With no information other than what you’ve just said?
Both stories are equally credible.
With no other information than what you’ve said?
My answer does not change.
Now, let’s answer the questions again, adding the assumption that the statistics that Huerta88 offered do show that the incidence of black-on-white rape is effectively near 0%, and the rate of white-on-white rape accounts for effectively all the white victims reporting rape. Note for the reading and/or conceptually impaired: I do NOT adopt this assumption other than for the limited purporse of answering this thread.
With no information other than what you’ve just said, AND that the reported previous incidence of white-on-black rape is effectively zero.
Janice’s story is more credible.
With no other information than what you’ve said, AND that the reported previous incidence of white-on-black rape is effectively zero?
My answer does not change.
OK. I think it best, before we continue, that you define “effectively near 0%”. The reason I ask is that, mathematically, that phrase is unusual. We might say “effectively 0” or “near 0”, but not both together.
then, in my scenario, you would say that since the incidence of rape involving a 90 year old victim is very very rare, that on it’s face and w/o any other information available, you would find the 90 year old victims claim to be ‘less credible’ than, say a 20 year old’s claim (since there’s more 20 year old victims).
and you think that reasoning has any value whatsoever? That initial interviews with the 90 year old victim should include a mental disclaimer (“gee, 90 year olds rarely get raped, I’ll use that piece of information in my evaluation of the credibility of the claim”)
You may not care a whit, but with this one post you’ve lost credibility in my eyes.
It doesn’t have much value in how the investigation proceeds, since the mere fact that the story is slightly less credible doesn’t bear on how the victim is treated or hwo the crime is investigated.
You don’t seem to have a clear understanding of the nuances of “slightly less credible” or “slightly more credible.” You seem to be treating the declaration that a story is slightly less credible as equivalent to a declaration that the story is not at all credible. That’s a mistake.
Considering your deep misunderstanding of the word “credible,” I have no idea how to judge this statement.
Why is it that I have dutifully answered hypothetical question posed to me, in great detail, and everyone has avoided answering the questions I have posed?
Here’s another one:
Jack says, “When I was in Vegas I bet on 16 on the roulette wheel, and it came up! I won $36 on one spin!”
Jill says, “When i was in Vegas I bet on red on the roulette wheel, and it came up! I won $2 on one spin!”
This kind of thinking is what is FREAKING ME THE HELL OUT.
How in the hell can you say this and not realize how fucking illogical it is? How?
You have several people now trying to get you to open your eyes to REASON, but you willfully keep them closed.
The implications of your thought process are dangerous to a society that purports to be color-blind.
If I were raped by one of my white dating partners, and I had the cojones to press charges against him, I would not want you within 100 feet of the court room. Not as a lawyer. Not as a judge. And definitely not in the jury box. Because all it would take is for you to hear that white-on-black rape is “vanishingly rare” and you’d be stepping into the courtroom biased against me.
credible in what sense? Absent any other information, I would have no problem believing each equally even though the chances of the one occuring is much less frequent than the other.
why?
Because the chance that the person making the claim is lying has nothing to do with the relative frequency of the event happening over time. It is equally possible that Jack may choose to lie about this event or that Jill is lying about it (barring any other information).
Jill could easily be lying about it, knowing that folks would buy that story 'cause the probability of the event occured is (roughly) 50/50.
fair? now, please to answer my hypothetical - you’d be ok w/the police referring to stats wrt 90 year olds being raped before they do any other investigation? they get a phone call saying “I’m 90 and was just raped” you’d want the desk sgt to reflect on the extreme rareity of 90 year olds being rape victims before dispatching a car?
I’m sure that someone in the other thread already made this argument, so I apologize if I’m being redundant. The number of instances of a black woman lying about being raped by a white man must be “effectively 0”.
Would this have any bearing on the evaluation of the story in question?
If I were to find a cite with a statistic to this effect, would that make Bricker’s head explode due to a V’ger like inability to resolve these two data?
Such evidence is inadmissible at trial, and for good reason.
At trial, the prosecution must offer specific facts that shows the specific crime was committed against the specific vicitm at the specific time. Any facts that tend to show the truth of any of the elements of the crime are, of course, near-infinitely more probative than statistical evidence about the frequency of the type of crime.
At trial, the goal is to uncover the truth about a specific incident, and there must be evidence of that specific incident. If there is no such evidence, there is no trial.
Once again, you’ve made an astoundingly stupid post. (monstro, are you reading this?) Everything I’ve said in this thread has been predicated with “… in the absence of any other evidence…”
Yet in your post, you say the moment I heard that your crime was vanishingly rare, I’d be prejudiced against you. This doesn’t connect at all with the concept of “…in the absence of any other evidence…” – does it?
What does “…in the absence of any other evidence…” mean to you? Please explain in your own words what you believe this phrase means.
Please.
I’ve answered questions posed to me. Irt’s only fair that you do the same. Tell me what “…in the absence of any other evidence…” means here.
I don’t agree that the two stories are equally credible. Because one is less likely to have happened than the other, I say that one is marginally less credible than the other. That’s a razor thin margin, because both stories are plausible… but it’s a delta between them, nontheless.
I can prove this, I think:
Now Jack says, “And then I bet again, this time on number 3, and IT came up!”
Are their stories both still equally credible?
If no, then what changed?
If yes, then … Jack says, “My third bet was on number 8… and it came up too!”
.
