My point is that Mr. Kristof is using an emotional anecdote that doesn't add anything to the discussion.
This thread is about an anti-domestic-violence advocate who justifies physical violence against an intimate partner because the victims deserved it.
actually he provides statistics through some of the links
the Justice Department estimates that three women and one man are killed by their partners every day.
Between 2000 and 2006, thirty-two hundred American soldiers were killed; during that period, domestic homicide in the United States claimed ten thousand six hundred lives. This figure is likely an underestimate, as it was pulled from the F.B.I.’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, which gather data from local police departments, where homicide reporting is voluntary.
You can't just throw away facts just because they don't match your pre-conceived beliefs.
Quote:actually he provides statistics through some of the links
Do these "statistics" pass the "scientific sniff test", ehBeth?
What are your pre-conceived beliefs in the area of domestic violence?
The point is that sometimes a physical act, although technically violence, shouldn't be considered violence. This means that the statistics on domestic violence might be inflated.
An objective scientific viewpoint means you consider all of the evidence whether it supports your pre-existing beliefs or not. If you discard any result that doesn't match your narrative, then your view is no longer scientific or objective.
That has to be one of the oddest conclusions I have ever seen. Violence is violence. Violence is not always domestic violence. Because some violence isn't domestic violence doesn't equate to domestic violence stats are inflated.
The first rule of statistics is don't make conclusions that have nothing to do with the data. You have broken that rule.
This thread is about an anti-domestic-violence advocate who justifies physical violence against an intimate partner because the victim deserved it. I don't think this is right.
An objective scientific viewpoint means you don't accept surveys as anything more than evidence of those that answered the survey. Without a scientific sample process, you have no objective science.
Quote:This thread is about an anti-domestic-violence advocate who justifies physical violence against an intimate partner because the victim deserved it. I don't think this is right.
Really? Where? When? It seems your conclusions are only getting more outlandish.
Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence, in Decatur, Ga., questions the validity of studies showing women are more violent. “Women might be more likely to get frustrated because men are not taught how to be active listeners and women feel like they are not being heard,” she said. “Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn’t have the effect of intimidating the man.”
I want programs that help victims of domestic violence. But, I want them to be fact based rather than ideologically based. And, I want them to be fair.
This isn't my argument. This is the argument that Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence, is making. I was paraphrasing.
. Any study that says that men are predominantly batterers and women are predominantly victims you accept. Any study that says that men and women are equal you reject.