Thank you! Can you tell us more about how you figured out the following:
”Some bad actors know this and will deliberatelygive a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in a vulnerable/altered state so that he can have sex with her, without making any of these motives explicit upfront.”
Anecdotally, I have heard ~3 stories of premeditated psychedelic assault (the guy sometimes even explicitly says his intent to others, sometimes realizing this is bad, sometimes not realizing this is bad). I have heard ~2 stories of psychedelic date rape assault that were probably not premeditated, and ~2 stories that were ambiguous. I don’t know how well this reflects base rates. The ~3 stories of premeditated assault may be passed on through word of mouth more frequently, because they’re more obviously frightening.
But more importantly, I should have been more clear in my original post. Psychedelic assault is bad, whether or not it’s premeditated. I wrote more in this response about premediated vs not-premeditated assault.
Not sure why you’re asking, but the claims you have to believe in order for the OP’s claim to be not true is “no bad actors will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in an altered state so he can have sex with her”, or “Bad actors who want to do this will make their motives explicit upfront”.
Do you think either of these two or OP’s claim is more likely?
Great! So based on evidence and reasoning, what is your credence that the following claim is true?
Some bad actors know this and will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in a vulnerable/altered state so that he can have sex with her, without making any of these motives explicit upfront.
And what is your credence that either of the following claims are true?
No bad actors will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in an altered state so he can have sex with her
Bad actors who want to do this will make their motives explicit upfront
“Some” ranges from 2 or 3 people to every person but one. There’s not much point debating a claim so vague.
If your intention is to work out whether OP means “2 or 3 people” or “every person but one” or anything in between, it would have been helpful to clarify.
The reason I say this is because it’s common for people to ask innocuous questions with a more insidious subtext, and it’s often hard to tell this from people asking when you are online.
One possible reading of your series of questions is that you’re coming from a place where you are skeptical that this is happening, and you’re asking OP to provide evidence for you to update. But most of this evidence is going to be anecdotal, so it’s not going to be super helpful for you in terms of getting a rate. So I’m struggling to follow where your starting point is in terms of what you believe is happening in these communities, how you’re reading into OP’s claim, and what level of evidence you’re expecting from OP in order to update.
To be more explicit, how do you know that there is scheming that goes on ahead of time, and not that the perpetrator hasn’t themselves been psychologically altered to act inappropriately? Is there any evidence to support premeditation?
It increasingly sounds like you are coming from a starting point of “there is no scheming” and looking for evidence to update.
But to be more explicit, you shouldn’t start from “there is no scheming”, because base rates would suggest that there is scheming that goes on ahead of time.
This conversation doesn’t seem to be achieving anything so I’m going to stop replying now. You seem to have a very high credence that you can read people’s intentions from scant evidence; I’m both dubious of this, and that I’d be able to change your mind in a timely fashion.
Thank you! Can you tell us more about how you figured out the following:
”Some bad actors know this and will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in a vulnerable/altered state so that he can have sex with her, without making any of these motives explicit upfront.”
Anecdotally, I have heard ~3 stories of premeditated psychedelic assault (the guy sometimes even explicitly says his intent to others, sometimes realizing this is bad, sometimes not realizing this is bad). I have heard ~2 stories of psychedelic date rape assault that were probably not premeditated, and ~2 stories that were ambiguous. I don’t know how well this reflects base rates. The ~3 stories of premeditated assault may be passed on through word of mouth more frequently, because they’re more obviously frightening.
But more importantly, I should have been more clear in my original post. Psychedelic assault is bad, whether or not it’s premeditated. I wrote more in this response about premediated vs not-premeditated assault.
Not sure why you’re asking, but the claims you have to believe in order for the OP’s claim to be not true is “no bad actors will deliberately give a woman LSD/MDMA with the purpose of getting her in an altered state so he can have sex with her”, or “Bad actors who want to do this will make their motives explicit upfront”.
Do you think either of these two or OP’s claim is more likely?
I’m asking to figure out the evidence and reasoning supporting her beliefs, because I like to base my beliefs on evidence and reasoning.
Great! So based on evidence and reasoning, what is your credence that the following claim is true?
And what is your credence that either of the following claims are true?
“Some” ranges from 2 or 3 people to every person but one. There’s not much point debating a claim so vague.
I never even commented on motives being explicit. I deliberately boldened the text I was asking about.
If your intention is to work out whether OP means “2 or 3 people” or “every person but one” or anything in between, it would have been helpful to clarify.
The reason I say this is because it’s common for people to ask innocuous questions with a more insidious subtext, and it’s often hard to tell this from people asking when you are online.
One possible reading of your series of questions is that you’re coming from a place where you are skeptical that this is happening, and you’re asking OP to provide evidence for you to update. But most of this evidence is going to be anecdotal, so it’s not going to be super helpful for you in terms of getting a rate. So I’m struggling to follow where your starting point is in terms of what you believe is happening in these communities, how you’re reading into OP’s claim, and what level of evidence you’re expecting from OP in order to update.
Anecdotes attesting to premeditation would cause me to update.
To be more explicit, how do you know that there is scheming that goes on ahead of time, and not that the perpetrator hasn’t themselves been psychologically altered to act inappropriately? Is there any evidence to support premeditation?
It increasingly sounds like you are coming from a starting point of “there is no scheming” and looking for evidence to update.
But to be more explicit, you shouldn’t start from “there is no scheming”, because base rates would suggest that there is scheming that goes on ahead of time.
This conversation doesn’t seem to be achieving anything so I’m going to stop replying now. You seem to have a very high credence that you can read people’s intentions from scant evidence; I’m both dubious of this, and that I’d be able to change your mind in a timely fashion.