# Enough from the defenders of rapists already **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392 "2014-11-23T05:26:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 41
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/801 "2014-12-28T09:12:53Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > He’s in good company with Hillary Clinton. Don’t be a jerk. I’m not defending rapists. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/802 "2014-12-28T19:08:05Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > You and Frylock are both jackasses. I am not “very likely a bad person,” “very likely a rapist,” nor am I “defending Cosby”. I am, as I said in the other thread, defending a particular idea of not accusing anyone without substantiation. So now that the number of women substantiating is up to 25 (and maybe more) reporting the same methods, do they substantiate each other or are they all a bunch of liars? (Incidentally, good for you for not jumping on the sluts are all statistically liars train.) Is the account of a woman, or 25 women, “substantiation” or hot air? I suppose the nature of the word “substantiate” requires at least two. By the time this thread was started it was a dozen. How many is substantiate? Or do women just not count when they say something?\* \*As another poster suggested above, I only take this position of counting the rights of women on the SDMB as equal to that of men in hopes of getting laid by the righteous feminists of the SDMB. Being a guest since 2008, I have to report that this method is not effective, as not one lady of the SDMB has graced my bed and put up with my snoring, much less stuck her hand down my pants. I do want to remind the ladies that I use my lawyerly birth control at all times: my personality. ---
**Author:** ![Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ac8455/32.png) [@Your\_Great\_Darsh\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Your_Great_Darsh_Face)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/803 "2014-12-28T19:11:57Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Don’t be a jerk. I’m not defending rapists. Still in this thread, **Monty**? You must have a high tolerance for being screeched at. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2014, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/804 "2014-12-28T19:16:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Rape Shield Laws were not enacted because of relevance but because of a powerful political group. Hilarious. TSS embarrasses himself with his comments. You embarrass an entire profession. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/805 "2014-12-29T03:56:37Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > It’s clear from earlier comments you’ve made that it really, really bothers you when women make broad generalizations about the character of all men. > > It really, really bothers some people when you make broad generalizations about the character of all women. Yes, it bothers me when people complain about being generalized and then get some payback by broadly generalizing. It’s not just women. I’m an asshole with everybody who does that. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/806 "2014-12-29T04:18:10Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Yes, it bothers me when people complain about being generalized and then get some payback by broadly generalizing. > > It’s not just women. I’m an asshole with everybody who does that. It really doesn’t need qualifications. You are an asshole. I imagine that there is an exception when you are sleeping. ---
**Author:** ![Club\_33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/df705f/32.png) [@Club\_33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Club_33)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/807 "2014-12-29T05:19:29Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Is the account of a woman, or 25 women, “substantiation” or hot air? I suppose the nature of the word “substantiate” requires at least two. By the time this thread was started it was a dozen. How many is substantiate? Or do women just not count when they say something?\* More accusers does not necessarily equal substantiation. It could simply be indicative of a bandwagon. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/808 "2014-12-29T05:38:48Z")
> [@Club\_33](#): > > More accusers does not necessarily equal substantiation. It could simply be indicative of a bandwagon. Is that what you contend it is in Mr. Cosby’s case? When even one of his male staff has substantiated? And if it is a “bandwagon” why isn’t it millions of women, some of whom have never been near Cosby? What is the cause of this “bandwagon”? The George Will presumption that it is cool to be a victim of rape? Please enlighten us. When you say it does not “necessarily” equal substantiation, doesn’t that depend on each and every accuser “necessarily” being a liar? In fact each accuser after the first necessarily substantiates his methods and deeds until such a time as one or more of the accusers are proven to be liars, not merely tarred with the brush of potentially being a liar. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/809 "2014-12-29T05:52:00Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > It’s clear from earlier comments you’ve made that it really, really bothers you when women make broad generalizations about the character of all men. > > It really, really bothers some people when you make broad generalizations about the character of all women. It really, really bothers all reasonable people when someone makes broad generalizations about the characters of any group that isn’t self-defined. Well, I guess that’s a generalization about “reasonable people.” Sue me! ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/810 "2014-12-29T11:50:48Z")
> [@Club\_33](#): > > More accusers does not necessarily equal substantiation. It could simply be indicative of a bandwagon. Do you think that is what’s happening in this case? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/811 "2014-12-29T14:10:03Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And, yes, if you think I’m the one being stupid, I invite you to prove me wrong. The problem with this is that not only are you being stupid but you actually are stupid, and further, you combine your stupidity with an arrogance that makes it futile to try to explain things to you, let alone to prove things to you. You can take that as you will, but my point is just that your challenge is pointless. It’s a waste of time to try to explain anything to you. Your position is entirely based on a fundamental lack of understanding of probability concepts, and those who maintain this position are motivated by a desire to have a woman’s sexual history be irrelevant, combined with ignorance of probability. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/812 "2014-12-29T14:26:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You can take that as you will, but my point is just that your challenge is pointless. It’s a waste of time to try to explain anything to you. Your position is entirely based on a fundamental lack of understanding of probability concepts, There may be a good argument to be made somewhere, but I have shown that your posts and **jtgain** ’s posts trying to defend some such argument have failed to do so. Among other things, you guys _seem_ to be making the fundamental error of confusing quantity with frequency. **BigT** ’s posts have been for the most part on target. It is fairly laughable for you to be calling him stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/813 "2014-12-29T14:30:28Z")
I’m content to leave it there. I’d rather have some fools on a MB think I’m completely wrong about something than to waste my time trying to convince people who are ignorant and are unable and/or unwilling to educate themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/814 "2014-12-29T14:39:36Z")
For the record, here’s a distilled version of the argument I take both of you to be making. P1: Person A has had consensual sex a greater number of times than person B P2: Person A and Person B have both just been involved in a sexual encounter. P3: Person A and Person B both claim the encounter was a rape. C: It is more probable that person A is lying than that person B is lying Given that argument, the two main criticisms I have are: 1. From P1 it does not follow that person A consents _more frequently_ than person B. But we need to know about that frequency in order to make judgments about probabilities 2. The conclusion requires us to ignore information given in the scenario laid out by the premises, since it requires us to use “sexual encounters” as the reference class instead of “sexual encounters in which one person claims a rape occurred.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/815 "2014-12-29T14:44:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m content to leave it there. > > I’d rather have some fools on a MB think I’m completely wrong about something than to waste my time trying to convince people who are ignorant and are unable and/or unwilling to educate themselves. **F-P** , as far as I can tell in this thread it has been you who has misunderstood basic probability concepts, and does not realize s/he needs to revise some assumptions. I’m no expert in probability, and I wouldn’t say I use these concepts every day, but analyzing some basic probabilistic arguments is something that I do have to do on occasion in my line of work. It’s easily possible I’ve got some basic misunderstanding or other, and I could defer to an expert here, but in the past my analyses _have_ been verified on examination by people who know what they’re talking about, precisely on topics like this one (choice of reference class, the semantics of probability statements, etc) so I feel I’ve got a leg to stand on here. You seem to think you know something I don’t–but it’s not at all clear that this is true. Rather the reverse would seem to be the case, as far as I can see. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/816 "2014-12-29T14:50:14Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **F-P** , as far as I can tell in this thread it has been you who has misunderstood basic probability concepts, and does not realize s/he needs to revise some assumptions. I’m no expert in probability, and I wouldn’t say I use these concepts every day, but analyzing some basic probabilistic arguments is something that I do have to do on occasion in my line of work. It’s easily possible I’ve got some basic misunderstanding or other, and I could defer to an expert here, but in the past my analyses _have_ been verified on examination by people who know what they’re talking about, precisely on topics like this one (choice of reference class, the semantics of probability statements, etc) so I feel I’ve got a leg to stand on here. You seem to think you know something I don’t–but it’s not at all clear that this is true. Rather the reverse would seem to be the case, as far as I can see. I don’t go for this type of credential-flashing. But if you’re going to trot out your ocaisionally using probability in your line of work, I would suggest that the level of training and testing and using probability concepts in becoming and being an actuary is quite likely just a bit more rigorous than some guy who ocaisionally has to use such concepts in his line of work. So even besides for the obvious fact that you’re missing the boat, even if I just take a step and consider whether to take seriously the likelihood that I’m completely ignorant of basic probability while you are the guy who understands it (let alone complete idiots like BigT) I think the _probability_ of this is rather low. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/817 "2014-12-29T14:58:20Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t go for this type of credential-flashing. I couldn’t think of anything else to say that might convince you that you’re the one who needs to take pause rather than me or **BigT**. (Or explain whence my own confidence here other than some inflated sense of general competence.) You’ll note the “credentials” I “flashed” are pretty weak in the scheme of things, and I clearly indicated, with actual words, that I’d “defer to experts” here. > [@](#): > > But if you’re going to trot out your ocaisionally using probability in your line of work, I would suggest that the level of training and testing and using probability concepts in becoming and being an actuary is quite likely just a bit more rigorous than some guy who ocaisionally has to use such concepts in his line of work. Okay, then can you give me the _technical_ explanation for the error you think I’m committing? I think you’ve been holding back, so far, trying to put it in layman’s terms, and that could easily be the problem here. Put it in math for me. > [@](#): > > So even besides for the obvious fact that you’re missing the boat, See the distilled version of the argument I gave above. Is it an inaccurate summary of your argument? If so, how should it be changed to make it more accurate? Or if it’s accurate, how do my two objections not apply? Again, it’s okay to use math on me here. Trying to put it into everyday English may actually be confusing things more than necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/818 "2014-12-29T15:26:29Z")
Here’s two different arguments: > [@Argument 1](#): > > Pa1: Person S consents to sex more frequently than person T > Pa2: S and T were just both involved in a sexual encounter (two separate ones, to be clear) > Ca: S’s sexual encounter is more likely to have been consensual than T’s sexual encounter > [@Argument 2](#): > > Pb1: Person S consents to sex more frequently than person T > Pb2: S and T were just both involved in a sexual encounter (two separate ones, to be clear) > Pb3: S and T both say that their encounter was rape. > Cb: S is more likely to be lying than T Argument 1 is okay. Its conclusion does follow from its premises. Argument 2 is not okay. Its conclusion does not follow from its premises. (Well, I guess on consideration I should qualify that: it is not _as clear_ that its conclusion follows, and it at least depends on information we don’t presently have, see below.) What’s the difference? Obviously, the presence of that third premise in argument 2. It changes things. It is additional information, which (since it’s included in the scenario) we’d be wrong to ignore in thinking about the relevant probabilities. Specifically, the change we have to make is, instead of just looking at how frequently the two people have sex, (which yields one probability judgment), we now have to look also at how frequently rape accusations turn out to be lies. (That’s really all we have to fall back on given the paucity of information in the scenario.) I think what happens is, some people see argument 2, and think of it as simply argument 1, plus a new premise, like this: > [@Argument 3](#): > > Pc1: Person S has consensual sex more frequently than Person 2 > Pc2: S and T have each just been involved in a separate sexual encounter > Sub-Conclusion: S’s encounter is more likely to have been consensual than T’s encounter > Pc3: S and T both claim their encounters were rapes > Conclusion (from Sub-conclusion and Pc3): S is more likely to be lying than T But this only works if conclusions drawn from one set of premises can always be drawn from other sets of premises that include the original set. As it happens, when we’re talking about probabilistic reasoning, this doesn’t always work. For example, the following pair of arguments: > [@Argument 4](#): > > Pd1: It is night-time where John lives and day-time where Jacob lives > Conclusion: Therefore, it is more likely that John is asleep than that Jacob is asleep > [@Argument 5](#): > > Pe1: It is night-time where John lives and day-time where Jacob lives > Pe2: John and Jacob both have night-jobs > Conclusion: Therefore, it is more likely that John is asleep than that Jacob is asleep Argument 4 works, argument 5 does not, even though the conclusion in both cases is the same and the premises of 5 entirely contain the premises of 4. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/819 "2014-12-29T15:41:33Z")
I might be making a mistake in taking this up but … > [@Frylock](#): > > Argument 1 is okay. Its conclusion does follow from its premises. > > Argument 2 is not okay. Its conclusion does not follow from its premises. (Well, I guess on consideration I should qualify that: it is not _as clear_ that its conclusion follows, and it at least depends on information we don’t presently have, see below.) > > What’s the difference? Obviously, the presence of that third premise in argument 2. It changes things. It is additional information, which (since it’s included in the scenario) we’d be wrong to ignore in thinking about the relevant probabilities. Specifically, the change we have to make is, instead of just looking at how frequently the two people have sex, (which yields one probability judgment), we now have to look also at how frequently rape accusations turn out to be lies. (That’s really all we have to fall back on given the paucity of information in the scenario.) Additional information of unknown value does not change the probability. If in a given scenario absent the additional information A is more likely than B, then mere speculation that the additional information might change the answer in some unknown direction and unknown magnitude does not change the probability. > [@](#): > > Argument 4 works, argument 5 does not, even though the conclusion in both cases is the same and the premises of 5 entirely contain the premises of 4. See above. You’re postulating in Argument 5 that you know that both these guys work at night. If you didn’t know anything about either but are merely speculating that they might work at night, then you’re back in the Argument 4 position. [One important thing to remember is that no one is claiming that prior sexual history is all you need to know and settles the issue on its own. The claim is that it has a bearing on the likelihood of the accuser’s version being correct versus the accused’s version, and the counter claim is that it has zero bearing.] ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/820 "2014-12-29T15:43:56Z")
Imagine the following argument, based on 5 above: > [@argument 6](#): > > Pf1: It is night-time where John lives and day-time where Jacob lives > Sub-conclusion: Therefore, it is more likely that John is asleep than that Jacob is asleep > Pe2: John and Jacob both have night-jobs > Conclusion: John and Jacob are probably not behaving responsibly Compare with Argument 3 above, and you can see how one can be led astray if one treats sub-conclusions in probabilistic arguments like this as firmly established before taking all available information into account. The fact that a rape claim has been made is new information, and has to be thrown in the mix. It is an important part of the available evidence, and can’t be ignored in order to form any kind of “subconclusion” on the model of arguments 6 and 3 above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392.md?page=42)