# 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:** 41
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/801 "2006-05-26T09:14:07Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Notice how no one, including myself, has argued with **Huerta** about all the latest articles he’s been posting and his accompaning commentary. It’s because nobody cares about it. I care about it, witling. So, I’d imagine, do the families of the three boys arrested, imprisoned, and suspended from school till next Spring based on increasingly-lunatic race-baiting theories of their culpability. Minor point, I know. > [@](#): > > "You may remember the old Persian saying, ‘There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman.’ There is as much sense in Hafiz as in Horace, and as much knowledge of the world. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/802 "2006-05-26T09:20:41Z")
> [@wring](#): > > In addition, and more to his detriment, **Bricker & dave** seem to also forget that in the very same data set that he was relying on to suggest that the claim was somehow less believable (absent any other data) because it was white male and black female,data also existed that said that in cases of **gang rape** (which was also alledged in this case), white males were more often convicted than other categories. You mean how in a country where the majority of people are white, roughly 57% of gang rapes are perpetrated by whites? Forgive me if those numbers don’t blow me away. Shouldn’t it be higher? As in, proportional to the population? Also, if my read of those disclaimers at the bottom of that chart is correct, the gang rape numbers include _threats_ of gang rape and/or sexual assault, which one would expect to make the numbers larger. That’s part of what makes that big fat goose-egg on page 30 so remarkable. (That 0 also includes threats.) The multiple-offender numbers on page 35 don’t break down by the race of the victim. From page 30, we see that 57.9% of single-attacker white rape victims were attacked by whites, whereas 0% of the black victims where attacked by whites. On page 35, 57.3% of all gang rape victims are attacked by whites. 57.9, 57.3…hmmm, they seem pretty similar. Perhaps the slightly lower number is because the virtually zero rate of white on black rape is factored in, noting that the number of black victims is a small fraction of the number of white victims. (Meaning that a 0 would bring the percentage down, but not by much.) And finally, on page 37, they do break down victim’s race in multiple-attacker crimes, but that table groups gang rapes under the general “violent crime” umbrella. Even still, whites commit 39.1% of the group assaults on whites, compared to only 7.3% of the group assaults on blacks. Now, 7.3% is a far cry larger than 0%, but remember that the 7.3% includes all violent crime. Also note the disgustingly high percentage of false rape accusations by college women. What were the ranges cited in this thread? Something like 20% - 50% of rape claims by college women are false accusations? Of course, this thread has moved on to issues like one of the accused having a solid alibi, the DA maliciously prosecuting said alibi witness on a bullshit, trumped up charge. (Nice scare tactic, there.) The woman’s changing story, DNA results, her 911 call to report people calling her names…you know, actual stuff about this specific case. Why you and **you with the face** are still martyring yourselves on the now-irrelevant statistics issue is beyond me. How many pages are enough? > [@](#): > > In other words, he simply failed to explain why **only** the data point of white males raping black females was significant in this case (which supported his position), vs the gang rape data which did not. Hope this helps. > [@you with the face\[/quote](#): > > And do you understand my refutation to his argument? Do you understand what an epidemiologist does for a living and why I might know a little bit about why his approach is flawed? I broke it down so many times. Carefully and slowly. Do you still not understand why I consider him an idiot for stubbornly holding onto his position? Epidemiologist: a person who studies all elements contributing to the occurrence or absence of a disease in a population; a disease ecologist. And? I don’t see anything in that definition that has to do with criminology. But even if you were a criminologist, you present yourself as a raving lunatic. Every field has its share of idiots. Maybe you represent the bottom of the bell curve in epidemiology. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/803 "2006-05-26T09:30:56Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > The presence or absence of evidence is a moot point, guys. We are talking about prima facie determinations, which _assumes_ the absence of evidence. I fail to be impressed by all these qualifiers about “absent any other evidence”. Well, duh, we are talking about what something looks like, _on its face_. No, _you_ are talking about prima facie determinations. _We_ are talking about the evidence. > [@](#): > > Notice how no one, including myself, has argued with **Huerta** about all the latest articles he’s been posting and his accompaning commentary. It’s because nobody cares about it. Several people posted saying that they **do** care about the latest articles. The fact that you claim nobody cares, despite obvious and ample evidence to the contrary, paints you as a whacko. > [@](#): > > I _do_ care about the stuff I’ve been responding to, because it’s the kind of thinking that leads to all kind of societal problems. Like police profiling and racial disparities in convictions and sentencing. Too many people in this thread don’t get that. They think I’m defending the accuser, when I’m not. I’m defending something a lot bigger than that. That’s all well and good, but you may have picked the worst possible case with which to champion your cause. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/804 "2006-05-26T10:54:04Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Epidemiologist: a person who studies all elements contributing to the occurrence or absence of a disease in a **population** ; a disease ecologist. Right. _pats his head_ That’s the definition, sparky. Now go on and ask what that means, because obviously things are still going over your head in a major way. I’ll give you a hint: _How_ does an epidemiologist study disease in a population? What is the main tool at their disposal when they do their job? I’ll give you another hint: It has something to do with a subject that you apparently didn’t have too much of in school. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/805 "2006-05-26T11:03:07Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > No, _you_ are talking about prima facie determinations. _We_ are talking about the evidence. If that’s the case, then that makes the inclusion DoJ stats even more irrelevant. The evidence that is actually central to the case speaks for itself. The DoJ stats add nor take away anything from either side. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/806 "2006-05-26T11:04:18Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > How do you know this? I know this is a hypothetical and all, but unless you have a book of random facts and numbers just sitting in your pocket at all times, I doubt you’d know that 99% of boys like ice cream. If you need stats to make a prima facie determination of likelihood for everything, then you’d really be in bad shape in the real world. Typical of **you with the face** throughout this thread. The comparison was little boys’ liking of ice cream versus little boys’ liking of liver, which on the face of it is pretty much a matter of common knowledge. but of course we have to quibble over whether it’s exactly 99% of little boys who like ice cream. 'Cos that, you know, _completely_ invalidates the argument. :rolleyes: \* What does an epidemilogist do exactly? Does it involve not being able to see the wood for the trees? Oh, and **Ellis Dee** pwn3d **wring** with that last post. (\*This reminds me of a classic line in _Providence Island_ by Calder Willingham in which two castaways are arguing about whether it’s worth the effort of building a signal fire. She says it’s too much trouble because there aren’t any ships. He says “There aren’t any ships _at the moment_…” and she interrupts to say “How do you know? There might be one on the other side of the island right now!”… and fails to understand why he proceeds to give her a :rolleyes: .) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/807 "2006-05-26T12:43:22Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I’ll give you a hint: _How_ does an epidemiologist study disease in a population? What is the main tool at their disposal when they do their job? I assume you have never heard the expression “when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras”. Which means, usually, that statistically likely explanations are, well, statistically likely. An increase in URIs in the parents of school-age children in the fall is probably - not definitely, probably - due to the start of school than it is to death rays from the planet Zoon. You can’t be absolutely sure about that - Zoon might be preparing us for invasion - but that is the way the probablities run. > [@wring](#): > > data also existed that said that in cases of gang rape (which was also alledged in this case), white males were more often convicted than other categories. But gang rapes of blacks by whites is a subset of all rapes of blacks by whites. And all rapes of blacks by whites are so rare as to be statistically insignificant. Therefore, if you have established that whites almost never rape blacks, then you have also established that whites almost never gang rape blacks. QED. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/808 "2006-05-26T12:46:41Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > (\*This reminds me of a classic line in Providence Island by Calder Willingham in which two castaways are arguing about whether it’s worth the effort of building a signal fire. She says it’s too much trouble because there aren’t any ships. He says “There aren’t any ships at the moment…” and she interrupts to say “How do you know? There might be one on the other side of the island right now!”… and fails to understand why he proceeds to give her a .) Isaac Asimov tells the anecdote of a scientist whose name I can’t recall. He and a friend were travelling somewhere by train, and they passed a field of sheep. “Look”, said his friend, “those sheep have been recently sheared.” “Yes”, replied the scientist. “At least, on the side facing the train.” Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ensign\_Edison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7ab992/32.png) [@Ensign\_Edison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ensign_Edison)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/809 "2006-05-26T12:47:16Z")
I think you with the face has been intelligent and clear, and very patient considering what she’s dealing with. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, but just one of the only sane ones crazy enough to still be reading. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/810 "2006-05-26T12:57:54Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > I think you with the face has been intelligent \, You can think that all you want. I stopped participating when it became evident she wasn’t. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/811 "2006-05-26T13:11:45Z")
> [@Ensign Edison](#): > > I think you with the face has been intelligent and clear, and very patient considering what she’s dealing with. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels this way, but just one of the only sane ones crazy enough to still be reading. I appreciate that, **EE**. The obtuseness I’m encountering in this thread would be understandable if we were talking astrophysics, but it’s really not that complex. One does not even need to have a high school education to realize that using population-based statistics to predict anything about an individual is uncontestably asinine. The absurdity doubles when those population-based statistics concern factors like race and no attempt is made to explain why race is a germane consideration. Notice how **Ellis Dee** , **Malacandra** , and our friend **Huerta** conveniently ignore that question and quibble about lesser points. I get called a lunatic for pointing out what should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells and opposable thumbs. It’s funny but also sad. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/812 "2006-05-26T13:18:42Z")
> [@Trunk](#): > > You can think that all you want. I stopped participating when it became evident she wasn’t. And if its so evident, please refute what I’m saying. Anyone can come into the tail-end of discuss and declare that someone is wrong. Don’t bother to do it if you can’t back it up, though. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/813 "2006-05-26T13:38:04Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Also note the disgustingly high percentage of false rape accusations by college women. What were the ranges cited in this thread? Something like 20% - 50% of rape claims by college women are false accusations? Actually, it was _one_ study at _one_ college, and the author (Dr. Kanin) specifically said that the results should/could not be extrapolated to a larger population. The FBIs statistics, on other hand, say the false reporting rate in rape is 8%. Of course, this isn’t good for those 8% who are falsely accused, but it means that for 92% who are accused the charges _aren’t_ falsely made. ---
**Author:** ![Trunk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@Trunk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trunk)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/814 "2006-05-26T13:51:45Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > And if its so evident, please refute what I’m saying. > > Anyone can come into the tail-end of discuss and declare that someone is wrong. Don’t bother to do it if you can’t back it up, though. Since you asked, we could go back to the point where you said that correlation doesn’t imply dependence. . . At best, you’re sloppy with your language. At worst, you don’t understand the concepts. Either way, it’s hard to place any weight on anything you say about statistics. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/815 "2006-05-26T14:02:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Therefore, if you have established that whites almost never rape blacks, then you have also established that whites almost never gang rape blacks. Unless you figure that there are some innate properties to being white that would make it unlikely that a rapist of the caucasian persuasion would rape a of the negroid persuasian, then don’t you have to ask yourself _why_ the numbers might be what they are before you extrapolate anything to this case? If you said yes, keep on reading. If you say no, then I have to ask why. Could it be that race is merely _correlated_ with a bunch of factors that are determinants of rape-risk? Of course, you say. That makes a lot of sense. Afterall, believing that rape is a function of race is a racist belief, especially if there is no evidence to back it up. So, boys and girls, what might those correlated factors be? I proposed some [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7297550&postcount=296). Do these sound reasonable to you, **Shodan** et al? You might saying right now, well if race is correlated with these determinants, why can’t we use race as a proxy for these factors? Well, let’s review the bare bone facts about the Duke case. 1. College atheletes hired two women to strip at a party. 2. One of the strippers accused the guys of rape after returning to the house by herself. 3. Guys in question are white. Girls in question are black. Seems to me that geographical barriers are not in play here, since the women were in the guys’ house. We can rule that one out. It also seems to me that socio-cultural barriers are not in play, since the guys invited the women into their space for a sexual show. Kind of rules out that these men would not be sexually attracted to a black woman. (It goes without saying that the fact that this alleged rape was reported makes the point about reporting disparities moot.) So where does that leave us? Can you think of any other barriers that could have prevented a rape from occurring that are associated with race? I can’t think of any. That’s why I determine that race is not germane to the question of plausibility. Its a red herring. And given how rape is a [underreported](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm) crime makes me wonder why so much weight is given to stats in question. It’s like looking at the very tip of an iceberg and concluding that the whole thing is no bigger than teacup. Again, absurdity. The onus is on those who _do_ think race is germane to explain why. Like I said before, the proponents of **Huerta’s** school of thought haven’t done that. It has been treated like a given, as if it is just so obvious that white guys would _never_ do _that_, and look here are numbers to prove it! As if this woman’s allegation goes against some fixed law of nature. I encourage you to read what I’ve written and think before you respond. If you respond, please pick at the meat of my argument and not the nits. I lose patience with the one-liners who make declarations but aren’t smart or brave enough to challenge me where it counts the most. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/816 "2006-05-26T14:33:02Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Unless you figure that there are some innate properties to being white that would make it unlikely that a rapist of the caucasian persuasion would rape a of the negroid persuasian, then don’t you have to ask yourself _why_ the numbers might be what they are before you extrapolate anything to this case? Here we go again. It offends **face** ’s principles that white-on-black rape is vanishingly rare, therefore figures that show that this is in fact the case must be wrong, and we must explain _why_ the figures are wrong - and, what’s more, we must explain what is wrong with _every_ hypothesis, no matter how implausible, that **face** can possibly imagine as to why they are wrong. That’s right up there with her continual citing of herself as an authority. It’s not a question of explaining why white guys _would_ never do that. The data has been collected and purports to show that they don’t. ---
**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:** [May 26, 2006, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/817 "2006-05-26T14:49:44Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Here we go again. It offends **face** ’s principles that white-on-black rape is vanishingly rare, **therefore figures that show that this is in fact the case must be wrong…** Cite for where I said anything like this? Not holding my breath for an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/818 "2006-05-26T14:57:47Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Here we go again. It offends **face** ’s principles that white-on-black rape is vanishingly rare, therefore figures that show that this is in fact the case must be wrong, and we must explain _why_ the figures are wrong - and, what’s more, we must explain what is wrong with _every_ hypothesis, no matter how implausible, that **face** can possibly imagine as to why they are wrong. > > That’s right up there with her continual citing of herself as an authority. > > It’s not a question of explaining why white guys _would_ never do that. The data has been collected and purports to show that they don’t. See, this shows that you completed don’t understand **face** ’s point. Yes, white-on-black rape is rare _in the overall population_. However, just because the accusation is _rare_ does not mean it is _implausible_. There is a difference. There was an example given I-don’t-know-how-many-pages-ago, with an elderly murderer. Say (statistic made up), only 0.01% of murderers (1 in 10,000) are over the age of 85. And you have someone accused of murder who is 90. Does that mean that, on it’s face, the accusation is implausible? No. It would be _rare_ for a 90 year old to kill someone. However, if they’re in decent health, it’s not _implausible_ or _impossible_ that they could find a way to kill someone. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/819 "2006-05-26T15:03:40Z")
I think the scarcity of white-on-black rape is important in a general discussion of crime (as is, for example, the overwhelming discrepency between white-on-black crime compared to black-on-white crime). It’s also useful to put the allegations in context on an internet discussion board. It is not, however, in any way important (other than to correct some of the hyperbole coming from certain “community leaders”) to the legal case at hand. I agree that we need to be very careful in using such broad statistical evidence in a criminal trial. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2006, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/820 "2006-05-26T15:04:02Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Unless you figure that there are some innate properties to being white that would make it unlikely that a rapist of the caucasian persuasion would rape a of the negroid persuasian, then don’t you have to ask yourself _why_ the numbers might be what they are before you extrapolate anything to this case? > > If you said yes, keep on reading. If you say no, then I have to ask why. My answer is, of course, no. We don’t have to understand why the numbers are the way they before we know if one things correlates with another. Nonetheless, to continue with your argument, parts of which are reasonable… > [@](#): > > Could it be that race is merely _correlated_ with a bunch of factors that are determinants of rape-risk? Of course, you say. That makes a lot of sense. Afterall, believing that rape is a function of race is a racist belief, especially if there is no evidence to back it up. > > So, boys and girls, what might those correlated factors be? I proposed some [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7297550&postcount=296). Do these sound reasonable to you, **Shodan** et al? > > You might saying right now, well if race is correlated with these determinants, why can’t we use race as a proxy for these factors? Well, let’s review the bare bone facts about the Duke case. > > 1. College atheletes hired two women to strip at a party. > 2. One of the strippers accused the guys of rape after returning to the house by herself. > 3. Guys in question are white. Girls in question are black. > > Seems to me that geographical barriers are not in play here, since the women were in the guys’ house. We can rule that one out. It also seems to me that socio-cultural barriers are not in play, since the guys invited the women into their space for a sexual show. Kind of rules out that these men would not be sexually attracted to a black woman. I assume you are not alleging that rape is a crime primarily motivated by sexual desire for the victim. AFAICT, this is denied by many authorities who studied the subject. I can dig up some cites if you like. > [@](#): > > (It goes without saying that the fact that this alleged rape was reported makes the point about reporting disparities moot.) Well, OK, as long as you keep in mind that it also makes all your assertions about under-reporting of rape moot as well. > [@](#): > > So where does that leave us? Can you think of any other barriers that could have prevented a rape from occurring that are associated with race? I can’t think of any. That’s why I determine that race is not germane to the question of plausibility. Its a red herring. And given how rape is a [underreported](http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/svfacts.htm) crime makes me wonder why so much weight is given to stats in question. It’s like looking at the very tip of an iceberg and concluding that the whole thing is no bigger than teacup. Again, absurdity. You are making two mistakes here. The first is that you have shown no evidence that the other factors you suggest are, in fact, causative instead of correlative, or even better predictors than race. You merely mention them, rule them out, and then declare that race is not a factor. The other mistake is to declare that dismissing the other theorectical factors means than you have established in some way that the incidence of rape of blacks by whites has been changed. It hasn’t. Rape of blacks by whites is still vanishingly rare, and therefore unlikely. Not impossible, unlikely. > [@](#): > > The onus is on those who _do_ think race is germane to explain why. Tha’s been evident from the outset, since rape of blacks by whites is very, very rare. > [@](#): > > Like I said before, the proponents of **Huerta’s** school of thought haven’t done that. It has been treated like a given, as if it is just so obvious that white guys would _never_ do _that_, and look here are numbers to prove it! As if this woman’s allegation goes against some fixed law of nature. Strawman argument, again - nobody, least of all **Huerta88** , has said anything of the sort. And it has emphatically **not** been treated as a given - **Huerta88** has supplied statistics showing it to be very rare. And since all the other evidence that is coming out seems to mitigate against the notion that the accusations are true, this seems to confirm that the preliminary idea - that the drunken prostitute’s accusations are unlikely on their face - is indeed in accord with what we would expect from the statistics. This is hardly surprising - that which is common is common, and that which is almost unheard of is rare. For all we know, there could be all kinds of factors that are better predictors of whether or not a rape accusation is true. Maybe it is the case that prostitutes are more likely than not to lie about such things. Maybe lacrosse players are nearly always truthful. But to deny that there is any correlation between race and rape is simply to deny a politically incorrect truth. Especially since the more evidence that comes forward, the more likely it seems that this is another case that demonstrates the correlation - and, as far as inter-racial rape of blacks by whites, it is a strongly negative correlation. Just as we would expect from the statistics. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=40) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=42)