End Of DADT Means More Gay Rape In The Military

Damn Yankee said:
Five pages of avoidance now. Truly an epic failure. Are you burning up Google? :good4u:
Click to expand...

I am making no attempt to google anything. The links I have provided showed your "researcher" ignored over half of the reported sexual assaults.

That is all it takes to discredit the entire report.
 
You have provided no link that states that all 3,353 reports have synopses. Yet that is what you claim. Five pages of dancing...
 
Damn Yankee said:
You have provided no link that states that all 3,353 reports have synopses. Yet that is what you claim. Five pages of dancing...
Click to expand...

I don't need to do that. He did not say he reviewed all the cases with synopses. He said he reviewed the synopses of all the cases reported.

You want to talk about dancing? Your claims that he actually said he reviewed all the cases that have a synopses is the worst dance you have done to date. Based solely on your fantasies or your inability to read english.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Same diff. Obviously all reported cases don't have synopses.
Click to expand...

It is not the "Same diff."


Let me break it down for you:

"FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). "


Take the sentence apart to see what he tried to say. "FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of..." shows what they reviewed.

And of what? "...of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009




No where in his report does he claim that he reviewed only part of the reports of the sexual assaults.



If you look at the bottom of the report at citation 4).

"134 of 1,643 reported assault synopses involved homosexual assault, or 8.2%.

But the DoD has 3,353 reports of sexual assault. So the 134 is only 4.5%. Which shoots down the "researcher's" claims completely.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Same diff. I see you continue to offer no evidence of your accusation, merely repeating it. That is all.
Click to expand...

This is a new low for you. You are claiming he said something that he obviously did not say.

He claims there were 1,643 sexual assaults reported. The DoD claims there were more than twice that many.
 
Low is making an accusation and not being man enough to back it up. If it was a private person it would be slander.
 
Damn Yankee said:
You've made an accusation that the author lied, and refuse to cite evidence. The author says he reviewed "all cases with synopses". Cite that all reported cases have synopses.
Click to expand...
No he said he read the synopses of ALL cases reported in the 4 branches. You are the most intellectually dishonest, non english reading mutherfucker on this board.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, he states: Now where is your evidence that 'all reported case have synopses'?
Click to expand...
FUCK you are stupid. the quote says from your post:

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). It says that the FRC reviewed the case synopsis of ALL 1,643 reports of sexual assualt reported by the four branches. In simple english that means the FRC believes that 1643 is ALL the cases of sexual assault reported in FY 09. It did not say that they reviewed the 1643 reports that had synopsis. The number of reported sexual assaults is wrong in your report. If they reviewed the case synopsis of 1643 reported sexual assualts out of the over 3000 then they would have said they read the 1643 cases that contained synopsis.
 
Socrtease said:
FUCK you are stupid. the quote says from your post:

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). It says that the FRC reviewed the case synopsis of ALL 1,643 reports of sexual assualt reported by the four branches. In simple english that means the FRC believes that 1643 is ALL the cases of sexual assault reported in FY 09. It did not say that they reviewed the 1643 reports that had synopsis. The number of reported sexual assaults is wrong in your report.
Click to expand...
The reasonable and correct interpretation is that the FRC reviewed all cases with synopses that provided enough detail where the critical information could be found. I'd venture to say that many reports are incomplete or don't provide data useful for comparison. If you are accusing them of lying, then provide evidence to support your case. Simply providing an alternate interpretation that fits your agenda and claiming that is evidence doesn't cut it.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Low is making an accusation and not being man enough to back it up. If it was a private person it would be slander.
Click to expand...

I did indeed provide a link showing the DoD had 3,353 reports of sexual assault. Go back and look again.
 
Damn Yankee said:
The reasonable and correct interpretation is that the FRC reviewed all cases with synopses that provided enough detail where the critical information could be found. I'd venture to say that many reports are incomplete or don't provide data useful for comparison. If you are accusing them of lying, then provide evidence to support your case. Simply providing an alternate interpretation that fits your agenda and claiming that is evidence doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Alternate interpretation? There is not alternate interpretation to what he said. In plain english he said the FRC review the synopses of all 1,643 case of sexual assault reported. There is no interpreting that to mean they only reviewed the ones with synopses. In fact, in his paper he states that some of them did not contain enough information. But he did not claim that these were not part of the 1,643.

You are attempting to twist the facts to fit your agenda. In fact, you are attempting to do what you slammed the global warming scientists for doing.
 
I haven't read the thread... All I know is that I would have had no worries about "gay rape" while I was in the Navy, even if DADT didn't exist. (Back then it didn't, if you were gay you were out.)
 
Damocles said:
I haven't read the thread... All I know is that I would have had no worries about "gay rape" while I was in the Navy, even if DADT didn't exist. (Back then it didn't, if you were gay you were out.)
Click to expand...

I don't think many people worry about it, Damo.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Hence we go full circle yet again.
Click to expand...

Only because of your insistence that the "researcher" said something that he did not say.

No where in his entire paper does he mention only reviewing some of the reports of sexual abuse.

And yet you insist he did.




And you conveniently ignore the fact that, if he did as you claim, his research is meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top