[Someone1234]

> Do you know that more women are raped every year in UK & US than in India?

No, but I do know you don't understand reporting and statistics.

The UK has had massive reforms between the 1980s and now. Police are required, by law, to record every single accusation of rape irrespective of if it results in a prosecution or even an attempted prosecution.

That has resulted in the UK's "rate of rape" going through the roof, because the statistics now record every accusation regardless of if the police feel it is "credible" or not. There is also more willingness for the crown to try and prosecute even if they don't have a strong case (as failure to prosecute was a big political football in the UK, and many victims at least wanted to see accused in the dock).

I don't know know how "repey" the UK, US, and India are relatively to one another. I do know that the way you're using statistics is highly flawed. You assume that less police reporting means less crime, but it might be due to either less reports TO police or less willingness BY police to take the accusation seriously.

Honestly the only thing even close to comparable statistics is a blind victim survey (e.g. grab 10,000+ completely random people spread across all socioeconomic groups, and ask them what crimes they have been victims of in the last 5 years, then extrapolate). However even with victim surveys you have to be very consistent with definitions of crime across across countries (e.g. trying to compare the FBI's Crime Survey to the UK's version of the same, the definition of violent crime is different).

[dang]

> No, but I do know you don't understand reporting and statistics

No personal attacks on HN, please. This comment has a good argument. Abrasiveness tarnishes it.

[Someone1234]

That wasn't a personal attack. It was a statement of fact based on the obvious misinformation within their post (which was worse pre-edit, by the way).

If someone said "the moon is made of cheese" and someone replies "you don't understand what the moon is made of" that isn't a person attack, since it was directed at their argument not their character.

If I had called them names, broadly questioned their intelligence, accused them of bias, and so on those are all personal attacks. Poking their argument with "you don't understand the topic" is none of the above and not even in the same ballpark.

[dang]

It was personal and its presence at the start of your comment was obviously abrasive. For our purposes that counts as a personal attack. It wasn't egregious, but (a) this kind of subtle nastiness toxifies the environment here, and (b) it marred your otherwise fine comment.

"It was a statement of fact", if true, is beside the point. Facts are often used as ammunition for gratuitous jabs. Indeed, they make the best such ammunition, because then one can say "I'm just stating facts." But it's the gratuitous jab that's the problem.

[pkaye]

Please no personal attacks.