# 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:** 45
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/881 "2006-05-28T17:39:41Z")
I feel compelled to point out that not only is **Huerta88** ’s DoJ white on black rape statistic irrelevant, but [it doesn’t even support his assertion that black on white rape is vanishingly rare](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7436332&postcount=153). Why are so many on this thread so quick to believe that it is? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/882 "2006-05-28T17:41:50Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > …the other stripper looking to strike it rich off the story… How does what “the other stripper” did affect the credibility of the accuser? (everything I’ve read says that they didn’t even know each other until that night) CMC fnord! ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/883 "2006-05-28T17:42:07Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > We don’t believe the accuser because of the lack of DNA evidence, the strong alibi, the problematic timeline, the other stripper looking to strike it rich off the story, etc… > [@Weirddave](#): > > The DOJ statisticas are relevent to this case, in exactly the way they have been presented: **As posible indicators as to how likely this type of alleged crime was to have occured** , absent actual evidence about this specific alleged rape. Since its obvious that **Weirddave** thinks they are relevant somehow, I gotta wonder why you aren’t including him in this “we” club of yours. That’s sort of mean, to be so exclusionary like that. But if I were Dave, it wouldn’t upset me any. ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/884 "2006-05-28T17:55:46Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > How does what “the other stripper” did affect the credibility of the accuser? (everything I’ve read says that they didn’t even know each other until that night) She’s a witness for the prosecution, she originally reported that she didn’t think there was a rape, and after changing her story she contacted a PR firm to find out if she could make money off the case. ---
**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 28, 2006, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/885 "2006-05-28T17:57:10Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Since its obvious that **Weirddave** thinks they are relevant somehow, I gotta wonder why you aren’t including him in this “we” club of yours. That’s sort of mean, to be so exclusionary like that. It’s obvious his statement you quoted is in the hypothetical, since we _aren’t_ absent any other evidence. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/886 "2006-05-28T17:59:27Z")
> [@zagloba](#): > > I feel compelled to point out that not only is **Huerta88** ’s DoJ white on black rape statistic irrelevant, but [it doesn’t even support his assertion that black on white rape is vanishingly rare](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7436332&postcount=153). Why are so many on this thread so quick to believe that it is? > [@zagloba](#): > > …the footnote for the asterisk following the 0.0% figure, which says “Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.” It does _not_ say that of the 24,010 rapes or sexual assaults reported by black victims, less than 10 had a white perpetrator. What it _means_ is that the starred figure has such a small sample size that it is not statistically reliable… I do have this right; Instead of actually looking at the case files of those 24,010 rapes (which they could do), the DoJ randomly surveys a group of crime victims and from that survey estimates the ages, races etc. of both the victims and the perpetrators? CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![zagloba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/977dab/32.png) [@zagloba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zagloba)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/887 "2006-05-28T19:35:58Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I do have this right; > Instead of actually looking at the case files of those 24,010 rapes (which they could do), the DoJ randomly surveys a group of crime victims and from that survey estimates the ages, races etc. of both the victims and the perpetrators? First, I made an error in my previous post; Huerta88’s claim was that _white on black_ rape is vanishingly rare. I don’t know exactly how the sample is drawn. The details may be available in the methodology section of the document and/or the expanded spreadsheet form of the tables. But it is abundantly clear from the DoJ report that certain of the crime figures are based on a very small sample. I do notice that some of the figures for the number (not percentage) of victimizations of a given type with a given victim type are asterisked, e.g. black rapes and sexual assaults. I take this to mean that they only looked at around ten such victimizations to examine for race of perpetrator. I can only guess the reason for this. Perhaps they don’t think the perpetrator racial breakdown has much effect on how the crimes actually are or should be solved. It may be that that data is not readily available. Possibly they’ve done a study with a larger sample in the past and don’t expect the data to change much. It could even be that they just don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/888 "2006-05-28T21:04:20Z")
> [@](#): > > **Ellis Dee** said: > She’s a witness for the prosecution, she originally reported that she didn’t think there was a rape, and after changing her story she contacted a PR firm to find out if she could make money off the case. She also got cut a break to the tune of about 15,000$ on another charge by Nifong after she changed her story. Rather than accept that there is no evidence that this stripper is telling the truth, and plenty that she is lying, **monstro** and **you with the face** have been attempting to play the race card and derail this thread for many pages. What I want to know is why neither of them will entertain the notion in any way that this stripper is lying. Why do they both seem so convinced that the stripper’s story is absolutely true? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/889 "2006-05-28T21:12:21Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > She also got cut a break to the tune of about 15,000$ on another charge by Nifong after she changed her story. > > Rather than accept that there is no evidence that this stripper is telling the truth, and plenty that she is lying, **monstro** and **you with the face** have been attempting to play the race card and derail this thread for many pages. What I want to know is why neither of them will entertain the notion in any way that this stripper is lying. > > Why do they both seem so convinced that the stripper’s story is absolutely true? gee here I thought that they were arguing that the doj stats had no relevance to the case. I know that’s what i was focusing on (here’s the part some folks keep missing) \*\* even tho I believe this is a shitty case w/plenty of evidence that the accused are innocent\*\* doesn’t mean the doj stats have fuck all to do w/it and those that argued they did (and there are some) are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/890 "2006-05-28T21:14:09Z")
How the hell have we been playing the race card, **catsix**? It was not us who brought race into the discussion. It was **Huerta**. And if you would had read the thread, rather than posting out of ignorance, you would see that neither one of us have come to the defense of the accuser. In fact, I’m on record saying that it looks like the girl is lying. It’s obvious you’re coming in here all loud and wrong. You might as well join **Ellis Dee** in the dunce corner, you idiot. ---
**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 28, 2006, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/891 "2006-05-28T22:47:35Z")
Pssst! **wring** and **monstro** , I’ve learned that the quickest way to expose a knucklehead for what they are is to ask them one question. I learned this technique in my dealings with **ED** and **Huerta**. > [@catsix](#): > > Why do they both seem so convinced that the stripper’s story is absolutely true? Cite for me saying or even suggesting that this allegation is “absolutely true”? \*Thanks in advance. - Being polite makes them mad. Mad + stupid = Entertainment. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2006, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/892 "2006-05-28T23:38:56Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > The “absent other the evidence” is bullshit. **Huerta** conveniently used that line as a disclaimer, AND HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THIS? I’m not speaking for Huerta, but I do know that every time I have used that line or one like it, it was to clarify exactly HOW the DOJ statistics were relevent, and exactly what they were relevent to. You also seem to have little grasp on how a trial might actually work. When I was much younger, the business I was managing was robbed in a very unusual way. My youth, inexperience and fear contributed to the problem, and I wound up being charged with the crime. The detective in charge of the case testified in court that my story (what actually did happen) was so wildly improbable that that is what led me to being charged with the crime. There was nothing impossible about what happened, no monsters or aliens or spaceships, but he thought I was guilty because in his years of experience (not even something as solid as DoJ stats, mind you) stories like mine were invariably untrue. (I got off in case you were wondering) So please, stop telling me that statistics have no place in deciding just how likely a given even is to have occured (when weighed with other evidence), that is EXACTLY what statistics are FOR. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/893 "2006-05-29T00:12:09Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > AND HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THIS? I’m not speaking for Huerta, but I do know that every time I have used that line or one like it, it was to clarify exactly HOW the DOJ statistics were relevent, and exactly what they were relevent to. Why don’t you explain how they are relevant, then? Because neither **Huerta** or you have laid out a cogent, reasonable, or intelligent argument for why it makes sense to draw conclusions about _plausibility_ from historical data drawn from general populations. Especially when multiple data sets can tell you widely different things. All you keep is saying is that the DOJ stats relevant. How? And why can’t you answer the questions either **you with the face** or I have asked you personally? Do they go over your head? Or did you think my questions were rhetorical? They weren’t. > [@](#): > > You also seem to have little grasp on how a trial might actually work. I don’t have much experience with trials, but I know enough about them to know that no judge worth his salt would allow DOJ crime stats to be brought in as proof of an individual’s innocence. Even **Huerta** acknowledged they wouldn’t be useful in a court case. Why can’t you? If a case has been brought to trial, it would have to meet a certain burden of evidence. So why, then, would you need to bring in stats? Don’t backpeddle now. You said they are useful in assessing the merits of an allegation _in the absense of evidence_. So what relevance do they have in the court of law? None, I say. Absolutely none. > [@](#): > > When I was much younger, the business I was managing was robbed in a very unusual way. My youth, inexperience and fear contributed to the problem, and I wound up being charged with the crime. The detective in charge of the case testified in court that my story (what actually did happen) was so wildly improbable that that is what led me to being charged with the crime. There was nothing impossible about what happened, no monsters or aliens or spaceships, but he thought I was guilty because in his years of experience (not even something as solid as DoJ stats, mind you) stories like mine were invariably untrue. (I got off in case you were wondering) So please, stop telling me that statistics have no place in deciding just how likely a given even is to have occured (when weighed with other evidence), that is EXACTLY what statistics are FOR. You are being a serious dunderhead. Did your detective sit on the stand and say, “Well, white youths don’t rob businesses, based on the stats, so that’s why I was doubtful **Weirddave** did anything wrong?” Did your lawyer present the judge with crime stats supporting the impeccableness of white youths? Was race in any shape or form brought up in your trial? Do you think race-based statistics are in any shape or form relevant to the _plausibility_ of you commiting a crime? Did the detective bring up stats in the first place? I’m not talking about hunches, speculations, and gut feelings (which it sounds like all your detective had). I’m talking about _bona fide_ data. You know good and well what statistics are, so don’t act dumb. If you can’t answer any of my questions sincerely, then I’ll be forced to admit that you aren’t a honest player either. Not a soul in this thread who has advocated **Huerta’s** position has been able to defend his stupid argument in a rational way. Not you. Not **Bricker**. Not even **Huerta** himself. Why not give up and admit that you’re wrong? I’d like you to address the questions I posed to you earlier. Just one of them would be nice. Pretty please with a goddamn cherry on top. Thanks. ---
**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 29, 2006, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/894 "2006-05-29T00:26:56Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > AND HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THIS? Because his disclaimers are bullshit. I mean, literally in the literary sense of the term. His posts read like a semi-intelligent student trying to wing his way through an essay on a book he hasn’t read or understood. He constantly hedges his assertions with these meaningless disclaimers as if doing so magically makes it acceptable to use an illogical thought process to reach his conclusions. It’s because deep down inside he knows its illogical but is trying to mask the stench under perfume. This is obvious to anyone who can especially spot a poor performance in BSing. Apparently you are easily conned. Don’t become an English comp professor. Other indicators of BS include long paragraphs full of run on prepostional phrases and gratuitous Latin. **Huerta** ’s post are rife with these elements. Have you read the CEO scenario I gave you, by the way? I ask that if you continue to defend **Huerta** you at least do us a courtesy and respond to what I think was a very reasonable illustration of my stance. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/895 "2006-05-29T00:42:05Z")
You know what? I give up. Both of you are so willfully misrepresenting what has been said, and so vigorously arguing against strawmen of your own creation, that this thread has gone from interesting to informative to bizarre and into just plain crazy. I wish I could figure out a way to get the two of you to start yelling at each other, the resulting torrent of illogic and insanity would likely spin off in to the hundreds of pages and cause a massive cumulative lowering of the IQ average for your state, if not for the entire world. You’ve got 3 or 4 sycophants urging you on, but other than that everyone I’ve seen pretty much seems to think that you’re both nuts. Oh, I was wondering, do you apply the same vigor to decrying race as a possible factor when dealing with other situations? Like, say, the beating of Rodney King? Just curious. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/896 "2006-05-29T01:20:48Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > You know what? I give up. Both of you are so willfully misrepresenting what has been said, and so vigorously arguing against strawmen of your own creation, that this thread has gone from interesting to informative to bizarre and into just plain crazy. I wish I could figure out a way to get the two of you to start yelling at each other, the resulting torrent of illogic and insanity would likely spin off in to the hundreds of pages and cause a massive cumulative lowering of the IQ average for your state, if not for the entire world. You’ve got 3 or 4 sycophants urging you on, but other than that everyone I’ve seen pretty much seems to think that you’re both nuts. > > Oh, I was wondering, do you apply the same vigor to decrying race as a possible factor when dealing with other situations? Like, say, the beating of Rodney King? Just curious. Yeah, you keep flailing about like a dying fish. It’s really impressive. My questions to you were posed with calm prose and respect. You don’t know how to answer them without conceding your point, and instead of saying, “I don’t agree with all you’ve said, but at least you’ve given me something to chew over”, you get whiny and claim I’ve misconstrued your argument . You haven’t even _made_ an argument, **Weirddave**. And I’ve quoted you directly, so how can I misconstrue what you’ve said? How is the Rodney King beating related to what we’ve discussed here? I don’t expect you to return and flesh out whatever point you think you’re making (because of your utter wussiness), but you do realize that stats were not needed to evaluate that case, right? The evidence was shown in front of our very eyes on the six o’clock news. For weeks! You should really have picked a better jab as your final salvo. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/897 "2006-05-29T03:31:03Z")
Og on a fucking crutch! I have followed this fucking trainwreck since day one and I have to say, Monstro and ywtf, you two are becoming increasingly shrill and tedious, not to mention COMPLETELY MISSING THE FUCKING POINT! Your tag team antics are predictable and I dare say laughable, although you all probably give each other a “high five” email after each post. Stop the fucking hijack and keep to the case itself, as your high-minded bullshit is simply that. Og, you two are fucking irritating! ---
**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 29, 2006, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/898 "2006-05-29T03:42:47Z")
> [@Klaatu](#): > > Og on a fucking crutch! I have followed this fucking trainwreck since day one and I have to say, Monstro and ywtf, you two are becoming increasingly shrill and tedious, not to mention COMPLETELY MISSING THE FUCKING POINT! Isn’t it ironic for someone to accuse someone else of being shrill but they can’t even finish a sentence without abusing the caps lock? There’s gotta be a term for this phenomenon. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/899 "2006-05-29T03:48:45Z")
> [@Klaatu](#): > > Og on a fucking crutch! I have followed this fucking trainwreck since day one and I have to say, Monstro and ywtf, you two are becoming increasingly shrill and tedious, not to mention COMPLETELY MISSING THE FUCKING POINT! There’s a point? You’re like a rubbernecker complaining that the accident was too gruesome. Is “shrill” going to be the catchword of the day? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/900 "2006-05-29T05:06:57Z")
From this thread, I’ve learned the modus operandi of weak debaters: 1. Make a bullshit argument. 2. When the bullshit is pointed out, stamp your feet and claim that you’re the victim of misunderstanding. 3. Don’t provide cites or answer thought-provoking questions, even when posed politely and calmly. 4. Misconstrue your opponents arguments, while still claiming that you’re not being interpreted correctly. Engaging in semantic nitpicking and moving of goal posts is required here. 5. Pretend you didn’t even make the bullshit argument in the first place once you realize the tide is turning against you. It’s an attempt to make your opponents look crazy, but it rarely works because people have memories. 6. When all else fails, paint the opponent as being shrill, hysterical, or irritating, even though your use of exclamation marks and profanity exceeds theirs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=44) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=46)