Bricker is a disingenous punk.

The BBQ Pit
1

There are two things in this world that drive me crazy.

The first is willfull ignorance. The second is dishonesty.

Bricker demonstrates both qualities and because of that, I pit him.

In this thread, he displays the former in a magnificent way. Witness this exchange:

Simple story, right? Both Marie and Janice accuse a white guy of rape. Seems quite obvious that in the absence of pertinent facts, we can’t conclude which is more credible than the other. Right? So we should suspend judgement.

But let’s see what Sage Bricker says in response:

(bolding mine)

Woah, right? He’s basically suggesting Marie’s accusation is less than fully credible because she is black, because white-on-black rape appears infrequent according to some (misinterpreted) DoJ stats. Can we say stupid? Yes we can.

But this is not why Bricker is getting pitted. No, it wish that was the only thing that sucks about him. I’m pitting him because he’s now trying to rewrite history and pretend as if his argument was more scientifically sound than the crap he originally came up and that anybody who thought otherwise is a doody-hood. Today he writes in this thread:

Where were all these beautiful disclaimers about “codependent variables” back when he called me stupid for challenging the assumption that race is a relevant data point in assessing credibility? Where was all these qualifications about the appropriate use of racial statistics when he was kissing Huerta on the cheek and defending the guy’s specious arguments in the Lying Whore thread?

They were no where. Because he is dishonest. Instead of admitting that he was wrong way back in the thread about Huerta88’s name, he is now trying to act as if he was being deliberately misunderstood by a bunch of meanies. What’s funny is that he had ample opportunity to set everyone straight when they were busy misunderstanding him in the original thread, but he waits more than a month later, in a completely unrelated thread, to suddenly “clarify” his position. Coincidentally, this “clarification” comes after his assumptions were challenged by Dead Badger.

Rather than admit that he is wrong, he engages in disingenous spin of the most pathetic, weasely sort. I didn’t want to hijack the other thread any more than it had been, so I decided to start this one, because this behavior of his really bothers me and I needed to vent about it.

Thanks for letting me do so.

2

Weren’t two threads already enough?

This. Horse. Is. DEAD.

3

You are truly an idiot.

The posts you quote from me deserve to be read in the context of that thread. I certainly acknowledge that slogging through that thread is an exercise for the masochistic.

But the saliant point from my post is:

With no information other than what you’ve just said, AND that the reported previous incidence of white-on-black rape is effectively zero.

Those preconditions are intended to eliminate any possibility of other conditions – they are, in other words, supposed to function as “beautiful disclaimers about ‘codependent variables.’”

But you don’t understand that, despite the mountains of test written to explain it, and you are now on your THIRD thread displaying your lack of understanding.

I don’t believe there’s much hope in penetrating your skull with anything that would approach understanding.

4

Didn’t we do this just two weeks ago?

5

If that was the case, you disingenous punk, then you should have been in agreement with me along. Every objection I raised to Huerta’s arguments rested upon the basic fact that there is no evidence of race being a determinant of rape-behavior. So honing in on a person’s race as if it is something more than a “codependent variable” is wrong, ridiculous, and despicable.

But you didn’t express agreement with me. Instead, you called me stupid and attempted to argue against about my position using silly hypotheticals about ninjas and roulette tables.

Hence this thread.

6

Yeah, the circumstances were much the same. An unjustified pitting.

We can, but I’m afraid your interpretation is stupid. Bricker is saying nothing about black credibility but instead is highlighting the strong tendency of rapists to commit offenses against persons of their own race. Or so it appears to me.

If you’re going to play pin-the-tail-on-the-weasel, make sure it is being a weasel before you get started.

7

I correctly called you stupid because my agreement with **Huerta/b] was always conditioned by those disclaimers. Why did you believe I kept on about 'all other things being equal" and “with no other evidence to go on” over and over? You focused myopically on my agreement, and brushed aside the conditionals upon which my agreement was based.

The madder you got, the less you tried to read what was being said. The madder you got, the more you focused on my answer of “Yes” and the less you read “… ASSUMING that the the following conditions are true.”

I tried to explain it using non-racial examples, but you dismissed them as nonsense.

In the end I concluded that there was simply no getting through to you.

Nothing I have seen since has caused me to change my mind on that point.

8

[nitpick]

It’s “homing in,” as you may see in definition 3 of the verb form.

To hone means to sharpen, as a knife on a whetstone.

[/nitpick]

Well, something remotely useful ought to flow from the poor hamsters’ labor.

9

and not a meerkat.

10

He’s saying if a black person accuses a white person of a crime like rape, then that allegation is less than fully credible if national crime statistics show that white-on-black rape is infequent.

Yes, a white person is more likely to be raped by a white person than a black one is. I fully understand that. But that has no bearing on how much credence we should give a specific claim of such. Bricker suggested that it does. Do you not agree that this is wrong?

11

No, that’s not what I suggested. And the fact that you keep characterizing my suggestion as that is why we’re here.

12

If we only read these two sentences, and assume that “this” has the previous sentence as its antecedent, I agree.

While I think Bricker is incorrect, I’m not sure on that score–because his qualifications make his assertion totally inapplicable to the real world. I suspect Bricker agrees with that–what do you say, Bricker?

The point he’s arguing seems to me to be wholly academic, vaguely akin to arguing about whether a young green dragon’s breath weapon ought to inflict 4d6 or 6d4 damage. I think you’re misreading his posts to see them as applicable to the real world.

That said, I think it’s unfair of him to call you stupid, because arguing a totally academic point like that isn’t something that everyone does, and it’s understandable that some folks would assume that nobody would do it.

Daniel

13

You are simply using “All other things as being equal” to mean whatever you conveniently what it to mean, now that your stupidity is being exposed again. It’s clear that none of the people arguing against you interpreted those disclaimers to mean you were talking about controlling for confounders, otherwise we wouldn’t have harped on and on about them. If all along you realized the dangers of drawing conclusions based on confounded associations, then you should have been on my side of the debate, not Huerta’s.

14

Bricker, I can’t parse your statements as anything other than you believe the general crime statistics can be used to determine credibility. If that is not what you’re saying, could you explain a little better what you are saying.

15

I could be wrong, but I thought a young green dragon’s breath weapon inflicts 6d6 damage. Are you sure you’re not talking about a very young green dragon?

16

That’s what I get too and like YWTF notes the others who supported this position, weren’t speaking as far as I can in theory, they were using it as fact and real-world use; specifically to the Duke case and Bricker praised their logic.

17

You’re correct; according to the SRD, it should be 6d6. 4d6 would be very young; no green dragon does d4’s of damage with its breath weapon.

18

Hmm. Maybe so. It’s been awhile since I read that thread, and I don’t really want to go back to it. But my impression was that he qualified his praise to the point that it didn’t apply to the real world, and that he got irritated at folks who didn’t recognize the qualifications. I vaguely recall putting up an argument against the basic logic, and having someone (Bricker or someone else) say that they agreed with my criticism.

Daniel

19

I’m saying in the absence of any other data, with all other things being equal, with factors like reporting rates being corrected for, equal claim rates from blacks and whites, with any hidden codependent variables corrected for… THEN, and ONLY THEN, would the data about past events be probative (but NOT determinative) towards credibility.

20

He never said anything about it not applying to real world. He got irritated when I brushed away his meaninglesss disclaimers about the absence of evidence, but that had nothing to do with the practical applicability of arguments. “In the absence of evidence” doesn’t make it okay to use crime stats in assessing the probabililty that a specific allegation is true. If you don’t have evidence, you suspend judgement until you get evidence.