# 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:** 17
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/321 "2006-04-14T15:51:14Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > You’re ignoring my point that no one but you has said “innate” or “inherent.” You don’t have to say those words in order to express them. Not everyone needs everything spelled out for them. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/322 "2006-04-14T15:53:59Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > 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. All men deserve the benefit of the doubt when accused of rape by any woman. ---
**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, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/323 "2006-04-14T15:57:55Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > All men deserve the benefit of the doubt when accused of rape by any woman. This is true. Unfortunately, not everyone seems to understand that the woman’s race has nothing to do with the degree to which that benefit is bestowed. But everyone deserves the presumption of innocence. ---
**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, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/324 "2006-04-14T16:00:15Z")
> [@Geobabe](#): > > 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. I think they knew she was black. So many white men, even ones who are blatantly racist, will show interest in black strippers. I’m not sure of the psychology of it, but they seem to think a black woman will let them do more or will somehow be more “freaky.” This article explains it very well: [http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060413-1108-dukelacrosse-blackwomen.html](http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060413-1108-dukelacrosse-blackwomen.html) ---
**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, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/325 "2006-04-14T16:03:30Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You don’t have to say those words in order to express them. Not everyone needs everything spelled out for them. I have provided explicit and specific examples of how (clearly) non-innate and non-inherent characteristics and preferences can and do drive and predict IRL behavior by individuals. You don’t like them, so you ignore them. That, in itself, fits a pattern of behavior that I could have used to predict how you would behave in this particular case. Try arguing with what I said rather than what you would like to pretend I “expressed” (without expressing). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/326 "2006-04-14T16:06:56Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > 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. Unlikely that one _could_? No, that conclusion’s not supported. But the stats may support the conclusion that _in fact_ it is an extremely uncommon occurrence. It ain’t that white men _can’t_ rape black women, but that for some odd reason they apparently _don’t_. > [@you with the face](#): > > 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? Why absolutely. Trouble is, you’ve got what’s reported and known to have occurred, and what isn’t reported and, if it occurred at all, occurs at a rate known only to your imagination. But hey, if it floats your boat to suppose that white guys rape black gals at about 10,000% of the rate actually reported, who am I to deny you such a simple pleasure? We can either harp on the facts or play castles in the air. May you find your ways as pleasant. ---
**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, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/327 "2006-04-14T16:07:35Z")
> [@Indygrrl](#): > > I think they knew she was black. So many white men, even ones who are blatantly racist, will show interest in black strippers. I’m not sure of the psychology of it, but they seem to think a black woman will let them do more or will somehow be more “freaky.” Not a cite, obviously. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/328 "2006-04-14T16:11:35Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Unlikely that one _could_? No, that conclusion’s not supported. But the stats may support the conclusion that _in fact_ it is an extremely uncommon occurrence. It ain’t that white men _can’t_ rape black women, but that for some odd reason they apparently _don’t_. > > . no. what the stats can say is that x percentage of rape cases that end in a conviction occur with a white male raping a black female. not all rapes are reported. not all reported rapes are rapes not all reported rapes end in a prosecution not all reported and prosecuted rapes end in a convcition. ---
**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, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/329 "2006-04-14T16:20:10Z")
> [@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._ > > 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._ Do you have anything to cite? No? Then fuck off. > [@](#): > > By interpreting the FBI stats like you are doing So how do you interperate the FBI stats? The stats clearly show that it is highly unlikely, not impossible, but highly unlikely that a white man would rape a black woman. Without any evidence to support her claim, I fall back on the numbers, as well as other factors and conclude she is filing a false report. You appearantly want to give her the benefit of assuming her accusation is sound. Why? > [@](#): > > 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. What I am looking at is the avilable data. The data exists for a reason. The situation that it speaks to is the likelihood of a white man raping a black woman based on past occurances. Looking at the numbers it looks like this is a rare occurance. It is not impossible. If no evidence can be produced to support her claim, then I default to her being a liar based on (here comes your favorite term) common sense AND the available data which shows it is not likely that she was raped as she has claimed. I’m sorry if this makes your pussy bleed, but that’s the way it is. That is what I would base my judgement on…lacking any other data that contradicts the existing data. It may make you feel good to throw around a loaded term like racist, but I know you are wrong and nothing I have said in this thread supports your claim of racism. > [@](#): > > Similarly, it makes no sense to latch onto race when deciding the likelihood of a given rape incident, unless you have a racist agenda. I haven’t latched onto race. I have latched onto the currently available data, you ignorant bitch. > [@](#): > > It is so horribly sad that you can not understand this by now. Again, right back at ya. > [@](#): > > “Some of my best friends are black!” Do not try to damn me because you can’t read and understand government maintained stats, or the possible use of those stats. You have no basis to conclude I am racist. > [@](#): > > Too bad they are irrelevant. Then why maintain the stats at all? Why are they kept? Seriously. > [@](#): > > I hope it isn’t to suggest that white men deserve the benefit of the doubt when accused of rape by black women. The reason to maintain the data isn’t to suggest anything. The numbers are tracked to look at the history of past occurances. It is reasonable to determine the likelihood of future or currently contested events against that baseline. Would you feel better if I said I didn’t believe her due to the (so far) glaring lack of evidence available to me to support her claim? I have done this. I have said this many, many times. But I also said it was not the ONLY factor in my decision. ---
**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, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/330 "2006-04-14T16:24:11Z")
> [@wring](#): > > no. what the stats can say is that x percentage of rape cases that end in a conviction occur with a white male raping a black female. > not all rapes are reported. > not all reported rapes are rapes > not all reported rapes end in a prosecution > not all reported and prosecuted rapes end in a convcition. Wrong. The NCVS (DOJ) data is based upon **reported** (not indicted, not convicted) incidents. > [@](#): > > The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports Program (UCR) collects information from local law enforcement agencies **about crimes reported to police**. The UCR crime index includes seven offenses; homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The only variable left is whether and how much rapes are underreported and/or overreported. I’ve presented a cite for the overreporting rate (astonishing, according to that article). I’ve not seen anything other than hand-waving speculation as to the under-reporting rate (which is likely to be greater than zero but less than infinity). ---
**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, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/331 "2006-04-14T16:35:53Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Unlikely that one _could_? No, that conclusion’s not supported. But the stats may support the conclusion that _in fact_ it is an extremely uncommon occurrence. It ain’t that white men _can’t_ rape black women, but that for some odd reason they apparently _don’t_. Quite possibly because of the three reasons I suggested earlier. There are no “odd reasons” that they don’t. Spatial and cultural barriers plus other factors–that again are only _correlated_ with race and not _dictated_ by it–are not odd reasons; they are the ones that make the most sense given history. > [@](#): > > Trouble is, you’ve got what’s reported and known to have occurred, and what isn’t reported and, if it occurred at all, occurs at a rate known only to your imagination. And yet its still incorrect to infer that it rarely occurs when your stats only can tell you what is reported. If you are going to use stats, please interpret them properly. Or else you should stay away from them. Far far away. ---
**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, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/332 "2006-04-14T16:43:28Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > And yet its still incorrect to infer that it rarely occurs when your stats only can tell you what is reported. If you are going to use stats, please interpret them properly. Or else you should stay away from them. Far far away. Everyone is waiting with bated breath for your specific demonstration of how, and how much, actual rapes deviate from reported rapes. It is moronic (and thus pattern-consistent) to keep adverting sinisterly to some supposed discrepancy without offering any evidence, whatsoever, that it exists, that it is significant, and that it favors (rather than disfavors – remember, the DOJ “reported rapes” would include many of the 50% of reported college rapes that are not real) your hypothesis. There are very well-known ways for showing and quantifying unreliability of a statistical survey or analysis. You’ve done this here, I just know. You got nothing? Thought so. It’s pathetic – “The statistics are racist, and besides, they’re irrelevant, and besides, they don’t reflect six trillion unreported hypothetical rapes, and oh, look, there’s a monkey on that desk!” ---
**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, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/333 "2006-04-14T16:45:37Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Not a cite, obviously. Well, there’s the article I posted a link to that has several black women saying that they have had those attitudes presented to them.[http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060413-1108-dukelacrosse-blackwomen.html](http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060413-1108-dukelacrosse-blackwomen.html) And then there’s 12 years of anecdotal investigation on my part. I don’t think you can factually back up something like that. Sometimes you just have to take people’s word for it. They are the ones experiencing it, after all. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/334 "2006-04-14T16:46:14Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Wrong. > > The NCVS (DOJ) data is based upon **reported** (not indicted, not convicted) incidents. > > The only variable left is whether and how much rapes are underreported and/or overreported. I’ve presented a cite for the overreporting rate (astonishing, according to that article). I’ve not seen anything other than hand-waving speculation as to the under-reporting rate (which is likely to be greater than zero but less than infinity). which data are you looking at? (let me see the page itself, thank you). in any event, even if what you say now is correct, you’re still wrong to use that data to attempt to predict future outcomes of individual cases for the following reasons: 1. as you admit, not all rapes are reported, so you have an absolute unknown quanitity out there. It is not impossible to believe that there may be a hiigher percentage of white male on black female unreported due to perceived police bias if for no other reason. 2. if, as you claim, the data you’re relying on includes reported but not convicted rape, then you have no way of knowing if the rape was real vs. false. so, you’d be basing your conclusions of potential rape based on data that included no rape. 3. generalized trend data can give useful information to authorities about how to utilize governmental resources, societal trends etc. they do \*\*not \*\* give useful information about individual cases within the database, as has been painfully pointed out to you over and over. It may indeed be that brown eyes are dominate and **most likely** two brown haired, brown eyed people mating will give birth to a brown haired, brown eyed child, but my blonde blue eyed neice Sarah is in fact the biological child of brown eyed/haired parents, statitistical data nonetheless. “rare” does not mean never, and certainly should not be utilized as a predictive and determining factor in the likelihood of a particular individual case. in particular, racial demographical data is a tricky thing to analyze wrt crime data. take the case of the NJ (I think?) state cops who used racial profiling to make drug busts along a certain stretch of road. They stopped, frequently, hispanics, especially males of certain ages. and wow, found a bunch of drugs. that fact was then used as justification for continuing the profiling. “see, it works”. but they had less than represnetative sampling of other racial demographics, so their conclusions (“it works”) were based on faulty sampling. as you seem to be doing here. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/335 "2006-04-14T17:02:52Z")
> [@wring](#): > > 1. as you admit, not all rapes are reported, so you have an absolute unknown quanitity out there. It is not impossible to believe that there may be a hiigher percentage of white male on black female unreported due to perceived police bias if for no other reason. “May be.” I’m glad to see great minds think alike. Hypothetical bias by white police officers (oops, but what about the many black officers?) is among Kool-Aid Guy’s last shreds of hope to boost the rape rate of black women (again, why do he and you he so want this to be true?). No evidence this is so, no evidence that if so, it is significant enough to get from [zero] to [anything meaningfully different]. You’re welcome to bring it. “May be” does not do the trick, though. > [@](#): > > 1. if, as you claim, the data you’re relying on includes reported but not convicted rape, then you have no way of knowing if the rape was real vs. false. so, you’d be basing your conclusions of potential rape based on data that included no rape. I’ve acknowledged that the “reported rapes” include some fales “overreports.” Unless you can show that black and white women make fake reports at differential rates, or that they make fake reports in different ways (respectively) as to making phony accusations against black men and against white men, this won’t change appreciably the overall ratio of total reports against white men and against black men. > [@](#): > > It may indeed be that brown eyes are dominate and **most likely** two brown haired, brown eyed people mating will give birth to a brown haired, brown eyed child, but my blonde blue eyed neice Sarah is in fact the biological child of brown eyed/haired parents, statitistical data nonetheless. “rare” does not mean never, and certainly should not be utilized as a **predictive and determining** factor in the likelihood of a particular individual case. I am not going to find the ten posts in this thread in which I explicitly denied that past patterns had “determinitive” probative value. I read it the first time, which is apparently more than you could be bothered to do. **NO ONE HAS SAID PAST PATTERNS ARE “DETERMINATIVE” SO ENGAGE THE REAL ARGUMENT, NOT SOME DUMBASS STRAWMAN**. Words exist for a reason, you’re supposed to read them. To take your analogy at face value, you would need to to structure the hypothetical in a truly parallel way: Does the phenotype of Sarah’s (prospective) parents have any meaningfully predictive (not “determinitive”) value **while Sarah is in utero** as to what Sarah will look like when she pops out, **absent other definitive evidence during the in utero stage** )? **That’s** the proper question, because this case is very much in utero. The pheontype of [actuallly-accouched Sarah] clearly trumps the predictive pattern data, but we aren’t there yet because (all together) we’re still in the pre-natal “absent other determinative evidence” stage. During this stage, if you took bets on a thousand in utero Sarahs (clone your sister/brother, whatever), you would indeed make a great deal of money by predicting the phenotype of [eventually emergent Sarah] based on the phenotype of her parents. ---
**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, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/336 "2006-04-14T17:08:59Z")
> [@Greathouse](#): > > Do you have anything to cite? No? Then fuck off. Why don’t you show me a cite that says playing lacrosse, _in and of itself_, somehow lowers my chances of being a rapist? You’re the one with the thought-process that tells you that this is somehow plausible. > [@](#): > > So how do you interperate the FBI stats? This is how I interpret them: The rate of nationally reported rapes involving a white man and a black woman is \. That’s where my interpretation stops. > [@](#): > > The stats clearly show that it is highly unlikely, not impossible, but highly unlikely that a white man would rape a black woman. No, for the upteenth time, it doesn’t. Take a biostatistics course sometime, come back, bring pie. > [@](#): > > You appearantly want to give her the benefit of assuming her accusation is sound. Why? I don’t assume anything. I wait to hear all the evidence and then I draw my conclusion. Sounds real simple, I know. > [@](#): > > What I am looking at is the avilable data. Unless you have all the data, whatever conclusions you make are inherently biased. And if you are abusing statistics like you are apparently prone to doing, then those conclusions will be all the more tainted. > [@](#): > > The situation that it speaks to is the likelihood of a white man raping a black woman based on past occurances. I know you want to believe that this is true because otherwise you’ll have to admit the problems which characterize your ability to reason, but I will not lie and tell you that this is nothing but wrong. I say this out of love, man: Please stop posting this nonsense. It makes you look bad. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry if this makes your pussy bleed, but that’s the way it is. Guess you told me, huh? > [@](#): > > It may make you feel good to throw around a loaded term like racist, but I know you are wrong and nothing I have said in this thread supports your claim of racism. Actually, I haven’t thrown it around. You’re the one that brought it up first, remember? So I know you’re smart enough to see that your thought-process comes from a racist place, and that is why I haven’t given up on you. > [@](#): > > I haven’t latched onto race. Then what relevance do the FBI stats have in this discussion, then? > [@](#): > > Then why maintain the stats at all? Why are they kept? Seriously. Probably to show people that, contrary to popular belief, most rapes occur between people of the same race. You are aware that there is a certain segment of our population that is under the impression that most white women are raped by black men, correct? I imagine that the DOJ, bless their heart, just wanted to show that this wasn’t the case. > [@](#): > > Would you feel better if I said I didn’t believe her due to the (so far) glaring lack of evidence available to me to support her claim? I have done this. I have said this many, many times. But I also said it was not the ONLY factor in my decision. Yes, I know. You use the fact that she is black to support your decision as well. And yet that doesn’t make you racist. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/337 "2006-04-14T17:19:52Z")
(delurking after reading 3 pages) Can someone give the number of the post where the FBI stats on race were given? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/338 "2006-04-14T17:25:57Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > “May be.” I’m glad to see great minds think alike. Hypothetical bias by white police officers (oops, but what about the many black officers?) is among Kool-Aid Guy’s last shreds of hope to boost the rape rate of black women (again, why do he and you he so want this to be true?). No evidence this is so, no evidence that if so, it is significant enough to get from [zero] to [anything meaningfully different]. You’re welcome to bring it. “May be” does not do the trick, though. talk about inserting stuff into others posts. I said “police bias”, not “white police bias” for a reason. FME (workign w/offenders nearly 30 years), it’s a “police bias”, racial demographics of the cops do not enter into the perception. > [@](#): > > I’ve acknowledged that the “reported rapes” include some fales “overreports.” Unless you can show that black and white women make fake reports at differential rates, or that they make fake reports in different ways (respectively) as to making phony accusations against black men and against white men, this won’t change appreciably the overall ratio of total reports against white men and against black men. I’ve already made some comment about how/why white on black rape may be specifically underreported (and therefore would be at an unknowable rate, but different than for other racial categories - the factor of perceived police bias pro white anti black would only factor in for crimes where the perp was reportedly white and the victim reportedly black). that alone skews your data to render it unuseful to use in the manner you propose. and as for false rape allegations, I’d also make the case that one of the reported reasons for false rape allegations is to ‘get out of trouble’ for having a consensual relationship, and since there are still folks who have particular problems w/people of different races having consensual relationships, I’d have no problem believing that there would be another distinctive increase in number/percentage of false allegations of black male on white female rape. Of course, no hard data would be available on any of these things, so we’re left, again with you attempting to make some headway about data that contains both real rapes and false rapes and the racial demographics therein, to extrapolate some meaning about probability in some case somewhere. > [@](#): > > I am not going to find the ten posts in this thread in which I explicitly denied that past patterns had “determinitive” probative value. I read it the first time, which is apparently more than you could be bothered to do. **NO ONE HAS SAID PAST PATTERNS ARE “DETERMINATIVE” SO ENGAGE THE REAL ARGUMENT, NOT SOME DUMBASS STRAWMAN**. Words exist for a reason, you’re supposed to read them. then what the fuck are you claiming? if it’s not some level of probative value, what use are you attempting to make? it seems you’re claiming that since in your eyes, the category of white on black rape is “rare” (not unknown", then we should evaluate this particular claim in a different way than a case involving white on white (less rare). I’m claiming we should ignore those particular strawmen, and evaluate each case on (I know this is a novel concept, bear with me please), oh, say, the evidence in that individual case. how bout that? sound good? > [@](#): > > To take your analogy at face value, you would need to to structure the hypothetical in a truly parallel way: Does the phenotype of Sarah’s (prospective) parents have any meaningfully predictive (not “determinitive”) value **while Sarah is in utero** as to what Sarah will look like when she pops out, **absent other definitive evidence during the in utero stage** )? **That’s** the proper question, because this case is very much in utero. The pheontype of [actuallly-accouched Sarah] clearly trumps the predictive pattern data, but we aren’t there yet because (all together) we’re still in the pre-natal “absent other determinative evidence” stage. > > During this stage, if you took bets on a thousand in utero Sarahs (clone your sister/brother, whatever), you would indeed make a great deal of money by predicting the phenotype of [eventually emergent Sarah] based on the phenotype of her parents. But I’m not taking bets on a thousand Sarahs. I’m simply saying that the hospital would be quite wrong to have stopped my brother and his wife from taking Sarah home w/them based on the statisitical probability. The hospital should base **each case** of parents taking home their children on the evidence in that particular case, not on statitistical probabilities, however much they’d make in the longer run. ---
**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, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/339 "2006-04-14T17:28:00Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > This is how I interpret them: The rate of nationally reported rapes involving a white man and a black woman is \. Can’t even bring yourself to say what the “appropriate number” is, eh? This confirms my conviction that you are gravely disappointed white men aren’t the rapist monsters (at least not rapists of black women) that some indoctrination led you to believe. > [@](#): > > Actually, I haven’t thrown it around. You’re the one that brought it up first, remember? So I know you’re smart enough to see that your thought-process comes from a racist place, and that is why I haven’t given up on you. You’ve heard of the Genetic Fallacy? WTF does “comes from a racist place” mean (aside from sounding like something Mr. Van Driesen from Beavis and Butthead would say)? And if it did “come from a racist place,” how does the (supposed) **source** of his or anyone’s belief definitively refute its accuracy or value? Much of what we know about organic chemistry or rockets “comes from a racist place” (Nazi Germany). I guess we can’t synthesize gasoline or get to the moon after all! Seriously, if you’re capable of doing anything other than Godwinizing: Assume **GH** or I or the entire DOJ are all coming from frankly, utterly, unabashedly “racist places.” So stipulated, and you and your like-thinkers are the only non-racists on this board! Bask in the warm glow of your moral narcissism for a moment. Now, step 2: Address the actual argument, without reference to the “place” where it comes from, so as to not commit the Genetic Fallacy. > [@](#): > > Probably to show people that, contrary to popular belief, most rapes occur between people of the same race. You are aware that there is a certain segment of our population that is under the impression that most white women are raped by black men, correct? I imagine that the DOJ, bless their heart, just wanted to show that this wasn’t the case. You can’t be dumbass enough to think this is why DOJ keeps these statistics. Not everyone views life through the politically correct college-sophomore lens you do. The statistics contain plenty that could embarrass both white and black men and women. Embarrassing, or vindicating, classes of people is not their purpose. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/340 "2006-04-14T17:32:58Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > This confirms my conviction that you are gravely disappointed white men aren’t the rapist monsters (at least not rapists of black women) that some indoctrination led you to believe. No, it just confirms that I didn’t bother looking at the link you provided. But leave it up to you to jump to crazy, irrational conclusions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=18)