tim.tdj

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

And yet you chose to open this thread to discuss just one type. Fascinating. 

You are reading between the lines where there is nothing to read.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

You even went so far in the poll as to strongly imply a false accusation is worse than the act of violence itself.
 

It is up to each individual to decide which is worse.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Because it's obviously a kind of righteous ambiguation you're using wrt women accusing men of rape. Your fair justice ignores that today's courts don't start from your proverbial middle ground. Women have always had to prove MORE in rape cases just so people with your stance never have to see even a single incidence of a man being falsely accused. Women suffer twice under the system you're defending.

I am not ignoring that today's courts don't start from the middle position. I don't know why you think I am.

2 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This also does not make sense. The believing the victim proposals are aimed at looking into the possible crimes in the first place. The actual trial will be as any other one. And again, that at least in part explains low conviction rates. It should be noted that the false rape allegation rate is roughly in line false accusations of other criminal acts and it is somewhat peculiar that this type of allegations is what get folks riled up.

I am not opposed to allegations being investigated and I think it is bad that some allegations which should be investigated are not. I just think that the investigations should be as fair and intelligent as possible. False accusations of all types, sexual or otherwise, worry me. It does not matter what type it is.

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Indeed. One of the things that both prosecutors and defenders probe is credibility of the victim. And these types of probes can be very aggressive. E.g. and steeped in moralism. E.g. women who had multiple sex partners are more likely to be assumed to be responsible for being assaulted than men. Of course credibility is important as they need to look into motivations such as custody proceedings, financial interests and so on, but obviously it is quite a harrowing process for an actual victim and that on top of social stigma and psychological wounds.

I am not comfortable with any of what you are describing either. I think that ideally, only evidence from the actual alleged event should matter.

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m more likely to raped, but thanks 

I pray that you never will be.

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

If Situation_A occurs 1,000,000 times, and Situation_B occurs 2 times, it is not obvious nor logical to assert the middle position is 500,001. 

You’re using average when you should be using median. 

If you are ever falsely accused of a terrible crime (I very much hope you never will be), it will suddenly matter to you a lot that your trial is a fair as possible. It doesn't matter that you are just one person.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

You seem to miss where the unfairness actually exists in the current justice approach to this issue. 

I am entirely aware of the unfairness on both sides of this issue. That is why I think the middle position is so important. The middle position is the most fair position. I don't understand how this is not completely obvious.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

"One incident is one too many" is how you defend the men in these highly uncommon instances, but for the women all you want is fair justice. They need more from all of us.

You seem to very much underestimate what I mean by fair justice. Fair justice is a huge concept which should not be sniffed at like that.

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

NO! That's a rhetorical bandaid for YOU and other men who've felt wronged by women in the past. This is about the women, and the unfair challenges they face in assault cases with men.

Yet you want to squash the one movement that's trying to do just that, because you want to be clear about you being fair and not being a rapist.

You are making assumptions about the sort of man I am.

I do not want to squash any movement that genuinely wants fair justice. I actually think that, by-and-large, the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements are very heroic and much needed movements. It is just that there are some not-so-good elements within those movements. Much the same way as there are bad apples in every barrel.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

This seems like the stance of a man who has good intentions wrt women, someone who would never assault a woman, and desperately wants NOT to be lumped in with the rapists.  But why would you think that "believing women" somehow means innocent-until-proven-guilty no longer applies? The problem NOW is that many cases don't start from "the middle", or a neutral clean slate. Do you think what a woman is wearing is any defense against rape, or how late it was, or that she didn't say NO enough times? That's where the defense usually starts from, which is the "middle" you seem to be defending.

I think that instead of saying "believe women", it is better to say "don't disbelieve women". The difference may seem subtle but if you understand the difference, you will know how important it is. Obviously what a woman wears etc is no defense in a case of rape or sexual assault and only one expression of reluctance from a woman should be enough to tell a man to stop. Obviously the words "woman" and "man" in what I am saying can be swapped and it will be equally true. When you say, "The problem NOW is that many cases don't start from "the middle", or a neutral clean slate.", I totally agree with you and that is the problem that I have tried to point out.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It seems far more like you have problems with reading comprehension and/or honesty 

You have been asking me to prove my assertions. How about I ask you to prove the allegations you have made against me?

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now you’re conflating “the criminal justice system making mistakes” with “people involved in the justice system taking extreme positions on one side or the other.”

For someone so self-professedly passionate about justice and accuracy, your style of argumentation is decidedly inaccurate and unjust. 

It seems that some of the mistakes are because of people taking extreme positions. It seems that your faith in the criminal justice system is unshakable which is either admirable or foolish.

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just to be clear, are you going to provide a source for this assertion or not?

A few examples of where the criminal justice system has gone wrong have already been provided in this thread. One incidence is one too many.

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

The strength of your belief is irrelevant. If someone says the earth is flat and another says the earth is spherical, the most acceptable position is definitely not to "start from the middle," no matter how strongly they believe it. One of these positions is far more evidenced and far more likely to be true than the other, much like in these cases of sexual violence and harassment.

Before you have heard or seen any evidence whatsoever, the best position is definitely always the middle. Once you start hearing and seeing the evidence, you should apply as much caution and intelligence as possible to deciding how to interpret the evidence you are hearing and seeing (making sure you are not being mislead) and allow your considered interpretation to guide you. Only when this careful process takes you beyond any reasonable doubt can you come to any conclusion.

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sexual assault and sexual harassment against women is endemic. It makes covid look like a shy introvert living in it's mothers basement and never going outside.

False allegations exist, but are exceedingly uncommon. Men are FAR more likely to be raped themselves than to be accused falsely of rape.

When millions upon millions of women tell us decade after decade after decade that we have a problem with this issue in our society, presuming these claims are rather likely valid does no harm to the actual justice being meted out in our courts of law.

EVERYONE here in good faith agrees that each case is unique and that misapplied punishments should be avoided. Focusing on that miniscule sub-fractional handful of misapplied punishments, however, does more to illustrate an extreme blind spot and likely agenda from the speaker than it does to "protect the innocent."

If justice and protection of innocent lives are so very important to you, then let me recommend you instead consider focusing on the tens of thousands of times women come forward with genuine claims that later get dismissed or swept aside (or which cause them to face retribution and retaliation) instead of focusing upon that one or two bros who maybe had bad luck once. 

I am entirely in favour of any allegation being properly investigated in an impartial intelligent manner. I am as horrified as you are when victims are simply ignored. The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other. I very strongly believe that the only acceptable position to start from is the middle.

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And that doesn't happen in these cases because the presumptions are often that the woman was dressed in a certain way, or had been drinking, or somehow hadn't made her wish not to be raped clear enough. What "believe women" means is to remove this bullshit and start from "no presumptions whatsoever are made". And as in any case that goes to court, you start with the premise that the accuser is going to tell the truth in a court of law.

It seems that you and I are both in agreement that what happens in a court of law in reality is not what should happen in a court of law. I think that a much higher bar of intelligence should be set. The metaphorical pendulum should stop swinging from side to side and settle in the middle.

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Because you aren't being intellectually honest with your argument. You've perverted the idea that we should start by believing accusers into "believe them 100% without doubt". Then you and others piled on with anecdotes from the radio where this perverted argument was repeated, claiming it's only what you've heard. It's pretty sick because once again you're making it harder for victims to get justice from a level field.

I have nothing whatsoever against a genuine victim getting justice provided it is the result of an impartial cautious intelligent investigation where no presumptions whatsoever are made.

41 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I find this thread deeply offensive.  There seem to be several members who's general feeling about rape is "we have to protect men".

I won't be returning to this abomination of a thread...

 

It is not about protecting men. It is about protecting the innocent. What is wrong with that?

I would like to make what I think is a very important clarification here: I think that if an alleged victim is not 100% believed, this does not necessarily mean that they are being disbelieved. There is a seemingly subtle but very important difference here.

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

I challenge you to provide even one citation supporting this absurd comment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

 Hi Everyone

I have seen in the media that some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt. The logical conclusion of this position is that the accused would be assumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Is this an acceptable position?

As I see it, your position on this debate ought logically to align with the choice you make in the very tough poll I am posting here.

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

18 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I think so, but it's not really my field.

Hi John

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

Does anyone know the highest temperature you can cook at before any amino acids start to get damaged?

Are any of the amino acids in a boiled egg damaged? (Presumably the boiling takes place at 100C)

Thank you very much

Kind reagrds

Tim

22 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As far as I can tell, yes, you are right about this "the Glycemic Index is a measure of the glycemic response only of the carbohydrate in the food being measured with the rest of the constituents of the food being ignored. "
But not about this
"This would mean that if the GI of coconut flour is 50, the glycemic response of 100g of coconut flour would be 50*0.272 which is 13.6"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index

 

Hi John

Thank you very much for your reply and for the link.

After looking at the link you provided it seems that the correct terminology for what I was calling the "glycemic response" is actually "Glycemic Load" which, if I am interpreting it correctly, is is equal to the GI multiplied by the fraction of digestible carbohydrate in the food being measured. This is what I did in order to get the value of 13.6. Is this correct?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

45 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If I read the wiki page right, in testing the GI, they compare the effect of 50g of carbohydrate as bread or glucose with 50g of carbohydrate from the food under test.

So they would compare the effect of  50g of glucose with 50/0.272 g of coconut flour.

 

Hi John

Thank you very much for your reply.

Firstly. please can you provide a link to the wiki page you are referring to.

What you seem to be saying is that the Glycemic Index is a measure of the glycemic response only of the carbohydrate in the food being measured with the rest of the constituents of the food being ignored. This would mean that if the GI of coconut flour is 50, the glycemic response of 100g of coconut flour would be 50*0.272 which is 13.6. Am I correct?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

I have just seen something which doesn't make sense to me. According to the following article, coconut flour has a Glycemic Index of 50:

https://www.upgrademyfood.com/which-flour-is-best-for-a-diabetic/

However, according to the nutrition information on a packet of coconut flour I have purchased, there are only 27.2g of non-fibre carbohydrates per 100g of the flour. Have the authors of the above article made a mistake? How can the Glycemic Index be higher than the amount in grams of non-fibre carbohydrates per 100g of the coconut flour?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim

17 hours ago, CharonY said:

So if we talk about the ingredient list, they are pretty much harmonized across Europe (as well as the Americas). I.e. you should indicate the stuff you add in a particular product in descending weight. Technically if nothing else is added beside coconut flour, the ingredient label could simply read coconut flour. It does not necessary to indicate byproducts due to processing, for example. 

Coconut flour definitely contains cellulose and hemicellulose, both of which are chemically carbohydrates. However, in the EU (and UK) carbohydrates seems only to refer to (human) bioavailable carbohydrates (i.e. digestible carbs) and therefore those would or should fall under fibers. It also contains certain polyols, such as sorbitol, which according to labelling requirements would not need to be listed, but would be part of the total carbohydrate count.

So there is quite a bit of a difference between chemical and food labelling nomenclature, with the latter focusing on simplicity rather than scientific accuracy. So I am wondering based on these definitions how resistant starch are labelled, for example. As they are poorly digested, they can be classified as fiber, but then there is also the starch category...

 

Hi CharonY

Thank you very much for this information.

Kind regards

Tim

Hi Everyone

I have just seen something which doesn't make sense to me. According to the following article, coconut flour has a Glycemic Index of 50:

https://www.upgrademyfood.com/which-flour-is-best-for-a-diabetic/

However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are only 27.2g of digestible carbohydrates in the coconut flour I purchased. Have the authors of the above article made a mistake? How can the  Glycemic Index be higher than the amount in grams of digestible carbohydrates in 100g of the coconut flour?

Thank you very much.

Kind regards

Tim