Huerta88 - your handle hurts you

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
If the concepts go over your head (and it’s apparent that they do), then it’s best to not weigh in on who is “winning” a debate.

[/QUOTE]

I should respond to this separately, because there is actually a germ of truth here.

In the other thread, I said something like, “I don’t know that I agree with Huerta88, but he’s argued his point well.”

It’s fair to question whether the concepts went over my head, because I didn’t give the cited material more than a cursory glance and I missed the small sample size that supported a conclusion upon which Huerta was relying.

But pointing out that error is the job of the person on the other side of the debate. I wasn’t an advocate for either side: I was reading the posts and trying to form an opinion based on their content. Huerta’s posts swayed me more, becase he was posting cites for his claims and arguing (apparently) from those cites. In contrast, you with the face kept insisting that the cites were irrelevant, without ever clearly explaining why she believed so.

So my reaction was that of an observer: one side was winning.

Now, when a specific criticism of the data arose, in this thread, I immediately lauded it, and even suggested to ywtf that THIS was how to debate.

So – was the material over my head? In a sense. I don’t think it’s anything I cannot master – I got an A in my Statistics 201 class, after all. But it’s also fair to say I didn’t undertake an extensive review of the material, so I didn’t master it. I merely commented on how the dbate appeared to be going to an observer.

[monstro]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Perhaps I should have commented on it in the other thread. Frankly, I did not because it was in the Pit, where insult mixes pretty freely with actual debate. It was clear to me that the comment, while distasteful, was also utterly devoid of any debate value, in either direction. So I simply ignored it. Given that it’s become an issue in its own right here, I commented upon it.

If I had it to do over, I think I would have said something in the original thread.
[/QUOTE]

You ignored it, but you DIDN’T ignore ywtf’s assertion that what Huerta had said was racist. How convenient.

You used the term “ad hominem” to describe her response. If you were suspending the rules of debate because it was the Pit, why in the hell would you accuse her of attacking Huerta with an ad hominem?

Why would you side with someone who would post something like that, and then create another thread in which you praise him? That doesn’t sound like the behavior of someone who silently disapproved of what was said. You sounded like you were in full agreement with him.

I’m giving you a lot of shit on this, Bricker, because the thread was made personal in more ways than one for me. I’m not going to quit riding your back until you at least apologize for your contribution to that circus act. I can’t get one from Huerta. I’m not even going to try with Shodan. Can I get one from you?

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I didn’t ask that Huerta88 change his name. I asked him to consider that his name may be causing an unnecessary distraction, and, if he found that to be so, consider how he might mitigate that distraction.
[/quote]

He should know that already, since it’s been pointed out to him already. Any distraction that he causes in not the fault of his name. Its the content of his crazy posts. The name thing is the cherry on top of a sundae made out of shit. I didn’t even notice the 88 until he set off my radar.

For example, he might clearly explain what motivated the ‘88’ – with a solid explanation, people’s speculation would be less likely to take root.

He’s explained it in previous threads, and yet miraculously the connections still keep being made. Obviously he doesn’t care about that, so why in the hell should you?

This is the part that I can’t figure out.

[monstro]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I should respond to this separately, because there is actually a germ of truth here.

In the other thread, I said something like, “I don’t know that I agree with Huerta88, but he’s argued his point well.”
[/quote]

But he didn’t, Bricker. I can construct well-written posts arguing that the sky is polka-dotted, but that doesn’t mean I’m arguing well. It means I’m running a smooth con job, that’s all.

It’s fair to question whether the concepts went over my head, because I didn’t give the cited material more than a cursory glance and I missed the small sample size that supported a conclusion upon which Huerta was relying.

The fact that you think his stats matter at all suggests what side you were on in that argument. The stats were irrelevant, so scrutinizing them is irrelevant.

But pointing out that error is the job of the person on the other side of the debate.

As has been stated numerous times, no one was arguing about the validity of the stats. So pointing out the error wasn’t ywtf’s job…her job was only to squash the notion that they are relevant. Which she (and others) did time and time again, to willfully deaf ears.

I wasn’t an advocate for either side: I was reading the posts and trying to form an opinion based on their content.

I’m sorry, but this is just so much bull. You were advocating one side. You never criticized Huerta for his ill-begotton logic, nor the other posters that were on his side. The flaws of their logic were right there on the surface of their posts, just waiting for a rational, educated person like yourself to brush them away. You don’t even need a background in statistics to see them. But you certainly came down hard on ywtf. Sounds like you knew good and well who’s side you were on.

Huerta’s posts swayed me more, becase he was posting cites for his claims and arguing (apparently) from those cites. In contrast, you with the face kept insisting that the cites were irrelevant, without ever clearly explaining why she believed so.

It’s clear you weren’t reading her posts if you believe this. She not only produced cites, but took the time to, step-by-step, debunk every assumption required to give relevance to those stats.

So my reaction was that of an observer: one side was winning.

You weren’t just an observer, Bricker. You were a participant. Stop trying to detach yourself and rewrite history. Not. Going. To. Work.

And anyway…it was the wrong side that was winning. Are you going to stand there and actually admit to picking the side that happened to be the loudest and most popular? Do you think a person of integrity would think this is a proud way to conduct himself?

Now, when a specific criticism of the data arose, in this thread, I immediately lauded it, and even suggested to ywtf that THIS was how to debate.

And you were not only a condescending jackass with that remark, but you were–once again–off the mark. Her argument had nothing to do with the quality of those stats, but with their relevance, so why would she risk confusing people by tackling the stats? Wouldn’t that be implying they meant something to the discussion?

So – was the material over my head? In a sense. I don’t think it’s anything I cannot master – I got an A in my Statistics 201 class, after all. But it’s also fair to say I didn’t undertake an extensive review of the material, so I didn’t master it. I merely commented on how the dbate appeared to be going to an observer.

And like I said, this is not good behavior. I’m glad you’re confessing your sins; you just need to be aware that it is one.

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
…his name may be causing an unnecessary distraction, and, if he found that to be so, consider how he might mitigate that distraction…
[/QUOTE]
But Bricker the big issue in the LW thread was never his name, it was his misuse of less than accurate stats.
Want to point me to all the posts about his name in that thread?

CMC fnord!

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But pointing out that error is the job of the person on the other side of the debate. I wasn’t an advocate for either side: I was reading the posts and trying to form an opinion based on their content. Huerta’s posts swayed me more, becase he was posting cites for his claims and arguing (apparently) from those cites.
[/quote]

For the two hundredth time, my side of the debate had nothing to do with the accuracy of numbers. If you read the thread, and read it well (meaning, you read it objectively instead of letting yourself be conned by the stawman tactics of Team Huerta), then you’d realize that. You’d also realize why me arguing against the data would have caused my greater point to be obscured. If my main point was that the stats were irrelevant, then me taking time to prove the numbers wrong would have undermined my stance that they were a red herring.

My opponents in that thread wanted me to have a problem with the data. They wanted me to be the sole voice in the wind saying that white-on-black rape is more prevalent that the numbers showed. If I gave them what they wanted by picking apart the data as opposed to picking apart their thought process, then I would have hurt myself. Notice how many times they alluded to me being disappointed that the numbers go against my “worldview”. I don’t know why they would say that. For the purposes of the discussion, I expressed no problems with the 0.0% statistics. Not even once.

In contrast, you with the face kept insisting that the cites were irrelevant, without ever clearly explaining why she believed so.

That’s all I did. Ad nauseum. Tirelessly. And I’m still doing it, too!

So my reaction was that of an observer: one side was winning.

Even though the other side has no cites to support their use of race as a predictor of rape. Even though other side argued using racially-charged, misogynistic ad hominem. Even though the other side spouted arguments so illogical they make your eyes bleed.

Yeah, that side was winning.

Now, when a specific criticism of the data arose, in this thread, I immediately lauded it, and even suggested to ywtf that THIS was how to debate.

Only to save face, you coward.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=monstro]
The fact that you think his stats matter at all suggests what side you were on in that argument. The stats were irrelevant, so scrutinizing them is irrelevant.
.
.
.
As has been stated numerous times, no one was arguing about the validity of the stats. So pointing out the error wasn’t ywtf’s job…her job was only to squash the notion that they are relevant. Which she (and others) did time and time again, to willfully deaf ears.

[/quote]

Here’s my understanding of the argument that the stats were relevant:

1. Relevant information is any information which assists a trier of fact in determining the truth or falsity of a factual issue in dispute.

2. A fact in dispute in the thread (as opposed to in the on-going court case) was the likelihood of this sort of crime happening in our society.

3. Statistics that show that the sort of crime under discussion happens in our scoiety vanishingly rarely are therefore relevant to determining the likelihood discussed in point #2, above.

So far as I could discern, the “well-reasoned” response you with the face had to this argument was, in essence, “Nuh uh!!”

If I missed a more substantive rebuttal of the relevancy of the statistics, please do me the favor of repeating it here, and show me where it was made before.

[Ensign_Edison]

Bricker, you need to go actually read that thread. It’s painfully obvious how little attention you paid to it, and combined with how free you felt to sling crap and kiss ass, it’s really making you look like a jackass. You have no right to demand that we substaniate what you already had a responsibility to know.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

There was nothing relevant about those stats. You can’t use generalities to decide the facts of a specific case. Professional football players almost never decapitate their wives. Does that have any relevance to the OJ Simpson case? The overwheming majority of construction contractors do not have the bodies of murdered teenage boys buried in the crawlspaces under their houses. Does that statistic have any relevance to the John Wayne Gacy case?

The stats in that other thread were completely meaningless, non-probative and (IMO) deliberately inflammatory.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]
Bricker, you need to go actually read that thread. It’s painfully obvious how little attention you paid to it, and combined with how free you felt to sling crap and kiss ass, it’s really making you look like a jackass. You have no right to demand that we substaniate what you already had a responsibility to know.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, sure. But perhaps it wouldn’t be too much trouble to ask someone who knows precisely where the relevant rebuttal was to simply quote and link to it here… since it’s so obvious, and all.

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There was nothing relevant about those stats. You can’t use generalities to decide the facts of a specific case. Professional football players almost never decapitate their wives. Does that have any relevance to the OJ Simpson case? The overwheming majority of construction contractors do not have the bodies of murdered teenage boys buried in the crawlspaces under their houses. Does that statistic have any relevance to the John Wayne Gacy case?

The stats in that other thread were completely meaningless, non-probative and (IMO) deliberately inflammatory.
[/QUOTE]

At trial, such statistics would be inadmissible… not because they are irrelevant, though, but because their slight probative value would be outweighed by their dramatic prejudicial value.

But that’s not the same as claiming they are completely irrelevant.

Diogenes, in earlier threads, you have demonstrated your inabililty to understand such concepts as relevancy and how an objection to a piece of evidence goes to its weight as opposed to its relevancy. You have in the past greviously misued phrases like “completely irrelevant” and “no evidence” when you really meant to say things like “of little weight” and “no believable evidence.” (I’m thinking specifically here of the West Memphis Three discussions). Now, I have no idea whether you have learned anything from those discussions or not, but I really have no desire to repeat a lesson on the difference between “irrelevant” and “of slight probative value” here.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Here’s my understanding of the argument that the stats were relevant:

1. Relevant information is any information which assists a trier of fact in
   determining the truth or falsity of a factual issue in dispute.
   [/quote]

And you find no fault with this with respect to racial statistics?

2. A fact in dispute in the thread (as opposed to in the on-going court case) was the likelihood of this sort of crime happening in our society.

And you find no fault with looking at nationally-derived crime data and applying it to an individual case?

3. Statistics that show that the sort of crime under discussion happens in our scoiety vanishingly rarely are therefore relevant to determining the likelihood discussed in point #2, above.

And the fact that this conclusion is reached by latching on to race as opposed to the fact that she was paid and invited into a sexually-charged enviroment makes sense to you?

So far as I could discern, the “well-reasoned” response you with the face had to this argument was, in essence, “Nuh uh!!”

I can not believe my eyes. I’m actually crying right now from the sheer madness that keeps assaulting my brain. Yes, crying. This is making me feel mentally ill.

pulling myself together

We have two people on this board who, by virtue of this professional training, are supposed to be legal scholars and defenders of justice. Two people who could potentially rise through the ranks and become judges.

They have gone on the record saying that there is nothing objectionable about factoring in race when assessing the plausibility of a crime. One of these potential judges says that and more: he says that race should be factored in. The other is too stupid to see why that is wrong and still doesn’t get it after almost 20 pages-worth of explanations. It’s so ridiculously wrong that it goes against everything the justice system is supposed to represent. Everything.

But he needs a non-lawyer to explain why this is so.

I may have to take a sabbatical from this board. This is affecting me a little too much. I think this is the first time this has ever happened to me.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Sure, sure. But perhaps it wouldn’t be too much trouble to ask someone who knows precisely where the relevant rebuttal was to simply quote and link to it here… since it’s so obvious, and all.

At trial, such statistics would be inadmissible… not because they are irrelevant, though, but because their slight probative value would be outweighed by their dramatic prejudicial value.

But that’s not the same as claiming they are completely irrelevant.

Diogenes, in earlier threads, you have demonstrated your inabililty to understand such concepts as relevancy and how an objection to a piece of evidence goes to its weight as opposed to its relevancy. You have in the past greviously misued phrases like “completely irrelevant” and “no evidence” when you really meant to say things like “of little weight” and “no believable evidence.” (I’m thinking specifically here of the West Memphis Three discussions). Now, I have no idea whether you have learned anything from those discussions or not, but I really have no desire to repeat a lesson on the difference between “irrelevant” and “of slight probative value” here.
[/QUOTE]

There’s a definitional difference between “legal evidence” (as in whatever bullshit I can get a judge to let me put in front of a jury) and actual, meaningful, probative, scientific, empirical evidence.

The statistics in this case are neither.

[pantom]

Just as a quick aside, I should note that John Mace has already pointed out, in the other thread, that if you were to use any stats at all, ones that are local to NC would have been of far more value to begin with, but that even within there, Durham’s local demographic makeup differs enough from that of NC that you’d want to take it down to that level.
Although even then, the relevance would still be pretty much nil in trying to figure out whether the charges in this case are true.
But the DOJ stats were used becaauuuusssee…

[Ensign_Edison]

@you with the face

I disagree it is is not improper. If such skepticism has the potential to affect whether justice is done, it is certainly improper. Not to mention, leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having the attitude that “white-on-black rape is rare, therefore let’s not take this case seriously” probably leads to stats that support that very attitude.

What does race have to do with rape anyway? Unless we are specifically talking about racially-motivated rape crimes, stats on white-on-black rape have nothing to do with whether rape was plausible in this individual case. What you are doing is looking at two independent variables (race and rape) and suggesting that their relationship should determine probability (or plausibility). Surely you can see why this is problematic? If the crime stats on blonde-on-brunette rape was relatively low, would that make you skeptical of a brunette saying she was raped by a blonde?

Is that just “nuh uh”?

How about this:

The burden of proof is the same regardless of other information that has nothing to do with my case. Such as crime stats. A white woman should not have to do less to prove her interracial rape case than a black woman. To me, this is so obvious that I don’t know why it needs to be stated.

Or this?

Independent doesn’t mean noncorrelative. Confounders exist.

IQ and race are correlated, too. Doesn’t mean that they are dependent.

How about this?

But I’m not looking only at race. If it’s statistically less likely that propsition X is true on any basis, then I’m a priori more skeptical of X. The article suggesting that at two universities 50% of rape accusations were shown to be unfounded would, if given credence, make me, roughly, 50% less likely a priori to believe this particular university student (again, and always, in the absence of better evidence).

If the accuser claimed to have been raped and had no idea of who did it, I’d be more inclined to use what is generally understood about rape in deciding what race was likely involved. Most rapists are acquaintaces of the victim and, as result (due to those pesky correlated factors again!) are more likely to be of the same race. But if the accuser is saying she was raped by white men, there is nothing on the face of that allegation that makes me say that is unlikely.

[quote]

Do you need more? I’m only halfway through the thread.

Please tell us why these quotes lead you to believe that face not only did not present anything to back up her statements, but is also “dumb as a box of hammers” as you’ve said. Where’s the “nuh uh” in there, tell me?

Or maybe you should apologize.

And you know, I get that you think you can be mean in the Pit without any concern for things like human decency at all. But you’ve always struck me as someone who understands that other people really exist, and that life is not a game, and that integrity and honor count. Right now, you are not displaying any of that. You’re a disgrace.

[Ensign_Edison]

Heck, I’m on a roll, here’s some more.

@you with the face

The official stats are not in question, for the upteenth time. What is erroneous is concluding occurrence rates from stats that only demonstrate reported rates. In other words, your interpretation is wrong, not the data itself.

So throughout this thread you’ve repeated, as you even admit, qualifiers about absent evidence. Over and over again. As if that somehow makes it okay to extrapolate DoJ stats to a individual incident, but whatever. You’ve apparently taken all these pains to show why it’s okay to be skeptical of this case based solely on numbers.

That’s why the “rarity issue” shouldn’t be important to you anymore when facts related to credibility come into the picture. Because in the presence of (potential) evidence that casts doubt on the accuser’s honesty, you are now no longer dealing with primae facie determinations, a priori assumptions, and whatnot. You are dealing with possible evidence. The question of credibility extends not just to the accuser but to the accused as well. So it’s not just a one-sided issue.

Furthermore, the plausibility of any given incident is not affected by the trustworthiness of the accuser. As I pointed out earlier, that’s a whole separate issue. On its face there’s nothing outlandish about a stripper being gang-raped. But if its proven that the stripper has a history of lying about similar incidents, it is not unreasonable to think she may lying about this one. This however has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is unlikely that white guys would rape a black girl, which is what me and you kept going back and forth about.

[holmes]

Ensign Edison don’t you know, you have to have cites in order to make a logical and well thought-out defense. It doesn’t matter if the data is wrong, out of date or doesn’t apply; as long as it’s a cite.

I suspect that as always, once race becomes part of an issue, people only see and believe what they want to…

[Bricker]

Joe claims he saw a man in a ski mask rob a liquor store clerk at gunpoint.

Steve claims he saw eight men dressed, ninja-style, entirely in black, all armed with short curved swords and nunchucks rappell down from a helicopter, vault head-over-heels into a liquor store, and rob the clerk at swordpoint.

With no other evidence but their stories, which story, if either, should we adduce more credibility to, and why?

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Joe claims he saw a man in a ski mask rob a liquor store clerk at gunpoint.

Steve claims he saw eight men dressed, ninja-style, entirely in black, all armed with short curved swords and nunchucks rappell down from a helicopter, vault head-over-heels into a liquor store, and rob the clerk at swordpoint.

With no other evidence but their stories, which story, if either, should we adduce more credibility to, and why?
[/QUOTE]

Niether. I have no reason to believe that Joe isn’t making the whole thing up. If that’s all I know, I wouldn’t believe either one.

[Ensign_Edison]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Joe claims he saw a man in a ski mask rob a liquor store clerk at gunpoint.

Steve claims he saw eight men dressed, ninja-style, entirely in black, all armed with short curved swords and nunchucks rappell down from a helicopter, vault head-over-heels into a liquor store, and rob the clerk at swordpoint.

With no other evidence but their stories, which story, if either, should we adduce more credibility to, and why?
[/QUOTE]

Gee, it sure sounds like you’re offering a rebuttal to a point you previously claimed was never made. But let’s not play Quiz Time. Instead of making up ridiculous hypotheticals, can you address the following points:

1. National statistics are not useful in local or individual cases.

2. Statistics are not reliably predictive, and they do not prevent an event which is POSSIBLE from occuring.

3. Race and IQ are linked. Is it right, therefore, to assume that a black person you meet has a lower IQ than you without any other evidence?

4. Your hypothethical proposes something which actually is enormously unlikely. What mechanism do you propose to account for the assumption that a white woman stripping at a drunken frat party is more likely to be raped than a black one? What explains what makes the difference in situation the same as the difference between the ‘single robber’ and the ‘ninjas with a helicopter defyng physics’?

If you really feel an impulse to keep playing Quiz Time and ignoring these points, at least make the next one multiple choice.

[Ensign_Edison]

Er…I can count, really. :smack: