# But, Mr. Francis, you are a rapist.

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-mr-francis-you-are-a-rapist/367904>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [August 8, 2006, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-mr-francis-you-are-a-rapist/367904 "2006-08-08T19:54:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 108

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\
**Post date:** [August 9, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-mr-francis-you-are-a-rapist/367904/108 "2006-08-09T19:02:43Z")

</div>

> [@Dead Badger](#):
>
> “In and of itself” is just a red herring; **Bricker** is not saying that the person’s blackness would be the _cause_ of their trustworthiness or otherwise - merely that it is _a_ factor which _could_ be examined, and which, due to dependencies on other less observable factors _might_ give a result which is different to the same figure for whites.

Precisely correct.

If anyone can find a single post in which I suggest that the CAUSE of the trustworthiness or otherwise is race, please trot it out. You can’t, because I never said such a thing, and I never would.

IF all other things were equal, such that the ONLY observable factor differentiating the two were race - which means that we eliminated all hidden codependent variables as causes - THEN, and ONLY THEN, could we say that there is some probative value to it, slight though it might be.

“All other things being equal.”

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/but-mr-francis-you-are-a-rapist/367904)._