Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: Morrigi on September 12, 2014, 04:58:21 pm

Rape culture isn't actually a thing though.

https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf

Those figures are in line with what I've read separately: the average rapist has raped about 6 girls. So as a vague figure you take the prevalence and divide it by 6 to get the offenders rate. that means if 20% of women are victims, about 3% of men are the perpetrators. Which is actually exactly what they find when surveying directly.

Massively overplaying that there's a "rape culture" actually emboldens rapist by making them feel that their actions are normal and secretly supported by other men. (Negative Social Proof: people feel more ok doing something if they believe other people do it).

The proper strategy is in fact anti-rape language, but in a way that emphasizes that the vast bulk of the male population are against it and the rapists are isolated and reviled.

Rape culture does not mean a social tendency to go around raping. The term applies both to actual rape and to people who apologize for rape and make jokes casually about it, etc. even if they themselves do not rape people. Which obviously covers far more than the population of actual rapists. And that full population is relevant, because it influences the rate of actual rapists that cross over the threshold into action vs. not.

It influences them by social acceptance of their actions, and by practical acceptance/ease of getting away with it insofar as things like universities or police not pursuing investigations like they should, etc.

Of course it's possible, but without knowing the specifics it's just a meaningless figure. You can't use it without other more personal factors, some of them unpredictable (what if the person we don't vaccinate is the first one to get infected, what if the people who don't vaccinate are in a tight group and infect one another, even when the global vaccination rate is at its optimal). You can't control where people go, and believe me people are stupid enough to congregate all unvaccinated in one place.

For sake of argument, let's say I agree with every one of these points (which I don't, but it's unnecessary to get into that at this point, I want to try a different approach.)

Where would that put us?  It would mean that to justify any particular rate of vaccination for sure, you'd simply need even more data. Adding more complexity always increases the data needed, in any model of anything.

So all these details accomplish, is to change the situation from:
"the data justify some level higher than 50-60% for sure in the simpler model" into
"the same data justify some level higher than 40-50% for sure in the more complex model" or whatever, because you've raised the bar of proof however much higher by including those extra complexities.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to get at here, because your argument, even if all the points are assumed true, is only getting further away from a conclusion of "100% vaccination policy" being data-justified, not closer.




Edit: the only exception would be if the added complexities necessarily, fundamentally and inherently imply a higher vaccination rate by their very nature, even before looking at any data. Which would not the case for any of the complexities you outline. They could either raise or lower the necessary vaccination rate, depending on the specific data.

What he is saying is that you are effectively cloak and daggering. You are more accurately fighting alcohol culture then rape culture.

I'm not saying anything about your right to get drunk. Go get as drunk as a fish every day if you want to. Just don't also rape people...

If by "fighting alcohol culture" you mean "raping people is something we like to culturally do while drinking" well then sure, guilty as charged, I guess I'm fighting alcohol culture in that context then. 


More specifically:

Other outcomes <-------Alcohol culture ----->  Rape culture
                                                                     ^
Other factors-------------------------------------/


The red portion is what I am fighting. Which has the effect of lessening (but not eliminating) rape culture (indicated by orange) and also removing the PART OF alcohol culture that might include raping (which should not be too controversial), also indicated by partial orange

? I don't give a damn about controlling your cultural sex life. I arrived at that conclusion 100% from following the logic of preventing rapes.

Go ahead and have your gay orgy furry-fetish rooftop sex while eating eggplants and quoting bible verses ironically, or whatever you want, as long as it's not rape.

And willingly having sex with somebody beyond a ~0% chance of being too inebriated to make proper decisions = unacceptable chance of rape. If you are correct that a ~0% chance is indeed at ~0.08 BAC, then that's about the right cutoff (I'm just taking your word for it on that)

often indulge in drunken sex and don't give a fuck about what you think of it.

People embezzle and make illegal moonshine and weave in and out of traffic too, and don't give a fuck what I think about it. What does this have anything to do with criminality of actions?

The law is still that you can have sex drunk and good luck changing it.

Actually no it is not in the vast majority of states. The threshold is usually (ever?) not clearly spelled out like in my recent hypothetical posts, but "too intoxicated to provide consent" is on the books almost everywhere, which is routinely interpreted in case law as applying well before the point of being blackout drunk. It is basically a case by case courtroom argument thing.

The fact that you chose  to nitpick a specific medical factor doesn't mean your system is less of a gamble than mine. And I don't like gambling with human lives.

I disagree, I believe your plan is more of a gamble.  Simply vaccinating at 100% gambles about the true rate of vaccine complications. So does spending that same money (that would be spent toward the extra 10% of vaccines) on much larger clinical trials. In year 1, they are about equally gamble-y.

But the difference is that your plan is one that will continue being just as much of a gamble indefinitely (or until eradication, which might be decades away), because you're not learning anything that would allow you to stop gambling next year, or the next year any less than now.

Whereas the increased clinical trials route at least offers a solid chance of getting fairly quick answers that could remove all uncertainty and make it not a gamble anymore for all those remaining years.




(in addition, 100% vaccination carries other unique costs such as unjustified shaming culture and potential threats to human rights of bodily integrity without sufficient proof of any increased benefits to offset them)

...  I just pointed out a specifical medical factor that I did consider and you didn't, and your response is "I ignored all medical factors just like you." ? Wut?

I think, if I've read your posts correctly and reinterpreted them in the light of your above post.
             1. Diseases can kill people.
             2. Vaccines can kill people. (Emphasis can, much like peanut butter can kill people)
             3. If the vaccines start killing more people than the disease, we should probably reevaluate and adjust our distribution profile.

No, this is not what I'm arguing, based on a very simple word out of place, which I have bolded.  Change that word to "are" and you have my argument. As in, it may already be true. As in, it may affect,k invalidate, or justify our CURRENT policy. As in, this is not something we are waiting around to see maybe happen or not. It's a question of what is already going on and is of immediate concern.

This same logic is used by homeopaths...

...lol? Vaccine reactions are not unicorns, they are medical fact, accepted by EVERYONE.* This is merely an issue of rates, not existence.

The quote you pulled out was me rolling my eyes at somebody who was implying a particular vaccine didn't have complications until proven otherwise, even know we already know that other vaccines that work in the same exact way have those complications.

This is not REMOTELY similar to endorsing homeopathy "until proven otherwise." Suggesting it is is absurd to the point of obnoxiousness.




*The CDC lists out possible reactions, manufacturers list them, VAERS despite being terrible for FULL data coverage still includes reports of plenty of reactions of all types under the sun if you simply want existence data, Europeans routinely drop vaccines from schedules when they seem too unimportant, out of assumed reaction levels, and there are well established specific incidents of all kinds: Polio vaccines are well documented at being able to cause paralysis, smallpox vaccines observably killed many people, a vaccine recently gave hundreds of people in Europe narcolepsy, Gardicil is known to have many complications (I might agree that it helps more than it hurts, but complications existing is uncontroversial), anaphylaxis is a small but present and sometimes fatal threat from almost any vaccine (more so with more adjuvants), and anything with live or attenuated full viruses have a known tendency to cause similar symptoms as the full disease at a lower incidence.

I already explained but you conveniently ignored it

No I didn't? I quoted that and wrote out a response to it. See above. Your analysis ignores herd immunity entirely, which is the entire reason for there being possible optimal vaccinations rates in between 0 and 100%.