Fair point on annual statistics but the assaults more likely come from the same people in other years. I doubt there’s anything like “your turn, I beat up my ex last year.”
Steve’s generous inflation of the statistics covers your point, I would wager.
Fair point on annual statistics but the assaults more likely come from the same people in other years. I doubt there’s anything like “your turn, I beat up my ex last year.”
Steve’s generous inflation of the statistics covers your point, I would wager.
The main point is that if we are discussing "what portion of men are rapists?", then ending your calculation with a per-annum estimates doesn't answer that question.
You HAVE TO to compute all the way out to lifetime estimates to be meaningful.
I think you will find that if you try to complete the calculations, you'll come up with a larger portion than is credible - especially if you continue to extend similarly generous assumptions on the final step to those extended in the earlier steps. But even if you don't.
I certainly get the point that any overly large product of the final per-annum to per-lifetime calculation could probably be reduced by recalculating the overly exaggerated earlier figures. And the need do to exactly that recalculation from the start of the chain is exactly the point I was making.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math, using assumptions you are ready to defend, and see if you think the per-lifetime figure still conveys the point you intend to make. What's your complete calculation of the portion of adult men who have or will commit rape?
It's not very rhetorically effective to say "well, according to my (now completed) calculations, a very large minority of men commit rape, but we should assume that my calculations are actually wrong because I made overly generous assumptions". It's better to make more realistic assumptions all along the way.
Fair point on annual statistics but the assaults more likely come from the same people in other years. I doubt there’s anything like “your turn, I beat up my ex last year.”
Steve’s generous inflation of the statistics covers your point, I would wager.
The main point is that if we are discussing "what portion of men are rapists?", then ending your calculation with a per-annum estimates doesn't answer that question.
You HAVE TO to compute all the way out to lifetime estimates to be meaningful.
I think you will find that if you try to complete the calculations, you'll come up with a larger portion than is credible - especially if you continue to extend similarly generous assumptions on the final step to those extended in the earlier steps. But even if you don't.
I certainly get the point that any overly large product of the final per-annum to per-lifetime calculation could probably be reduced by recalculating the overly exaggerated earlier figures. And the need do to exactly that recalculation from the start of the chain is exactly the point I was making.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math, using assumptions you are ready to defend, and see if you think the per-lifetime figure still conveys the point you intend to make. What's your complete calculation of the portion of adult men who have or will commit rape?
It's not very rhetorically effective to say "well, according to my (now completed) calculations, a very large minority of men commit rape, but we should assume that my calculations are actually wrong because I made overly generous assumptions". It's better to make more realistic assumptions all along the way.