly. If you are having sex with people that hate you so much that they are willing to charge you with rape for no reason but to slander you--the problem is not that they charged you with rape but the fact that you thought someone like that was fuckable to begin with.
No, no, no, the problem is they charged you with rape.
|
On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies.This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it.
Interesting. I don't know much about american law, but wouldn't he have to do the same if it's treated as just one case? I mean, Person B's claim, even if it's just a single case, is that Person A consented initially then claimed otherwise afterwards in order to injure Person B in some form. I don't quite understand the difference in treating it as two cases like you say it would be best.
On a side note, there may be people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it, but there are also people who believe Person B should not be able to accuse slander at all, on account rape being a sexual crime and the woman (the rapee) requiring special attention from the law. It begs the question of which is the greatest evil: locking up an innocent or letting the guilty go free, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
