[YATA0]

Imagine thinking those quoted people are "experts in the field" instead of woke virtue signalers.

It's not an opinion, it's an objective fact. They're using grade school level rhetoric: "Well, the background checking system doesn't have all the predators in there, so these background checks are effectively useless!"

They're using the exact same rhetoric that pro-gun advocates use to push for the removal of background checks for purchasing firearms.

[Pooge]

> Imagine thinking those quoted people are "experts in the field" instead of woke virtue signalers.

I mean... you'd think that a "doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan studying gender and sexual violence with an emphasis on college sexual violence" has insightful opinion on the topic at hand.

Furthermore, this is not the only argument but I'm guessing you've read only the first half of the article. The second one being that "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts", and therefore are present on those lists while not belonging there.

[YATA0]

>you'd think that a "doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan studying gender and sexual violence with an emphasis on college sexual violence" has insightful opinion on the topic at hand.

Grievance study majors absolutely do not have insightful opinions on the topic at hand. Their opinion is hilariously predictable.

>The second one being that "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts", and therefore are present on those lists while not belonging there.

Press F to doubt. Unless there's a well regarded study that gives some actual numbers, this number can be considered zero or statistically insignificant noise.

[Pooge]

> Grievance study majors

At this point I'm convinced you're not willing to argue in good faith.

> this number can be considered zero or statistically insignificant noise

Fair enough. According to the ACLU[1], "many incarcerated women—nearly 60% of female state prisoners nation-wide and as many as 94% of certain female prison populations have a history of physical or sexual abuse".

I am not going to answer your next comment, because you just can't be argued with.

[1]: https://www.aclu.org/other/prison-rape-elimination-act-2003-...

[YATA0]

>At this point I'm convinced you're not willing to argue in good faith.

Translation: "You're right and I know it, you used facts, logic, and reason and reality agrees with you, so I'm just going to say you're arguing in bad faith because I have no retort."

>Fair enough. According to the ACLU[1], ...

Except that statistic has absolutely nothing to do with the original claim. The original claim was "victims of domestic violence who engage in self-defense are often punished in the criminal justice system for those acts." The ACLU article says nothing about the percent of women that are in jail due defending themselves from sexual/domestic abuse. It's just the total percent of women in jail that have been abused.

>I am not going to answer your next comment

Thanks for admitting defeat. I win.

>because you just can't be argued with.

It's hard/impossible to argue against facts, logic, and reality.

You're here defending the future abuse of women because it's woke to do so. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself "are we the baddies?"