The burden of proof is upon the claimant.

(May 25, 2014 at 7:37 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: No, no, no! Asking someone to back up their assertion with evidence is the only way we discuss things... This is just a stupid attempt to avoid the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is on the person that makes a claim. I wasn't denying that. I'm the last person you need to tell that. I feel that you guys on here are micro analysing the things I say and you miss the bigger picture. I think some of you guys are excessively belligerent. Perhaps it's the bad taste I left in your mouths hey, Bad Wolf? You ignored the fact that setting unassailable threshholds of proof can impede a conversation. I wasn't trying to avoid the burden of proof. I was just voicing out a reasonable opinion.

(May 25, 2014 at 7:37 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: It doesn't apply to everything like throwaway statements like 'I have a dog' but when you assert something relevant to the topic, and someone disagrees with you, you are obliged to reveal how you know this.

Oh, but it does. The evidence must match the level of the claim. A low magnitude claim would require a low form of evidence. You claim to have 5 bucks in your pocket. I would most likely take you at your word. If you claimed to have 10 grand in your pocket, not only would it not be enough for me to see you whip out a bundle of notes, I'd even ask to count it! High level claim high standard of proof. Now you see the obvious issue here? It's subjective. The person requiring the other party to discharge the BOP has a subjective threshhold. It's impossible to standardise them. So what do you do when a party requires a standard too high? That's the crux of what I was writing about. But your head was too far up your ass to see it.

Back to the burden of proof:

Quote: Several myths exist about sexual assault. These myths often shift responsibility and blame from the assailant to the victim. Understanding the myths surrounding sexual assault may help you in your recovery. What happened to you was a crime. You are not to blame for the assailant’s behavior.

Myth: Rape is caused by the perpetrator’s uncontrollable sexual urge.

Fact: Rape is an act of power and control, not sex.

http:// m.sapac.umich.edu/article/52

Your link doesn't work.

When you click the link the website isn't available, but for me the URL read as http://%20m.sapac.....

If you delete the %20m from the URL it takes you to the correct page. Don't know why it did that though.

(May 25, 2014 at 11:42 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Your link doesn't work.

Try copy pasting and leaving out the http code. I am on a phone so I may have been redirected to the mobile version.

m.sapac.umich.edu/article/52

Oh look, I've found a link from another website that directly contradicts your claim...
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writ...itics.html

This by a 'psychologist'.

Quote:When the commonsense and empirical evidence concerning rape motivation are examined in their entirety, without the distorting lens of a political agenda, it’s quite difficult to conclude that rape is anything but an act principally motivated by sex.

And another article seemingly disagreeing with the 'rape is about power' argument:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-...about-rape

Quote:After gingerly pointing out how tired and useless the refrain “rape is about power” is, he moves on to the myths we hold about non-stranger rape.

The paper which is referenced:

http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240...Nature.pdf

Quote:The two primary and numerically largest types identified by Groth were
the “power” rapist and the “anger” rapist. The power rapist was motivated by his
need to control and dominate his victim, and inversely, to avoid being controlled
by her. The anger rapist was motivated by resentment and a general hostility
towards women, and was more prone to inflicting gratuitous violence in the
course of a rape. Not surprisingly, these types were rarely found in pure form.

So I'll refer back to what I said at the start of all this bollocks. Anyone who makes the claim "rape is about power", is talking out of their arse.

(May 25, 2014 at 11:50 am)BlackMason Wrote: Try copy pasting and leaving out the http code. I am on a phone so I may have been redirected to the mobile version.

m.sapac.umich.edu/article/52

So your source is some website? Isn't there a peer-reviewed article that you could have used instead?

(May 25, 2014 at 12:27 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(May 25, 2014 at 11:50 am)BlackMason Wrote: Try copy pasting and leaving out the http code. I am on a phone so I may have been redirected to the mobile version.

m.sapac.umich.edu/article/52

So your source is some website? Isn't there a peer-reviewed article that you could have used instead?

Are you kidding me? This from the guy that cites wikipedia! A site where any Tom, Dick and Harry can contribute. Fuck outta here with that bullshit.That's not peer reviewed. It's worse than the website I gave. Double standard much? Look chump, when you're beat you're beat.

(May 25, 2014 at 12:43 pm)BlackMason Wrote: Are you kidding me? This from the guy that cites wikipedia! A site where any Tom, Dick and Harry can contribute. Fuck outta here with that bullshit.That's not peer reviewed. It's worse than the website I gave. Double standard much? Look chump, when you're beat you're beat.

Ah, the old 'wikipedia sucks' argument. You do realise wikipedia is heavily moderated and it has more sources than any other place on the internet?

Your posts here have no real substance, you don't even spend the time looking up a decent source to back up ridiculous claims and you resort to childish insults when someone disagrees with you. Yet we're the ones who are 'chumps'... fuck you're probably right. Why we're bothering with someone who is so lazy is beyond me.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is located online and is built by contributions by anyone...as long as the information being entered in is cited by reliable sources. It is, in essence, people finding data from articles found online and putting it up in its relevant page to collate information for easy access and reference.

There is a reason that once we used to call people with extensive knowledge of things to have "encyclopedic knowledge."

Now it no longer requires having a very large book to access that information; that information is in a data format online, written to encyclopedic standards, and helpfully accompanied by a search engine to specify topics to a fine point.

People who scorn the idea of referencing wikipedia are people who essentially scorn references an encyclopedia...which is to say, they are people who are angered by how easily their claims, opinions, stances, etc. can be torn to shreds in the blink of an eye with little more than a link to a web page.

People, I have noticed, hate it when they're told they're wrong, and the more easily and readily they are told they are wrong, the more hostile they become to the idea of being wrong.

We see it all the time with religious tools.