After three years of state-level referendums that have cost $100 million, the fight over labeling genetically modified foods is shifting to Washington.

Which is a part of the reason that I think skepticism of those numbers is definitely warranted. People here would argue that the stigma keeps victims from stepping forward, but never attach any real numbers or research to back the notion that 90%+ of victims do not step forward.

People are weird.

I think in the case of Ferguson, people are caught up in the reality that they have a moral right to feel disenfranchised. Why allow a system to work that does nothing for you?

If you fail to be a skeptic of people telling you what you want to hear, you make it all too easy for those who disagree with you to distract everyone from the meat of your argument by pointing out problems you failed to see.

I've read that article, and have heard those criticisms of the 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 statistics before, and I think those crticisms have real merit. However the study's authors acknowledge the limitations of their numbers (even if Jezebel and other groups do not) and they suggest that what is needed would be a…

Perhaps, though my point is moreso that intellectually dishonest skepticism that finds a problem with the story still finds a problem with the story.

Yes, but that's what happens when you promote a story as the lynchpin for a piece suggesting that society needs to change, I don't think that's unique to rape accusations in the slightest. It's going to be subjected to mountains of skepticism that comes from an intellectually dishonest place, so if you are someone…

Except, you know, I'm right, and you're not. You said he was condemning the causes, and there's literally nothing anywhere in this thread that supports your statement, other than your own fantasies.

Yeah. Actually, Greenpeace makes me think more of the plot of the novel Rainbow Six, where an environmentalist group tried to engineer a plague to kill off almost all of humanity in order to save the planet.

Or trying to read more into a comment than was there in the first place.

But ultimately to use a specific story as the centerpiece for a broader discussion about rape on campus, the facts as you report them need to be accurate. Not because we should need stories to acknowledge the macro statistics that indicate there is clearly a huge problem, but because for most of the broader public to…

No you are! No you are! NO YOU ARE!

It's because there's a problem here, even if Jackie proves to be the wrong person to represent it.

You are the one reading things into his comment that are not there, not me. He said nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the causes of the specific groups he called out.

It was the point of his message.

He's not. He's pointing out that these groups often times let their zeal translate itself into ridiculousness or, as we see here, downright stupid and immoral actions that ultimately hurt the causes they are trying to promote.

Not only that, but shit like this makes it far easier for climate change deniers to distract us from important discussions.

"Time for Change! The Future is Renewable."

No, because she's unelectable in a general election.