Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "We're compiling every police-involved shooting in America" (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: "We're compiling every police-involved shooting in America"
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Link to Narrative

link to Database and Web Form

quote:
This is the most most heinous thing I've learned in my two years compiling Fatal Encounters. You know who dies in the most population-dense areas? Black men. You know who dies in the least population dense areas? Mentally ill men. It's not to say there aren't dangerous and desperate criminals killed across the line. But African-Americans and the mentally ill people make up a huge percentage of people killed by police.

And if you want to get down to nut-cuttin' time, across the board, it's poor people who are killed by police. (And by the way, around 96 percent of people killed by police are men.)



[ December 05, 2014, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The results wouldn't surprise me if that's what they really are.

Women by and large are simply not as violent as men in ways that require deadly force.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I expect that black men make up the majority of the population in these population-dense areas right? If that's not the case, then this is something people should be made aware of.

Also crime is likely low in these "lease population dense areas" so then if it's not a criminal in a confrontation with a cop, it's going to be someone mentally ill.

I don't think anyone needs a study or database to understand that the more people you pack together and the lower the average income the more likely a police involved shooting is to occur.

I think the more disturbing part of the source was his observation that this information is not available.

[ December 05, 2014, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if women are violent, I suspect police are more comfortable about using non-lethal force in subduing them. I wonder how much is simply perception. That since women are supposed to be weaker, police judge the risks of confrontation differently rather than an actual difference in risk.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And I expect that black men make up the majority of the population in these population-dense areas right? If that's not the case, then this is something people should be made aware of.
That is the case; so far, so good. The next question is "Why are black people disproportionately concentrated in these areas and disproportionately poor?"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not mere perception, women by and large have less muscle mass so they are factually less of a threat when resisting arrest.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
And I expect that black men make up the majority of the population in these population-dense areas right? If that's not the case, then this is something people should be made aware of.
That is the case; so far, so good. The next question is "Why are black people disproportionately concentrated in these areas and disproportionately poor?"
Addressing cause instead of symptoms? You will never hold viewers attentions or get advertising clicks for your page like that Pyr.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the more disturbing part of the source was his observation that this information is not available.
This is apparently true.

quote:
O’Reilly’s team used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s fatal injury reports database. A search in the system for fatal "legal interventions" -- deaths caused in the course of law enforcement trying to make an arrest or quell a situation -- confirms, on the surface, the numbers O’Reilly mentioned for whites and African-Americans.

How does the CDC get the number? Primarily from causes of death listed in death certificates from coroners, medical examiners and physicians and demographic information provided by funeral directors. Figures are further supplemented by a violent death reporting system that includes data from 17 states. (Legal interventions include state executions.)

But experts told us the data is likely incomplete because coroners and physicians are under no obligation to detail police involvement in the deaths that they encounter.

"It is not known or certain that every death certificate indicates that the death was caused by law enforcement officer in every jurisdiction," said Samuel Walker, retired professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.

Another database, this one maintained by the FBI, attempts to get at the same figure. But it’s no more solid. The FBI reports rely on self-reported data from a small chunk of the nation’s more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies.

The lack of a national clearinghouse for fatal police killings "is a national embarrassment," said Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina criminology professor who specializes in high-risk police activities.

"I’m sure one of (O’Reilly’s) researchers pulled a number from that database, but it’s just a convenient fact, as someone used to say," he said.


Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's not mere perception, women by and large have less muscle mass so they are factually less of a threat when resisting arrest.
We should have a special award for posts like this one.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The medal of sanity in the face of media sensationalism?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I realize I'm working in absence of pretty much any data what-so-ever, so this may not refer to statistically relevant cases, but how much less of a threat is a woman with a knife or a gun when resisting arrest?

Which also begs the question of how many people are killed by police in close up struggle versus how many are shot?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I realize I'm working in absence of pretty much any data what-so-ever, so this may not refer to statistically relevant cases, but how much less of a threat is a woman with a knife or a gun when resisting arrest?

Which also begs the question of how many people are killed by police in close up struggle versus how many are shot?

Who said anything about a knife or gun? You? Just now?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought it a reasonable assumption that most people who are shot were brandishing weapons. Knives and guns seem like the sort that are used to justify the use of lethal force.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I thought it a reasonable assumption that most people who are shot were brandishing weapons
Source please.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See: absence of data and assumption.

Frankly, I would find it appalling if most people shot by police were unarmed.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see, that's a convenient assumption for the conclusion you're reaching.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
See: absence of data and assumption.

Frankly, I would find it appalling if most people shot by police were unarmed.

Why do they have to be armed? After all if the cop claims afterward that it looked like they were reaching for a weapon, then that's really all that counts.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Suicide by cop with no weapons or fake weapons also occurs.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only conclusion is that when/if women are violent police are less likely to use lethal force. I'm curious as to what factors play a role in that seeming fact.

Pyr, still appalling.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In response to the following by me:
quote:
We should have a special award for posts like this one.
...you suggested:
quote:
The medal of sanity in the face of media sensationalism?
DW, maybe you weren't following along. Here's the context Seneca had created into which he inserted that comment:
quote:
Women by and large are simply not as violent as men in ways that require deadly force.
Note the lack of reference to both weapons and hand-to-hand combat in that statement, and
quote:
It's not mere perception, women by and large have less muscle mass so they are factually less of a threat when resisting arrest.
Again, who said anything about women not being armed and violent or armed and resisting arrest? And then (after I posthumously awarded him for his dead argument), he boldly asked:
quote:
Who said anything about a knife or gun? You? Just now?
Well, not the article Josh cited and nobody here, but why would anyone think the article wasn't talking about people who might have been armed when the police killed them, given that the author says what his subject is without qualification about being armed:
quote:
Nowhere could I find out how many people died during interactions with police in the United States.
Using the kind of logic Seneca is applying, I would think a woman with a gun would be even more deadly than a man with a gun, because the gun probably weighs less than about two pounds and most women could probably lift it and point it at the police, and because women are smaller than men on average they are harder to hit with a bullet, too. One must manage one's perceptions, no?

(BTW, I'm not disputing that far more men than women are killed by police, but one can probably just chalk that up to the fact that police face women far less frequently in confrontational situations than they do men -- or boys, as in the case of the 12-year old they just killed in Cleveland who wasn't any more confrontational (or stronger) than a woman).

It's a small trophy, but if you like I can reduce the font size and squeeze your name onto it [Smile] .

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The military has done many studies on the role strength plays in shooting. While it's certainly more relevant for long guns and sustained firing, even short sessions with hand guns are effected by strength in terms of recoil and aim consistency after the first shot. It is hardly controversial to point out that this is one of the reasons that women use firearms far less than men.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
AI, as Seneca is active in this thread, I'd rather not "interpret" for you.

I think you are straining reason very hard to make him say something that seems either absurd or out of context when he did nothing of the sort.

At worst, Seneca stated the obvious. As you are misreading it, intentionally or not, perhaps it was not as unnecessary a post by him as I thought.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are so many more Americans killed by police than citizens of other wealthy nations? Is it possible that the greater civilian access to firearms in the US creates a rational reason for police to be more concerned about facing lethal force, and thus be willing to shoot first?

But if actual gun ownership were the reason, since whites are twice as likely (41%) to own guns as African Americans (19%)or Hispanics (20%) (link), police should be twice as concerned about whites with guns as blacks (which is not the case based on actual shootings). Of course, you could posit that people stopped by the police have a greater propensity to have guns than people not stopped by the police, but that should also extend to whites as well as blacks.

One explanation is that US police have accurate insight that gun ownership is relatively high, but have racial prejudice that greatly exaggerates the risks that blacks will have guns relative to whites.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At worst, Seneca stated the obvious. As you are misreading it, intentionally or not, perhaps it was not as unnecessary a post by him as I thought.
Leaving aside the snark (with some regret), women are not men who happen to just be weaker, else weak men and boys wouldn't be so threatening to the police that they have to shoot them and physically strong women would be more threatening and therefore shot more often. The reason women don't engage the police in violent behavior as much as men is because women behave differently from men. Seneca's argument that the critical difference is that women don't have as much "muscle mass" is irrelevant to the point of being just plain silly. Plenty of men are shot without actually engaging in violent behavior with police. How often are women shot?

I'm sorry, but your name definitely will be engraved now. Do you spell D.W. the way it looks?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reason women don't engage the police in violent behavior as much as men is because women behave differently from men.....
...possibly because they have less muscle mass than men.

And women are perceived as less of a threat by police because, for the most part, police are going to have more muscle mass than women.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As if you can't find reports of women attacking or being attacked by police. Is it aggression or sheer muscle mass or lack thereof? Any women here want to weigh in?

[ December 07, 2014, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
One explanation is that US police have accurate insight that gun ownership is relatively high, but have racial prejudice that greatly exaggerates the risks that blacks will have guns relative to whites.
But there are other factors, such as:
quote:
Americans with a gun at home also differ politically from other adults. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats to be members of a gun-owning household. Political independents also are more likely than Democrats to have a firearm in their homes.
Also urban poverty. But ultimately culture matters more than anything. Agree?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nothing mime distortion a day strawmen...

quote:
Seneca's argument that the critical difference is
Let's see if that was accurate or not...

What did I actually say?
quote:
 this is one of the reasons that women use firearms far less than men
Of course I allowed for other reasons, so why would someone portray what I said otherwise? I can easily guess...


All these semantics games aside, let's deal with something first. Country to country comparisons aren't helpful because I can easily demolish them by pointing out suicide rate in many other countries that ban guns is far higher than the US. There are other ways to show how unhelpful they are but I'll leave them there for the moment. If we must use them then I will eventually accede to that as the violent crime stats and other aspects of life in these countries that ban guns are often worse than ours despite the attempts of people to spin and falsely claim the stats aren't comparable.

So when we look at the US and cause of death, death by police given our huge population is a drop in the bucket compared to the top 5 or even 10 causes of death. Maybe even 20 depending on how you break down the different causes of cardiac arrest.

That said, I still think we should work toward reducing and eliminating them, but let's not pretend it is an epidemic when we have things that kill far more.

[ December 07, 2014, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since nobody really knows how many people are shot by police each year estimates vary considerably. A general consensus is that about 1000 civilians year are killed by police and a much higher number are wounded. It's even more difficult to select from those numbers how many were armed, and how many were shot unnecessarily.
quote:
If we must use them then I will eventually accede to that as the violent crime stats and other aspects of life in these countries that ban guns are often worse than ours despite the attempts of people to spin and falsely claim the stats aren't comparable.
Or conversely, one can find technicalities in disparate methods of collecting statistics to claim that all adverse (to one's position) are invalid. We've had that argument here often enough here that I won't fall into that rathole.
quote:
What did I actually say?

quote: this is one of the reasons that women use firearms far less than men

Of course I allowed for other reasons, so why would someone portray what I said otherwise? I can easily guess...

What were those other arguments you allowed for or raised? I don't see them here. Someone would be less interested to challenge you if you made them where they could be seen. It will also help if you give each a value. For instance, the most important reason women are not killed more often by police is <_______>.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mischaracterizing my statement does not logically lead to burden shifting to try and demand I supply more information when I clearly allowed for other reasons to exist. I don't need to supply any of them. I might but it's already been pointed out women generally behave differently anyway.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mischaracterizing my statement does not logically lead to burden shifting to try and demand I supply more information when I clearly allowed for other reasons to exist.
I'm not sure how you allowed for them. Is it because you didn't explicitly exclude them? I think your statement can easily be interpreted as I read it, since women having less muscle mass is the only reason you cited why there are fewer confrontations between women and police. You were pretty specific about it. But I also realize you will not clarify your comment further.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, Seneca was responding to this comment of Noblehunter's:

quote:
Even if women are violent, I suspect police are more comfortable about using non-lethal force in subduing them. I wonder how much is simply perception. That since women are supposed to be weaker, police judge the risks of confrontation differently rather than an actual difference in risk.
Seneca's reply to this was:

quote:
It's not mere perception, women by and large have less muscle mass so they are factually less of a threat when resisting arrest.
The reply explained that it could not be only a perceptual difference, since there is a difference in muscle mass. He did not in any way indicate that the muscle mass was the only difference, nor did he say that it was not at all a matter of perception. But all he needed to do was to provide one example of a real difference between women and men to show that it couldn't be 100% a matter of perception that police don't consider women as much of a threat.

Al, I don't know what you're getting at; are you contesting Seneca's general point that there is some sort of real difference between the threat potential of women versus men on average? If so you're going about it in a funny way. If not, then what the heck are you arguing about?

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Al, I don't know what you're getting at; are you contesting Seneca's general point that there is some sort of real difference between the threat potential of women versus men on average?
The variation between men and women only really exists in margins at the extremes. Shot of pointing at maximum limits of athletic potential, the variation between men and women is negligible as compared to the variation between any two random individuals, so the expectation that any given woman is less of a threat than any given man does not have a rational foundation- it's a reflection of bias on the part of the observer.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is there an actual point of discussion here? The only contrary opinions / statements I see in the whole page are...

Seneca: "women by and large have less muscle mass"

Pyrtolin: "the variation between men and women is negligible"

Everything else comes off as trying to format the discussion into a position someone can "win".

What am I missing? (I think I need a different trophy AI. One for the slowest participant in the thread.)


Pyre, as to your last point; taking into account cultural norms is also a factor, not just bias on the part of the observer. It may not be purely objective, but the dirty secret about us humans are we are more predictable than we like to believe.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
; taking into account cultural norms is also a factor, not just bias on the part of the observer
Or, perhaps we could say that cultural norms are, in fact, part of the observer's bias? Perhaps even that if cultural norms lead people to act in irrational and damaging ways, we should point them out and push against those norms until they're mitigated?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is there an actual point of discussion here? The only contrary opinions / statements I see in the whole page are...

Seneca: "women by and large have less muscle mass"

Pyrtolin: "the variation between men and women is negligible"

Everything else comes off as trying to format the discussion into a position someone can "win".

This is why I stopped posting, and why I post so little on this forum anymore.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh they are that Pyr. I don't know the answer to your question. I don't think eliminating physical competitive sports is necessary. May it after a generation reduce confrontations with police? Maybe. It could also remove a relatively non violent means to "blow off steam" and cause more confrontations.

Maybe I got it backwards and we should try to raise girls to be more aggressive and imposing?

I don't even think we should try to eliminate gender roles let alone how you would best go about it. Expand them? Sure. Eliminate them? I can't even imagine what that would look like to form an opinion on how I would judge it.

More importantly, I don't see how that has any relevance to discussing current police related deaths in our current society. That women are less likely to be killed by police than men is NOT about how police behave. It's about how men behave compared to women. I thought that observation was safely in the "Duh" column.

Apologies if "Duh" is seen as an attempt to silence those who feel differently by insulting them. I honestly feel that is an easily observable experience we should all share.

[ December 08, 2014, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The variation between men and women only really exists in margins at the extremes.
No, that's utter nonsense. The average man is significantly stronger than the average woman.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
The variation between men and women only really exists in margins at the extremes.
No, that's utter nonsense. The average man is significantly stronger than the average woman.
Sex assignment has no effect on stats during character creation, didn't you read the manual?

Reference to any person being unequal to any other person in any way is doubleplus bad.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
The variation between men and women only really exists in margins at the extremes.
No, that's utter nonsense. The average man is significantly stronger than the average woman.
The "average" person doesn't exist, rather male and female capabilities each represent bell curves, and the overlap of those curves is large enough that individual variation matters more when it comes to random selection than whether the individual is male or female. There may be at most a 5% difference in overall potential, but that mean that 90% of the population occupies the same general field of potential.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1