So I'm kind of confused about what an "Ableist" exactly means.

Recommended Videos

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
Fallow said:
Of course population sizes are comparable, that's why we do the whole proportion and scaling thing.
Hatecrime is a category of crimes, like violent crime or financial crime. You can scale that to populations by taking number of victims as a proportion of the available victim population and compare it to another category by doing the same there.
If you need more detail, you can scale the populations by age-to-victim probabilities and so on.
You can do all kinds of fun stuff with statistics.
Indeed you can! And Lady Larunai did not.

Fallow said:
Of course, that relies on hatecrime being bounded by availability of victims, which seems overly pessimistic. If we don't separate the category from the others we make the assumption that hatecrime is not limited by availability of perpetrators and victims, nor that we have to specify perp-to-victim relations. That is also an imperfect solution, but far from a gamebreaker. Thus, using proportions make perfect sense.
You've approached the population issue, which was only relevant insofar as it invalidated Lady Larunai's proposed percentage. You've not addressed the issue of the numbers being unrelated.

Once again: if we go by this metric, then hate crime becomes less severe as we criminalise more things. Murder may be deemed insignificant as it represents a small proportion of all crimes; crime may be deemed insignificant as it represents a tiny proportion of all events.


Fallow said:
And that is exactly it. We don't know the extent. If we don't know the extent, how can you claim it's significant? How can you say it's a factor when you don't know? And, since hatecrime does not exist in a vacuum, how can you claim that it's a significant factor in relation to the underreporting of every other crime? If all crime is underreported by 30% then your factor is 1.0.
This is-- yet again-- restating a weakness of the evidence. Fine. It is not indicating that MarsAtlas was using the absence of numbers as evidence, which was your suggestion. That is still pure misrepresentation.
 

Fallow

NSFB
Oct 29, 2014
423
0
0
Silvanus said:
You've approached the population issue, which was only relevant insofar as it invalidated Lady Larunai's proposed percentage. You've not addressed the issue of the numbers being unrelated.
Then I'm way off.
What numbers are unrelated?


Once again: if we go by this metric, then hate crime becomes less severe as we criminalise more things.
Yes, this is accurate. The more things you criminalise the more pieces must fit in the pie. That is why looking at categories may be a good idea (which is what hatecrime is). On the other hand, the more crimes we decriminalise the fewer pieces (like certain drug-related offenses that appear to be on the way out).
This shows us how big a part of all crime constitutes hate crime, which gives us some sort of relative ranking. Compare this to other categories if you want to see where it places.
Comparing it to the total may not be that helpful.

Murder may be deemed insignificant as it represents a small proportion of all crimes; crime may be deemed insignificant as it represents a tiny proportion of all events.
I don't think the number of crimes affects the severity of the crime. That would place murder and grand-scale war crimes on either side of the spectrum, and they're both pretty bad.
But yes, the number x the severity of any given crime is used to figure out how much effort and money should go into combatting it. The same applies to public healthcare and screening. Someone has to make those decisions for as long as resources are limited unfortunately.


This is-- yet again-- restating a weakness of the evidence. Fine. It is not indicating that MarsAtlas was using the absence of numbers as evidence, which was your suggestion. That is still pure misrepresentation.
And here we have the crux of the matter. A weakness of the evidence would be "Evidence X proves a, b, c, and d. But, X cannot explain e, thus e is a weakness of X". Do you agree to this definition?

What we are dealing with when it comes to underreporting is "Underreporting cannot explain a, b, c, d, or e. Everything is a weakness of underreporting". Since neither of us appear to doubt the existence of underreporting, we can establish that the numbers should be higher by at least 1 (I count crimes in natural numbers only). But if underreporting exists for every crime, we are again left with 0 effect.
Thus I do not count this as evidence at all for it proves nothing, and that leaves the only component remaining in the original argument 'the absence of numbers'. And I think that is the only component that we have disagreed on.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
Fallow said:
Yes, this is accurate. The more things you criminalise the more pieces must fit in the pie. That is why looking at categories may be a good idea (which is what hatecrime is). On the other hand, the more crimes we decriminalise the fewer pieces (like certain drug-related offenses that appear to be on the way out).
This shows us how big a part of all crime constitutes hate crime, which gives us some sort of relative ranking. Compare this to other categories if you want to see where it places.
Comparing it to the total may not be that helpful.

I don't think the number of crimes affects the severity of the crime. That would place murder and grand-scale war crimes on either side of the spectrum, and they're both pretty bad.
But yes, the number x the severity of any given crime is used to figure out how much effort and money should go into combatting it. The same applies to public healthcare and screening. Someone has to make those decisions for as long as resources are limited unfortunately.
And if we were deciding how much money should go to combating it in comparison with other crimes, then we may use that metric.

We've not been dancing this dance to figure that out. I've been arguing with those who would argue that minorities don't really face anything anybody else doesn't. That's how this began.

Fallow said:
And here we have the crux of the matter. A weakness of the evidence would be "Evidence X proves a, b, c, and d. But, X cannot explain e, thus e is a weakness of X". Do you agree to this definition?
That would be a weakness, yes. In this case, X indicates A, but we don't know the extent.

Fallow said:
What we are dealing with when it comes to underreporting is "Underreporting cannot explain a, b, c, d, or e. Everything is a weakness of underreporting". Since neither of us appear to doubt the existence of underreporting, we can establish that the numbers should be higher by at least 1 (I count crimes in natural numbers only). But if underreporting exists for every crime, we are again left with 0 effect.
Thus I do not count this as evidence at all for it proves nothing, and that leaves the only component remaining in the original argument 'the absence of numbers'. And I think that is the only component that we have disagreed on.
Underreporting is not posited to prove anything other than what is self-evident by the very existence of underreporting. We agree it occurs; fine. Therefore, the reported number will probably be lower than the actual number. We can intuit that from the premise alone. That's all. That's the end of the claim.

We would need statistics to indicate the extent; we don't have them, and that's a weakness. But the phenomenon itself is not in dispute, and the claim was limited only to that.

Nobody tried to use the absence itself as evidence.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
13,054
6,748
118
Country
United Kingdom
sheppie said:
Nearly 100% of all systematic racist discrimination is aimed against white men.
I swear to god, I thought you were serious until this point. Very well done.



sheppie said:
Oh wait, I'm typing this message on a keyboard. How ableist of me; some people don't have hands. ^_^
Admittedly, I would prefer if you didn't type, but for other reasons.
 

JelloMelo

New member
Jan 21, 2016
1
0
0
As someone with a personality disorder, specifically Borderline Personality Disorder, I find it pretty insulting that someone would believe a character with my traits couldn't be shipped with someone else because of their disorder. Like, is my real life relationship supposed to be invalid or something?
Also, personality disorders are just as serious as other mental disorders, regardless of how narcissistic or whatever some other personality disorders may be. They can't be helped by the person just as much as any other.
Kylo Ren is definitely Borderline btw. Just saying.
 

Spider RedNight

There are holes in my brain
Oct 8, 2011
821
0
0
Hokay, and that last comment sealed the deal for me and went against my initial statement and I'd rather a whole new can of worms not be opened regarding personal opinions on the matter.

Thanks everyone else for the valid replies and explanations (I repeat).