We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is “I can’t find any proof there is danger here?”
The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
You made a claim:
“this action has risk.”
You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
Now you’re asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
Thats your gotcha argument? “I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn’t exist, so therefore it does exist?”
It’s pretty wild that you’re getting on someone’s case about lacking evidence when you’ve utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
Suddenly trying to substitute “perceived risk” for “real risk” is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn’t at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
You’ve been making the claim in almost every comment that there’s a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You’ve provided no evidence for that risk. You’ve admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it’s a real risk. You don’t just get to say, “Well neither of us know for sure therefore you must accept my claim”. That’s ridiculous.
If neither of us have proof either way, it’s a stalemate. That doesn’t make me wrong, but it doesn’t make me right.
Given that if a bra has underwire, I may have to remove it for a defibrillator, you can’t perceive a possible misunderstanding?
The risk isn’t necessarily legal, but social so. A court case isn’t required for it to be real.
Kim wright is a case where the man was sued. You don’t see many cases because they’re laughed out of court, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t damage done.
I have 2 REAL questions for you.
If there’s zero risk to being accused of harm when you’re trying to help, why do Good Samaritan laws exist? What was the need?
Can you perceive a possible misinterpretation when I have to remove an unconscious woman’s garments including bra for a defibrillator?
We’re both aware that the numbers don’t exist and aren’t kept.
Suggesting that’s a fault in my argument but not yours is asking me to provide evidence to prove your point wrong. “Burden of proof” fallacy if you will.
But that’s not the point. Plenty of people get accused of impropriety for doing less than lifting a woman’s shirt…. And if I have to apply a defibrillator, it’s not going to do much if I don’t get it under her shirt.
We both know that reaching under her shirt can be perceived poorly especially if someone doesn’t notice the defibrillator.
But I’ll back up my statements with references
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/11/23/why-people-fear-performing-cpr-on-women-and-what-to-do-about-it
Will you do the same? Or will you continue to ask me for information to back up your arguments?
You made the suggestion that it was “near zero” and now you’re asking me for proof that it isn’t near zero.
Youre making the claim that there is some danger here, and your defense is “I can’t find any proof there is danger here?”
The simple truth is that there is no danger in this circumstance, but if you accepted that you would have no argument for not assisting a person dying.
Your article points to a 45%/39% male to female assistance rate. The article doesnt give exact numbers, but says some women are less likely to perform CPR on women for fear of harming them. So if we say of that 6%, 3% are women that dont perform CPR for the above, we have 3% of men who are afraid to try to save a womans life because of a non existent threat. It sounds like youre one of those 3% of fearful men.
Id ask for the dying womans sake, that you push past your fear and help keep another person alive. Be strong, for them. Be brave, for yourself.
Fear is the mindkiller. Dont let it control you. Do the right thing instead.
Okay so you can’t see any danger in someone getting the wrong perception when I am removing parts of the shirt of an unconscious woman to put on a defibrillator? Not even if they don’t see the defibrillator?
You’re either not capable of understanding the point or arguing in bad faith.
But back to the point…. You said there was zero risk, I provided an article that showed that this isn’t just my personal feeling, but a common perception of risk, be it real or just perceived.
And I asked you to back up your claims, instead you double down and show nothing to support your point. You claim it is a simple truth in order to downplay your lack of data.
Between the mix of bad faith arguments and trying to make this personal (about whether I would act or not) you don’t seem like you’d accept a truth if it disagreed with your personal narrative. This debate seems fruitless, so I’m done. Have a nice day.
You made a claim:
“this action has risk.”
You then provided no evidence at all of that risk, just an article talking about other fearful people like yourself imagining that there might be a risk. Being cowardly is not evidence of a risk, no matter how large or small the group of cowards is.
Now you’re asking me to prove a negative, to disprove your absolutely nothing. Okay, glad to. Since you provided zero evidence of risk, and even admitted there is no recorded case of this risk happening, then its easy to see that there is no risk. Turns out something has to exist for it to exist. Tricky, that.
Thats your gotcha argument? “I have no evidence this exists, and neither do you because it doesn’t exist, so therefore it does exist?”
Is this your first day on the internet?
Best rebuttal is calling people cowards eh?
You win, but I wish you would reconsider that I may have a point despite your distaste for it.
Have a nice day.
And if someone gets the wrong perception so what? And what of the other x+ people seeing you do the right thing?
I’d 100% cunt punt someone trying to attack someone performing life saving procedures on someone in crisis
It’s pretty wild that you’re getting on someone’s case about lacking evidence when you’ve utterly failed to provide any of your own that any one has ever actually been hassled for giving CPR to a woman.
I know paramedics who got formal complaints about this. Their boss ignored as the paramedics were acting as trained.
I provided a link showing that this risk, real or perceived is prevalent.
But you didn’t read that, did you?
I also didn’t make the case that I knew the numbers on the risk, in fact I made the case that neither of us know. So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of knowing the risk. That’s not me.
But you’re not gonna listen to that either.
😉 have a nice day.
Suddenly trying to substitute “perceived risk” for “real risk” is a rather weaselly way to make an argument about real risk.
Yes, and it was an odd article for you to link to since it didn’t at all support your claim about there being real risk. Perceptions do not always align with reality, and you know that.
You’ve been making the claim in almost every comment that there’s a real risk of someone being accused of a sex crime while performing CPR. You’ve provided no evidence for that risk. You’ve admitted that you have no evidence of that risk. Yet you still keep claiming it’s a real risk. You don’t just get to say, “Well neither of us know for sure therefore you must accept my claim”. That’s ridiculous.
Have a nice day.
If neither of us have proof either way, it’s a stalemate. That doesn’t make me wrong, but it doesn’t make me right.
Given that if a bra has underwire, I may have to remove it for a defibrillator, you can’t perceive a possible misunderstanding?
The risk isn’t necessarily legal, but social so. A court case isn’t required for it to be real.
Kim wright is a case where the man was sued. You don’t see many cases because they’re laughed out of court, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t damage done.
I have 2 REAL questions for you.
If there’s zero risk to being accused of harm when you’re trying to help, why do Good Samaritan laws exist? What was the need?
Can you perceive a possible misinterpretation when I have to remove an unconscious woman’s garments including bra for a defibrillator?