divegeester: If as you say most of these crimes are not reported, then how would working with police and attorneys make the data appear to you?Originally posted by lemon lime
Not everyone who reports a crime follows through. It doesn't mean a report isn't filed by someone because officers must file a report no matter what happens whenever they are called. A victim can change his or or mind if he or she doesn't want to press charges, nevertheless a report of the call will show up somewhere. [...] I didn't say most of these crimes are not reported, I said they are under-reported.
So they ARE reported, then? You say "A victim can change his or or mind if he or she doesn't want to press charges, nevertheless a report of the call will show up somewhere." So what you are saying is that they are 'under-followed through', right? In other words, what you are saying here ~ based on your "police and attorney" friends comments 15 years ago ~ doesn't really back up your claim that the domestic violence between homosexuals is "under-reported".
Originally posted by FMFAre you fishing for information, or just filling in gaps with your own imaginations? Where do you see me saying I've been given data by police and attorneys about domestic violence? You're mostly just making stuff up, and seem unable to make a distinction between police being called, whether or not a crime has been committed, and what is seen reported on local and/or national news outlets.
Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]Not everyone who reports a crime follows through. It doesn't mean a report isn't filed by someone because officers must file a report no matter what happens whenever they are called. A victim can change his or or mind if he or she doesn't want to press charges, nevertheless a report of the call will show up somew ...[text shortened]... ~ doesn't back up your claim that the domestic violence between homosexuals is "under-reported".
And I've probably learned more about you without trying to fish for information than you have. How are you able to fill in the gaps and figure out what is not said when you aren't able to keep track of what has been said?
Originally posted by lemon limeAre you fishing for information, or just filling in gaps with your own imaginations? Where do you see me saying I've been given data by police and attorneys about domestic violence? You're mostly just making stuff up, and seem unable to make a distinction between police being called, whether or not a crime has been committed, and what is seen reported on local and/or national news outlets.
I am interested more in the gap between two things you've said. You said "A victim can change his or or mind if he or she doesn't want to press charges, nevertheless a report of the call will show up somewhere." This contradicts your claim that it is "under-reported" unless you can provide some other evidence ~ apart from something "police and attorneys" said to you. And the other question still outstanding: what evidence do you have about the TV coverage of domestic violence?
01 Aug 14
Good luck, LL, fighting upstream against the pedantic devil's advocate.
Now you know what it's like arguing as a Christian in the Spirituality forum. I'm not saying they don't believe what they're saying, I'm saying they just like to argue, and in a fashion in which they think they are the epitomes of reason, when what they're actually doing is baiting you within an inch of your life. Some of us have learned not to even bother for this very reason.
Enjoy.
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI do know what it's like, because I spent some time at the Spirituality forum. And I was disappointed to see the same thing happening at the Science forum. I rarely talk to anyone at either of those forums now.
Good luck, LL, fighting upstream against the pedantic devil's advocate.
Now you know what it's like arguing as a Christian in the Spirituality forum. I'm not saying they don't believe what they're saying, I'm saying they just like to argue, and in a fashion in which they think they are the epitomes of reason, when what they're actually doing is baiting ...[text shortened]... n inch of your life. Some of us have learned not to even bother for this very reason.
Enjoy.
Some of these guys are trying their very best to be confrontational, which is fine with me because they usually end up providing me with hours of entertainment... you could even say it's much like life imitating art, rather than the other way around. 🙂
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeThe only sense in which I have been "confrontational" has been to confront you about the inconsistencies in what you have posted. You could just just address my point blank responses to your posts if you want.
Some of these guys are trying their very best to be confrontational, which is fine with me because they usually end up providing me with hours of entertainment... you could even say it's much like life imitating art, rather than the other way around. 🙂
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by FMFYou have the right to remain ignorant.
The only sense in which I have been "confrontational" has been to confront you about the inconsistencies in what you have posted. You could just just address my point blank responses to your posts if you want.
If you decide to give up your right to remain ignorant you may research any topic you wish to learn more about.
do you understand your rights?
01 Aug 14
Originally posted by lemon limeThis is just deflection, lemon lime. If I have focused on an inconsistency in your personal anecdote about homosexuals that you are unable to explain, then just say so rather than use all these personalized deflections.
You have the right to remain ignorant.
If you decide to give up your right to remain ignorant you may research any topic you wish to learn more about.
do you understand your rights?
Originally posted by FMFNice try.
This is just deflection, lemon lime. If I have focused on an inconsistency in your personal anecdote about homosexuals that you are unable to explain, then just say so rather than use all these personalized deflections.
You wanna back up and try it again?
You might, for you surely love hearing your own voice. Or is it... how did you word it? Oh, yeah... smelling your own farts.
01 Aug 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFTyped (the kind of obvious) "lesbian couple christian bakery" into google - the first page has numerous links to this event some dated sept 2013 which as lemon lime stated is just less than a year ago.
[b]WHY did that couple choose to go to a Christian bakery? There are dozens of local bakeries they could have gone to, and many of them are run and managed by people who sympathize with gays and lesbians. So why that particular bakery?
Isn't it obvious? They wanted to celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business, or at the v ...[text shortened]... /b]
You got any links ~ including any statements by the couple ~ to substantiate any of this?
https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=lesbian+couple+christian+bakery&safe=on
Haven't tracked down a statement by the couple but this suffices to substantiate what lemon lime claims
02 Aug 14
Originally posted by AgergThe claim lemon lime made ~ for which I asked for some links to back it up ~ was "They wanted to celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business". This sounds like lemon lime superimposing some thoughts of his own about lesbian activism onto the couple in this case. It seems more likely that they wanted to be treated like any other customers and sought to make this bakery do just that by pressing the matter. [Personally I think the couple should have gone elsewhere.] So, anyway, as lemon lime's claim is an interesting but not impossible one, I thought he ought to substantiate it. If they did indeed want to "celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business", there would presumably be loads of quotes from the couple to that effect.
Haven't tracked down a statement by the couple but this suffices to substantiate what lemon lime claims
Originally posted by FMFThe lesbian couple did not appear on camera. And no one reported on what they said verbatim. They obviously wanted to keep their faces and names as well as what they might have actually said out of the news. No one viewing those news reports was able to hear what they said or how they said it, which means the viewer necessarily had to take what the reporters were saying about it at face value.
The claim lemon lime made ~ for which I asked for some links to back it up ~ was "They wanted to celebrate their new life together by putting a Christian bakery out of business". This sounds like lemon lime superimposing some thoughts of his own about lesbian activism onto the couple in this case. It seems more likely that they wanted to be treated like any othe ...[text shortened]... kery out of business", there would presumably be loads of quotes from the couple to that effect.
Any story can be slanted to mean anything a reporter wants it to mean if you don't get to see and hear the whole story, and the only people I never saw weighing in on this were the two women who are responsible for making the story public. And this time around I'm not going to tell you or suggest to you what any of this means... you can draw your own conclusions.
By the way, is it really necessary for me to spell out for you which comments are my own thoughts on this matter? You just now said "...they wanted to be treated like any other customers and sought to make this bakery do just that by pressing the matter." So how do you know this? Were you there? Did you see the whole thing as it happened? Do you have a link to support this assertion of yours? Or was that just you 'superimposing' some thoughts of your own into this scenario?
Do you see it now? I know what you've been doing, so how do you like having it served up back to you?
Originally posted by lemon limeYou just now said "...they wanted to be treated like any other customers and sought to make this bakery do just that by pressing the matter." So how do you know this? Were you there? Did you see the whole thing as it happened? Do you have a link to support this assertion of yours? Or was that just you 'superimposing' some thoughts of your own into this scenario?
Your assertion that they were deliberately trying to close down a business seems to me to be a rather extreme bit of conjecture. You could have simply said you had no evidence, in the form of statements by them, when I first asked you about it. My conjecture is less extreme, I think, and more likely to be true ~ that they were, in a sense, fed up of 'being told to sit at the rear of the bus', as it were.
This conjecture appears to fit their actions and the story and does not attribute some huge malevolent motivation to them. You should bear in mind that my personal opinions about private businesses being free to refuse to serve customers are probably much the same as yours.
I suspect, however, that we have different prejudices when it comes to lesbians [just as we do about 'feminists' and men who support feminism], and while you apparently seek to project a most negative interpretation onto their actions, I do not ~ and would not unless there was some evidence. That is why I was interested in whether you were able to substantiate your interpretation.