8current, former service members to sue military, alleging rape, sexual assault and h

Really? 13 pages and you did not get a real argument from this kid? Did I not call the spade a spade earlier? He has an agenda and it is self-serving. He has no point to argue this as he is not taking up a cause for women that claim to be assaulted. Instead, he is just trying to (*)(*)(*)(*) all over the military.

As for my higher chances of being raped than being killed by the enemy: I have a greater chance of being downed by falling asteroid turds than I do being killed by the enemy. Really (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid statistic there.

You are cleared off.

 

He's apparently old enough to be my grandpa, he might take offense to being called "kid", though he certainly took that liberty with me.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtm8w3o63AA"]Joe Dirt - "Meteor" - YouTube[/ame]

 

I do not care about his physical age.

I cannot watch this right now, but given that it is "Joe Dirt," I assume it is perfect for my redneck (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-raping, child-murdering self.

 

Think "Poop-Bomb" dropped from an airliner that Joe Dirt mistakes for a meteor...

Correlating with your comment on "asteroid turds."

 

I have worked with the available figures from the US government Dept of Defence and the Dept of Justice and they prove my point. That you and your buddies do not want to believe them and do everything you can to try and dispute them is a joke. The rate of sexual assault in the US military is very much higher than in US normal civilian life and that means there is a problem in the US military.

 

Sure looks like you have a serious problem reading the English language. I suggest lessons. I have been the only one to provide up to date figures from the US government while various silly persons have been fumbling about trying and failing to dispute them,ok kid.

 

By the numbers.

If 207,000 REPORTED sexual assaults in 2010 are 16% of the actual number...
the ACTUAL number would be 1,293,750 sexual assaults/rapes in 2010; with 84% going unreported or 1,086,750...

207,000 - reported
+
1,086,750 - unreported
________
1,293,750 total (estimated) in 2010

 

Brilliant.

You have been the only one to skew statistics, not understand what you have been reading, and are absent of any logical reasoning behind your (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing. I would say you are the one with the serious problem. Something to do with delirium. You are older, so that is understandable. Technique only.

 

Well correlated to the US population the US military sexual assault figures come in at 28.5 million. So you lose yet again.

 

You are clueless as usual. I am the only one here presenting the facts,the rest of you are just apologists for the us military but I guess when you take money off them to be a link in the chain to kill innocent people that is all you have left in your disgraceful (*)(*)(*)(*) poor lives.

Anyway I have had enough of putting stupid military types right today. If you lot are lucky I will come back tomorrow and give you another lesson in factual info.In the meantime you lot can continue with your fantasy version of events and tell us all how great it is to murder for money.

 

whiskey tango foxtrot, over?

SECDEF Panetta accounted for the under-reporting figure giving an estimated total of 19,000.

Accounting for the under-reporting figure based upon the statistic of reported sexual assaults at 207,000..I estimate there to be approx. 1.3 million sexual assaults among the civilian population.

Military sexual assaults: 19,000 / 1.4 million total active duty = 1.3%
or 19,000 / 2.9 million combined regular and reserves = 6/10ths of 1%

Civilian sexual assualts: 1.3 million / 310 million total population = 4/10ths of 1%

Roughly equivalent statistically...when comparing the entirety of the U.S. population (young and old) vs. Military population (regular and reserves combined) (predominantly young)

However, I do agree that a more accurate comparison would limit the dataset of the total civilian population and have it be more reflective of the active duty military population which is a younger demographic. By limiting the dataset for the total civilian population; I'd venture to say the statistics are comparable...the military is reflective of the culture as a whole.

I would conclude, therefore, that this notion of sexual assaults as overtly "rampant" as compared to the civilian population...is inaccurate and the dataset is skewed in order to purposely "bash" our Armed Forces.

 

You skewed the stats by using only the number of people over 12 who were victims of SA, and compared it to the total population, regardless of age...

I know you see this...

This is called skewing the statistics...

Even with your numbers, the rate in the military is still around 1%...

Which is far from rampant...

You haven't proven (*)(*)(*)(*)...

Except that you have a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agenda, and that you're dishonest...

 

Will you promise to present actual facts next time?

 

Lies, lies, & more lies...

Why keep repeating incorrect info?

 

Wow so now you are just making stuff up. Very good. I did not even see any link for your supposed 16% of the total so let's have a look where you got it. Google is a wonderful thing. You got it from payson roundup? Who the feck are they then? I am using the figures from the US government and you are using info with no sources from some local rag.Very funny.

You forgot to take out all the young people,you know the ones you were (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about earlier on that should not be included. That would make the US military figure even higher even with your bogus story with no sources. You fail yet again,not having a good day are you herk.

 

You completely squirmed away from my point. Panetta's DoD numbers are "estimated" based on the anticipated high rate of unreported sexual assaults and are thus 7 times are higher than the reported number. The number you cited for the U.S. population ONLY includes actual reported sexual assaults without the coefficient of 7.


So ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.

 

More personal attacks. Very classy.

 

You have not got a clue what you are talking about,you could not even work out a percentage. My figures are from the US government all others by you lot are fantasy.

 

No not lies,lies are what you and your buddies have been presenting.I have presented the US government figures and nothing you say is going to change that fact.

 

It's a real simple concept. Males and females aged 18-40ish are more likely to commit sexual assault or be the victims of sexual assault. Men commit 99% of all assaults and the military is 86% male. The U.S. population has 3 times as many women (much more likely to be victims and less likely to be perpetrators) than the same military population. The civilian population includes young children, disabled people, and senior citizens who are MUCH less likely to commit sexual assault, and in some cases less likely to be the victims (when compared to 18-40ish women). Get it?

 

OK if they are 7 times higher then that is 7 times 19000 US military sexual assaults and that would make it very very much higher than the US civilian rate.

 

Official government statistics are just as capable of being misunderstood as imaginary ones. In order to use statistics effectively you have to understand what they mean, especially when you compare them to other statistics. This is where you failed. You're comparing two very different statistics.

 

You make no sense...
the DoD is part of the "Government" last time I checked...

You simultaneously bash the U.S. Armed Forces while praising the validity of Government based statistics.

For starters...

from 2008, a progressive source by the way.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1863650,00.html

Most child abuse goes unreported...globally.

I notice you did not include child sexual assault in your "civilian" statistic of reported
sexual assaults.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

No, I simply pointed out that your comparison was purposely skewed to represent your agenda...

If you only compare the number of SA in the population over 12 years of age to the population number as a whole, of course you're going to get a ridiculously low number by comparison...

Because you didn't bother presenting all the facts...

And even with your 19000 number, it's still around 1%...

Far from rampant...

None of us have lied...

Only tried to show the actual facts of the matter...

Nothing you say is going to change the fact that 1% does not indicate anything being rampant...