# 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:** 21
**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 15, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/401 "2006-04-15T22:35:02Z")
> [@furt](#): > > And statistically, there isn’t. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, anymore that it’s impossible for Russian gangs to randomly inject guys on the streets with LSD. But something that is a rare occurence does warrant more investigation. Are you just making this stuff up and do you have something like a cite to back this up? > [@](#): > > If I say I found a pretty rock while gardening, I’d hope you’re inclined to believe me; and yet I won’t blame you if you’re skeptical when I claim I found buried treasure. I would need evidence to believe it, but if your credibility can be attested to I would not take the default position that you were lying. I can’t imagine that the evidence would be look much different regardless of the kind object you pulled out the ground. > [@](#): > > I don’t for a minute imagine that it’s a racial trait. Facts may correlate without any obviously necessary causation. Exactly. So why not look at the factors that are causative instead of honing in on the thing that happens to be merely correlated with the pertinent factors. Using race-based statistics has just as much merit as looking at statistics for food and musical preferences. Those things may also correlate with the risk factors, too, but they are not determinants and shouldn’t be treated as such. There may be few reports of rape commited by men who listen to Led Zeppelin against women who listen to Anita Baker, but that doesn’t mean that music preference is relevant. > [@](#): > > Is there some inherent trait about higher education that makes students drink more and play loud music? Of course not. But if the residents of a quiet neighborhood hear that five college students are moving into a house on their street, they’re going to be a little concerned until they find out some more specifics. But if I told you that my next door neighbor, a college student, does not make a lot of noise or has any parties should you doubt what I’m saying? Should you not believe me, just because it defies conventional wisdom? > [@](#): > > Or to return to my other metaphor, there’s no special reason a Russian mob wouldn’t inject a random person with drugs … it just doesn’t sound like something they in fact actually do {snip} Now I’m wondering how you would know what a Russian mob would do. > [@](#): > > True; but no-one here has said this. By applying the stats the way you have been, you are. It’s not necessary to actually say something when the very fact that we are having this discussion says that is the underlying principle to your argument. Otherwise, you’d be joining me in saying that they are irrelevant. The above goes for everything else you said. > [@](#): > > Sure; because now you’ve introduced other evidence. The only evidence is what the witness asserts, though. That evidence has as much weight as the accuser, in this case, identifying three white men as her attackers. So if you admit that a witness fingering a one-armed Chinese man changes your assessment–even though the stats tell you that one-armed Chinese attackers are rare–you have to do the same with this case. Or else you’re being inconsistent. 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. Especially, since while there is a lot we don’t know about this case, some things that we do know suggest that the moon and sun may have been aligned in just the right way to make the rarest of rare events (that being, white-on-black rape likely enough to not warrant extra skepticism. ---
**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 15, 2006, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/402 "2006-04-15T22:38:48Z")
> [@](#): > > The crime stats reflect data what happened in another year. You can not use it predict what will happen this year. Just like I can’t use data from 1955 to predict what will happen in the year 2010. You have an odd binary view of the world. Do you really think that 2003 is as dissimilar to 2006 as 1955 is to 2010? Seriously, the fact that you equated the difference of 3 years with the difference of 55 years casts serious doubt on your position. Makes me think your argument is just looney, actually. I’ve seen numerous examples of this kind of irrationality in your posts throughout this thread. Dial the hyperbole way down, get off the racial martyr cross, and give one of your “something else” examples that you are convinced will make your position obviously correct. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/403 "2006-04-15T22:44:33Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Since the guys in question hired a black stripper **and probably knew she was black when they hired her** , that should automatically affect your assessment of likelihood. It tells me that many of the biases and barriers generally associated with white men and black women were probably not major, therefore you can’t assume that they’re in play. Which means that this women’s risk of being raped may be no different than had she been white. We don’t know if it is, but we certainly can’t assume that it isn’t. It makes those numbers, in other words, irrelevant. CITE? One report I saw had a defense lawyer saying he “didn’t think” they knew the race of the stripper. But never mind that, as it’s “just a defense lawyer” (and, I don’t have the cite). Where’s your evidence that they “probably knew she was black?” Hell, for all you know they thought she wouldn’t be black, got mad when she was, and sent her away, and she was pissed off. Of courseI 've got no proof for that. And you’ve got just as little for your supposition as to what they were told when they ordered the strippers over the phone. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/404 "2006-04-15T22:49:24Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I’ve never said the data is flawed, only people’s intepretation of it. I have no reason to conclude that the data is wrong. It’s just irrelevant. > > 'Sall _I’m_ saying. 'Scuse me? Have I misunderstood something, then? I thought you were arguing that “a near-zero _record_ of white-on-black rape” did not mean “a near-zero _incidence_ of white-on-black rape”. If that is indeed your position, then you’re not merely arguing for the irrelevance of the data but for its incorrectness. And as far as I can tell, you’re refusing to accept that the data can possibly be accurate unless it can be rigorously shown that white men _cannot_ rape black women. You’re willing to advance any number of hypotheses that cause white-on-black rape to go _massively_ under-reported, including a supposition that white rapists _kill_ their black victims at a vastly disproportionate rate compared with white victims. If that’s not shaping the data to fit the theory, please give an instance of what _would_ be, and explain in what respect such instance differs from the position you have been advocating. I hope that’s not an unreasonable request. ---
**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 15, 2006, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/405 "2006-04-15T22:50:51Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > You have an odd binary view of the world. Do you really think that 2003 is as dissimilar to 2006 as 1955 is to 2010? The stats are not predictive. Period. It doesn’t matter if the difference in time is 1 or 100 years. They can not be used in the manner that you want to use them. Not unless you want to look stupid, that is. If that’s the look you’re going for, knock yourself out. ---
**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 15, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/406 "2006-04-15T22:54:00Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > 'Scuse me? Have I misunderstood something, then? I thought you were arguing that “a near-zero _record_ of white-on-black rape” did not mean “a near-zero _incidence_ of white-on-black rape”. Try this on for size: A near-zero record of _reported_ rape does not mean that the _occurrence_ of rape is near-zero. It is erroneous to therefore that conclude that it does. Get it yet or do you need some more spoon feeding? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/407 "2006-04-15T22:58:39Z")
> [@Askia](#): > > a lot of primal fears about black sexuality and dismissed beliefs about rape as aggressive sexuality/power dominance. Since most rape boils down to intraracial interaction and he said/she said charges, this tends to dredge up all sorts of victim objectifying I haven’t been using the rape statistics to say “Man, black dudes are ravening rapists of black women” (though they commit most of the assaults on black women per the statistics). I haven’t been saying “Man, black dudes are raping a disproportionate number of white women, they’re sexual fiends” (I’ve steadfastly refrained even from quoting the black-on-white victimization rate; it isn’t germane to my point, though suffice to say it is not as low as the white-on-black rate). **All** I’ve said is: Whatever other problems we have in this country on a demographic-wide basis white-on-black rape doesn’t, thank God, appear to be a common fact pattern or a recurrent part of such problem." Full stop. (By the way, the stats show the white-on-white rape report rate is not low and is a problem – which, yes, might influence my (I have to say it – a priori, in the absence of other dispositive evidence) view of a particular white-on-white rape report). > [@](#): > > I find really distateful for an underreported crime where the vast majority of victims who do report rape are telling the truth about what happened to them. I have cited sources, including a peer-reviewed study, suggesting that false/unfounded allegations of rape run as high as 50% (that study being specifically drawn from college student rape reports), and are far more common than false allegations of other crimes (upthread). Cite for what your “vast majority . . . are telling the truth” means in real-world statistical terms (which 50% “well-founded”/50% “unfounded” would not qualify as)? ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/408 "2006-04-15T23:03:29Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > The stats are not predictive. Period. It doesn’t matter if the difference in time is 1 or 100 years. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Do you believe that rape has been underreported so far in 2006? Why? Because of surveys in the past? Thought so. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/409 "2006-04-15T23:07:47Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > You’re willing to advance any number of hypotheses that cause white-on-black rape to go _massively_ under-reported, including a supposition that white rapists _kill_ their black victims at a vastly disproportionate rate compared with white victims. If that’s not shaping the data to fit the theory, please give an instance of what _would_ be, and explain in what respect such instance differs from the position you have been advocating. I hope that’s not an unreasonable request. If you are waiting for specific substantiation to either the speculative jerk-off theories she offers actually being applicable, in any kinds of numbers that would budge the numbers much off zero, or if you are waiting for a rigorous explanation of the specific sampling or reporting flaws of the DOJ study – you will wait in vain. She of course doesn’t have it, and doesn’t know how one would begin to supply it (if it existed). I think of it as “the dog that didn’t bark in the night” statistics or “Da Vinci” statistics – the VERY FACT that the DOJ is reporting only reported statistics proves that unreported statistics could be, must be, massively higher! No, it’s worse than that – my God – do you realize, we haven’t even begun to count all the rapes of black women that weren’t reported, and didn’t occur AT ALL! When you add that, to the jillions that occurred but weren’t reported (she’s sure of it – white men like to rape black women, so it’s obvious), and the zero that were reported – you get a true rate of eleventy kabillion! So there. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/410 "2006-04-15T23:14:43Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Try this on for size: A near-zero record of _reported_ rape does not mean that the _occurrence_ of rape is near-zero. It is erroneous to therefore that conclude that it does. > > Get it yet or do you need some more spoon feeding? Right, because you have some psychic insight into what the true occurrence of rape is, and no matter what the official stats, they’re wrong and you’re right. Just because. Better save that spoon for the bread and milk which will be all that someone of your apparent mental capacity can digest. superfluous :rolleyes: ---
**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 15, 2006, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/411 "2006-04-15T23:34:35Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Right, because you have some psychic insight into what the true occurrence of rape is, and no matter what the official stats, they’re wrong and you’re right. Just because. 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.** This concept should be really simple to understand. Do you want me to get a smaller spoon to feed you with or is even this explanation too big to grok? ---
**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 16, 2006, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/412 "2006-04-16T00:13:22Z")
Do you think another 9 pages of y’all insulting one another is going to change anything at all? Neither side of this argument is going anywhere. Quit calling each other stupid. At this point, you are all stupid for continuing to beat this dead horse into the ground. Get off your goddamn computers, forget about each other, and go have a beer. Please. I don’t mean any ill will towars y’all, it’s just that this is getting pathetic. At this point nobody even cares who’s “right” anymore. The actual participants in the case have already fucked it up, anyway, so it’s a wash. Peace… ---
**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 16, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/413 "2006-04-16T00:22:50Z")
You’re absolutely right, **Arky**. I gotta go and set up this futon I got from IKEA. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/414 "2006-04-16T03:05:07Z")
**you with the face** , **stretch** , **wring** …you have done an admirable job fighting ignorance. What’s a shame is that the more recent discussion is missing posters known for their love of logic, law, and rationality–like **Bricker** , **John Mace** , and **Liberal**. Weak-minded blowhards dominate a thread nine pages deep and you hear nary a peep from the venerable logic-lovers, folks who might actually steer posters like **Ellis Dee** and **furt** back to the light of reason. But if we were talking about conservative politics or constitutional esoterica, they would come out of the woodworks. I guess that’s all you can expect on a Saturday night. I’ll have to remember **Huerta’s** “logic” the next time I need a defense argument. It may come in handy sometime. _“I really doubt I was speeding, officer. Don’t you know scientists only contribute 1% to the overall rate of moving violations in the country? And female scientists contribute less than 0.1%! Don’t you see how foolish you are writing me that big ole ticket? I’m innocent!”_ Just a few minutes ago, I was thinking about how terrible it would be if a black woman were raped **right now** by a white man. Would she be less inclined to report it now, with all the controversy going on? I have to say…I think I would given the climate of this thread. I’d hate to have some of ya’ll on the jury. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/415 "2006-04-16T08:21:49Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > **you with the face** , **stretch** , **wring** …you have done an admirable job fighting ignorance. What’s a shame is that the more recent discussion is missing posters known for their love of logic, law, and rationality–like **Bricker** , **John Mace** , and **Liberal**. Weak-minded blowhards dominate a thread nine pages deep and you hear nary a peep from the venerable logic-lovers, folks who might actually steer posters like **Ellis Dee** and **furt** back to the light of reason. But if we were talking about conservative politics or constitutional esoterica, they would come out of the woodworks. I guess that’s all you can expect on a Saturday night. > I’ll have to remember **Huerta’s** “logic” the next time I need a defense argument. It may come in handy sometime. _“I really doubt I was speeding, officer. Don’t you know scientists only contribute 1% to the overall rate of moving violations in the country? And female scientists contribute less than 0.1%! Don’t you see how foolish you are writing me that big ole ticket? I’m innocent!”_ > > Just a few minutes ago, I was thinking about how terrible it would be if a black woman were raped **right now** by a white man. Would she be less inclined to report it now, with all the controversy going on? I have to say…I think I would given the climate of this thread. I’d hate to have some of ya’ll on the jury. You cry out on **Huerta88** ’s logic, and yet you come up with such a poor parody? Does your statistic on speeding scientists account for the proportion of scientists in the population? It’d be a damning indictment of professional standards in your occupation if it didn’t. (Leaving out the part about not bothering with profiling if you actually have direct evidence, which has been reiterated to destruction.) [mode=Marcus Aurelius]Waste no more time bemoaning the absence of clear thinkers. Be one.[/mode] > [@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. Right. “I’m not disputing what the official stats are, but they don’t reflect the true occurrence rates, because _I_ know what they are far better than the official stats”. Y’all know what you can do with that spoon. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/416 "2006-04-16T15:16:56Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > And you know that this wasn’t done because…? Here’s a delicious bit o’ irony. While you and I were going back and forth [Durham police were trying to interview the students about the party.](http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-dukelacrosse-investigation&prov=ap&type=lgns) So, here is the timeline. March 14–complainant alleges assault took place. March 29–court orders students to submit DNA samples. April–14 police attempt to interview students. Satisfied? That’s some crackerjack police work. > [@](#): > > And you, respectfully, need to be a little more discerning when determining what is trustworthy information. Can you show me where I have determined that one piece of infiormation is more or less trustworthy? > [@](#): > > I think both sides are trying to make this a media circus. Both of them are trying to get their messages out to the court of public opinion. Watch CNN and look at the insanity. We, the public, should have a little more objectivity. Fine. My concern is that the DA started it. He gave more than 50 interviews in the first week. I am not concerned with the ‘defense’ at this point as, I must stress again, no charges have been filed. At the very least 43 students have had their reputations sullied, perhaps permanently. If Nifong had treated this case properly none of this crap would have happened. ---
**Author:** ![lskinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@lskinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lskinner)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/417 "2006-04-16T15:48:31Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > That’s some crackerjack police work. I read somewhere that law encforcement is starting to have serious doubts about the accuser’s story and are concerned about indicting team members who were nowhere near the party and have airtight alibis. This is a serious risk if the defendants are identified solely by the accuser looking at a photo lineup. So the cops were trying to get information as to who was at the party, according to the viewpoint I read. (Query whether the DA is more concerned about harming the reputation of an innocent person with an indictment or harming his own reputation by indicting somebody who is demonstrably innocent.) Maybe some criminal lawyer can explain to me why a few team members (who weren’t identified by the accuser) can’t be subpoenad to testify in front of the grand jury? ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/418 "2006-04-16T18:28:56Z")
Is NC law different there? I thought that once you were a suspect, which I infer since DNA was taken from from each team member, the police had to inform you of your Miranda rights and if you had obtained a lawyer, to refrain from talking to you? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Ca3799](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Ca3799](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ca3799)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/419 "2006-04-16T18:34:54Z")
I saw on the news that Jesse Jackson’s group is going to pay the dancer’s tuition whether she told the truth or not. His reason is that no woman should have to sell her body to finance an education. While I applaud JJ’s actually doing something useful for a change, I do have some doubts about rewarding liars (…and I don’t know if she is telling the truth or not, but there sure seems to be some question about it). ---
**Author:** ![Stentor\_2.5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc8723/32.png) [@Stentor\_2.5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stentor_2.5)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/420 "2006-04-16T18:39:21Z")
No woman _has_ to sell her body to finance an education. It just happens that doing so gets you a heck of a lot more money than working at McDonald’s to finance an education. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=22)