[QUOTE=DMC]
All of that and you still didn’t answer the question. I’ll ask it again.
[QUOTE=DMC]
If we use likelihood of a black woman to be a rape victim, you’re logic would tell us that she is far more credible than a white woman claiming the same thing. On the other hand, if we use the likelihood of a black woman being raped by a white guy, your logic tells us that she is far less credible than a white woman claiming the same thing. So, does your attempt to solve this mathematically not work, or do black women who claim white attackers lie at a vastly greater frequency than black women who claim black attackers?
[/QUOTE]
Let’s see. You are:
-
Misrepresenting my logic, which does not tell you anybody is “far” more credible than anything. I have pointed this out many, many times, and as I have no reason to believe that you’re blindingly stupid, I can only to assume that you’re either not reading my posts, or are, as I said, wilfully misrepresenting my position. Way to go!
-
Bringing in an premise entirely unrelated to the remaining argument (that whatever-on-b rapes are more common than whatever-on-w rapes) and presenting it as though it is “on the other hand”: aka in conflict with the other fact, which it is of course not in conflict with at all. The implication you’re trying to make, of course, is that there is something wrong with my logic that is making a conflict, when in actuality, you’re comparing apples and apple trees, and there’s not even a conflict there for my logic to make. Nicely deceptive of you; congratulations!
-
in your conclusion strongly implied that if my math works, that you can conclude that a “vastly greater” number of bow claims than wob claims are false. Which, of course, it doesn’t; it doesn’t actually say anything at all on the matter. (Note that you have to understand the difference between the credibility of a claim and the credibility of a claimant for the previous statement to make sense.)
So.
You’re asking me, “Red Herring, or, on the other hand, wob < wow. False dichotomy?”
Gee, how could I have overlooked the opportunity to answer this? :rolleyes:
The closest actual question I can think of that resembles this would be, “Because your logic can be used to demonstrates that based on a difference in rape rates there is an infintessimally small difference in the credibility of claims of wob and wow rape, can it be used to conclusively determine that black women lie more than white women about being raped by white men?”
My answer to that is, of course, “No.” With a little of an odd look at you, because you’d have to have misunderstood most of what I’d written to not know the answer to that already.
Hey Hentor! Glad to see you’re back. And flinging shit, I see; wonderful! (I did invite you do to so, you remember.) I applaud your post; It’s been a while since I’ve seen a more stylish rendition of “I got nothin’! Nothin’ at ALL!!” Man, it’s like it’s got a brass band and dancing girls behind it! Well done, sir.
And if I had to make an honest guess (not to imply any lack of credibility to face’s statement) I would say that I suspect that the only reason magellan01 was bothering with this as long as he was, was because he was the only one left protecting the truth from being trampled on by you folk. The minute I started posting, he had no reason to keep doing so. Though I expect if I made some sort of grevious error, he or someone else might step in to chastise me, assuming anybody but us is bothing to even read this anymore.
