BEATS - by RETNA



Fitting....

Those are really ugly

Interesting video...

she had shards of a broken bottle across her face/scalp and a black eye. he was arrested and they settled out of court. one look at the evidence (and the dude's instagram), and i know who i believe.

the fact that he has allegedly assaulted multiple other people, and that multiple individuals have restraining orders against him, doesn't really help his case either.

yes, no one knows what happened in that room besides the two of them. we can make educated guesses. i personally think retna being the attacker is more plausible than brittny gastineau falling off a bed head-first onto a glass bottle and punching herself in the face. from what i can tell, retna never even claimed that she sustained the injuries in any other way, just that it was a 'mutual fight' and that he also sustained injuries.

I’m in no way defending violence against women

Except I am 🤦‍♂️

Check some data, please. It’s a sobering reality check (for the ones willing to learn something at least).

Personally, I had no idea, but I’m done with Retna. He’s beyond the boundaries of what I consider civil in our time, hence his work has no interest for me anymore.

Either way ; from a branding view point it's a very bad decision to endorse Retna.
Especially with this product. BEATS by Dre.
And you find an artist with a reputation to BEAT his girl friend. Really?

Stupid marketing by Apple. Which has a reputation to hold high.

Women need to stand up to these thugs

10 year minimum sentence for assault 

Community service my arse.

What community wants a woman beater helping them out 

Totally agree, but Dr.Dre himself is well known for (I think) 3 physical attacks against woman

and he still made this 3.2 billion USD deal with Apple.

It wasn't´t before 2017 that he really gave a statement and apologized...

I need guaranteed capital.

cmc :
Reality check - and why we should believe women much more than we do.

Four times as many women as men are killed by a current or former partner (ONS, 2001-2013)

In 2013-14, 93% of defendants in domestic violence court cases were male and 84% of victims were female (CPS Violence Against Women and Girls Crime Report, 2014).

89% of all those who had experienced 4 or more incidents of domestic violence were women (Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey, Sylvia Walby and Jonathan Allen, 2004)

One in five women and one in 71 men will be raped at some point in their lives (Black, M. C. et al (2011)). Or to put it slightly differently, 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault are female, and 9% are male (Rennison, C. A. (2002)).

Nearly one in 10 women has been raped by an intimate partner in her lifetime, including completed forced penetration, attempted forced penetration or alcohol/drug-facilitated completed penetration. (Breiding, M. J. et al (2014)).


Hence “him” attacking “her” IS more plausible by a very long margin. Yes, it’s a “scary time” ... but for women, certainly not for “young men.”

Facts interest me less than thought processes, and arguments presented during an exchange.

There may be some misunderstanding in this thread because distinct issues seem like they're being conflated:


1.  The focus of cmc (at least initially) was on contrasting scenarios which could have played out during one incident involving Retna.


2.  What I pick up from your post, however, is the possible intimation that conclusions about an individual — here, the likelihood of Retna's guilt — can, in some way, be deduced from population-level data.

If that is not what you were saying, then what follows can be ignored as irrelevant.

But if it is what you meant to suggest, we'd have flawed reasoning. A confusion of higher averages with higher likelihoods in particular cases. See the ecological fallacy ("inferences about the nature of specific individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong").

__________


Different example to illustrate:

Yesterday, I met Eloise, who said she worked as a crane operator.

Now, there may be plenty of reasons why I feel she wasn't telling the truth. But the reality that her stated profession is overwhelmingly male-dominated isn't in itself valid ground for me to accuse her of dishonesty.

Again, group statistics cannot reliably be transposed to a singular person — regardless of whether they relate to gender, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic background, or whichever other relevant or irrelevant identity-categorisation we could come up with. All the more so, statistics cannot be used to safely gauge the plausibility of someone being guilty of a crime. [The very idea conflicts with foundation principles of our legal systems, including the presumption of innocence, and each case needing to be assessed on the basis of its own merits.]

If I were therefore to state that, since women nationwide occupy less than 1% of all crane-operating jobs, Eloise is most probably a liar (perhaps even with 99% certainty), this claim would be foolish. Yet it might still be persuasive to some readers. Because, if only considered superficially, the logic applied isn't obviously faulty.

I know, that’s the drama of our time.

Concerning the other fluff (with all due respect) you mentioned: please google “Bayes’ theorem.”
The probability of A (i.e. the dude is a domestic abuser) given B (i.e. the lady appears beaten) is equal to the probability of B given A (ie probability of a woman being beaten given that she has an abusive partner), times the unconditional probability (ie population frequency) of A divided by the unconditional probability of B (hence the facts I provided, and that apparently don’t interest you, point to the guy being a likely abuser - just plug in the formula, really, albeit most people don’t even need a formula to understand it).
Note that the Bayes’ theorem is a fact, not an opinion.

If you understand the above, the issue should be sorted. But if you don’t, this discussion is futile, and you will find more useful just goggling “Bayes’ theorem” and checking out from the library any basic textbook on decision theory and Bayesian learning (you’ll find it fascinating, promised, and it’s never too late).

Hope this helps.

PS your Eloise example is either nonsensical or lapalissian (you choose). It simply says: if one does not understand probabilities, one comes to crazy conclusions - and that’s a truth I could not agree more with 😊 (again, Bayes’ theorem would give the proper answer).

Enough said.