search results matching tag: Cherries

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (136)     Sift Talk (12)     Blogs (6)     Comments (724)   

A Scary Time

Mordhaus says...

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

ChaosEngine said:

Regarding Perry and Counts: that was in 1991. Again it's terrible, but you can't really argue that we're suddenly "abandoning of proof and evidence".

Re Banks: That's undoubtedly terrible, but to me, that's far more of an indictment of the appalling state of the US justice system and the nightmare of the utterly broken plea bargain system (I think John Oliver did a report on it, and I'd also highly recommend listening to the current season of the Serial podcast). He chose to take the plea deal... he wasn't convicted.

I think it's also not a coincidence that all three victims are black. Juries are far more likely to convict black men... that's just a fact.

And again, these cases are notable because they're rare.

The point here is simple. Trump's "it's a scary time to be a man" line is complete and utter bullshit. There is no sudden epidemic of false rape allegations. Are people wrongly accused (and in some cases, even convicted) of rape? Undoubtedly.

But it's not a new problem and it's nowhere near as widespread as the right is making it out to be.

Meanwhile, in the USA someone is violated every 98 seconds, and the President mocked a sexual assault survivor.

One of these is a bigger problem than the other.

The New York Times Just Hired a Racist

zamnight says...

Hold on. I'm working on my diatribe for youtube comprised of cherry picked info; completely stripped of context.

I can definitively prove that Sarah is Psyduck.

Finally There Is Bipartisan Agreement: Trump Blew It

newtboy says...

Not exactly.
They have actual evidence that many Kremlin tied agents were involved.
True, they haven't released any evidence proving Putin's personal involvement....yet.... but it's not a bit believable that this enormous government project was done behind his back. He IS personally involved with what his government is doing.

Granted, Mueller did seem to tow the Republican party line building up to Iraq, not with outright lies but by cherry picking reports and minimizing uncertainty but mostly by not correcting Bush, Rice, and Powell, which makes it even less likely he would turn 180 degrees to now outright lie and create evidence out of nothing to oppose his own chosen party, especially knowing it will come out eventually.

Also, it bears noting Mueller didn't have a part in creating any of the multiple reports, both public and classified, accusing Russia of interference, those came from numerous agencies and internal investigations by the businesses involved (like Facebook) AND from our allies intelligence agencies.

Odd, I haven't seen Mueller using any language about Russia, he's not doing interviews or releasing press statements, only indictments that in many cases are followed quickly with guilty pleas, what language exactly are you referring to?

"Witch hunt"....ahhh....so you've tipped your hand, indicating no amount of evidence will ever be enough to convince you because you believe Trump, even when he contradicts himself....except when he tells you there was clear Russian governmental interference, because he finished that sentence by saying "and others", which under a red hat means it doesn't matter, pay no attention to the Vlad behind the curtain....no collusion, no collusion, no collusion...la-la-la-la-la.

Odd, for a witch hunt, they have a whole bunch of convictions and people admitting to witchcraft. That's just not how witch hunts work.

Spacedog79 said:

I feel like I'm in a time warp here.

As far as I understand it that is exactly what they are saying about the Russian hacks too, they have no clear link to the Kremlin. I'm not saying they didn't do it but there is a clear smell of witch hunt going on.

What I find especially galling is Robert Mueller was FBI director at the time of the Iraq war and he was using the exact same language about how clear the evidence for WMDs was.

The Day Jesus Returns

shinyblurry says...

Hi Sagemind,

I'm not offended by your questions or statements. I am guessing you didn't watch much of the video or else you wouldn't be saying all of these prophecies are based on an eclipse. It doesn't a do whole lot for your argument when you skim the video and then mischaracterize the content. This is the atheist MO; come to a premature conclusion based on incomplete information in a rush to falsify the data. Having only a superficial understanding of the subject matter, how would you expect to convince anyone of your position?

The sun being darkened is one of literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of signs that indicate the Day of the Lord, which this video covers. The Jews, and Christians aren't just looking for an eclipse, they are looking at world events, cultural conditions, and a myriad of other things which confirm these prophecies. Without the dozens of other accompanying signs, a simple eclipse wouldn't have any weight in fulfilling these prophecies. The Jewish culture knew about eclipses, that isn't what this is talking about.

This is a very indepth subject. For example, Sir Issac Newton wrote on bible prophecy extensively and said that he considered his work on prophecy more important than his work on mathematics. Based on his studies he corrected predicted when the Jews would return to their homeland. Do you think he just guessed? Read his writings. There is something there a little deeper than atheist talking points.

You've also mischaracterized my faith. I don't believe in God because I was scared and I needed something to lean on. I believe in God because of personal revelation; God revealed Himself to me and showed me that Jesus is the Messiah and the bible is His book. I was content to be a secular agnostic and I wasn't afraid of my death. God wasn't content with that and I responded to His call.

Your oversimplication of faith proves that you don't know a lot about it, or why Christians believe what they believe. I don't think that is very intelligent to dismiss something that you really don't understand. I think your rejection of my faith is mostly based on cherry picking information which has been spoonfed to you by atheist sources instead of a sincere investigation which weighed both sides instead of just one. I would love for you to prove me wrong here.

Have you ever considered giving the claims of Christianity a chance by asking Jesus Christ to reveal Himself to you? Either He is alive and can hear you, or He isn't. If He did give you a sign, would you be willing to follow it?

But Intelligent People Believe in God...

shinyblurry says...

I wasn't raised in the church nor did anyone ever tell me about the Lord. I came to believe in God and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior entirely by personal revelation.

The information bubble that he talks about equally applies to secular society. Many elements of our society, be it entertainment, media, or education all point to the secular creation story. Watch basically any nature video and you'll see the indoctrination "blah blah evolution blah blah deep time blah blah deep time blah blah evolution" etc

I never had a Christian or spiritual friend, my friends and family all believed what I did. That wasn't by design since no one ever brought up God or spiritual beliefs to me. There was zero information coming into my life about God.

I developed an arrogance towards believers although I was incredibly ignorant about what they believed. I had cherry picked a few bible verses which I thought disproved their religion, and that's about all I had.

The majority of unbelievers are in the position I was in. I would have gone that way forever if God hadn't revealed Himself to me.

This video is partly true, as beliefs can develop in a bubble. Then it brings up the "truth" as the antidote, yet what is the truth according to the creators? They failed to define what it is, only that it wouldn't be a belief in God, with no proof for that at all. True believers in the secular story don't see that as faith, because of the indoctrination, ironically

1954 How to dial your phone by Bell System

KrazyKat42 says...

I remember as a child people referred to the prefix 729 as Randolph 9. And 242 as Cherry 2. It turns out that the operator stations were located on Randolph Street and Cherry Street!

Response to Trump's Video Game Montage - #GameOn

Payback says...

I feel if the Trumpadon's people can cherry pick the worst of games, the rebuttal SHOULD cherry pick the best and most artistic parts of the SAME games.

To be fair, they aren't making a statement against *video games*, only the ones with violent content.

You'll pry their Candy Crush from their cold, dead hands.

newtboy said:

Ok, it just seemed odd in a video responding to Trump's m rated game video. It made sense to me to counter that with a g rated game video with no violence at all.

Cancer Screening Myths

transmorpher says...

No he read from the actual studies in the video, there are like 4 or 5 different ones.

You cannot cherry pick from a conclusion of a study......

There is not one thing on the website that tells people not to get proper treatment for cancer.

ChaosEngine said:

"You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study".

Actually, you can.

For a start, that's an article, not a study. http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187734?path=/bmj/346/7893/Observations.full.pdf

Second, even when something IS a study, if you cherry pick parts of it you can easily mislead people.

Now, I don't really have a problem with the facts outlined in this video, other than that I know Greger is attempting to use them to convince people NOT to get proper treatment of cancer.

Cancer Screening Myths

ChaosEngine says...

"You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study".

Actually, you can.

For a start, that's an article, not a study. http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/187734?path=/bmj/346/7893/Observations.full.pdf

Second, even when something IS a study, if you cherry pick parts of it you can easily mislead people.

Now, I don't really have a problem with the facts outlined in this video, other than that I know Greger is attempting to use them to convince people NOT to get proper treatment of cancer.

transmorpher said:

Pseudoscience? You cannot get more scientific than reading from the actual study - which is what this video is. The visuals are the actual text from the study, which is published in an actual medical journal, by non-vegan scientists. In the corner of the video it even lists which article it is so you can go and read it for yourself.

Every single video on nutritionfacts.org is in this format, there is nothing on the site that is not supported by quality science, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Israel - Where Feminist Women Beat & Harass Men, Legally!

Mordhaus says...

I gave it an upvote, but I have to wonder how cherry picked this was. I mean, if you did a similar documentary here in the USA, you could easily find examples of stalker-ish guys who exploit legal loopholes to make their ex's lives nightmares.

Secret recording of Canadian Uni blocking free speech

I do not fear your barrier!

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

radx says...

Doesn't happen everyday that a longstanding apparatschik of a major party throws her predecessor (DWS), her party's former Presidential Nominee (HRC), and a former President (Obama) under the bus like this. I like it. Smells like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Money laundering is the cherry on top, really.

How the Obama Presidency Destroyed Todays Democratic Party

StukaFox says...

I upvoted your video because I appreciate the fact you're trying to present a cognizant backing for a lot of the things you say and believe.

I don't know if this was your strongest card, 'tho. He's well-spoken, with impressive CV and an interesting argument. The problem is he's cherry-picking the entire video and sometimes even resorting to rank hypocrisy (it's anti-American to campaign to minorities with a grievance, yet pulling the same stunt got Trump elected when he did it with white people).

I notice he falls back on the Coastal Elite trope, as if being successful and having ideals is somehow an antithesis to all that's good and pure about corn farmers in Kansas. Somehow, it's all those darned people living in that magical wonderland of those who can smell sea salt from the front porch of their homes that fucked middle America.

No. Sorry. Wrong answer.

40 years of Republican-dominated rule, 40 years of a sick social experiment being run by the disciples of Any Rand, is what fucked those people. 40 years of tax cuts for the rich and excess taxation on the poor; 40 years of stealing from schools to pay for subs; 40 years of setting the wolves among the sheep in the form of stripping consumer protections; 40 years of historical revisionism; 40 years of the kind of government that should have landed the perpetrators 12 steps from 6 hooded men with 5 loaded rifles.

Republicans have been calling the shots since Reagan, but yet 8 years of the black dude somehow set the country on a frenzy of self-destructive idiocy unseen since the French Revolution?

Look, I appreciate that you're trying to raise the tone with videos like this. But if you're trying to intellectually shore up the dike, I've got bad news for you: the facts will rarely be on your side.

eric3579 (Member Profile)

radx says...

Good piece in the Nation on the current state of Russiagate.

Appetizer:

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article’s content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language—likely, suspected, apparent—appears next to “Russians” to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

In other words: a big, fat nothingburger. But it allows many interested parties to derail the conversation away from issues like inequality.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon