I would also like to clarify that I absolutely am willing to empathize with you and indeed I do. I even have a great deal of sympathy for you. That said, I also think you’re a tremendous asshole.

…tell me that you’re trying to mix degrading insults with compliments in order to tear down my self-esteem and win my gratitude in the process.

In fact, you’re probably trying to brainwash me into a cult or lure me back to your apartment so you can murder me and paint my severed head like an Easter egg or who knows what other sick fantasy you have in that diseased head of yours. DuWayne, you revolting pervert, get away from me.

Alison, L. J., & Stein, K. L. (2001). Vicious circles:
Accounts of stranger sexual assault reflect abusive
variants of conventional interactions. The Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry, 12, 515â??538.
Canter, D. V. (1994). Criminal shadows. London: Harper
Collins.
Canter, D. V. (2000). Offender profiling and criminal
differentiation. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
5, 23â??46.
Cohen, M. L., Seghorn, T., & Calmas, W. (1969). Sociometric
study of sex offenders. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 74, 249â??255.
Hazelwood, R. R., Reboussin, R., & Warren, J. I. (1989).
Serial rape: Correlates of increased aggression
and the relationship of offender pleasure to victim
resistance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 65â??78.
Knight, R. A. (1999). Validation of a typology for rapists.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 303â??330.

“Trauma, Violence and Abuse” and the “Journal of Interpersonal Violence” are both particularly useful sources for understanding not only rape, but violent crime in general.

And for understanding the common scenario in which a woman who actually takes a man up on his request to go off somewhere to “talk,” and instead ends up getting raped, I would suggest you read “Offender Profiling and Criminal Differentiation,” Cantor 2000 and specifically look at the “involvement” rapist. You will get a very good look at how someone could rather easily get away with rape in a crowded hotel. For a great deal more detail Criminal Shadows provides an in depth look further breakdowns in discreet sets of characteristics of rapists.

I would note that the “involvement” rapist is by far, the most common stranger rapist and necessarily requires a great deal of pre-planning. Serial rapists are almost exclusively either “involvement” rapists, or “control” rapists – often some combination of both.

That is the limit of time I am going to spend on references. The “Journal of Occupational Psychology” has published many papers on intelligence testing and the inherent problems that bias results of standardized intelligence testing.

Yeah but we don’t even know that he was ignoring her desires. Because asking to talk with someone isn’t strictly the same as hitting on them. The “hitting on” interpretation of being asked for coffee is certainly defeasible.

Did you read this part, or?

Do I have to explain to you what “defeasibility” means?

Like, oh, say, when he’s alone with the woman in his hotel room, for example.

I feel the same way about the NSA broadcasting messages into my mind.

I only said that it’s useless until you provide some quantification.

And I pointed out why you’re wrong. Twice.

Oh, right, now that your supposedly undefeatable Bayesian argument has been blown out of the water, now you start talking about other factors?

I’ve been bringing them up repeatedly in this thread. So, yes, “now”, but also “then”.

Did anyone actually ask for mindless conformity? No, I don’t think anyone did.

Plenty of people have. Nice of you to assume things about my circumstances though.

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Because not all talks over coffee end in fucking.

May I point out that just in this thread alone you’ve wasted several orders of magnitude more words on this supposedly “inconsequential” problem than Rebecca Watson did in her original video?

What can I say? I love arguing. Granted, this is only slightly less pointless than the many pissing matches I’ve had with creationists over the years, but entertaining in any case.

Your concern for “real misoginy” sounds fake, as you seem utterly uninterested in creating an environment where women can safely voice their concerns without being accused of “raising a big stink”.

Do you usually assume guilt before innocence?

How exactly do you rape someone on an elevator in a hotel?

Considering it has happened in the past, I’m sure there is a way. But indeed, most rapists would prefer to wait until there is a better opportunity. Like, oh, say, when he’s alone with the woman in his hotel room, for example.

This is just like Ariel Rubinstein’s misguided critique of game theory: even where precise figures are lacking, the formal tools are a useful framework for thinking about an issue.

I didn’t say Bayesian analysis is useless, so don’t pretend I did. I only said that it’s useless until you provide some quantification. And you didn’t provide any quantification, not even imprecise estimates. Again, either you are unaware of this, or you’re fully aware and being obtuse on purpose. Either way, now this has been pointed out to you, you should excuse yourself from this topic.

Yeah but we don’t even know that he was ignoring her desires.

Seriously? What part of “I’ve had enough, guys, I’m exhausted, going to bed,” didn’t you get? Guess you must have also missed her saying that this happened “right after I’ve finished talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner”?

I also can’t help but notice that you have no actual response to the argument that being around a guy who ignores a woman’s desires increase her risk of rape.

Furthermore, a more thorough analysis would also consider factors like “probability of getting caught” (which is high in this case).

Oh, right, now that your supposedly undefeatable Bayesian argument has been blown out of the water, now you start talking about other factors? With more handwaving, no less.

But hey, all told, deen, I have to credit you with not bullshitting and pissing around with me.

Too bad you couldn’t return the favor.

I could, but then I could also ask myself whether they’re actually justified in expecting mindless conformity.

Did anyone actually ask for mindless conformity? No, I don’t think anyone did.

The only thing I’m blaming her is for raising a big stink about her inconsequential zit of an issue and making it less likely, through sheer fatigue, that people will care about real instances of misogyny.

May I point out that just in this thread alone you’ve wasted several orders of magnitude more words on this supposedly “inconsequential” problem than Rebecca Watson did in her original video? It seems to me you’re the one causing the real fatigue here. Your concern for “real misoginy” sounds fake, as you seem utterly uninterested in creating an environment where women can safely voice their concerns without being accused of “raising a big stink”.

As your undefeatable argument has now in fact been defeated, and as I don’t think you’re actually arguing in good faith, I think we’re done here.

Meer geavanceerde zwemblazen, van het afgesloten type, zijn trouwens een aparte ontwikkeling vanuit de primitieve zwemblaas. Waarschijnlijk een aanpassing om ook verder van de oppervlakte te kunnen leven.

But you don’t have exact numbers.

(So you can’t make that claim.)

http://oxford.academia.edu/AndrewStephenson/Papers/107118/The_Moderately_Sceptical_Theists_and_the_Problem_of_the_Sheer_Quantity_of_Evil

Oh and by the way: The Blind Watchmaker and God Delusion are in the mail. I have no intention of reading either of them but am glad that Dawkins will get money out of the purchase in any case.

If the probablity ratio would be greater than 1 (which is not impossible)

How exactly do you rape someone on an elevator in a hotel? How are you going to explain the racket when the door opens (and someone walks in with their laundry)? How are you going to explain the footage of yourself on CCTV obviously struggling with a unwilling person?

However, since neither of us have statistics to show whether the probability ratio is less than one, one, or more than one, your invocation of Bayes’ theorem here is pointless.

This is just like Ariel Rubinstein’s misguided critique of game theory: even where precise figures are lacking, the formal tools are a useful framework for thinking about an issue.

For example, read this, from The posterior probability of any particular God is pretty small:

http://edge.org/print/res-detail.php?rid=1485

Is that at all pointless?

Let’s look at the probability ratio again, which is P(guy ignoring woman’s desires|rape) / P(guy ignoring woman’s desires).

Yeah but we don’t even know that he was ignoring her desires. Because asking to talk with someone isn’t strictly the same as hitting on them. The “hitting on” interpretation of being asked for coffee is certainly defeasible.

Furthermore, a more thorough analysis would also consider factors like “probability of getting caught” (which is high in this case).

But hey, all told, deen, I have to credit you with not bullshitting and pissing around with me.

You could listen to how people would like you to act, for example.

I could, but then I could also ask myself whether they’re actually justified in expecting mindless conformity.

I did, in fact!

(They’re not!)

But that is your personal choice, and you don’t get to blame the (predictable) results of that choice on Rebecca Watson

Why would I? She was hardly a blip on the radar when she got here and, minus my annoyance at her, still is. The only thing I’m blaming her is for raising a big stink about her inconsequential zit of an issue and making it less likely, through sheer fatigue, that people will care about real instances of misogyny.