Nearly 1 in 5 female Air Force Academy cadets have been sexually assaulted
- Thread starter miggidy
- Start date
i dont
yes, it is!
1. no it isnt
2. no it isnt
3. cant be determined by the data provided
4. to a limited extent i can buy that.
but lets take for example some simple numbers. lets say out of 100 soldiers. 90 are males and 10 are females. now if 20% say they were sexually assulted, that makes for a total of 2 women. now lets say that those two women were assulted by two men then that would make approximatley the amount of "evil" men there at 2%, now if there was one sicco that assulted both women that would make the amount olf disturbed soldiers 1%.
now of course the acadamy is larger i dont know how big but lets say 1,000 soldiers or 900 male and 100 female soldiers. which means that at a rate consistant with the data 20 women per thousand will get assulted in some way. lets you have to agree that some of the assults are frivolous as i will admit that some are over the top and should land male soldiers in prison. but lets say that out of those 20, 5 are at most verbal, at worst frivolous. so tht leaves 15 women that were assulted sexually. of those 15 what are the odds that there is a repeat offender there that may have assulted say 5 women. now that leaves 10 women that were assulted by approximately 900 soldiers. now me i would say that those %age number are rediculously low as oppesed to your statement
or would you not agree that approximately 1% of soldiers actually assulting women is a very low percentage numerically speaking
what about the soldiers that participated in WWI, or even farther back the soldiers that fought for the union against slavery in the civil war???
thats not a fact.
what do you mean no1 is saying "fuck the U.S.". i have heard several people on this sight say that several times, and i know that you have also.
yes, it is!
1. no it isnt
2. no it isnt
3. cant be determined by the data provided
4. to a limited extent i can buy that.
but lets take for example some simple numbers. lets say out of 100 soldiers. 90 are males and 10 are females. now if 20% say they were sexually assulted, that makes for a total of 2 women. now lets say that those two women were assulted by two men then that would make approximatley the amount of "evil" men there at 2%, now if there was one sicco that assulted both women that would make the amount olf disturbed soldiers 1%.
now of course the acadamy is larger i dont know how big but lets say 1,000 soldiers or 900 male and 100 female soldiers. which means that at a rate consistant with the data 20 women per thousand will get assulted in some way. lets you have to agree that some of the assults are frivolous as i will admit that some are over the top and should land male soldiers in prison. but lets say that out of those 20, 5 are at most verbal, at worst frivolous. so tht leaves 15 women that were assulted sexually. of those 15 what are the odds that there is a repeat offender there that may have assulted say 5 women. now that leaves 10 women that were assulted by approximately 900 soldiers. now me i would say that those %age number are rediculously low as oppesed to your statement
or would you not agree that approximately 1% of soldiers actually assulting women is a very low percentage numerically speaking
what about the soldiers that participated in WWI, or even farther back the soldiers that fought for the union against slavery in the civil war???
thats not a fact.
what do you mean no1 is saying "fuck the U.S.". i have heard several people on this sight say that several times, and i know that you have also.
They have no conscious so what's your point?
Funny people laugh at their own funny jokes.
We aboth agree there....
We disagree here.
A hero fights for what he believes in and not self gratification.
I do not consider anyone a hero who helps people just to boost his status. That is selfish and there's nothing heroic about that.
Soldiers and Fire fighters fall in that category....
Rebels and good samaritans are the true heroes....
Yeah basically. Here's a question and please give me an honest answer. Do you think Presidents would start wars if they had to fight in them????
As for the soldier who believes he's fighting for the people in his country, how many wars has that soldier fought in which his people were really in danger????
He's ignorant....
Funny people laugh at their own funny jokes.
We aboth agree there....
We disagree here.
A hero fights for what he believes in and not self gratification.
I do not consider anyone a hero who helps people just to boost his status. That is selfish and there's nothing heroic about that.
Soldiers and Fire fighters fall in that category....
Rebels and good samaritans are the true heroes....
Yeah basically. Here's a question and please give me an honest answer. Do you think Presidents would start wars if they had to fight in them????
As for the soldier who believes he's fighting for the people in his country, how many wars has that soldier fought in which his people were really in danger????
He's ignorant....
What's up with the hookers? If only a small percentage of these men assault women, why is it that just about all of them need valunteer hookers?
They're not as angellic as you thought eh?
They were mislead in WWI, so no heroes there.
Yes the soldiers who fought against the union to end slavery were heroes. I missed them.... Well no, I thought about them, but I didn't mention them because they were obvious heroes.
Ask a Vietnam veteran what he thinks.
Not the one that started this thread.
Show me where I said fuck the U.S.
You might hear me go as far as sayin fuck Uncle Sam or what has become of him but that's about it.
They're not as angellic as you thought eh?
They were mislead in WWI, so no heroes there.
Yes the soldiers who fought against the union to end slavery were heroes. I missed them.... Well no, I thought about them, but I didn't mention them because they were obvious heroes.
Ask a Vietnam veteran what he thinks.
Not the one that started this thread.
Show me where I said fuck the U.S.
You might hear me go as far as sayin fuck Uncle Sam or what has become of him but that's about it.
I agree on that, but who are we to say what these fire-fighters are thinking? There are some who want to be one just to save lives and to help people, some just like the pay and only do what they have to. There are some out there that would jump into a firey building because they care for the life inside, not just because they want to be recognized. I don't think compensation should play a factor, rather the mindset of those who are at question.
Assuming that were talking about these presidents knowing they are going to be in harsh battles, I really cannot give a yes or no answer. Im leaning towards FUCK NO, though.
Remember one thing, miggidy. There are many things about the way this country operates that I don't agree with. Im not some simple minded I LOVE AMERICA type of fool that will tell you everything we are doing is COOL just because of the love I have for this nation. Many times you see me arguing people on this board in support for our Government, is not always because I agree with what they are doing, it is because of the COUNTLESS pre-mature statements and opinions that are thrown around about our Government. People on this board question EVERYTHING in a negetive manner, without truely knowing why we did anything. I don't know for a 100% fact that IRAQ has WMD, you don't know for a 100% fact that they don't, yet people on this board act like they talked to Sadaam personally and he told them there were no WMD. When you guys look at the invasion, you ONLY see MONEY, OIL, POWER. Did it ever cross any of your guys' mind the kind of shit that goes on in that country? Do you really think Sadaam is not a THREAT? Yet a peacefull man going about his business running his country. There are many questions to be asked, I just dislike the way people are quick to answer them with negetive OPINIONS.
IRAQ. I don't completely agree that invading IRAQ was the right thing to do. I don't think WMD were the sole purpose of the invasion. However, I believe Sadaam needed to be releived from office, by any means necessary. Ill leave it at that.
Assuming that were talking about these presidents knowing they are going to be in harsh battles, I really cannot give a yes or no answer. Im leaning towards FUCK NO, though.
Remember one thing, miggidy. There are many things about the way this country operates that I don't agree with. Im not some simple minded I LOVE AMERICA type of fool that will tell you everything we are doing is COOL just because of the love I have for this nation. Many times you see me arguing people on this board in support for our Government, is not always because I agree with what they are doing, it is because of the COUNTLESS pre-mature statements and opinions that are thrown around about our Government. People on this board question EVERYTHING in a negetive manner, without truely knowing why we did anything. I don't know for a 100% fact that IRAQ has WMD, you don't know for a 100% fact that they don't, yet people on this board act like they talked to Sadaam personally and he told them there were no WMD. When you guys look at the invasion, you ONLY see MONEY, OIL, POWER. Did it ever cross any of your guys' mind the kind of shit that goes on in that country? Do you really think Sadaam is not a THREAT? Yet a peacefull man going about his business running his country. There are many questions to be asked, I just dislike the way people are quick to answer them with negetive OPINIONS.
IRAQ. I don't completely agree that invading IRAQ was the right thing to do. I don't think WMD were the sole purpose of the invasion. However, I believe Sadaam needed to be releived from office, by any means necessary. Ill leave it at that.
Got ya!
I think the cats you refferin too are only being confrontational about their ideals.
My advice to them is that you should never offend one that doesn't share your ideals, how do you expect to enlighted that person after you've gotten on his/hers bad side?
You could prove a muthafucka wrong but he will never open up if he's pissed off. Their way of thinking, you're an ass and everything you say is crap....
I think the cats you refferin too are only being confrontational about their ideals.
My advice to them is that you should never offend one that doesn't share your ideals, how do you expect to enlighted that person after you've gotten on his/hers bad side?
You could prove a muthafucka wrong but he will never open up if he's pissed off. Their way of thinking, you're an ass and everything you say is crap....
I wonder how many of these people give to charities.
It is only logical to think that if one cares for other people, then he will help other people.
This Iraqi war is an example. There's no way in hell Bush would've gone after Hussein if he had to join the front line right?
The only way I see a President going to war himself is if there is really a threat out there. Thus, what I said earlier that there's hardly any wars worth dying for.
I understand where you are coming from.
What we do know 100% is that WMD haven't been found.
Logic tells you that if there were WMD in Iraq, we would've found them by now.
But even as the odds are quite slim for the hope of finding WMD's,
I remain optomistic for the sake of our people.
They are being targetted all over the world right now because of this shit, and finding WMD would help ease some of this hostility.
We all know Sad'dumb is a dick!
I just don't agree that he was an immediate threat like Bush hyped him up to be.
Logic tells you that if neighboring countries are willing to assist Bush in strippin him out of power then he ain't as dangerous as Bush said he was.
Now if you believe that Saddam is as evil as you say he is then wouldn't it make sense for him to use WMD on our troops and the neighboring countries that helped us?
It's all common sense bro....
This war was uncalled for....
Had we really wanted to get rid of Saddam, we should've assissted the Kurds back in the 90's when they needed our help to topple Sad'Dumb.
You don't agree with the invasion but then you say Saddam needed to be taken out by any means necessary....
Which one is it?
Saddam was no bigger threat that anyone else who's Sam's enemy. Lil Kim over in N. Korea is a bigger threat he's only a few months away from finishing a nuke that can reach us here in Cali.
Thing is, Bush's handling of foreign policy has made life more dangerous for us instead of makin it less dangerous.
The Afgan war was justified, even though I don't think it was all that succesful (Al Queda's still carryig out terrorist attacks).
But the Iraqi war has not been justified as of this moment and because of that it served as fuel to a fire that was already burning. Instead of supressing the fire, it's made it larger.
What buggs the hell out of me is that Bush was warned of this and yet he still went about his business.....
He fucked up big time, and I think he needs to be impeached.
No chance of that happenning though, he's America's favorite John Wayne wanna-be right now.
It is only logical to think that if one cares for other people, then he will help other people.
This Iraqi war is an example. There's no way in hell Bush would've gone after Hussein if he had to join the front line right?
The only way I see a President going to war himself is if there is really a threat out there. Thus, what I said earlier that there's hardly any wars worth dying for.
I understand where you are coming from.
What we do know 100% is that WMD haven't been found.
Logic tells you that if there were WMD in Iraq, we would've found them by now.
But even as the odds are quite slim for the hope of finding WMD's,
I remain optomistic for the sake of our people.
They are being targetted all over the world right now because of this shit, and finding WMD would help ease some of this hostility.
We all know Sad'dumb is a dick!
I just don't agree that he was an immediate threat like Bush hyped him up to be.
Logic tells you that if neighboring countries are willing to assist Bush in strippin him out of power then he ain't as dangerous as Bush said he was.
Now if you believe that Saddam is as evil as you say he is then wouldn't it make sense for him to use WMD on our troops and the neighboring countries that helped us?
It's all common sense bro....
This war was uncalled for....
Had we really wanted to get rid of Saddam, we should've assissted the Kurds back in the 90's when they needed our help to topple Sad'Dumb.
You don't agree with the invasion but then you say Saddam needed to be taken out by any means necessary....
Which one is it?
Saddam was no bigger threat that anyone else who's Sam's enemy. Lil Kim over in N. Korea is a bigger threat he's only a few months away from finishing a nuke that can reach us here in Cali.
Thing is, Bush's handling of foreign policy has made life more dangerous for us instead of makin it less dangerous.
The Afgan war was justified, even though I don't think it was all that succesful (Al Queda's still carryig out terrorist attacks).
But the Iraqi war has not been justified as of this moment and because of that it served as fuel to a fire that was already burning. Instead of supressing the fire, it's made it larger.
What buggs the hell out of me is that Bush was warned of this and yet he still went about his business.....
He fucked up big time, and I think he needs to be impeached.
No chance of that happenning though, he's America's favorite John Wayne wanna-be right now.