Ephiral, I'm going to stop you right at the first paragraph, at the point where you assume 'no'. Because accusations of rape are not 'any assertions of anything at all'.
Wait, what? I'm not sure I follow here. I went with the rape numbers to be generous, as what academic numbers I could find for general sexual assault were lower.
I tried looking up rates of false reports in the US, and the numbers range from 2 to 31%. There is apparently no clear definition of what actually constitutes a 'false' claim. I'm not, if you'll pardon the irony, take your word for the 8% figure. It also doesn't actually matter. The Bayes theorem may be used in court, though I could find very few instances of this actually happening ( and it was apparently criticized, too ), but I'm also not a judge or a lawyer, so on general principle, I don't have to accept it.
Source on that 31% number, please? I'm unable to find it. The numbers I'm working from include Lisak et al, 2010 (5.9% in their study, though they cite others ranging from 2-10%), Heenan & Murray, 2006 (rape-sepcific, 2.1%; my mistake, this was the Australian one), the 2003 FBI Unfor Crime Report for the US (8%, rape-specific), DiCanio, 1993 (cites dispute over the specific figure but general agreement in the field that it's between 2 and 8 percent). It seems there's at least a vague consensus here among researchers, and I'm at the high end of it (again, being generous).
Further: Even if we accepted the apparently-ridiculous 31% number... that still gives us a 0.28% chance that all five victims are lying in the Krauss case. The best numbers you can pull don't make his innocence plausible.
We live - and I'd like to continue living in - societies where a person is considered innocent until there's actual proof to the contrary. If we relax our standards because that proof may be difficult to obtain, then many more people miscarriages of justice would occur. I'm firmly on the side of caution here; better that some guilty people go free, than innocent people wrongly punished. I'm using the 'term' punished loosely here, as having your reputation ruined certainly is a 'punishment', even if there's no official sentence.
We use "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal proceedings
, true. But that's a higher bar than even civil court, let alone social actions. Do you hold a full jury trial with lawyers prosecuting and defending before you decide not to associate with someone? Then why are we holding to legal standards here? Why not use the standards that reasonable empiricists use to determine what is most likely to be real and correct given partial evidence?
What evidence is actually available? I went back and looked at the Krauss case, as that's the one I'm most interested in. It's literally one person claiming two other people had something unspecified happen to them, but they're too intimidated to come forward. Is that evidence? I would think that a community of people used to dealing with Christian tactics would see how bizarre that idea is. It's like a parody of the case against Julian Assange.You didn't look very hard.
Jen McCreight cited victims A and B. Eddy Cara cited at least one more separate incident, so there's C. Myers and Zvan have another case, so there's D and possibly E. Far cry from "one reporter, two accusers", isn't it?
Given that we know that sexual assault allegations are generally credible, even using your apparently-rejected-by-the-academic-community number of 31%, yes, these constitute evidence. Not certainty, but evidence of which case is more likely to be true. Even if we accept your number (which, barring some very impressive backing, I do not), even if we assume the Zvan and Myers reports are the same victim, the odds are 0.9% that all the accusers on record are lying, and 22% that they are all being honest.
This is what the data we have shows. Your alternative appears to be to go with gut feeling and emotion. (EDIT to remove rather offensive bit here.)
When the issue is unimportant, feel free to judge with your emotions and go with your gut. When it matters
, shut up and multiply.
What is more likely to be true given the data we have?
I'm completely lost dude... you keep asserting that my two statements somehow cancel each other out, when I've clarified multiple times that I hold both opinions, and I still fail to see how they somehow are incompatible. If I go on trying to defend my position against this I'll be forced to limit my speech to a patronizing level of simplicity, and I'd really rather not. Maybe I'm just having extreme difficulty understanding your objection, and if that is indeed the case, I will apologize, but right now I have to admit that I simply do not follow right now.
The conflicting statements are "These policies were unneeded" and "Nobody is saying these policies should not exist."
In order for both of them to be true, your position must be that unnecessary policies should
exist - that convention staff should waste time and money formulating policies that have no bearing whatsoever on events in the real world. It does not appear that you or those you support hold this position - I see nobody clamoring for a policy on things which do not exist or events which have never occurred, and it is basic logic that a convention with limited time and resources should spend them on things which actually affect the real world. Hence, either:
-These policies should exist because they are needed
-These policies should not exist, because they are unneeded and thus a waste of limited resources.
Either way, one of your statements must yield. Further, claims that it was not demonstrated that policies were needed are patently false, as are claims that you had, at the time the claim was made, stated "numerous times" that you misspoke. The evidence against these statements was in this very thread before you made them
EDIT EDIT: I accidentally half a sentence.