Sunday, September 16, 2012

Rape: a crime against men

I think feminism is a term that is no longer relevant today.   We should be concentrating on human rights as a whole.   It shouldn't matter if the human is women/man or black/white.  Equal rights isn't the same as special rights. 

Rape will be the main topic here since I have recently heard rape argued from a perspective that it is a crime where women are the only victims or the male aspect is completely ignored.   I am not suggesting crimes against women are any less important.    There are many facts we can see from statistics like women are more often the one who files for divorce and receive custody 84% of the time.   ("A voice for men" list a lot of information on male victims with sources.)  However, rape of men is not so clear.   So are women the only ones who suffer from rape?    I define rape as one person forcing a sexual activity on another without informed consent. 

One issue when researching rape is that until January 2012 the FBI didn't include rape of men as victims which means than any crime statistics you see only report women victims with male rapist.  Even those numbers are problematic because the old 1927 definition required that the victim physically resisted (IE: forcible rape, think "legitimate rape"). 

This means that the 10 victims of Sandusky were not reported as a crime because his victims are male.   Of course, Sandusky was found guilty of the crime but his victims are not reported as a part of crime statistics for rape.   However it is still a problem because even the updated definition doesn't include women as the rapist.   According to the FBI you must have a penis to commit the crime of rape.   Imagine if Sandusky had been a woman and what the general attitudes toward the victims would be.    I have often heard male victims of female rape as lucky especially if their rapist is attractive.    Even when those women are brought to trial they often receive lighter sentences for their crime then a male with similar offenses.


Almost every where that talks about male victims is using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey.  (This is where the 1 in 10 men victim comes from.)   In 2010, there were 85,000 recorded rapes in the USA by the FBI UCR.    The National Crime Victimization survey recorded 189,000.    Why is there a large gap and how many of those are men?    This is not as reliable as crime statistics because there's no way to tell if all the male victims disclose their assault to the survey.  Another issue is the survey ignores female-male and female-female rape.   Thus the survey can only be used as a guide and not as fact.   The problem seems to be wide spread according to Lara Stemple of the U of California's Health and Human Rights Project, of the 4,000 International nongovernmental organizations (NGO) reports addressing wartime sexual violence only 3% mention male victims in passing. 

In the Congo men were often the victim of rape and sometimes the aggressor was a women.   In addition, these male victims were often castrated and/or penetrated with tree branches.   However, we usually only hear about the women victims.   In the Congo, 22% of men and 30% of women were the victim of rape.    We should expect a higher percentage of men when you consider that men were more likely (2 to 1) the victim of violence.  Homosexuality is also illegal in the area (men who are raped could be found guilty of homosexual crimes) and with the social stigma its difficult to determine the exact number due to under reporting by the victims.  

Denise A. Hines has done a lot of research in the last 5 years on this topic and she shows the genders are largely equal when it comes to abuse in relationships.    This information is largely based on surveys because statistics are not available.

So are women the only ones who suffer rape?  I don't know.   Technically no one can say much about men because there's almost no data.  No one can even say how often men are raped without large margins of error.   It's difficult to say how often a crime occurs when the action in question it's not considered a crime.

The absence of evidence for male victims of rape should raise concerns since the information we do have indicates that men are the victims of rape.  The only way to fix this is to treat rape the same way for both men and women.

Sources:

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

A Summary of Atheist+

Atheism+Theism

Atheism+ is an attempt to hijack the online atheist/skeptical community for the purpose of promoting a radical political agenda using questionable methods.   The idea has probably been simmering on someone's back burner for sometime but was born after the "ElevatorGate" controversy by radical feminist who blame all their problems on men.     Their claims of sexism or harassment are often exaggerated.     


ElevatorGate (James Onen)

So this installment begins with Rebecca's claims of harassment which I believe were overly exaggerated if the event occurred at all.  Those who pointed out she and PZ Meyers attacked.   This fueled a fury of fighting online.


"Elevatorgate" hits bottom

Several media outlets have picked this up aside from causing a division within the Atheist/Skeptic Community.     Some popular skeptics/Atheist have also fallen into Ms. Watson's web.  When someone asked about the other side of the story from the guy in the elevator (Elevatorguy) his existence was dismissed with general assurances that it happens all the time sprinkled with some insults.  Claims need to be proven not asserted.



Even the theist, who are usually our debating partners, took notice with a large page at conservapedia.    Like most things on Conservapedia, the information is incomplete and inaccurate.  (http://www.conservapedia.com/Elevatorgate)

The divide widened as people started to choose sides on the issue.    This created the problems with ERV/Freethough/Slime pit as the factions developed.   (http://rationalugandan.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/letter-to-the-slime-pit/)

Methodology (Kafkatrapping)

The cause of "elevatorgate" as well as the reasoning by "radical feminism" as used here seems to be kafkatrapping.    Basically you are guilty of the crime without question and refusal to admit your guilt confirms it.     The alleged crime is usually a thought crime of some kind.    Maybe your guilt is because you may have benefited in some way.     This reasoning is the basis of why all white people are guilty of slavery even if you never owned slaves or advocated the practice.

Ad Himinem (Thanks becky)

Definition: Argumentum ad himinem is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it. Closely related to ad hominem, literal Latin “to the man”, this is instead “to the male” and removes gender ambiguity. It is however equally applicable to females who inexplicably defend argument as though cum testiculis, or seek to defend indefensible and erroneous  male perspectives. Antonym to ad feminam.

Rebecca Watson

She is probably one of the worst people to call themselves skeptic.   She was banned from a popular skeptics forum for bad (if not illegal) behavior.     She basically thinks the only crimes are those committed against women by men.  She will often cry foul when someone uses gender targeted action, and she uses the practice herself


Atheism+

The group is born but is largely confined to the blogs, Forums, and Facebook.      As many people note, the stated goals of the group are admirable but the methods used by the group leave a sour taste.  Their tactics are usually us and them tactics.   You are with us or against us.  (http://elevatorgate.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/i-finally-read-the-richard-carrier-article-good-grief/)

A good outline of the group :http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/some_observations_about_atheism_plus/  

    How to alienate your members

    Some people are already leaving this new group because of their tactics.

    The Issues

     Where they get social issues wrong is how they address the issues they deem important.   They ignore pretty much everything outside of their radical feminism.    It's more of a "strawman" tactic.   They first define the issue as they view it then argue for solutions to the problem they give.    The issue is the problem they define doesn't exists.

      Theft

      Even the initial Atheism+ logo for the group seems to have come from Richard Dawkin's online store.

      Myers Law 

      Many people have tried having a rational discussion of the ideas with the group to no avail.    This seems to be a common theme within the group.

      Get someone fired for disagreement

      Thunderf00t has been involved from the start which started largely by his criticism of the groups philosophy. 

      More Information on PZ Myers

      More Information on FreethoughBlogs (FTB)

      Franc Hoggle has been writing about the issues with FTB since it came around.    The FTB people even tried to "Doc Drop" (give out personal information) but failed when they disclosed the information of an innocent bystander by mistake.

      Wednesday, September 5, 2012

      a poem

      Melt me with those icy blues,
      pools I used to swim in
      Now all I see are sorrow hues,
      reservoirs I drown in

      the tears that fall,
      the pain that rips
      that tears my heart asunder
      draw one last breath,
      the bubbles stop,
      my lungs filled with my blunder
      I don't know why, I don't know
      how to fill the cracks I fall in
      but I won't forget the liquid lights,
      the puddles, I now crawl in.

      -Erica Fisher

      Wednesday, August 8, 2012

      Steven: I just have faith

      Steven: See here in lies your fallacy. I have nothing to prove to you. And No reason to try. I have No burden of proof. I have faith. Simple. The Bible says the cross is foolishness to the non believing. As for the fact you are using other religions to argue there is No God is silly. It really boils down to Pascal's Wager.


      Merphie:Its not a fallacy.    I care about what is true.   If you can't provide evidence for why something is true then you shouldn't believe it either.

      The bible says a lot of things but it is pointless to argue about the meaning of a cherry picked verse until you can prove the bible is what you claim.

      "you have faith" is another way to say you believe because you want to believe.   that has no value.

      Maybe a better example would be a Mormon knocks on your door and tells you about the truth.  Will you just convert and follow Joseph smith?    I doubt it.  Why not?   he has the same reasons to believe that you do.  Is his faith somehow less?

      Pascal's wager is worthless.   there are so many gods that the probability of picking the right one is higher than the lottery.   Catholics don't believe the same thing as protestants.   so picking the right sect is just as important as the right god.  In the end you are saying that god can't tell if you believe or just buying hell insurance.   which means he is gullible and can't be all powerful or all knowing.

      You misunderstood what I said.   I asked how do you know the things you attribute to god are the Christian god?

      How do you know god didn't tell Andrea Yates to kill her kids?

      Steven: I was an Atheist!

      Steven:

      Yes I am absolutely backing out of traveling 1 1/2 hours for a pointless conversation. I have my ads posted in Lawton also. I was wrong in assuming you lived locally. I don't get many responses from okc. So yes. You can tell everyone you win. Lol you defeated the stupid Christian in a battle of wits! If I thought your mind was open at all to change I would be more excited. But I myself was an atheist who despised the Bible so I know what it feels like. I appreciate your thoughts also because God still hears them. If you ever travel south get a hold of me.


      Merphie: You asked me when and where; I answered.  It is that simple.  I am willing to travel but it may take some time to work out the details.  We could meet half way but you just shut the door.

      Please stop putting words in my mouth.    I never said anyone was stupid nor is this a battle of wits.    I said I care about what is true.     this means you are making the claim and you have burden of proof.

      Using a fallacy to justify something makes it false.    I could think of a million examples using your fallacies that you would deny right off hand.

      For example, I know a Muslim friend who had a personal experience where Allah showed his mercy helping him get off drugs.     does that mean your god is wrong and Allah is correct?    if not, then does that mean you just have a closed mind even though Allah loves you anyway?  How do you know it was the Christian god?   perhaps you experienced Buddha?     how can you tell the difference?   now you have to prove it was the Christian god in addition to proving there are any gods.

      I know people who have stopped using drugs without supernatural beliefs.   I also know the first step in AA is to admit you are weak and can't stop on your own.    they aren't picky about what helps you.    this suggest there is a placebo affect at work.    

      regardless I admire that you got off drugs and violence.    in my opinion, you deserve all the credit for turning your life around.    there isn't a god which means you are stronger than you realize.   you should be saying "I changed my life by getting off drugs.  I helped creating my family".  

      Your assumptions are wrong.   I don't despise the bible.   you don't know anything about me.   so it's not possible for you to know what its like.   you will learn far more by asking a question than making an assumption.

      I don't know what kind of "atheist" you were but its irrelevant.    atheism describes someone's position on one topic.    is there a god?   if you answer no then you are an atheist.   that's it.  You can't tell anything else about a person that is an atheist.

      Steven and I

      I had this short discussion with Steven about Christianity.  He runs a page on Facebook about the paranormal.   (O.C.R.A.P)  I admit that I didn't start the conversation in a very constructive manner.     This guy believes in just about everything so I figured it would be impossible to have a real conversation.  How do you talk to someone who knows everything?  I was surprised by his calm response.   (It's how I would probably respond.)   I had to reach his inner licensed preacher.
      He eventually went to "lets meet in person".  This is usually code for throwing a bunch of stuff out at once and appealing to emotion.  I guess it became obvious to Steven I wasn't going to use the same arguments "he's heard before".

      As with most conversations with Theist it seems like most of the time is spent with them putting words in the Atheist mouth.     Below is a copy and paste from the original email.   (Headers and address have been removed)  I apologize for the grammer of the text since most of it was typed on my phone.


      Merphie: The bible is just as fictional as the paranormal.
      Steven: Thanks.
      Merphie: Just thought you should know. especially since paranormal and the bible conflict.
      Steven: Actually if you studied the Bible you would realize they don't. But your opinion is entitled to you.

      Merphie:  Nice guess, I have studied.   Its more than opinion because I actually care what is true.
      Steven:  Thank you sir. All I can say is you're allowed to believe what you want. Jesus still loves you no matter how you feel about him. And I understand you will say he is fiction too. I've debated successfully and unsuccessfully with atheiests. All I can say is I am following what I believe.  

      Merphie: I understand about belief but that isn't what I said. you dont seem to care what is true and what is not.

      Steven: You see. That's where our conversation ends. You said the Bible is fiction. I KNOW it to be true. I don't have time or energy to waste arguing with you on an email. If you care what is true. Meet me in person and I will debate you all you want. Other than that I will not respond to your banter and pandering again.

      Merphie: Call it what you want because no amount of belief will make it true. you haven't even said which flavor you believe. Catholics, Baptists, Methodist, or calvonist? there's so many to choose from and none of them are compatible. it has nothing to do with what you think you know because every theist uses that statement to prove their belief.

      A debate or argument is really no different in person or via email. you can't manipulate emotions to prove your point which is the only reason you would require it to be in person. if you can't prove your belief over email then you can't do it in person. the media doesn't matter because the argument rest on if it's true or false. Give it a simple try. tell me what you believe and your best reason for believing.

      I am willing to meet in person at a public location on neutral ground (like a park) and I be allowed to record the argument so I can post it on my blog.


      Steven:  OK. Great I live in marlow. When would you like to meet and where. And of course I will also be recording the debate as well as bringing witnesses in case you plan violence against Christians. And my denomination is of no importance to the Bible being true. .im not even a member of a church at the moment. And I am a licenced minister. Truth is truth. Period. Your beliefs are set. No amount of discussion is going to change your mind. And honestly that is God's job not mine. All I can do is present literary, archaeological, and historical evidence from outside the Bible to prove the Bible is true. All you will do is point in discrepancies in the text that seem to make it look like the bible contradicts itself. That or point out the foolishness of faith in a book. These are all arguments I have heard before. How about the emotional aspect you spoke of. Oh yes my testimony is emotional. I was addicted to Meth as a teen. Sold dope. Shot at people. Fought. All that. And yep that stupid Jesus and that stupid book changed my life. And now I'm clean have a great job raising a family and helping people around me. And to that you'll probably say I'm weak for messing an imaginary figure to help me change because I'm not strong enough or smart enough to do it my self. So if you are ready to debate in person you better have your A game because I've debated plenty and it always sounds the same.

      Merphie: I live in s okc.   it would have to be after the 18.  There are several parks around.   a friend of mine might be able to get us room at uco.     I prefer a more conversational format.

      Are you saying we need a police presence? I thought this was going to be between two adults.    the fact you would say such a thing gives me concern.

      Actually the denomination is critical because they aren't compatible.   I am not the one with beliefs.  atheism means a lack of belief in gods.   you have the beliefs which is what this is all about.  You even believe you know what im going to say.

      There is no historical or any other type of evidence for the bible.  Not one thing outside the bible has been found to prove anything.   

      I wouldn't claim to know anything about your life.   I would accept you believe you needed a supernatural thing to help you.    ive heard the same claim for Muslims, buddist, and placebo effect.     you all can't be right.  belief is a very strong motivator.   that doesn't prove there is a god.   personal experience can't be used as evidence because it is unreliable.

      If this is your a game then i hope you have better proof.


      Steven: I'm not traveling to debate you. I've already spent more energy on this than I cared to. Especially since you want to set all the rules, dates,times, etc. Here is where I end things. I sincerely hope you discover God's love. And I will be praying that you are blessed with an amazing life!

      Merphie: I'm not trying to set any rules. you asked me where and when I wanted to meet. If you want to back out that is fine with me.

      I'll think for you.

      Thursday, July 5, 2012

      Atheist and Beliefs

      Often the religious accuse atheist as "believing in nothing".     This idea is absurd because believing in an idea requires the focus to be about something.    Try to imagine "nothing".   No air.  No Dirt.  No Sun.  The most common response to this assertion is not collecting stamps being a hobby or not playing golf is a sport.

      When this idea fails they try to redefine atheist to mean something other than what the person defines it as.    So instead of atheism meaning "lack of belief in gods" they define it as something odd like a belief in magic fairies then attack the new definition.  This is a red herring.   You can't make up a definition and attack someone for it.    That's like being arrested for a crime that the officer made up a moment before.

      Of course, atheist are not immune to beliefs.    Our brains are wired to accept an idea with imperfect information.     Often this has been said that if we are out on the plains and you see the grass move you have two choices.   1. Accept that a predator maybe in the grass.   2. It's the wind.    If the ladder is true and you decided to stay then no harm done.    Otherwise you are lunch so the cost of believing in the former is low.  This concept is still with us in modern times.    We have to use reason to over come it but I think most people are not taught critical thinking.

      The thing to remember is that the only idea atheist agree on is there's no proof of gods which is why they don't believe in gods.   Most atheist still have other irrational beliefs.    One of the most common belief is hoplaphobia.  They will use logic and reason if you talk about gods but when it comes to politics they will be just as believing as the most fundamentalist theist.

      I've known atheists that are conservative Republicans and some who are liberal democrats.  They are all over the spectrum.   I've known atheist who argue the soldiers joined to kill kids, homeopathy cures illness, or chiropractors do something beyond popping joints.
       
      Getting the gods virus out of your head is a good start but that doesn't mean that we are all rational.  We are all human. The only way to fix this problem is to educate people.     I would say being an atheist is just a good start.

      Tuesday, July 3, 2012

      A political party


      I recently attended the FreeOK conference. Obviously, Atheist are concerned about politics because that is something that affects us all by making laws that we all must follow. I just don't think we have a place (party) to call home.  All my theist friends (who are usually far Right Conservative) call me a liberal because of most of my views.  The word "liberal" doesn't mean much anymore because that's a label given by conservatives to everyone who doesn't agree with them.  I don't fit into any predetermined slot. If anything I am more center which means I'm hated by all sides, but it also means I am a swing vote and loved by both. This is the main reason why I hate labels.

      The number of people who are atheist in this country is growing. [1] Atheist made up about 16% in the last survey which is a lot of power in this country especially if everyone speaks with one voice. That would rival organizations such as the NRA.

      So why don't we create our own party and join that one? Maybe we should take over the Green Party (or some other party). There are a lot of political parties out there. I've seen other parties that are just renamed Democrats and Republicans.   I find it amusing that most people (especially conservatives) have no idea why they support their party's platform and merely parrot the party line.   When you prove them wrong they spew hate filled speech about how you are stupid.

      Atheist only agree with each other on one question and that is the existence of god. They are some atheist that lean to the Republican side as well as the Democrats. All of us would probably agree with the protecting the separation of church and state.

      The problem comes in we have a two party system. Generally speaking the third parties have only handed one of the two the election. Think about the 2000 election where Nader pulled enough votes to where Bush got elected. Perot?  We have to get involved in politics. We have to take over the two parties. I would love to see an openly atheist Republican person get elected just as much as I would like to see an Democrat. That is the only way we are going to make a difference. We have to stop voting against someone and start voting for someone.

      To get started, I think we need to join some organization that shares our common goals.   Something to help us organize our effort and pool our resources.     I'm thinking of something organized like the NRA or unions.   Whether or not you agree with the message of the NRA, they have power because they have a very narrow political focus thus they appeal to people who lean to the left and right.   I don't have anything to do with the NRA because they want you to have a gun as long as you follow Christianity.  

      I don't know what the solution is but it better get found soon.

      Source:

      1. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

      Tuesday, June 26, 2012

      My opinion on guns

      I think people should adopt a position related to firearms based on facts and evidence and not include personal preference or extremist organization with a personal axe to grind.

      We already have enough laws and regulations regarding guns and efforts should be directed to enforce these existing laws.  This includes federal laws and additional regulations enacted by each state [2].   Without considering guns, crimes such as murder, robbery, rape, and other violent crimes are currently illegal in every state.  In Addition, using a gun in the commission of a crime will usually receive an enhanced sentence which can vary by state, but has resulted in an average of on additional 5 years [5].  Guns and accessories (Ammo) are also illegal for those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violent [9]. 

      According to FBI statistics, violent crime rates in the United States have been declining for at least the past decade  [1].    This drop has occurred during the same time when purchasing a gun has become easier as a result of the expiration of the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection act” (Assault weapons ban) in 2004. [6]   Violent crimes have continued to drop even as states began allowing citizens to carry firearms for personal protection with a “carrying a concealed weapon” permit (CCW) starting with Florida in 1987.   Currently only one state and Washington DC don’t have a CCW law.  [4]    

      In addition to more guns being available [6] and more citizens carrying weapons [4] it has been argued that more guns has equaled less crime.    Although the report on this idea has some dispute, no scholar claim that legalizing causes more crime and many of the key points have been confirmed.  [8]   Even the CDC has reported that the Assault weapons ban or any current law had little measureable effect on violent crime.  [7]  It seems unfair to classify the United States as a country who has “seen so much gun violence” when the facts don’t support that conclusion.

      The so called “gun show loophole” is non-existent.  I had previously asked what this “loop hole” was since I have heard many definitions which some have included all sales at gun shows.  I was also told that no evidence exists for the current platform position.  Currently felons and other prohibited people (mentally unstable, domestic abuse) trying to buy a gun through legal channels is illegal.   Any federal firearms licensed (FFL) dealer must perform an NICS check on the possible buyer before the transaction can be completed.  This has replaced the “waiting period” and bans people sentenced to more than 1 year, fugitive of justice, drug user, mentally defective, illegal alien, dishonorable discharge, renounced citizenship, VPO, or a felon. [10] Furthermore, anyone assisting a firearm purchase where the end user can’t purchase one on their own is called a “straw buy”.    This is also illegal where the end user, buyer, and seller could be charged with a crime.  [3]    According to current statistics guns were used in only 7% of violent crimes and 80% of the guns used were obtained through family or other illegal source.  Only about 2% of these guns were obtained through a flea market or gun show.  [5]    

      In fact one of the founders of one of the more extreme “anti-gun” organizations, the Brady Campaign, was shot protecting President Regan from a repeating offender with a history of mental illness who purchased the firearm through a pawn shop with false information.   Adding more firearm regulations would only affect law abiding citizens since it appears people inclined to break the law have little respect for any law.  
      I know some will say that wikipedia is not a valid reference.   I've looked at the sources in the referenced articles and they are correct.   So pretend I listed the 40+ references contained in those articles.

      Reference