Thursday, November 06, 2014

97% Of Scientists Rape College Girls

The Left's Tactics -- a Personal Example on

The linked article is well worth the read -- gives good insight into the real origin of the oft quoted "1 in 5 women are raped on college campuses", and a little extra insight into the wonderful civility and interest in reasonable dialogue from the left. NOT!

The 1 in 5 comes largely from some surveys that redefine "rape" to be "sexual assault" and then broaden sexual assault to include "unwanted kissing" ...  putting the "should I kiss her good-night or not" decision in a whole new light.

The comments from the left were the expected ... "Praeger should be castrated", "Without rape, 80% of Republicans would be virgins" and other similar civil and  intellectually helpful fare. A linked US News article used DOJ numbers to arrive at 6 out of 1000 rapes OR sexulal assaults for girls during college -- which was likely a 60% overstatement based on their research -- so more like 1 in 200 than 1 in 5, a relatively small statistical error by liberal "standards" I guess.

The 97% in the heading refers of course to the OFTEN quoted 97% of scientists are human caused global warming believers --- the bottom line covered in PL is that 97% of the scientists that WROTE PAPERS ON HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING (AGW) endorsed it. ... well, Duh. How the hell was it not 100%? This is quoted CONSTANTLY -- I heard it again this past week on MPR being stated as FACT! Anytime there is a percentage that large on human opinion, I get VERY suspicious -- how can any thinking person not? Perhaps you could get to 97% on "guys that don't want their penis cut off" -- but it is a HIGH figure for human agreement!

How have we become so insanely credulous? A bunch of lefty sorts have been posting pictures of the F35 all over FB with links on "The 1.5 TRILLION" fighter plane!

I guess we now know how stupid people are ... that figure is OVER FIFTY YEARS!  Each plane costs about $100M, which for reference can be compared with a 747 that costs $350M.  The 747 was designed in the 60's ... it's development costs are "well sunk", and BTW, it doesn't hover, take off and land vertically, nor break Mach 1 (although it would be damned impressive if it did!).

Apparently the third of the population that votes is generally smarter than these three fine examples -- but then BO also wants to take the two thirds that didn't vote into consideration -- somehow I suspect at least 4 out of 5 of them would be right on board with the 1 in 5 rape figure, 97% AGW and the F35 costing $1.5T!

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment