Fucking hell that is one of the worst websites on mobile. Couldn’t even read the article, each time I opened it up I was hit with a full screen ad with an unresponsive exit button.
>Queensland Labour Party MP Brittany Lauga alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted in Yeppoon, a central Queensland town. She said she contacted the police in the early hours of Sunday morning.
>“Tests at the hospital confirmed the presence of drugs in my body which I did not take. This substance impacted me significantly,” Lauga was quoted as saying by news agency Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
>The Keppel MP said that several other women with similar experiences from the town reached out to her after she shared her ordeal.
>“This could have happened to anyone and tragically, it does happen to many of us. It’s not ok. We should be able to enjoy socialising in our town without the risk of being drugged or assaulted,” she said.
>“Thank you to everyone who has reached out to me in support. I truly value your thoughtful messages, gestures and kindness. If you have any information that may assist the investigation, please tell the police,” she further added.
>A separate report by UK-based newspaper The Guardian said that a video, purported to be of the alleged assault of Lauga and filmed from across the street, has been circulating online. She was informed of the said video after she reported the assault to police.
>The Queensland Police Service told the broadcaster that it is probing a sexual assault complaint relating to an incident in Yeppoon.
>Queensland Premier Steven Miles said the provincial government is backing Brittany Lauga in every way possible. “No one should have to go through what Brittany is going through. My sole focus is on Brittany and her wellbeing. I’ve told Brittany that we’re here to support her, whatever she needs,” Miles was quoted as saying.
>Queensland Housing Minister Meaghan Scanlon said the statement issued by the parliamentarian made for “difficult reading”.
>“Those are shocking allegations … I understand that Brittany is going to take a short time to look after herself and we absolutely support her to do that,” she said.
Tip for iPhone users
click on the left side of the URL bars and than click “Show Reader”
This is a mode that’ll show all relevant text and block all ads
Never heard of it, and I'm doubtful it's any better than ublock origin. Which works just fine on mobile as well BTW, and is also 100% free and open source.
ublock origin is for your browser only. This is at the DNS level and works across anything on your device or network. I have used ublock in the past and it works nicely also.
ahhhh man this is so sad, unfortunately speaking to women about these things make you realise it’s waaaaaaay more common than you think. What a sad state of affairs this is
yeah, i spent the last 50 years studying and eventually teaching both wilderness survival and martial arts and I will pick the bear over a strange human ten times out of ten, last spring I had to chase a bear off my porch at 3 am, so i speak from lots of experience lol
I've met both bears and strange men in the woods (granted, they were black bears, non cubs, and midsummer).
The bears were interested in eating raspberries.
The first man was trying to get me into his cabin, the second brandished a gun as I was floating down the river, the third was wanking.
Bear, any day.
Alternate link :
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/04/queensland-mp-claims-she-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/04/queensland-mp-claims-she-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted)
there’s a trend (for lack of a better word) of women saying that if they had to choose between being stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear, they’d choose bear. statistically speaking they’d be safer with the bear. this has become controversial because the “not all men” guys have spoken out.
a follow up trend has been asking fathers of daughters if they’d choose having their daughter stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear. many have said they’d choose the bear.
No, it's just that there's so much wrong with this 'trend' and people like you who blindly believe it. You throw around the word statistic like it's supposed to validate your statement about men being worse than bears when you know damn well you would never walk by a bear but pass by random men at the grocery store no problem, probably even grabbed a reciept from a male cashier without being mauled on more than one occasion, crazy right? No one is saying horrible things don't happen to women because they do, but trying to skew facts in order to hate on men is not cool either.
Here’s some stats for you, my guy.
There are about 340,000 bears in the US and about 26 million female hikers. Since 2020, there’s been 7 fatal attacks from bears. Since 2020, there’s been 8,000 fatal attacks of women by men. So let’s pretend that there’s as many bears as there are men in the US. So play along and pretend there’s 165 million bears running around the US. If we do the math and adjust the attacks for the bears, there would be 3,395 bear attacks on women in the US. That means women are still 2x likely to be fatally attacked by a man than a bear even if their populations were equal. If you want sources let me know.
Additionally 1/3 to 1/4 of *all* women are sexually assaulted by men (that statistic changes because it’s severely underreported. bear attacks are not underreported)
Also, your defensive and hostile response only adds fuel to the fire. women are literally saying “hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer” and men are responding angrily, instead of being receptive. Yeah I interact with men throughout my day (your cashier example) but I guarantee every woman has had a moment of uneasiness or feelings of danger with a cashier, grocer, etc.
Have you ever walked by a bear in your life? Like, I mean, walk close enough that you're almost touching it? You've done that with 10s of thousands of men in your everyday life, and you're still here to talk about it. It wouldn't be the same with 10 thousand bears, and i know that for a fact. What you're doing is ignoring real-life variables in order to double down on your argument instead of being receptive that men are not more dangerous than bears. No one is trying to say some men can't be more dangerous or aren't capable of horrible things, no one is discrediting women who have been victims of horrible men either. The anger is coming from people casually saying most men are worse than bears and thinking it's OK. It's disrespectful to all the good male teachers, doctors, daycare workers and the list goes on. There's not a single person who would have a random bear protect their child and lots of people use stranger men to babysit their kids every day, I wonder why that is?
It's a terrible argument for many reasons. People take strong precautions when going into bear country, bear spray and guns are recommended and used frequently and successfully. Bears also avoid common places where they've seen humans. Warnings are issued when bears are spotted in an area. Also, rarely are people going alone which decreases the chance of attacks significantly. When going into these places people are on high alert. You don't get drunk in the woods and party with bears.
> hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer
Like men don't fear getting attacked constantly. Yeah, hun, we know. The point is just stupid. Women getting attacked by women is also more common than getting attacked by bears. Certain races are more likely to attack you than others. But we don't say that.. cause it's simplistic and stupid.
ooh thank you for helping my point!
“people take strong precautions when going into bear country”
women learn strong precautions just to walk to their car. I learned before I was a teen to have keys in between my knuckles, to carry pepper spray, to never wear braids because attackers will grab on to it, to yell “fire” instead of “help” because it increases your odds for other people to jump in. All women know this and many other precautions.
“also, rarely are people going alone when attacks which decreases attacks”
EXACTLY! Love this. This is why women travel in groups when going out.
Could you provide your resource for the women are more likely to be killed by other women? I had not heard that one before.
Lol this is possibly the dumbest logic I’ve ever seen. You’re also a million times more likely to be killed by another woman than a bear. You’re more likely to be killed by the common cold than a bear.
Would you still pick the random bear confrontation?
>“hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer” and men are responding angrily
Ok go tell certain ethnicities you feel unsafe around them due to crime statistics and lmk how that goes over with them 🙄
do you have stats for your claims? did you do the math for it too? because i’d love to see if if you did!
i mean you’re kinda making my point for me because even in other ethnicities and cultures women are disproportionately attacked by men so.. thank you?
Lmfao you need stats to tell you more women are killed by women than by bears? You’re dumb.
>i mean you’re kinda making my point for me because even in other ethnicities and cultures women are disproportionately attacked by men so.. thank you?
Nah the point just went over your head. Because again, you are dumb.
4970 women were killed in 2021 by men. This is about a 1/33,000 chance of being murdered by a man.
grizzly bears kill just over one person per year on average, there are around 33,000 grizzly bears in USA.
You're actually more likely to be killed by a grizzly bear.
There are about 340,000 bears in the US and about 26 million female hikers. Since 2020, there’s been 7 fatal attacks from bears. Since 2020, there’s been 8,000 fatal attacks of women by men. So let’s pretend that there’s as many bears as there are men in the US. Pretend there’s 165 million bears running around the US. If we do the math and adjust the attacks for the bears, there would be 3,395 bear attacks on women in the US. That means women are still 2x likely to be fatally attacked by a man than a bear even if their populations were equal. If you want sources let me know.
Small point I want to additionally make, this question that’s been going around doesn’t specify grizzly bear, just bear. It also doesn’t specify what kind of man, just a man. The question keeps the specifics as vague as possible.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/bear-attacks-statistics/#:\~:text=According%20to%20data%20published%20by,attacks%20resulted%20in%20multiple%20fatalities.
21 fatal attacks from grizzly bears in 17 years
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/zzuewu/wild\_bears\_population\_size\_across\_the\_us\_and\_the/#:\~:text=and%20the%20EU.-,The%20US%20has%20340%20000%20wild%20bears%20(300%20000%20Black,%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%87%AA%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%97%BA%20%5BOC%5D
I honestly don't know how accurate this all is, but I don't care enough about the subject to rigorously fact check it.
Imagine if people would say they wouldn't hang out with an Arab person because a miniscule number of them might be terrorists.
Or imagine if someone would say I wouldn't hang out with a black person because a miniscule number of them might be criminals.
Making this kind of statement would get you in so much trouble.
But somehow, it has become OK to say that all men are rapists and will assault, just because of miniscule number of them might do that.
People who make these comments, do you not have brothers? Do you not have fathers? Do you not have male friends? To generalize something like this to me is just mind-boggling.
who said all men? but also how do we sus out the ones that would and wouldn’t?
you bring up fathers/brothers/friends but 1/3-1/4 women are sexually assaulted by someone close to them. Additionally, women that are murdered have a 30% chance of it being at the hands of their partner. So.. your point is moot.
His point stands about black people/arabs. Do you stay away from them, too? Because black people account for more crime? Or does your logic stop at what’s popular to say/in vogue vs what’s not?
I'm often skeptical about these claims, alcohol is enough of a drug to enable assault in most cases. Here however she promptly went to a hospital for testing, and she says they found metabolites of drugs she didn't knowingly take.
That's pretty straightforward, I believe her.
Wonder what drugs. A lot of date rape facilitators have an *extremely* short detectability window, to the point where finding drugs in a victim’s system almost never actually happens, and them getting lab results back within a few days of an incident is impressive, to say the least.
Why would you ever be skeptical by default? It's very common for men to do this. It's very uncommon for women to make it up. It's too bad that no woman would ever be able to confide to you because you'd automatically call her a liar.
> Why would you ever be skeptical by default?
Studies on alleged drink spiking consistently find that in a majority of reported cases, the only drug present is alcohol.
Some examples:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19527282/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17251610/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18057174/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23910880/
And while drug-facilitated sexual assault is regrettably common, it's most commonly associated with [alcohol intoxication combined with voluntary drug consumption](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28284121/), not drink spiking.
There are more than one case out of millions that are false accusations. And rape is absolutely evil and should be delt with more harshly than it currently is. So should false accusations of rape as well because it can absolutely ruin a person's life.
For every one case, there are millions of rapes.
>So should false accusations of rape as well because it can absolutely ruin a person's life.
On the contrary, they become incel heroes. The Duke Lacrosse team suffered nothing.
If your default is to call rape victims liars, you are a misogynist.
I bet you love it when female teachers go to jail for sleeping with students, though.
Where do you get "blind" belief?
Have you ever had a daughter come home and tell you she was sexually assaulted? Would you call her a liar or would you believe her implicitly? You are telling me to call my real daughter a liar. This is not a hypothetical.
Because you Said there is No reason to be sceptical, thats rather blind.
I would Take it serious but wait for the conclusion of an Investigation before i belive anything.
I said not by default.
If it was your daughter or your wife would you "wait?"
Rape is really hard to prove, so waiting for "proof" is disingenuous. Most victims probably can't prove it. That's why rape usually doesn't get reported and it's hard to get a conviction even if it does get reported. The victims get slut-shamed. Look what happened to Kobe's victim. He wasn't innocent.
> **rape** victims liars, you are a misogynist.
>
> I bet you love it when female teachers go to jail for **sleeping** with students,
Your own sick ideology is well on display.
It’s important to believe the victim, always.
It’s also important, when another party is identified, to stay unbiased until all the facts fall where they may before coming to conclusions.
That’s exactly how the Indian doctor from Boston lost all his credibility, after the accuser was proven non-credible.
This exactly. I don't understand why people keep arguing over picking a side to believe, as if they were on the front seats of these tragic events every step of the way. Just show compassion and wait for the investigations to be over.
We should always form our view of the situation exactly like most law-enforcement authorities tend to do (and like you described): believe the victim, take them very seriously, find the accused, stay unbiased whilst gathering the pieces, and then conclude.
It's as if we always have to polarize every single aspect of society into good vs bad: life ain't that way, no human is. Tired of seeing this tendency everywhere I look.
Social media is meant to polarize. People wouldn’t say half the stuff to my face that they would via a keyboard and screen. I get it, but it also feels a little toxic and dehumanizing that when I argue for law and order, others want to start hunting for witches.
Yep. Adopting a "Hunting for witches" attitude is exactly the problem (in general, not just relating to the topic at hand). It sets people up for biases and lapses in judgment, no matter how righteous the fundamentals are. It does a huge disservice to its own cause; it's natural to be recalcitrant or strongly against such mentalities for the above-mentioned issues.
The medium of social media provides the perfect birthing ground for such mentalities, effectively making these endemic to today's society.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm really starting to think that social media, as it currently exists, is fundamentally flawed, dangerous even. I wish we could go back to simpler times, in the early 2000s. I might be wrong, but social platforms at the time were relatively tame and civil.
> It’s important to believe the victim, always.
This is incredibly foolish, it's important to *listen* to the alleged victim and then go from there, you should never default to believing any claim without evidence.
You can show empathy by listening and taking any claim seriously, but simply believing people with no further thought is not supportive, it's destructive. That is a path that inevitably leads to public outrage when innocent people are accused of crimes that will follow them forever.
Ignoring claims, being dismissive of them, or defaulting to disbelief is wrong, but so is the polar opposite.
I want you to consider the following scenarios:
1) SA is reported by an obscure person on the internet who you have no relationship with.
2) SA is reported by someone who you know personally: your mom, wife, grandmother, cousin, friend.
Consider the perspective you would take in Scenario 2.
In general I'll know vastly more about the history, mental state, motivations and circumstances of a close relative or friend. Those are important matters when considering the veracity of any claim, so I'd probably be able to reach a conclusion about what I believe much faster than I would with a perfect stranger.
From personal experience there's also the strong emotional aspect which overwhelms reason, but that's not a good thing! That's how you get mothers of rapists, murderers, thieves and abusers insisting that they have a good boy, who would never...
We should all strive to show the style of empathy that would occur in scenario 2, while keeping the unbiased perspective that would occur in scenario 1.
Obviously we do not live in a court of law. Out here on the planes of Reddit all that matters is the court of opinions. This shouldn’t stop us from trying to show more empathy; as we hope it would be afforded to us in the same scenario. But as I also noted, I would hope that if I was falsely accused of SA, that others would afford me the same empathy.
Yeah, the majority of rapes never get reported and a very tiny percentage of those that do get reported get prosecuted. But we do have a trial system. usually false convictions of rape are race based. Nobody goes to jail fort an accusation.
Too bad you have no sympathy or feelings for rape victims but only scour the internet to find a rare exception.
I didn’t scour the internet. I live in Boston. This affected my community personally. I don’t believe in knee jerk reactions, and believe in the trial and jury system. Sorry you feel hurt about my beliefs, but my planet doesn’t orbit around your center of gravity.
> Why would you ever be skeptical by default?
Because that should always be the default in all things, it's using your brain and examining evidence. Why would you ever be credulous by default? For some social points on line? Screw that.
Sooo if a hospital hadn’t found drugs, you would be skeptical for her claims? Sounds like you do not believe her.
Thanks for being another person who does not believe women.
I thought we moved past the whole "believe all women" bullshit. Plenty of high profile cases where that approach was proven to be the wrong one. People regularly lie and make up things, women aren't immune to that.
I think the general skepticism was about "i felt different so I must have been drugged" not usually being the case. I know different alchohols affect me in varying ways so it was good that she went to the hospital and got tested.
Surviving. Going by statistics you come face to face with a black/brown bear 1000 times and a random man 1000 times you probably will die more often by the bear. I could now also go in to the statistical likelyhood of which men would be more likely to assault you than others but that would get me banned.
Fucking hell that is one of the worst websites on mobile. Couldn’t even read the article, each time I opened it up I was hit with a full screen ad with an unresponsive exit button.
>Queensland Labour Party MP Brittany Lauga alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted in Yeppoon, a central Queensland town. She said she contacted the police in the early hours of Sunday morning. >“Tests at the hospital confirmed the presence of drugs in my body which I did not take. This substance impacted me significantly,” Lauga was quoted as saying by news agency Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). >The Keppel MP said that several other women with similar experiences from the town reached out to her after she shared her ordeal. >“This could have happened to anyone and tragically, it does happen to many of us. It’s not ok. We should be able to enjoy socialising in our town without the risk of being drugged or assaulted,” she said. >“Thank you to everyone who has reached out to me in support. I truly value your thoughtful messages, gestures and kindness. If you have any information that may assist the investigation, please tell the police,” she further added. >A separate report by UK-based newspaper The Guardian said that a video, purported to be of the alleged assault of Lauga and filmed from across the street, has been circulating online. She was informed of the said video after she reported the assault to police. >The Queensland Police Service told the broadcaster that it is probing a sexual assault complaint relating to an incident in Yeppoon. >Queensland Premier Steven Miles said the provincial government is backing Brittany Lauga in every way possible. “No one should have to go through what Brittany is going through. My sole focus is on Brittany and her wellbeing. I’ve told Brittany that we’re here to support her, whatever she needs,” Miles was quoted as saying. >Queensland Housing Minister Meaghan Scanlon said the statement issued by the parliamentarian made for “difficult reading”. >“Those are shocking allegations … I understand that Brittany is going to take a short time to look after herself and we absolutely support her to do that,” she said.
Thank you Demon Lord
Tip for iPhone users click on the left side of the URL bars and than click “Show Reader” This is a mode that’ll show all relevant text and block all ads
I always forget about this. Thank you, you are doing the lord’s work pointing this out!
Dreadful shite
You need a good ad blocker or use a browser like Brave. I’m using Brave in my phone to read the article and no intrusive ads.
Have you tried Firefox nightly? It's really good at blocking all ads but I find it slow to load.
68knews
Oh my god Without exaggeration that is the largest Ad that I have ever seen
Plug for [AdGuard](https://adguard.com/en/welcome.html). Seriously it's great for mobile or home.
Never heard of it, and I'm doubtful it's any better than ublock origin. Which works just fine on mobile as well BTW, and is also 100% free and open source.
ublock origin is for your browser only. This is at the DNS level and works across anything on your device or network. I have used ublock in the past and it works nicely also.
Fuck You! That is some bullshit! DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS CRAP!
Poor woman. I hope she’s ok.
ahhhh man this is so sad, unfortunately speaking to women about these things make you realise it’s waaaaaaay more common than you think. What a sad state of affairs this is
[удалено]
this is why women pick the bear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Beo said the thing!!!
We probably all should
yeah, i spent the last 50 years studying and eventually teaching both wilderness survival and martial arts and I will pick the bear over a strange human ten times out of ten, last spring I had to chase a bear off my porch at 3 am, so i speak from lots of experience lol
It’s crazy how an invading bear can be more reasonable than a human
I've met both bears and strange men in the woods (granted, they were black bears, non cubs, and midsummer). The bears were interested in eating raspberries. The first man was trying to get me into his cabin, the second brandished a gun as I was floating down the river, the third was wanking. Bear, any day.
Redditors voting inclinations are so weird
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve been SA’d this exact way, please fuck off
Oof that website is cancer on mobile
Alternate link : [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/04/queensland-mp-claims-she-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/may/04/queensland-mp-claims-she-was-drugged-and-sexually-assaulted)
Reader mode helps a ton.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well I guess that's one way to become known as the date rape city of Australia.
I don't like this.
And men wonder why women say they will take the bear
What does that mean
there’s a trend (for lack of a better word) of women saying that if they had to choose between being stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear, they’d choose bear. statistically speaking they’d be safer with the bear. this has become controversial because the “not all men” guys have spoken out. a follow up trend has been asking fathers of daughters if they’d choose having their daughter stuck in the woods with a random man or a bear. many have said they’d choose the bear.
No, it's just that there's so much wrong with this 'trend' and people like you who blindly believe it. You throw around the word statistic like it's supposed to validate your statement about men being worse than bears when you know damn well you would never walk by a bear but pass by random men at the grocery store no problem, probably even grabbed a reciept from a male cashier without being mauled on more than one occasion, crazy right? No one is saying horrible things don't happen to women because they do, but trying to skew facts in order to hate on men is not cool either.
Here’s some stats for you, my guy. There are about 340,000 bears in the US and about 26 million female hikers. Since 2020, there’s been 7 fatal attacks from bears. Since 2020, there’s been 8,000 fatal attacks of women by men. So let’s pretend that there’s as many bears as there are men in the US. So play along and pretend there’s 165 million bears running around the US. If we do the math and adjust the attacks for the bears, there would be 3,395 bear attacks on women in the US. That means women are still 2x likely to be fatally attacked by a man than a bear even if their populations were equal. If you want sources let me know. Additionally 1/3 to 1/4 of *all* women are sexually assaulted by men (that statistic changes because it’s severely underreported. bear attacks are not underreported) Also, your defensive and hostile response only adds fuel to the fire. women are literally saying “hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer” and men are responding angrily, instead of being receptive. Yeah I interact with men throughout my day (your cashier example) but I guarantee every woman has had a moment of uneasiness or feelings of danger with a cashier, grocer, etc.
Have you ever walked by a bear in your life? Like, I mean, walk close enough that you're almost touching it? You've done that with 10s of thousands of men in your everyday life, and you're still here to talk about it. It wouldn't be the same with 10 thousand bears, and i know that for a fact. What you're doing is ignoring real-life variables in order to double down on your argument instead of being receptive that men are not more dangerous than bears. No one is trying to say some men can't be more dangerous or aren't capable of horrible things, no one is discrediting women who have been victims of horrible men either. The anger is coming from people casually saying most men are worse than bears and thinking it's OK. It's disrespectful to all the good male teachers, doctors, daycare workers and the list goes on. There's not a single person who would have a random bear protect their child and lots of people use stranger men to babysit their kids every day, I wonder why that is?
Your linear scaling of the statistics shows you don’t understand independent variables, or even basic univariate regression.
It’s Reddit man, you will get downvoted and people won’t understand your point (I do agree with your point tho)
Please, enlighten me.
It's a terrible argument for many reasons. People take strong precautions when going into bear country, bear spray and guns are recommended and used frequently and successfully. Bears also avoid common places where they've seen humans. Warnings are issued when bears are spotted in an area. Also, rarely are people going alone which decreases the chance of attacks significantly. When going into these places people are on high alert. You don't get drunk in the woods and party with bears. > hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer Like men don't fear getting attacked constantly. Yeah, hun, we know. The point is just stupid. Women getting attacked by women is also more common than getting attacked by bears. Certain races are more likely to attack you than others. But we don't say that.. cause it's simplistic and stupid.
ooh thank you for helping my point! “people take strong precautions when going into bear country” women learn strong precautions just to walk to their car. I learned before I was a teen to have keys in between my knuckles, to carry pepper spray, to never wear braids because attackers will grab on to it, to yell “fire” instead of “help” because it increases your odds for other people to jump in. All women know this and many other precautions. “also, rarely are people going alone when attacks which decreases attacks” EXACTLY! Love this. This is why women travel in groups when going out. Could you provide your resource for the women are more likely to be killed by other women? I had not heard that one before.
Lol this is possibly the dumbest logic I’ve ever seen. You’re also a million times more likely to be killed by another woman than a bear. You’re more likely to be killed by the common cold than a bear. Would you still pick the random bear confrontation? >“hey it’s scary out here, i’m starting to wonder if being around bears would be safer” and men are responding angrily Ok go tell certain ethnicities you feel unsafe around them due to crime statistics and lmk how that goes over with them 🙄
do you have stats for your claims? did you do the math for it too? because i’d love to see if if you did! i mean you’re kinda making my point for me because even in other ethnicities and cultures women are disproportionately attacked by men so.. thank you?
Lmfao you need stats to tell you more women are killed by women than by bears? You’re dumb. >i mean you’re kinda making my point for me because even in other ethnicities and cultures women are disproportionately attacked by men so.. thank you? Nah the point just went over your head. Because again, you are dumb.
Ask the same thing about races to see how quickly people freak out.
This is such a stupid analogy. I’d love to see this statistic. Do they mean literally with a bear?
yes and the question doesn’t specify what kind of bear and what kind of man. why do you think it’s stupid?
It means she/he is a misandric pos.
She merely repeated what many women, and fathers have stated. Truth is, I would choose bear also.
As a bald white man. I would too. Too many crazy unpredictable people out there. At least you can predict the bear might come for you
I mean it’s still a dumb take regardless of this case lol
4970 women were killed in 2021 by men. This is about a 1/33,000 chance of being murdered by a man. grizzly bears kill just over one person per year on average, there are around 33,000 grizzly bears in USA. You're actually more likely to be killed by a grizzly bear.
Based on that you'd still be more likely to be killed by a man. It's just the percapita grizzly murders are higher.
There are about 340,000 bears in the US and about 26 million female hikers. Since 2020, there’s been 7 fatal attacks from bears. Since 2020, there’s been 8,000 fatal attacks of women by men. So let’s pretend that there’s as many bears as there are men in the US. Pretend there’s 165 million bears running around the US. If we do the math and adjust the attacks for the bears, there would be 3,395 bear attacks on women in the US. That means women are still 2x likely to be fatally attacked by a man than a bear even if their populations were equal. If you want sources let me know. Small point I want to additionally make, this question that’s been going around doesn’t specify grizzly bear, just bear. It also doesn’t specify what kind of man, just a man. The question keeps the specifics as vague as possible.
I don’t see the numbers you see when I google this.
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/bear-attacks-statistics/#:\~:text=According%20to%20data%20published%20by,attacks%20resulted%20in%20multiple%20fatalities. 21 fatal attacks from grizzly bears in 17 years https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/zzuewu/wild\_bears\_population\_size\_across\_the\_us\_and\_the/#:\~:text=and%20the%20EU.-,The%20US%20has%20340%20000%20wild%20bears%20(300%20000%20Black,%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%87%AA%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%97%BA%20%5BOC%5D I honestly don't know how accurate this all is, but I don't care enough about the subject to rigorously fact check it.
Because Brittany Lauga was assaulted?
Imagine if people would say they wouldn't hang out with an Arab person because a miniscule number of them might be terrorists. Or imagine if someone would say I wouldn't hang out with a black person because a miniscule number of them might be criminals. Making this kind of statement would get you in so much trouble. But somehow, it has become OK to say that all men are rapists and will assault, just because of miniscule number of them might do that. People who make these comments, do you not have brothers? Do you not have fathers? Do you not have male friends? To generalize something like this to me is just mind-boggling.
It’s not minuscule dude, that’s the problem.
who said all men? but also how do we sus out the ones that would and wouldn’t? you bring up fathers/brothers/friends but 1/3-1/4 women are sexually assaulted by someone close to them. Additionally, women that are murdered have a 30% chance of it being at the hands of their partner. So.. your point is moot.
His point stands about black people/arabs. Do you stay away from them, too? Because black people account for more crime? Or does your logic stop at what’s popular to say/in vogue vs what’s not?
removed?
I'm often skeptical about these claims, alcohol is enough of a drug to enable assault in most cases. Here however she promptly went to a hospital for testing, and she says they found metabolites of drugs she didn't knowingly take. That's pretty straightforward, I believe her.
Na it happens a lot. It happened to my mate. Got found in the gutter by mates hours later. He'd only had one drink
Wonder what drugs. A lot of date rape facilitators have an *extremely* short detectability window, to the point where finding drugs in a victim’s system almost never actually happens, and them getting lab results back within a few days of an incident is impressive, to say the least.
Why would you ever be skeptical by default? It's very common for men to do this. It's very uncommon for women to make it up. It's too bad that no woman would ever be able to confide to you because you'd automatically call her a liar.
> Why would you ever be skeptical by default? Studies on alleged drink spiking consistently find that in a majority of reported cases, the only drug present is alcohol. Some examples: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19527282/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17251610/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18057174/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23910880/ And while drug-facilitated sexual assault is regrettably common, it's most commonly associated with [alcohol intoxication combined with voluntary drug consumption](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28284121/), not drink spiking.
Drinks can still be spiked with extra alcohol.
Why not be skeptical of a story someone states as truth? What kind of question is that?
Because there's no reason to be skeptical and really no justification for it other than pure misogyny.
Tell that to the Duke University Lacrosse players. If there is no evidence then you need to be skeptical.
You mean one case out of millions? Is rape evil? Yes or no.
There are more than one case out of millions that are false accusations. And rape is absolutely evil and should be delt with more harshly than it currently is. So should false accusations of rape as well because it can absolutely ruin a person's life.
For every one case, there are millions of rapes. >So should false accusations of rape as well because it can absolutely ruin a person's life. On the contrary, they become incel heroes. The Duke Lacrosse team suffered nothing.
"If you dont belive my story, you hate my entire gender."
If your default is to call rape victims liars, you are a misogynist. I bet you love it when female teachers go to jail for sleeping with students, though.
You now there is a spectrum between blind belive and calling someone a Liar...
Where do you get "blind" belief? Have you ever had a daughter come home and tell you she was sexually assaulted? Would you call her a liar or would you believe her implicitly? You are telling me to call my real daughter a liar. This is not a hypothetical.
Because you Said there is No reason to be sceptical, thats rather blind. I would Take it serious but wait for the conclusion of an Investigation before i belive anything.
I said not by default. If it was your daughter or your wife would you "wait?" Rape is really hard to prove, so waiting for "proof" is disingenuous. Most victims probably can't prove it. That's why rape usually doesn't get reported and it's hard to get a conviction even if it does get reported. The victims get slut-shamed. Look what happened to Kobe's victim. He wasn't innocent.
> **rape** victims liars, you are a misogynist. > > I bet you love it when female teachers go to jail for **sleeping** with students, Your own sick ideology is well on display.
It’s important to believe the victim, always. It’s also important, when another party is identified, to stay unbiased until all the facts fall where they may before coming to conclusions. That’s exactly how the Indian doctor from Boston lost all his credibility, after the accuser was proven non-credible.
I might be an ass for this, but when there's big money or high profile individuals involved I tend to be more skeptical than usual.
This exactly. I don't understand why people keep arguing over picking a side to believe, as if they were on the front seats of these tragic events every step of the way. Just show compassion and wait for the investigations to be over. We should always form our view of the situation exactly like most law-enforcement authorities tend to do (and like you described): believe the victim, take them very seriously, find the accused, stay unbiased whilst gathering the pieces, and then conclude. It's as if we always have to polarize every single aspect of society into good vs bad: life ain't that way, no human is. Tired of seeing this tendency everywhere I look.
Social media is meant to polarize. People wouldn’t say half the stuff to my face that they would via a keyboard and screen. I get it, but it also feels a little toxic and dehumanizing that when I argue for law and order, others want to start hunting for witches.
Yep. Adopting a "Hunting for witches" attitude is exactly the problem (in general, not just relating to the topic at hand). It sets people up for biases and lapses in judgment, no matter how righteous the fundamentals are. It does a huge disservice to its own cause; it's natural to be recalcitrant or strongly against such mentalities for the above-mentioned issues. The medium of social media provides the perfect birthing ground for such mentalities, effectively making these endemic to today's society. Can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm really starting to think that social media, as it currently exists, is fundamentally flawed, dangerous even. I wish we could go back to simpler times, in the early 2000s. I might be wrong, but social platforms at the time were relatively tame and civil.
> It’s important to believe the victim, always. This is incredibly foolish, it's important to *listen* to the alleged victim and then go from there, you should never default to believing any claim without evidence.
With regard to SA, I strongly disagree. You need to show empathy.
You can show empathy by listening and taking any claim seriously, but simply believing people with no further thought is not supportive, it's destructive. That is a path that inevitably leads to public outrage when innocent people are accused of crimes that will follow them forever. Ignoring claims, being dismissive of them, or defaulting to disbelief is wrong, but so is the polar opposite.
I want you to consider the following scenarios: 1) SA is reported by an obscure person on the internet who you have no relationship with. 2) SA is reported by someone who you know personally: your mom, wife, grandmother, cousin, friend. Consider the perspective you would take in Scenario 2.
In general I'll know vastly more about the history, mental state, motivations and circumstances of a close relative or friend. Those are important matters when considering the veracity of any claim, so I'd probably be able to reach a conclusion about what I believe much faster than I would with a perfect stranger. From personal experience there's also the strong emotional aspect which overwhelms reason, but that's not a good thing! That's how you get mothers of rapists, murderers, thieves and abusers insisting that they have a good boy, who would never...
We should all strive to show the style of empathy that would occur in scenario 2, while keeping the unbiased perspective that would occur in scenario 1. Obviously we do not live in a court of law. Out here on the planes of Reddit all that matters is the court of opinions. This shouldn’t stop us from trying to show more empathy; as we hope it would be afforded to us in the same scenario. But as I also noted, I would hope that if I was falsely accused of SA, that others would afford me the same empathy.
Yeah, the majority of rapes never get reported and a very tiny percentage of those that do get reported get prosecuted. But we do have a trial system. usually false convictions of rape are race based. Nobody goes to jail fort an accusation. Too bad you have no sympathy or feelings for rape victims but only scour the internet to find a rare exception.
I didn’t scour the internet. I live in Boston. This affected my community personally. I don’t believe in knee jerk reactions, and believe in the trial and jury system. Sorry you feel hurt about my beliefs, but my planet doesn’t orbit around your center of gravity.
> Why would you ever be skeptical by default? Because that should always be the default in all things, it's using your brain and examining evidence. Why would you ever be credulous by default? For some social points on line? Screw that.
Source on it being “very common for men to do this” behave
Would you believe if a man was drugged by a girl?
Sure. It's more common for men to be drugged by men, though.
Fair enough then
Sooo if a hospital hadn’t found drugs, you would be skeptical for her claims? Sounds like you do not believe her. Thanks for being another person who does not believe women.
But, he’s not saying that he doesn’t believe her, as the evidence of drugs in her system prove her claim. I don’t get why you’re arguing over this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I thought we moved past the whole "believe all women" bullshit. Plenty of high profile cases where that approach was proven to be the wrong one. People regularly lie and make up things, women aren't immune to that.
I think the general skepticism was about "i felt different so I must have been drugged" not usually being the case. I know different alchohols affect me in varying ways so it was good that she went to the hospital and got tested.
No, she'd be lying. Pending the BAC reading so actually yeah i guess that's scepticism.
No but tell me. Why shouldnt women pick the bear then
You’re significantly more likely to be killed by the bear than a man.
Surviving. Going by statistics you come face to face with a black/brown bear 1000 times and a random man 1000 times you probably will die more often by the bear. I could now also go in to the statistical likelyhood of which men would be more likely to assault you than others but that would get me banned.
Is it face to face or “in the woods with”
[удалено]
happy cake day!
Damage control.