ADAM'S RIB

Let me demonstrate my point... how ideology overrides facts. Consider the following two sets of facts (which EhBeth suggested are relevant). I believe that all of these facts are available from the BJS link.. I would be happy to find any supporting data if requested.

1) African-Americans are arrested far more than Whites.
2) African-Americans are far more likely to be convicted.
3) African-Americans receive harsher sentences for the same crime.
4) African-Americans are more likely to be hurt or killed by police.
5) African-Americans are far more likely to be incarcerated.
6) African-Americans are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.
7) When African-Americans are victims, the perpetrator receives a lighter sentence than he would if he committed the exact same crime against a White person.

I suspect EhBeth would agree that all of these things are signs of a system of that is unfair toward minorities. I will retract this statement if she disagrees, but I would like to hear her opinion.

But now let's continue.

1) Men are arrested far more than Women.
2) Men are far more likely to be convicted.
3) Men receive harsher sentences for the same crime.
4) Men are more likely to be hurt or killed by police.
5) Men are far more likely to be incarcerated.
6) Men are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.
7) When men are victims, the perpetrator receives a lighter sentence than he would if he committed the exact same crime against a woman.

Why is the second set of facts any different than the first? It seems like once there is a simplistic ideological narrative, the facts don't matter.

For the record, I believe the criminal justice system in general disadvantages both minorities and men (and the facts support this). Public prejudices about crime make the system less fair to either.

I also believe that society does disadvantage women in several areas including health care and salaries. There is plenty of data to support this.

I am advocating a balanced view, Let's have a fact-based, intelligent discussion about the different way that society disadvantages men and women. It is a mistake to think that supporting men in one area is somehow anti-woman. Let's support justice for all. Equality should be equal.

My real point is that the ideological narrative that overrides facts and shall not be questioned is not a good thing for intelligent discussion.

P.S. the tags of this thread have been spammed. If you agree with me, please add the "Ideological Purity" tag.

No, this thread is not about "ideological purity," you great braying jackass. It's about my admiration for the day-to-day courage that women display in the face of society's hostility--much like your obsessive paranoia about women. What a jerk.

I guess Max thinks if he defines this as ideological often enough, it will burn out to be true. I am amused by the extent to which he reveals his paranoia, though. I hate to repeat myself, but . . . what a jerk.

I would like to express my gratitude to the taggers, who get it, unlike one of the participants here.

If this thread was about equality. Let me punch the 6ft dude out, grab him from behind around his neck and pull him up off the ground so he can't breathe.

Imagine that? I'd be a Millionaire if that was caught on camera. I'd be in good health and have a good salary!!! Plenty of data to support I can do the above. Not.

That clown Max cracks me up . . . he thinks if he tags it ideological purity, it will make it true. Another fine example of the thinking we have all come to expect from Mr. Scientist.

Max is a troll and a freak.

Max is terrified of the wimmins.

Max thinks the wimmins are coming to castrate him.

Max badly needs to get laid.

Don't waste your time, FS, Max won't understand what you're talking about.

Control Freak?

Oh, no, I read that wrong, too early...

Is there anyone here who would like to have an intelligent, reasonable, fact-based discussion? It is hard to have an intelligent discussion when any opinion that diverges from political rectitude is met with petty name-calling.

It would be nice if someone would actually respond to the facts I presented in a reasoned way.

There are some interesting issues here.

P.S. Good job with the tags Setanta. You are winning... with personal insults no less. Clearly your clique is bigger than mine and you are making your point. I still won't give you my lunch money.

I still think people should add the "ideological purity" tag.

I would but you probably won't care... :-)

What a dipshit, Mr. Science. I was expressing my personal opinion, to which i am entitled no matter what paranoia grips you. This is not about your obsessive fear and hatred of women, jackass, it's about my admiration of them. If you want to rant about women, go start your own thread, and leave mine alone, you adolescent creep. Lunch money was a good comment on your part, it expresses perfectly your emotional maturity.

Setanta, I disagreed with the premise and the tone of your first post. I responded with my opinion, I backed it up with facts. And I haven't yet indulged in personal attacks. I did state my opinion that this is an ideological narrative that is overriding the facts, but this is my opinion and I expressed it.

At no point did I call you or anyone else a "troll", an "idiot" or question your intelligence or say you were afraid of women or make comments about your sex life.

I wish you could do the same.

I have no problem with you expressing your opinion. It it the fact that you think you need to shut down anyone who questions your opinion with personal attacks and name-calling that is the problem.

Sure Olivier, To be honest the prison rape issue doesn't interest me on an intellectual level... it is kind of clear, and you and I probably agree anyway. That is the reason I didn't respond to your posts.

It is not so enlightening to have a discussion on any given topic with people I agree with. Neither of us will learn anything.

Drats. My evil wimmins and evil minions tags have been over-ridden now.

There EhBeth, I put them back for you.

You're welcome.