Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sexual Assault Victims are now "Survivors"

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Riskymove wrote: »
    see point 3 of definition below

    And?

    What does that prove - other than my own point!?


  • Options
    #63
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    If someone can tell me why - based on the factual meaning of the term - all sexual assault victims are survivors then I'll gladly apologise.

    Because that is what the media is doing at the moment.

    I'm not wrong. The term is not applicable - only in a case where someone's life is at risk.

    At least 3 other users have shown you definitions of the term that contradict you. You seem very, very invested in this subject.


  • Options
    #64
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    How many? Have you got a percentage?

    I want to deal in facts, like most people, not emotional arguments.

    The term is clearly incorrectly used yet posters don't want to acknowledge that.

    To be fair a couple of posters have eluded to fact it is used as an emotional tool.

    A person who wants to deal in facts reads up research on the subject, they dont start a thread about it in After Hours.


  • Options
    #65
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Step away from the shovel.


  • Options
    #66
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    seamus wrote: »
    https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-men-are-more-likely-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape

    "Supposition" is playing it down to make the pretense that both are equally uncertain.

    They're not. What we do know is that the proportion of men known to have been raped in a given year outstrips even the number of men brought to court on rape charges.
    I'm sorry S, these "statistics" are opaque and not reliable. It's the nature of the beast on a few levels, but since such political dividend is to be had... It's the currency of much of current social political discourse at the moment that "facts" are tweaked to reflect views. For example and from the article you linked:

    1) The stats on male sexual assault comes from a self reported survey. Notoriously inaccurate. They make the valid point that police stats are likely to be below the actual figures because victims are often reticent to report such crimes. They then go one to say with authority that 80% of such cases don't get reported, based on self reporting stats. It's conjecture based on extremely flimsy evidence, though almost a given in this area of research right back to the Koss "study" of the 80's when the researcher went even further and reported rape, even though half of the women surveyed themselves said it wasn't. The "researcher" decided.

    2) On the men accused of sexual assault they do acknowledge: "there is no reliable data that exists to tell us how many people are accused of rape in day-to-day life". So in a reversal of the above they rely on stats related to court cases. Not even reports to the cops, but reports that cops think there is enough evidence of a crime to get to court. If they suggested a similar requirement for rape and sexual assault cases, by their own thinking 80% would simply disappear and never happened.

    So when it suits a position unreliable data apparently becomes reliable and when it doesn't it doesn't. I still call shenanigans on both "stats". It's really shitty "science", with more than a sniff of bias.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Even for the internet, this is crazy stuff.


  • Options
    #68
    RustyNut
    Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »


    I want to deal in facts, like most people
    .

    But you just can't help yourself and keep posting sh1te instead?


  • Options
    #69
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    Even for the internet, this is crazy stuff.
    +1 I have zero issue with regarding victims of violent and sexual crimes as survivors. Far better than telling them they're victims for life.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #70
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,523 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Please mods put us out of our misery - its embarrassing for the country - shut it down!!!!


  • Options
    #71
    bloodless_coup
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,480 ✭✭✭bloodless_coup


    I've always found the word "surviver" a bit strange or out of place for sexual assualt victims.

    Poor Kermit is getting a very hard time. Too much faux outrage replies that add nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    irishgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭irishgoat


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Like the Jews in the Nazi concentration camps I guess?


    This term is loaded but it's used routinely now in US media to describe victims of sex assault since #metoo. This tactic was taken up here with the Catholic Church as well. Victims were "survivors" or something like they were going to be killed.

    I know it's a cruel and deeply hurtful, damaging thing but "survivor"???


    I'm beginning to think you're one of the biggest weirdo's on boards with the nonsense you come out with.


  • Options
    #73
    fando
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭fando


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5erQW0i5Ps


  • Options
    #74
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,923 ✭✭✭circadian


    Christ almighty.


  • Options
    #75
    Gimme A Pound
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    There is no "now" about it - the term has been used in relation to those who endured sexual abuse and lived to tell the tale instead of killing themselves or ending up in an institution (which isn't living).

    Nobody thinks it is an apt term for someone who likes to think they were sexually abused because someone grabbed their bum. But well done on using the plight of abuse survivors to grind your axe. You stay classy now.


  • Options
    #76
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,518 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Mod: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/survive
    : to remain alive or in existence : live on
    2 : to continue to function or prosper
    transitive verb

    1 : to remain alive after the death of
    he is survived by his wife
    2 : to continue to exist or live after
    survived the earthquake
    3 : to continue to function or prosper despite : WITHSTAND
    they survived many hardships

    So, no, being a survivor does not imply being in a near death experience.

    Kermit.de.frog to take some time off for being a despicable human being. Trolling sexual assault victims is probably the lowest of the low.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement