And I’m still waiting for that evidence of how stupid face obviously is. Any time now.
So your view is both stories are equally credible, on their face?
Please refer to the post I just wrote for the other thread, and to this cite:
url=http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus42.pdf
You’ll see that the “rarity” argument can only be supported in Huerta88’s data set for certain years. In others, the stats suggest that black on white rape occurs more often than the converse (specifically, 2002 and 1996, and in 2000, the statistics are exactly the same).
If we can’t put a stake in the heart of this monstrosity of illogic, at least we might do so through other means. The rarity argument never had a shred of validity, and posters like Bricker ought to be ashamed for giving it any support, let alone offering up the ninja hypothetical he just did.
I too have a question pending.
CMC fnord!
Oh and, Joe’s story, everybody knows Ninjas carry straight swords :rolleyes:
Yes. But once I’ve done so, please answer my question. I’m going somewhere with it.
“Useful?” I disagree.
I agree.
Are they linked? If they are, and if I HAVE TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTION, then yes. With no other evidence, I’ll be right in that assumption more often than I’ll be wrong.
Yes, my hypo proposes something unlikely. But the question remains: does the likelihood of some event happening have any bearing, no matter how remote, on how credible a report of that event is?
Here’s the scenario we should asking about:
Marie, a Black woman, claims she was raped by a White man.
Janice, a White woman, claims she was raped by a White man.
With no other evidence but their stories, which story, if either, should we adduce more credibility to, and why?
Later, we are told this:
Both crimes took place in a city which is mostly populated by White and Black people with about the same % of each.
Does that change your answer, and why?
Your attacl is entirely different. You’re asserting the statistics are inapplicable because they do not show what Huerta88 claimed they show. I’m very open to that argument.
I reject the argument that, no matter what they say, they are irrelevant.
Do you see the difference?
What I’m wondering is what do stats have to do with Bricker’s scenario?
Does the DoJ have numbers on ninja-style liquor store robbers?
It makes you wonder why these guys invent the most outlandish scenarios to make their arguments. Is white-on-black rape even comparable to ninja liquor store robbers jumping out of helicopters?
I see the difference, and it is ultimately irrelevant. You ought to be embarrassed either way.
They are irrelevant because one cannot determine if this person is lying based on how often other people have said something similar.
They are irrelevant because you haven’t been talking about standardized statistics that would be suited to inferring relative risk.
They are irrelevant because you know that it is entirely possible for a white man to rape a black woman. How could it not be? Trying to argue through implausible anecdotes, such as a ninja attack on a liquor store is completely misleading and pathetic.
They are irrelevant because you have been relying on one stat from one source for one discrete time period (the invalidity of which is illustrated by the inconsistencies in the data over time, as in the link I provided).
There is no way to support the use of these data in the manner that you and Huerta88 have. Absolutely none. You should be ashamed.
This kind of question is why I called you stupid.
Of course there are no DOJ stats on ninja robberies from helicopters.
The hypo is intended to illustrate why the likelihood of a given event happening is probative, in some way, judging the credibilitity of a reporter of that event. The more unlikely the event, the less credible the report of it is, ALL OTHER FACTORS BEING EQUAL.
ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE NEVER EQUAL. This is the real world. Frankly, your ignorance about statistics and how they are used is kind of astounding.
And you continue in your jackassery. The only stupid person is the one who would take face’s question as if she was seriously wondering that.
I disagree.
No one said you could determine if this person is lying. I asked if the information has some bearing on credibility, not if it is ultimately determinative.
That is a valid objection to the use of those particular statistics.
Of course it’s possible.
But YOU KNOW that it’s entirely possible for ninjas to rob a liquor store. How is it not possible?
Where it seems you’re getting hung up is the relative possibilites of the two scenarios. It is highly unlikely, implausible in the extreme, for a group of ninjas to rob a liquor store. It is not implausible in the extreme for a white man to rape a black woman. Because the two scenarios have such differing levels of plausibility, you reject any comparison between them. But I’m not offering them to compare plausibility. I don’t intend to argue that it’s just as likely to find felonious drunk ninjas as white-on-black rapists.
Instead, I offered the hypothetical to show that for ANY event, the plausibility of its occurring is a factor in judging the credibility of a person who claims it happened.
That is an absolutely valid criticism of the statistics.
don’t forget the Greek Choruses in that other thread, a veritable ‘whos who’ of prolific posters. there were no shortage of folks calling us names, etc etc etc for calling that argument in question.
If she - or you - is attempting to argue that she’s not stupid, a good way to advance that argument would be to not make stupid statements, even in jest.
Now, you say all other factors are never equal.
That’s fine - and likely true. But Huerta88 repeatedly said, “… in the absence of any other data…” – in other words, he said “If all other factors were equal.” If your (or her) objection was to this disclaimer, then that’s what should have been said.
Look, it really isn’t that complicated. If, in othe other thread, you with the face had offered Hentor’s criticism about the stats, I would have applauded her. I DID appluad the person in this thread who offered a simialr criticism, and i acknowledged to hentor twp posts up that his criticsm was valid.
But do you, gentle readers, see what his criticisms were? He said, in essence, that the statistics don’t say what you claiim they say. That’s a very valid rebuttal. It’s not the same as, “I don’t care what they say; they’re irrelevant.”
OK, so can you repsond to my post # 326 and tell us if that concurs with what **Huerta **has been saying in this tread?
Bricker] Stop saying that, it’s not true. YWTF made many, many statements explaining why the stats weren’t of value. Ensign Edison listed some of them here.
However, the statement “I don’t care what (the stats say) they’re irrelevant” is an absolutely acceptable criticism when the stat is indeed irrelevant.
For example:
we’re arguing about Barry Bonds skills at baseball. You insert “yes, but most self identifying democrats believe Bush is doing a bad job”. And I would indeed say “I don’t care what that stat says, it’s irrelevant”. Perfectly acceptable answer.
and that was her point. That even if the data was accurate, it was irrelevant to the issue at hand. You disagree, obviously. Rareity of events can be argued. but not reasonably used in the manner suggested.
it’s also relatively rare that a 90 year old woman is raped (by anyone). If a 90 yr old woman reported a rape, would you or would you not want the police, DA etc to take a look at the data involving 90 year old rape victims before investigating her claim in order to evaluate the claim itself? In what way would it indicate anything of value? Certainly other data would be important (medications, physical evidence etc.) but can you honestly tell me that you would support any investigatory agency to first look at such a statistic before doing any other investigation?
(that should take care of the ‘in absence of any other info’ crowd).
Huerta’s statistics DON’T SAY ANYTHING about whether any specific allegation is more or less “unlikely.” That’s not the way statistics work. You seem to be confusing statistical rarity with inherent implausibility.
One liquor store owner reposrts that he has been robbed by a man with one arm.
Another lliqor store owner reports that he has been robbed by a man with two arms.
Which allegation is inherently more plausible?
There is probably a very low statistical probablity that a person who robs a liquor store will only have one arm. Does that mean a victim who reports that the perp had only one arm should be automatically be afforded less credibility than anyone who reports a two-armed robber?
I think your insinuation that a black woman being gang-raped by white men has the same inherent plausibility as a store being robbed helicopter full of Ninjas is insulting. Maybe unintentionally so, but think about for a second. Are you really trying to suggest that the former possibility is just as absurd as the latter? Is that the impression you really want to give?
I have never died. Therefore, if you hear of my death you’ll know someone is lying, big time.