well, and in the trainwreck that prompted this one (trainwreck V 2), the original poster who brought in FBI stats to promote the concept “since WoB rape is a rare event, that data point could/should be used as information in determining the reliability of this individual reporting a WoB rape”, there was also data wrt gang rape (which is an even smaller sub set of the classification of rape) that demonstrated that at least for the year looked at, if there was an allegation of gang rape (also true in the original case), the perps were more likely to be white, w/o even getting into a discussion about the race of the victim. that little factoid, of course, was not relevant apparently.
[QUOTE=DMC]
All of that and you still didn’t answer the question. I’ll ask it again.
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.
Hey, DMC, I thought of an even better response to your non-question:
Suppose you have a white woman claiming that a white-on-black rape occured (not against herself, of course) and a black woman claiming that a white-on-white claim occured? What does my logic say about these claims?
Why, in this case, assuming that the odds of a wow rape happening are still better, then the black woman’s claim is now more credible! (Marginally, anyway.)
Does this mean that suddenly white women are the ones that lie at a ‘vastly greater frequency’ than black women? Have I (gasp!) contradicted myself? No. Of course not. My logic speaks about the credibility of the claims, not the the claimants. (Much less the entire race that a claimant happens to be part of). There is a difference between the two.
As has been pointed out, and I conceded (somebody here conceded something?? Say it ain’t so!), in order to know something about the general tendencies toward lying about something by women of a given race, you actually need some information pertaining to the tendencies of women of the given race to lie about that. We only have information about the rate of women of different races being victims. Not the same thing.
So…
Is Bricker a disingenous punk, or not?
Well, thanks, cockhair! I appreciate it. In actuality, I was simply waiting for you to say something new. Anything new. Post after post after post of “can too” and “yuh huh, just add some made up weights!” and “believe me, because I’m so smrt!” were getting to be fairly tiresome. But the pack of weasels besieging poor Magellan01 bit, now that was a good one! (I also just recently found out that I got another paper accepted for publication, and I am preparing to begin work on the research grant I was just awarded, so my thoughts have been on things other than “Why does poor begbert2 fail to understand relatively simple statistical concepts?”)
Ding ding ding! Wow! This time it only took a couple of pages to get it to stick. The pack of weasels must be growing more ravenous! Of course, I have to admit that I missed where you conceded anything. I think I lost it among all the semi-l33t speak regarding your brilliance! Your brilliance, I also must admit, I do have trouble comprehending.
We haven’t had a long enough discussion yet to determine that. 
Yeah, I was gone on vacation for a while, and when I got back, I expected to see this settled. I’m tempted to start a new thread: “So is Bricker really a disingenuous punk?”
Do you realize you get the award for the first poster to spell “disingenuous” correctly (and that includes the title of the thread)?
No, really? 13 pages in? Maybe that was the problem all along…
Yes, I know, I’m no fun at all.
On topic, before assessing wether Bricker was a disingenuous punk, I’d want to know wether or not he has his hair all in spikes and multiple colors.
Okay, you’ve mastered “disingenuous”. Could you work on “whether” for a while, please?
Sure. “Weather”.
Not bad!
Sorry Sal, guess I jumped the gun with that award. Please return it.