8current, former service members to sue military, alleging rape, sexual assault and h

*facepalm*

I never tried to make it seem trivial...

I just don't deal in sensationalizing...

Speaking of staistics that are bull(*)(*)(*)(*), why is it that Third Man's stats changed so much?

Could they be bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

How do you determine what is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

Is everything that doesn't agree with your POV considered bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

How about this?

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates

The fact of the matter is, that Third Man has constantly provided dishonest skewing of statistics throughout this thread, and then, when presented with evidence to the counter, he has proceeded to ignore those with whom he disagrees...

This is not the MO of an honest debater...

I have yet to see anyone say rape doesn't matter...

And the <1% statistic is correct...

19,000 out of 2.2 M is <1%...

Hardly rampant...

And now, the only poster who he's able to read is you...

Because you agree with him...

Like I said, the thread has turned into a circle jerk...

By the way, your link doesn't work...

 

A glossy-pro-military circle jerk...

(Rape, what rape?) (1% - that's nothin')

Your friends will be here soon, don't fret.

 

See?

You seem to have nothing to offer either...

Nobody said 1% was nothing...

That's more bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you guys made up...

Just the simple fact that <1% is not rampant...

As we've all said, even 1% is serious, but, it's not rampant...

Don't worry though...

I don't expect a reply of any value...

 

Good one Gwen.

 

Good thing he can't see my reply, huh?

 

That has been the guys argument for 40 odd pages. Hey its only 1%. 40 pages. It is laughable when presented with all the outstanding evidence that someone would actually put that forth as an argument. It just goes to show how sad some people are when defending the US military no matter what.

 

He can't see this either, which I guess prevents him from having to respond and defend himself, but, no one said "It's only 1%"...

It's been said that 1% is not rampant, because it's not...

It just goes to show how sad some people are when attempting to bash the US military, no matter what...

 

Don't be too impressed with yourself. I don't find any value in your replies.

1% is not rampant? What do you think of 19000 people being sexually abused and raped? Is the fact of 19000 people being abused a doddle to you, a nothin' to you?

1% sounds lowly, doesn't it?

Now imagine 19000 people in your mind that have been sexually abused and raped. That is a RAMPANT number of people abused. What is it about the military culture to sexually abuse 19000 people that are ON THE SAME side as themselves? What does it say for cohesion, for trust, and about their regard for their fellow man and woman? No, don't talk of any of that. Just keep peddling your 1% claim. And pay no mind to the 19000 victims of crime. 1% not worth worrying about, is it?

Just keep brushing those 19000 victims of sexual assault and rape away... there's a good military man...

 

I'm pretty sure I said it was serious in the very reply you quoted...

Like I said before, it's about the same rate as civilian society...

Now I'll say it again, since you apparently missed it the first 30 times...

Rape/SA is ALWAYS serious!!!

However, 1% of a demographic does not make it rampant...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rampant?s=t

It doesn't fit any of those definitions...

From now on, try presenting facts, and, not emotionally charged responses...

 

Denial or illusion, one of the two. They're keen to push a mantra of 1%, but reluctant to ADDRESS and FACE the very serious issue of sexual abuse and rape in the military. Supposedely all those in the military are working for the same side, but you wouldn't know it... when 19000 of their own are being abused by those they work alongside.

BTW, Really People keeps having a go at you for having him on ignore. It's quite amusing to watch. I think you've hurt his feelings.

 

Interesting reference.

To bad however that it is a commentary piece, and not an actual news article. I wanted to check it and see what the references were. But then I realized it was a commentary, and had no references.

And after looking up references for somebody in another thread, I am simply tired of researching and have to go to work (you know how hard it is when you have to kill babies and rape women all day for a living).

So could I kindly ask for the reference to how 80% of convicted rapists get an honorable discharge? And I mean a real reference, not a mention in an unverified commentary piece.

 

Hurt my feelings?

LMAO... I see y'all are enjoying your circle jerk...

If the military outright ignored SA, then, yeah, you might have a case...

But, that's not what's happening at all...

Like I said before, if you say the military is not addressing the issue, then, you're either lying, or, you don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) you're talking about...

Which is it?

But, you and your cowardly friend enjoy the session...

 

You people are amazing. Have you not been reading any of the posts here? The <1% estimate is based on the 22k "estimated" sexual assaults/rapes that occur in the military ever year. This ESTIMATE is based on the understanding that 70-90% of all sexual assaults and rapes are UNREPORTED. So that less than 1% case also figures in the 70-90% of ASSUMED unreported cases. The actual number of reported sexual assaults/rapes was 3,191 which is MUCH MUCH lower than 1%.

Please tell me you're not as blind as The Third Man. I've literally typed this out 6 or 7 times already. He ignores it each time pretending that his own statistics aren't right.

Here's a little diagram.

3191 (ACTUAL REPORTED SEXUAL ASSAULTS/RAPES)

MULTIPLIED BY 6 (TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ESTIMATED UNREPORTED SEXUAL ASSAULTS/RAPES

=19,000

This 19,000 number divided by the 2.9 million ACTIVE and RESERVE soldiers in the U.S. military gives a rate of approximately .06%

Hell, we can even take Third Man's wrong statistic that ignores the 1.4 million U.S. reserve soldiers (many of whom are deployed to Afghanistan) and ONLY take the active duty soldiers (which is flat wrong) and the number still only equals 1.3%

 

Yeah,when all he can come up with is the 1% argument for 40 pages I thought what's the point in even reading his posts.I provided a lot of evidence,official figures from the US government,a history of rape in the US military and even a comparison with the British military and he has ignored it and just posted 1% is not rampant again and again. Bit of a joke really.

 

I was just about to post this...

It seems the 19K figure was referring to reported SA throughout this thread, when, in fact, that is an estimate based on 3,158 reported cases of SA (FY 2010)...

http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/DOD-Releases-2011-Report-on-Military-Sexual-Assault.pdf

And that report is not at all flattering to my argument...

But, I'm willing to post it in the interest of honest debate, something some people here have no interest in...

However, it does shed a little more light on the 19K number, which, it turns out, is an estimate, assuming only 13.6% of cases of SA are actually reported...

Ah, the dishonesty is amazing...

 

And yes, there is a good reason why I am asking about the reference behind the "honorable discharge" claim. And it is because of an interesting loop-hole I recently discovered going through my own seperation from the military.

Most people know that if you are kicked out of the military, you loose some or all benefits because of your discharge.

However, if you are on your second or later enlistment, that does not always matter. Because in order to "re-enlist", you must first be discharged. So of course, that is Honorable.

So if you are a first-time soldier and get caught for drugs, you are getting booted out with a bad discharge, and loose most or all benefits. If you are on your second or later term, you already have an "honorable discharge", so there is not much that can matter. When you apply for services form the VA, you simply apply, giving your original discharge date. They look up in the system, and see that on that date you have an Honorable discharge.

And once agian, I am sure there is a great deal of coprolite in that commentary. Because most people can't seem to tell the difference in looking at military statistics about "Sexual Assault" (which can be 100% non-contact), and Rape. They see one, and think the other.

Conviction of Rape in the military is a General Court Martial offense. Conviction of which is a Felony under US Code. I have known several people court martialed over the years, 2 of them for rape. Both were reduced to E-1, sentenced to 5-15 years (in a military prison, not ClubFed), and a dishonerable discharge.

And now I am supposed to believe that this is the exception? Without verification and documentation?

 

No Gwen is not blind,she knows US military apologist BS when she sees it. She can see that the British army have dramatically less rapes than the US military and she can see that there is a serious problem with rape and sexual assault in the US military.which you obviously cannot see. Your excuses are as feeble as your argument.

 

What does it tell you when a poster is only interested in reading and replying to another poster who happens to agree with him???

 

Why don't you address why rapes/sexual assault are dramatically higher in the US military than the British military a comparable western military?

 

I used the expression one time. Slogans are phrases that are used repetitively (usually for advertising or political campaigning) to get into people's mind. I used it as a basic expression, you're that has turned it into a slogan. We're not potential customers or constituents so stop trying to use it as a catch phrase over and over again.

Sexual assault and rape are a serious issue that exists in all places in the world. The military has and continues to prosecute those who commit the crimes and requires military members to attend classes yearly (if not more). The military is also in the business of fighting wars. The military has dedicated enough resources to the problem and should continue its current levels. So yes, there are bigger fish to fry. Things like PTSD and wounded soldiers which affect a hell of a lot more than 19,000 people a year. Get it?

You're getting confused. I'm not dismissive of sexual assault and rape, I'm dismissive of the idea that it's a rampant problem in the military and that more resources should be devoted to it. You're using a very common and rather immature tactic here. You're trying to claim that by NOT supporting an increase in an already considerable anti-rape/sexual assault program I'm somehow supporting rape/sexual assault. That's just silly.

 

Yes, why don't you address The Third Man's need to move the goalposts, Ignorance?

 

Live in the real world. There's a few hundred suicides in the military every year. What about them? Maybe we should devot our entire military budget to trying to stop them from killing themselves. You have to draw a reasonable line. You're trying to accuse us of supporting rape and sexual assault. All were doing is NOT supporting an increase in an already large anti-rape sexual assault program. The world isn't black and white. You can't devout endless amounts of time and money to a problem. You do all you reasonably can to stop it and move on. It's an ongoing battle that's always there.

There was ONE murder in my home city last year. Should the City quadruple it's Police budget because of this one crime? By not doing so are they ignoring the murder victim and his family? Are they supporting the rapist by NOT quadrupling the Police budget. This poor innocent murder victim on the same side as them? This is a highly simplified version of what your doing. Start thinking rationally. Approach the problem like a leader who has to make tough decisions...not some idealist that's never been in charge of anyone.

 

Yes you used the expression and then slagged off Gwen when she used your own words. That was very funny.

 

First, reply to all the demands that references be verified.

All you are doing is clouding and hiding the issue. "Oh, don't look over there, ignore the man behind the curtain!".

The question is the veracity of a great many of the so-called "references" that are given in here. They are either wrong, totally lacking of facts, or read completely wrong. That to me is the real issue.

To me, it is simple. A single rape is 1 rape to many. But to many in here this now has absolutely nothing to do with rape at all, but about bashing the members of the military. And you yourself have said repeatedly that you have a very low opinion of them in the first place.

So it is no longer about facts to you, but about attacks. And facts do not matter to you.

It amazes me that I can't come in here for a few days, and find pages of responses over what is a commentary piece. No references, no facts, just the equivelent of somebody writing a letter to the editor in the back of the political page in the local newspaper.

Here is hint #1 folks. Commentary is not fact. It is just that, commentary. Unless you are talking about the beliefs of the person who wrote the piece, it has no place in a debate.

I could write a long commentary about how the ASPCA should get all the people involved in the Bonsai Kitten website thrown in jail. That has not a single thing to do with Bonsai Kitten itself. It would have a place in a discussion as to outrage the website created, but not about the claims of the Bonsai Kitten site, or the people that created it.

 

It is NOT the same as civilian society. I've already quoted as much.

And if 80% - 90% of sexual assaults and rapes go unreported in the military, then your mantra of 1% become woefully wrong. Woefully.

19000 people being sexually abused and raped by those they work alongisde in the military. Are you ACTUALLY able to acknowledge this very large number of people that have been abused by those they work alongside in the military?

Perhaps if you bothered to realise / work it out that sexual assault and rape is a very grave judgment on the military... and if you bothered to think about the repercussions of these crimes... instead of spouting 1% as though this whole issue involves inanimate objects rather than human beings... then you yourself may even start to come across as a human being yourself.

As it is, you're an empty shell spouting 1%. While the other one claims there are bigger fish to fry. You're a good team. You both dismiss and undermine the severity of these crimes. And you diminish the victims with your denial and down-playing. I suppose, in the same way the military does. You are giving me a window on the attitude of the military. And the picture is quite ugly and demeaning to those who are vicitms of crime in the military.