Okay, okay. I made a mistake and looked at your comment and now I can't help but reply to it. I should know better, but I just can't resist the bait.

You say that you "named two countries - Denmark and Norway" - presumably you mean that these are countries where multiple rapes are aggregated into a single instance. Rather, as the Amnesty International report puts it Denmark reports statistics on rape-cases, not rape incidents - quoting the report from footnote 24 "In Denmark and Norway, the statistics refer to cases. In general, one case will be opened for each victim, so the statistics do not indicate the actual number
of rapes."

Okay, lets consider that for a moment. On Denmark's government website[1] where they report rape statistics (the English version of their website). There, they write "The statistics show the number of offences of criminal code and special laws/legislation reported to the police or discovered by the police itself." They also note that their laws on reporting rape, and what classifies as rape, changed in 2013 - perhaps that explains the discrepancy with the Amnesty International report. If you look in Eurostat[2] you can see that Denmark's rape rate was ~15 per 100k in 2013 and is at 38 by 2020. So, no. Denmark's stats seem to be on crimes reported to the police per their current live government website. You can query the tool here[3] to see that the rapes reported on this page match is reported in Eurostat.

Norway too reports on "offenses reported to the police."[4] If you look at the table there for rape, and divide by Norway's population, you can find approximately the same numbers reported in Eurostat.

Let's recall that not only are you wrong about Denmark and Norway, you also didn't even try to answer the relevant questions. Suppose it were true that Denmark consolidated all reports of rape to a single instance - how does that change things? Again, the best you can do is that maybe, in some circumstances, some countries count differently. I tend to think the reason you are hesitant to be specific is that whenever you are specific I can just look up the specifics and see that you're wrong.

You allege that I'm claiming there is some kind of conspiracy here. This is typical of your arrogant and lazy style of commenting. Rather than read your own sources or look at official government sites, you skim wikipedia and throw out "What ifs" and "Maybes". When I point out that you are completely wrong and directly refuted by official sources, you go to the "You're a racist conspiracy theorist" defense. Perhaps you've tried that in real life and you've noticed that people stop talking when you try this, and you've assumed that meant it was a winning argument. In reality, I think it's more of a tell that you don't know what you're talking about and you don't bother to try and find out - and that's why people stop talking.

You refer again to the statista table as if this were meaningful. You do not compare trust in the police in Sweden across Europe. Worse, you don't have any theory that predicts "If Swedish women trust the police more than Swedish men then Swedish women will report more rapes than any other country in Europe." The theory sounds like nonsense when you read it, so why are you showing me evidence that Swedish women trust the police more than men like it confirms anything? As I previously quoted from your source - the majority of Swedes do not have confidence that the police will solve crimes. Quoting it again "Also when it comes to the police's ability to solve crimes 19 percent of Swedish women and only 11 percent the men perceive that the police is doing a good job. But nevertheless, most of surveyed people stated that they are doing a bad job in terms of solving crimes."

You write that Belgium's reporting method is not written in their law, so that ctrl+f would be useless. This is true, Belgium's reporting methods are not described in their penal code. However, you seem to have gotten confused. When discussing Belgium's penal code we were discussing the issue of whether or not Belgium considered non-penetrative sex acts to be rape - and the answer, which you can find by searching their penal code for "rape" is that there are indeed circumstances where non-penetrative sex acts can be charged as rape - same as Sweden.

Regarding Snopes - they simply repeat the same talking points you are, with basically the same evidence. "Maybe some other countries we can't name count in ways we can't describe and that explains the difference." Snopes is not some authoritative source - they hire freelance bloggers to churn out articles based on what's trending. If I don't trust you, when you repeat the nonsense from Sweden's government, why do you think I'd trust a random blogger?

1 - https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/sociale-forhold/krimin...

2 - http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableActio...

3 - https://www.statbank.dk/statbank5a/selectvarval/saveselectio...

4 - https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/krimin...