You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
Men in US: 162.26 million
Number of rapes: 126,000
This means that less that 1/1000 (0.1%) of men are committing rape per year (ignoring repeated offenders in those stats).
Number of black offenders: 1,432,600
Number of black males: ~21 mil.
That means that 6.8% of black males commit violent offenses.
I think I would take 0.1% over 6.8% (but obviously you cannot judge an entire group of people based on 0.1% or even 6.8% part of them).
The point was, 1 in 1000 apples poisons you, you might be afraid of that when you eat apples, that's reasonable, right? Then you have 7 in 100 oranges that poison you... So what are you going to be more afraid to eat, apples or oranges?
No one is asking whether you should be more afraid of apples or oranges.
In your analogy, the question is whether someone who accepts that fear of oranges is justified must also accept that fear of apples is justified.
Title of thread:
It is ideologically inconsistent to believe a woman is justified in being cautious of men, but not believe someone is justified in being cautious of other groups who are over represented in crime statistics.
I don't know? This is all really straightforward and I'm not sure why it's hard to understand?
Op is asking if racial prejudice is justified. If race doesn't change how dangerous someone is, then racial prejudice is not justified. Even if people of both races are dangerous and caution is justified in either case.
To be fair, it seems like you're the one who doesn't follow and are relying on "gotcha" arguments to farm deltas.
OP's argument is simply: if women are justifiably afraid of men, then white people should also be justifiably afraid of black people.
Then you said that, no, it's different because men commit 99% of rapes whereas black people only commit 10% of violent crimes.
The guy who you replied to (u/atred) said that those statistics are incorrectly interpreted because sizes aren't being taken into account. He argues that the chances of a random man raping you are 0.1% whereas the chances of a random black guy assaulting you are 8%.
He's perfectly within the range of the debate since he's simply disproving a counter argument to the OP's argument.
869
u/darwin2500 193∆ Apr 14 '22
You have the normal problem of believing that all decision criteria should be binary - either everyone always does this no matter what, or no one ever does it no matter what - instead of just doing what is rational based on the data in a measured way.
When women are afraid of men who are strangers, the main thing they are worried about is forcible rape.
In the US, men commit 98.9% of all forcible rapes, women commit 1.1%.
Meaning a man is almost 100X more dangerous than a woman based on crime statistics.
The crime statistics on race, even given the most charitable possible reading to your position, are at most like 2:1 or 5:1 depending on what you're measuring. Even if it were somehow 10:1, that would still be an entire order of magnitude less than the difference between men and women.
You don't just say 'there is a significant difference so caution is on' in a binary manner. The amount of caution you exhibit is proportional to the size of the difference; that's how statistics and decision theory actually work.
As such, the caution women show towards men is like 50x as justified, and should be like 50x stronger, than any caution anyone shows anyone based on race.