# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![GawnFishin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@GawnFishin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GawnFishin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/301 "2006-04-14T01:33:53Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > No, I’m saying that in the legal system, there’s no such thing as being proven innocent. That’s all. So they really are screwed are they? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/302 "2006-04-14T01:36:12Z")
> [@GawnFishin'](#): > > Just thinking about this a bit more does this mean that innocent until proven guilty is a falacy and what it really means is innocent until found guilty but for the lack of evidence. > > Finding the defendant guilty by way of a lack of evidence? This is really funny Guin. I had always thought you were smarter than that, my bad, I guess. Read this tomorrow and you will think _you_ were smarter than that. \*\* Guin\*\* is exactly right. After someone has been charged with a crime the finding is either guilt or not guilty. The presumption of innocence is an entirely different concept. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/303 "2006-04-14T01:41:31Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > (Underlining mine.) Naturally, you would expect the argument to factor in unreported cases, as well as any other imaginary data we cared to think of. :rolleyes: Naturally, one who is interpreting the stats properly would know there is a big difference between “rarely occurs” and “rarely reported”. But you, oh shining smart one, know this. Right? ---
**Author:** ![GawnFishin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@GawnFishin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GawnFishin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/304 "2006-04-14T03:18:23Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Read this tomorrow and you will think _you_ were smarter than that. > \*\* > Guin\*\* is exactly right. After someone has been charged with a crime the finding is either guilt or not guilty. > > The presumption of innocence is an entirely different concept. If this is indeed the case then my apologies go to **Guin**. I must admit my innocence to US Constitutional law. Which is limited to wikipedia in this case. And yes I know this is not a good idea but that’s what you get. [ > [@](#): > > In the common law tradition, an acquittal formally certifies the innocence of the accused, as far as the criminal law is concerned. ]([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal)) Isn’t this then going to haunt these lax players for the rest of their lives? Thirty, forty years down the road and someone says hey aren’t you one of those guys who wasn’t found innocent of… I can only imagine what job interviews are going to be like for them. Are they from this point on to be branded rapists because of an accusation? ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/305 "2006-04-14T03:22:12Z")
> [@GawnFishin'](#): > > Isn’t this then going to haunt these lax players for the rest of their lives? Thirty, forty years down the road and someone says hey aren’t you one of those guys who wasn’t found innocent of… > I can only imagine what job interviews are going to be like for them. Are they from this point on to be branded rapists because of an accusation? Isn’t this the case anywhere in the world? Once accused of serious crimes like rape or murder, the person is rarely ever able to leave it in the past once found not guilty in their country’s court of law. That is the nature of humans. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/306 "2006-04-14T03:24:41Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Read this tomorrow and you will think _you_ were smarter than that. > \*\* > Guin\*\* is exactly right. After someone has been charged with a crime the finding is either guilt or not guilty. > > The presumption of innocence is an entirely different concept. Pretty much, if only because you can’t really prove a negative. You can’t prove someone DIDN’T do it, so you presume they are innocent, unless you can prove otherwise. But even if you think someone DID commit the crime, sometimes you still cannot, for whatever reason, find them guilty. (Reasonable doubt, we think he did it, but they couldn’t prove it for certain, etc). Or something. I’m not a Constitutional scholar either-most of what I know comes from _Law & Order_. ---
**Author:** ![GawnFishin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@GawnFishin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GawnFishin)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/307 "2006-04-14T03:51:30Z")
> [@Zabali\_Clawbane](#): > > Isn’t this the case anywhere in the world? Once accused of serious crimes like rape or murder, the person is rarely ever able to leave it in the past once found not guilty in their country’s court of law. That is the nature of humans. ☹ And does not this same human(we could also say Doper) nature state that if some one accuses another of a crime and they are not able to prove that case then one might assume the accuser is lying? We do this to people on the straight dope all the time with our “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” She has claimed she was raped available evidence doesn’t bare this out. So if your on the SDMB jury of public opinion with the evidence we have available to us now right at the very moment what do you conclude? Keeping in mind this is the court of public opinion and double jeopardy doesn’t apply here we can retry once we have more evidence available to us. That is how I would see it rather than “well she accused them of rape and because it is such an emotionally charged allegation, they must be guilty.” Seriously, which way are you seeing it? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/308 "2006-04-14T06:43:01Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > And what **Malacandra** doesn’t understand is that you would not necessarily expect that if: > > 1. White men and black women are geographically segregated to the extent that it makes them unlikely to cross paths enough to make the rape rate equal to the norm. These are all desperate grasping at straws. I am not sure there is any serious belief that any of these “exceptions” will get the white-on-black rape number from **zero** to [somewhere more-than-insignificantly-north-of zero] – but if there were, you’ve done nothing to substantiate (as opposed to insinuate or jerk-off-theorize) particular sampling or reporting errors in the DOJ figures, which apparently **really** trouble you – remind me, though, again, why you so desperately **want** more black women to have been raped (by whites, or anyone)? As to your 1): Look at the statistics for how many white rape victims report their assailants to be black. I won’t quote them because that’s not what I was interested in, but suffice to say that any rape-minded black men do not seem to have a problem getting their paths to cross with white girls, be they never so geographically dispersed, as you suggest any rape-minded white men do in getting their paths to cross with black women. > [@](#): > > 1. Black women who are raped by whites are less likely to report it than average, due to factors correlated with race (such as trust in authority). Cite? I thought so. Many black women live in areas (Newark, Detroit, Overtown/Liberty City in S. Fla.) with predominantly-minority police, to whom they are routinely reporting rapes by black perps but are somehow “too afraid” to report rapes by whites? Because the black officer would get mad? Wha? And wait a minute – what are “factors correlated with race?” You f\_\_\_\_g Hitlerite! THERE’S NO SUCH THING!!! Or so you’ve assured us through dozens of fingers-in-the-ears posts. > [@](#): > > 1. Cultural/social factors that are associated with race make black women less likely to be in certain situations that put them at risk of being raped by white men. > (Date rape, for instance, may not have a chance to occur frequently because “dating a white boy/black girl is so gross!”). And if white boys really thought black girls were gross or too alient, on a systemic basis (as may in fact be true of their viewpoints), then they’d be that much more likely to think “raping a black girl is so gross!”, and so to refrain from doing so. Ouch, you really shot yourself in the foot there. This is a point worth really focusing on. Modern day American white guys, for whatever complex of (not necessarily admirable) cultural influences, beliefs, aesthetics, assumptions, are not (the statistics tell us) finding themselves very interested in raping black women (hence the zero rate). These same cultural influeces are the milieu in which the Duke lax players grew up. THAT is why those influences (for which the zero rate rape is a proxy) could be (in the absence of other evidence) suggestive as to why players who grew up in a (say) narrowminded “black girls aren’t hot” culture (as did many of the unanimous majority of American white dudes who en masse refrained from raping black girls in 2003) might also reasonably be hypothesized to have (likewise) not found the prospect of raping a black girl to be so hot. > [@](#): > > But anyway, that all aside: **Malacandra** do you think there is an innate property to being a white that would make it unlikely one could rape a black woman? I ask because no one apparently wants to admit that they believe this, and yet they are essentially saying exactly that by stringently defending whatever interpretation they can squeeze out of some numbers. Show me where anyone has used the word “innate.” I have stated elsewhere in the thread that in Antebellum Southern America, it’s my understanding that amoral white guys did find rape of black slave girls to be attractive on a comparatively-frequent basis. And that some acted on this attraction such that we could recognize a pattern thereof. In 2003, whatever economic and cultural “properties” drove that attraction (which was not “innate”) can be said to have evaporated essentially completely. How hard is this to grasp? Do you think white men have changed in their “innate properties” since 1980? No? None of my buddies in the '80s dated any of the many oriental chicks in our town. Now (and based on my circle’s current anecdotal data) I can predict with a fair degree of accuracy that if a white male friend brings home a new girlfriend, there is a 25% chance she will be of Chinese or Vietnamese descent (which is significantly above the ratio of the Asian population in this area). I’d bet money on it at those odds (though of course I’d be wrong in some cases), and overall, I’d win. There is obviously no change in the innate DNA of these guys; but there are differentials (significant ones) as to what is or has become culturally common and acceptable and deemed attractive and desirable, and they serve a predictive (if not ultimately-probative) purpose in general and specific cases. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/309 "2006-04-14T10:15:24Z")
> [@GawnFishin'](#): > > But this is the court of public opinion in which the prosecutor seems to have been trying this case isn’t it? So then in this court of public opinion we can change our verdict if more evidence is presented, unlike a court of law where getting a conviction overturned is much more difficult. I’m more inclined to think that they are innocent until proven guilty. Unlike Guin and the facless one who presume rapist must mean guilty until proven not guilty by reason of lack of evidence in which case your actually are guilty just unfortunately lacking evidence of guilt. If you want to do that, whatever; I said before that I believe it was inappropriate for the people involved in the case do this in public. I was pointing out that there are some sensitivities involved on both sides, and that it might be wise to tone it down a notch. Of course I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and given the _scant_ facts we have, I’m leaning towards innocence. But I don’t hear a fat lady singing, do you? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/310 "2006-04-14T11:32:19Z")
> [@GawnFishin'](#): > > If this is indeed the case then my apologies go to **Guin**. I must admit my innocence to US Constitutional law. Which is limited to wikipedia in this case. And yes I know this is not a good idea but that’s what you get. > > [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal] > Isn’t this then going to haunt these lax players for the rest of their lives? Thirty, forty years down the road and someone says hey aren’t you one of those guys who wasn’t found innocent of… > I can only imagine what job interviews are going to be like for them. Are they from this point on to be branded rapists because of an accusation? This doesn’t just apply to US law. The law in the UK is the same: a not guilty verdict is NOT a certification of innocence. I believe there is a procedure by which a judge, or perhaps the Law Lords, can decree someone’s innocence, but that’s a separate process. ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/311 "2006-04-14T12:26:03Z")
> [@GawnFishin'](#): > > Seriously, which way are you seeing it? Frankly I do not know at this point. I am trying to figure out if the DA is on a blind vendetta, or if there is evidence which he has that we don’t know so that is why he is continuing. I just do not know. 😕 I await further developments, I will watch accounts of the trial if it goes that far. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/312 "2006-04-14T12:52:55Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > And if white boys really thought black girls were gross or too alient, on a systemic basis (as may in fact be true of their viewpoints), then they’d be that much more likely to think “raping a black girl is so gross!”, and so to refrain from doing so. Ouch, you really shot yourself in the foot there. Uh, no. The white men involved in this case apparently don’t have this particular “eww, black girls are gross!” mentality or else they wouldn’t have hired a black stripper. So that means this particular bias is not likely to be a significant factor in this case, and should not be assumed as such. Of course, since you are overly fixated on race that won’t make any sense to you. You are blind to what’s obvious. So I’m not really addressing my response to you, but rather to the others who unfortunately agree with your mode of thinking. I haven’t given up hope on them…yet. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/313 "2006-04-14T12:58:49Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > The white men involved in this case apparently don’t have this particular “eww, black girls are gross!” mentality or else they wouldn’t have hired a black stripper. So that means this particular bias is not likely to be a significant factor in this case, and should not be assumed as such. CITE for their knowing she was black when they hired her (over the phone, most likely)? > [@](#): > > Of course, since you are overly fixated on race that won’t make any sense to you. You are blind to what’s obvious. So I’m not really addressing my response to you, but rather to the others who unfortunately agree with your mode of thinking. I haven’t given up hope on them…yet. Nah. I’ve cited lots of factors other than race. It’s just that the racial statistic is the one that is driving you mad and hence the one on which you’ve gotten fixated. Sorry more white guys don’t rape black girls per the DOJ, I know it would gratify you (sick though that is – what kind of guy fervently hopes that the white-on-black, or anyone-on-anyone, rape rate is higher than the government believes?). My “mode of thinking” seems to be relying on what facts we have. Why try to persuade others out of that? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/314 "2006-04-14T13:25:52Z")
Let me raise an issue I don’t think we’ve talked about (at least in terms of applicable law/regulation): WTF has the prosecutor been up to. So, to look at the N.C. Revised Rules Of Professional Conduct for lawyers: [http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/aoc/barrules.html](http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/aoc/barrules.html) > [@](#): > > RULE 3.1 MERITORIOUS CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS > > A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established. Well, jury’s out on this (so to speak). > [@](#): > > RULE 3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY > > (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if there is a reasonable likelihood that the statement will materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. > > (b) A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to: > > (1) the character, credibility, or reputation of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness; > > (2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement; > > (3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented; > > (4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration; or > > (5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial. > > © Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b)(1-5), a lawyer involved in the investigation or litigation of a matter may state without elaboration: > > (1) the general nature of the claim or defense; > > (2) the information contained in a public record; > > (3) that an investigation of the matter is in progress, including the general scope of the investigation, the offense or claim or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved; > > (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation; > > (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; > (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and > (7) in a criminal case: > > (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; > > (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person; > > the fact, time and place of arrest; and > the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation. > . . . Putting aside whether defense counsel has been making statements to the press that (in response to Nifong) are kind of aggressive . . . this one seems dicey for the DA. And (as a practical matter) most judges are going to be less sympathetic toward overzealousness by the prosecution than by the defense in response. Because the prosecution (having the ability, which the defense does not, to throw people in jail) is held to a higher standard. Here’s the tricky part: > [@](#): > > RULE 3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR > > The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: > > (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; > > (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel; > > © not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing; > > (d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; > > (e) exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6; > > (f) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless: > > (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege; > > (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing > > investigation or prosecution; and > > (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information. > > **(g) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.** [emphasis supplied by **Huerta88**.] I think he’s got a real problem on (g), YMMV. Depending on how this plays out, the accused and/or any of us (yes, members of the gen. pop. can bring ethics complaints) may have occasion to ask the N.C. Bar to check this out. ---
**Author:** ![Indygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@Indygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indygrrl)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/315 "2006-04-14T13:33:27Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > It’s just that the racial statistic is the one that is driving you mad and hence the one on which you’ve gotten fixated. Sorry more white guys don’t rape black girls per the DOJ, I know it would gratify you (sick though that is – what kind of guy fervently hopes that the white-on-black, or anyone-on-anyone, rape rate is higher than the government believes?). My “mode of thinking” seems to be relying on what facts we have. Why try to persuade others out of that? My friend, a black stripper, was kidnapped and raped by a white man one night after she got off work. It didn’t make the news, and the guy was never pursued by police (and there was sufficient evidence that they could have gotten him). The cops insinuated that she had been paid to go with the guy, etc. It was really humiliating and horrible for her. I can imagine that’s part of why a lot of women (black or white) do not report rape. They end up getting the finger pointed back at them no matter what the situation. So, yeah, that’s an anecdote, but white guy on black girl rape does happen. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/316 "2006-04-14T13:41:30Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > My friend, a black stripper, was kidnapped and raped by a white man one night after she got off work. It didn’t make the news, and the guy was never pursued by police (and there was sufficient evidence that they could have gotten him). The cops insinuated that she had been paid to go with the guy, etc. It was really humiliating and horrible for her. I can imagine that’s part of why a lot of women (black or white) do not report rape. They end up getting the finger pointed back at them no matter what the situation. > > So, yeah, that’s an anecdote, but white guy on black girl rape does happen. That’s a bad story. And No One has ever said it doesn’t happen (I have assumed for argument’s sake that even in 2003, it happened 9 times (one less than the point at which the government stops rounding down to zero). Fortunately for all of us, your friend seems to have been the very unfortunate exception to a generally-applicable statistical pattern. You also mention under-reporting of actual rapes – we don’t have a statistic (here) for that the way we do for overreporting in the form of fictitious rape complaints (50%) but it is clear that the public interest would be served if all women who were raped would report it and all who were not would stop reporting it. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/317 "2006-04-14T15:00:50Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You haven’t shown why this is relevant. Your assertion makes as much sense as saying this : > > “The numbers do not support the alleged victim’s claim because they show a very, very small number of rapes involve lacrosse players and strippers.” As far I know this is true, unless you have numbers to refute it. > [@](#): > > OR > > “The numbers do not support the alleged victim’s claim because they show a very, very small number of rapes involve Duke students and NC State students.” As far I know this is true, unless you have numbers to refute it. > [@](#): > > OR > > “The numbers do not support the alleged victim’s claim because they show a very, very small number of rapes involve men named Bradford Montague and women named Tookie LaShawn.” This is moronic, but for the sake of consistency…As far I know this is true, unless you have numbers to refute it. > [@](#): > > Do you get how stupid you sound to me yet? Right back at ya > [@](#): > > You’ve suggested that crime stats influence your opinion of what is likely in this case. I haven’t suggested it. I came right out and said it. Yes, barring any other evidence in this case I would feel comfortable basing my judgement of the case on crime stats from previous years. > [@](#): > > How do you ascertain the “statistical likelihood of events unfolding as reported”? By looking at the stats. > [@](#): > > Never mind the fact that another one of your conclusions is faulty (the stats are based on _reported_ cases only)…\ Show me stats for _unreported_ cases or fuck off with that. > [@](#): > > …you still haven’t shown why the race of the participants has anything to do with this case’s validity. Their race only come into play because the only statistic that I have to base my conclusion upon is based on race. Find a statistical analysis that fits this case and focuses on different factors. Oh yeah…you got nothing. > [@](#): > > Why are you so upset? Looks like I touched a nerve. **Good**. The only nerve you touched was that I don’t appreciate being accused of being a racist. I’m sure that will come as quite a shock to my black girlfriend. Anyway, fuck off. > [@](#): > > I’m also glad that you recognize the racist subtext in your own position and that I didn’t have to spell it out for you. Maybe you are smarter than I thought. And maybe you’re more of a mealy mouthed, stanky twated hooker than I thought. I doubt it is possible though. There is no racist subtext in my position. Supply numbers that do not have anything to do with race, and that supports your position. Oh yeah…you got nothing. > [@](#): > > If I’m wrong to believe this about you, correct me already. Your words speak for themselves. If my words speak for themselves then why are you trying to read things into them that are not there. > [@](#): > > If you _don’t_ think race is a function of rape, tell me why you think racial statistics are even relevant in this discussion. Why not focus on other factors? Please tell me why I should not conclude you are racist if you believe that the white men in this case should be afforded an extra benefit of the doubt simply on the basis of the accuser’s race. It isn’t based on race. It is based on the only available stats I have. Considering all of the data that I have at this point, It does not look like the alleged victim is being honest with her accusations. Do you think the DOJ are a bunch of racists? If not, then why would they bother to keep track of such statistics? ---
**Author:** ![Geobabe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/geobabe/32/3908_2.png) [@Geobabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geobabe)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/318 "2006-04-14T15:33:37Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > CITE for their knowing she was black when they hired her (over the phone, most likely)? Unfortunately, I don’t have time to search for it right now, but my husband did read an article that said that an agency in the area was asked what the usual practice was, and they said that they only sent black strippers if the customer specifically requested them. This is obviously not direct evidence that the lax guys knew this particular girl was black, but does suggest that they may have known. If somebody else has time to poke through the news archives, maybe you can find that article. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/319 "2006-04-14T15:37:07Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > As far I know this is true, unless you have numbers to refute it. Unless being a lacross player makes someone inherently less likely to rape than not being a lacrosse player, _the numbers are irrelevant._ Unless going to Duke makes someone inherently less likely to rape, _the numbers are irrelevant._ Unless having a certain name makes someone inherently less likely to rape, _the numbers are irrelevant._ > [@](#): > > This is moronic, but for the sake of consistency…As far I know this is true, unless you have numbers to refute it. It _is_ moronic. That’s the point, you idiot. By interpreting the FBI stats like you are doing, you are looking at an association between two different things (rape and race) and concluding that they have a causal relationship to one another with no consideration for the plethora of confounders that exist. If there was never a single documented case of someone name John raping someone named Ebony, that would have no affect on the likelihood of rape occuring between someone named John and Ebony. A person’s name imparts no qualities that make them unable to rape or be a victim of rape, so it’s folly to latch upon that particular characteristic unless you have an anti-name agenda. Similarly, it makes no sense to latch onto race when deciding the likelihood of a given rape incident, unless you have a racist agenda. It makes as much sense as looking at the victim’s eye color or birth sign. It is so horribly sad that you can not understand this by now. > [@](#): > > The only nerve you touched was that I don’t appreciate being accused of being a racist. I’m sure that will come as quite a shock to my black girlfriend. “Some of my best friends are black!” > [@](#): > > It isn’t based on race. It is based on the only available stats I have. Too bad they are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Do you think the DOJ are a bunch of racists? If not, then why would they bother to keep track of such statistics? I hope it isn’t to suggest that white men deserve the benefit of the doubt when accused of rape by black women. Because if so, then they _are_ a bunch of racists. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/320 "2006-04-14T15:41:54Z")
[QUOTE=you with the face] Unless being a lacross player makes someone inherently less likely to rape than not being a lacrosse player, _the numbers are irrelevant._ You’re ignoring my point that no one but you has said “innate” or “inherent.” Nothing “innate” or “inherent” makes so many of my white buddies (today) seek out Asian girlfriends. Nonetheless, I can predict that many of them will, with fair accuracy > [@](#): > > “Some of my best friends are black!” Wow. You’re a nasty little fucking piece of work, if it weren’t already evident. > [@](#): > > I hope it isn’t to suggest that white men deserve the benefit of the doubt when accused of rape by black women. Because if so, then they _are_ a bunch of racists. You are ALL that stands between us and the extermination of the black race by the rapists and a racist DOJ. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=17)