# 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:** 47
**Author:** ![Geobabe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/geobabe/32/3908_2.png) [@Geobabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Geobabe)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/921 "2006-05-29T20:03:38Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > So, I have to show **why** stats regarding white on black rape just might be relevent to the case of a white man (supposedly) raping a black woman. Wow. The mind boggles. I don’t know if someone else saying this will help, but I’ll give it a shot. The stats _aren’t_ relevant. Everybody’s gotten so caught up in yelling at everybody else the whole issue has gotten confused. This whole side argument about statistics is, as YWTF has said, a red herring. Statistics are useful in looking at populations, but not so much with individuals. To draw yet another analogy, you can use a weather forecast–which uses statistical data about weather patterns–to make an educated guess as to whether it might rain tomorrow, but it’s not at all useful in figuring out whether it rained yesterday. Likewise, how often people belonging to a particular group have committed a particular crime doesn’t even begin to tell you whether a specific individual committed a specific crime, and therefore shouldn’t be used _at all_ in deciding whether the accuser is telling the truth. I think, though, that YWTF is misattributing the motive for the stats having been brought up in the first place. I’m much more inclined to ascribe it to the SDMB’s general obsession with cites and figures than anything to do with race. That’s just how we, collectively, are, we’re a nerdy bunch. “Hmm, what sort of references can I find for this? What sort of numbers are there?” And now this whole thing is hopelessly fucking sidetracked because of that. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/922 "2006-05-29T20:05:42Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > According to this [site](http://www.wwu.edu/chw/preventionandwellness/casas/Statistics.html) (see references within), 99% of accused rapists are _men_. Ninety-one percent of the victims of _women_. Fifty percent of rapists are intoxicated. Twenty-five percent of female college students have been raped or sexually assaulted. For the purposes of this argument, I’ll take these stats as true. (FTR, I suspect that the first two claims are substantially accurate. The third, I tend to doubt. The fourth has been repeatedly debunked, here and elsewhere. Cites for this last point provided upon request.) > [@monstro](#): > > If we accept your claim that crime stats are relevant, then we must accept that these stats support the allegation. Yup.\* They do.\* The first two statistics, anyway. Or said another way, if the accuser had been a male, and claimed that he had been gang-raped by the members of the Duke (womens’) field hockey team, the accusation would have been even more (statistically) unlikely. If the accuser named elderly Pakistani women, or the members of a Brownie troupe, the statistically unlikelihood of the charge would be greater yet. \*In the sense that someone evaluating the initial claim, in the absence of any direct evidence of guilt or innocence, might take that into account. Someone, in the sense I use it here, would include members of the public who read news stories, posters to this thread, and (yes), police approaching the investigation of a claimed attack. (I look forward to this qualifier being ignored and selectively edited out when **Monstro** quotes me.) > [@monstro](#): > > These stats are no less relevant than race-based ones, and they implicate the lacrosse players even more heavily than the ones bandied about in this thread. And they’re human, too! Nearly 100% of rapes of women are committed by humans! Do you have any idea how silly your argument is? > [@monstro](#): > > The next time a white guy is accused of embezzlement, serial killing, or child pedophilia, I’m going to whip out the stats and cite them as proof of his guilt. I will make a huge deal out of his race, and then whine real big and loud when people call me a racist. Will you join my side of the argument, **Weirddave**? Can I count on you to defend me against the **you with the face’s** of the board? If you cite these stats as **proof** of guilt, I would laugh at you. I suspect that **Weirddave** would do the same. Of course, no one here has said that the rape stats are proof of anything. Your strawmen are becoming tiresome. So is your continued refusal to acknowledge what actually is being said in this thread. On the other hand, if a serial killer is on the loose, I have no problem with a profile that suggests that it is likely that the offender is a white male. Also, if $100,000 has been embezzled, and the stats show that 98% of similar crimes are committed by white males, I might be less likely (in the absence of direct evidence) to believe an accusation against a black female. (Same qualifier.) ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/923 "2006-05-29T20:06:07Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m going to address only this one point because I can hardly believe that I’m reading it correctly. Are you seriously contending that we should institutionalize the use of racial criteria in deciding whether or not a case should be pursued? Am I missing some subtle point or something, because that sounds absurd on the face of it? I can’t believe anyone would even pose that question in this day and age. I would expect our law enforcement officials to take great pains not to judge a case based on the racial categorization of either the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator. I have no idea, I was asking the question. I have read opinions by Posner from the Seventh Circuit and he has used all sorts of secondary source material. I do know that prosecutors have incredible latitude in determining when to prosecute a case. > [@](#): > > Part of the accusation was that the assailants had hurled racial slurs at the alleged victim. This alone makes the case racially charged…not merely the fact that the accused are white. If that’s the case, then these statistics are valid if only to act as a counter to those who would make the case racially charged. Put another way, when certain outsiders (i.e. not related to the accused or the prosecution or the alleged victim) are suggesting that it’s just another case of white-on-black rape then it is relevant to know this. > [@](#): > > What if we evaluate the crime stats for NC and see that white-on-black rape stats are higher than they are on a national level? Will this be meaningful in any way? Why or why not? Do such statistics exist? They would be meaningful only insofar as we are having a macro discussion on rape and racial break down. Again, not to the specific criminal case at hand. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/924 "2006-05-29T20:15:13Z")
> [@Geobabe](#): > > I think, though, that YWTF is misattributing the motive for the stats having been brought up in the first place. I’m much more inclined to ascribe it to the SDMB’s general obsession with cites and figures than anything to do with race. That’s just how we, collectively, are, we’re a nerdy bunch. Actually, this is how thing started. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7291236#post7291236). > [@Huerta88](#): > > […] > Anyone have any statistics for how common white-on-black sexual assaults are, by the way? > [@you with the face](#): > > I don’t see why this is relevant and I don’t know why you are playing the race card so heavy handedly like this. Doesn’t this make you are guilty as those “race-baiting” protesters in Durham? > […] > [@Huerta88](#): > > If (as I suspect) the true incidence of white-on-black sexual violence is comparatively infinitessimal, then this would be relevant to two quite separate points: > > (1) The justification for the protestors invoking race (which they, not I, raised first) as a relevant issue; and > **(2) The statistical likelihood that a variety of attack that is comparatively very rare did, in fact, take place here.** That triggered the argument that brings us here today. If **Huerta’s** reasoning for asking that question was expressed as general curiosity, then I wouldn’t have had anything to say. Unfortunately, he did not do that. Insanity ensued. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/925 "2006-05-29T20:24:50Z")
OK - let’s take a step back here and re-group. > [@YWTF](#): > > To the audience: See how constant this refrain is? Not once have I expressed a problem with the data OK, so we all agree that whites raping blacks is a rare occurrence. Moving along, > [@Weirddave](#): > > Would you care to address the very specific statement that DragonAsh is making there? Because that’s it in a nutshell, and you have conflagrated this entire firestorm over a straw man of your own creation while ignoring the only germane fact: "Huerta88 took one factoid that, for him, made him X% more or less likely to believe the accuser. That’s it. > > > [@YWTF](#): > > > > Yeah, that’s it. And that’s wrong. What part of wrong do you not understand? OK, so, just so we’re all clear: you think Huerta88 is wrong for deciding that statistics indicating that white-on-black rape is a rare occurrence makes him X% more or less (less, in this case) likely to believe the allegations are true. In non-inflammatory terms (and no terms of endearment, please) tell me why you think it is wrong to use such data in arriving at an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/926 "2006-05-29T20:26:56Z")
> [@Random](#): > > On the other hand, if a serial killer is on the loose, I have no problem with a profile that suggests that it is likely that the offender is a white male. Let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say we have a white woman who says she escaped THE serial killer. She looks beat up, but looks a bit “off”, she says no it’s not a white man, it’s a black man. The cops and DA, begin looking for a black man who matches her description. Now imagine I made a post suggesting that due to statically data, I think that adds another X% why she’s not believable. That and due to the historical use of the “Undentified Black Man” syndrome, the DA is acting too fast and clearly has an agenda. You would have accused me of white guilt, of playing the race card and all the other things; being tossed around here. Let’s go one step further and say I told the person I’m having to most trouble convincing, that he really had a Mandingo fantasy and likes the though of a black man having his way with white women. Now maybe I’m wrong, but I think you guys would’ve handed my head, despite my claim of “barring any other evidence”. I think everyone needs to step back a sec and really try to understand what each side is saying here; who knows we might actually manage to pull this from the pit. ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/927 "2006-05-29T20:30:54Z")
> [@Random](#): > > Also, if $100,000 has been embezzled, and the stats show that 98% of similar crimes are committed by white males, I might be less likely (in the absence of direct evidence) to believe an accusation against a black female. (Same qualifier.) Even if the accusation is made against a specific CEO that happens to be a black female? Let’s say you have a: 1. CEO of a multi-million dollar company… 2. that is embroilled in a Enron type scandal 3. involving fraudulent dealings that have gone on for several years. You would take a look at those facts and wonder about race/gender before saying whether its likely that the CEO was responsible? If your answer is yes, then congratulations. You’ve earned a seat on the shortbus along with **Huerta** , **Ellis Dee** , **Weirddave** , **Malacandra** , and **Bricker**. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/928 "2006-05-29T20:34:12Z")
> [@Geobabe](#): > > I think, though, that YWTF is misattributing the motive for the stats having been brought up in the first place. I’m much more inclined to ascribe it to the SDMB’s general obsession with cites and figures than anything to do with race. That’s just how we, collectively, are, we’re a nerdy bunch. “Hmm, what sort of references can I find for this? What sort of numbers are there?” And now this whole thing is hopelessly fucking sidetracked because of that. I’d like to think that we’re all factophiles and that’s why stats are being clutched to so tightly, but what’s disturbing isn’t the importance given to stats, but the specific _kinds_ of stats people are proclaiming are relevant. Are people focused on gender-based stats, those that they say 99% of rapists are men? Are people focused on stats that correlate alcohol intoxication with rape? No. They are keying in only two variables–the race of the alleged rapists and the race the alleged victim–and giving them predicative power that they don’t have. I don’t think **you with the face** is misattributing motives. What started off as a thread about a “lying whore” turned into a violent race thread…and this was not initiated by **ywtf** , me, or anyone else who’s been wrongly accused of playing the race card. **Huerta** had reasons for keying in on race, as do **Weirddave** , **Ellis Dee** , and others. Maybe it’s their love of facts and figures…or maybe it’s something else. It’s not taboo to call a poster a syphilitic retard around here. But it’s considered a low blow to call someone a racist, even if that’s how they are acting. It’s like political correctness in Bizarro World. I for one _do_ love numbers. I’m a scientist, as is **ywtf** and **wring**. So it shouldn’t be assumed we don’t appreciate the value of statistics and data. We do, and that’s why their misuse is driving us crazy. > [@Random](#): > > If the accuser had been a male, and claimed that he had been gang-raped by the members of the Duke (womens’) field hockey team, the accusation would have been even more (statistically) unlikely. More unlikely than what, **Random**? You’re making a comparison without a stated reference. I’m more likely to be hit by a car than stung by a swarm of killer bees. Does that mean that that if I do get stung by killer bees, someone has cause to doubt my story? (BTW, if you click on that link, you’ll see figures for male-on-male rape. Probably higher than you think it is.) > [@](#): > > If the accuser named elderly Pakistani women, or the members of a Brownie troupe, the statistically unlikelihood of the charge would be greater yet. So what? The fact that I’m more likely to be mugged by a white guy than an elderly Pakistani woman does NOT automatically cast doubt on my claim that an elderly Pakistani woman mugged me. I’m more likely to find a penny on the floor than a dollar. If I tell you I found a dollar on the floor, will you doubt me? See how stupid your argument sounds when it’s echoed back to you in real world examples? ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/929 "2006-05-29T20:34:38Z")
I see your point YWTF but I’m not sure that the conclusions you are reaching are such a bad thing. The reason we have trials is to avoid these sorts of generalizations. That is, we have criminal trials, evidence etc. so that we can do our best to discover what exactly happened in that particular time and place and who exactly did what. Anything else that does not relate to those questions is simply not relevant. Now as a general discussion then statistics are quite helpful and important. They’re helpful in discussing trends, developments, historical issues etc. So, in the right context, the DOJ statistics are relevant as would the other statistics you mentioned. As you have noted, however, they are not relevant to the case at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/930 "2006-05-29T20:35:12Z")
> [@Geobabe](#): > > I don’t know if someone else saying this will help, but I’ll give it a shot. The stats _aren’t_ relevant. Everybody’s gotten so caught up in yelling at everybody else the whole issue has gotten confused. This whole side argument about statistics is, as YWTF has said, a red herring. Not completely. See below. > [@Geobabe](#): > > To draw yet another analogy, you can use a weather forecast–which uses statistical data about weather patterns–to make an educated guess as to whether it might rain tomorrow, but it’s not at all useful in figuring out whether it rained yesterday. Sure it is, in the absence of better evidence. The reason your analogy made sense to you involves an unspoken premise: There are obvious, easily-consulted methods of determining whether it rained yesterday, with near 100% accuracy. Therefore, it would be silly to use statistical models to answer this question. As good as meteorological models have become, they are not 100% accurate. But if someone will pay me $100 if I correctly state whether it rained in Detroit yesterday, but I’m not allowed access to the internet, or the phone, or today’s Detroit papers, but I do have is the forecast from 2 days ago, that’s what I’m going to base my bet on. If I lack even that, but know that it only rains in Detroit about 20% of the days in May, that’s the way I’m going to bet. (If I have to say whether it snowed, I’d probably answer the question without even consulting the paper.) Here, we **don’t** have an obvious, 100%-accurate way of telling whether the accuser is truthful. So, your weather analogy is actually useful - IF it is changed to remove your unspoken premise. > [@Geobabe](#): > > Likewise, how often people belonging to a particular group have committed a particular crime doesn’t even begin to tell you whether a specific individual committed a specific crime, and therefore shouldn’t be used _at all_ in deciding whether the accuser is telling the truth. Flawed reasoning, based on unspoken premise. See above. > [@Geobabe](#): > > I think, though, that YWTF is misattributing the motive for the stats having been brought up in the first place. I’m much more inclined to ascribe it to the SDMB’s general obsession with cites and figures than anything to do with race. That’s just how we, collectively, are, we’re a nerdy bunch. “Hmm, what sort of references can I find for this? What sort of numbers are there?” And now this whole thing is hopelessly fucking sidetracked because of that. Some truth to this. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/931 "2006-05-29T20:36:15Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > OK - let’s take a step back here and re-group. OK, so we all agree that whites raping blacks is a rare occurrence. Moving along, > > OK, so, just so we’re all clear: you think Huerta88 is wrong for deciding that statistics indicating that white-on-black rape is a rare occurrence makes him X% more or less (less, in this case) likely to believe the allegations are true. > > In non-inflammatory terms (and no terms of endearment, please) tell me why you think it is wrong to use such data in arriving at an opinion. For me, it’s because he ignored other statistics that IMO negated that one data point. The only way that gang-raping of black women by white men can have any value is if you believe that the reason why is because white men aren’t attracted to black women and that makes no sense in rape. Why? Because we know that old women, children and women that aren’t considered “sexy” are raped. Do you really believe that skin color will protect a woman from being raped? We know that booze and drugs are often part of rape, we know that most rapists are involved with their victims. We know that power and control are often components of rape…all of which was present at Duke. ---
**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, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/932 "2006-05-29T20:36:16Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > In non-inflammatory terms (and no terms of endearment, please) tell me why you think it is wrong to use such data in arriving at an opinion. I’ve explained why so many times its ridiculous, **Dragon**. Did you read the whole thread? ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/933 "2006-05-29T20:39:08Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > I’ve explained why so many times its ridiculous, **Dragon**. Did you read the whole thread? Please explain it again, in straight and simple terms. I’m trying to bring a bit of order to this so we don’t have to track back over 20 pages of a meandering thread. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/934 "2006-05-29T20:48:18Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > A resonable question. The first thing you could do is to recognize that no-one is suggesting that these statistics are **dispositive** of anything in the case at hand. (bolding mine - **Random** ) > [@monstro](#): > > Can you please stop saying this, **Lochdale**? This isn’t true because **Weirddave** has repeatedly expressed his belief that they are relevant in evaluating legal cases. Intentionally or not, you’re distorting our position by keeping up this refrain. We aren’t arguing a strawman; we’ve got posters on this page making the very claim you deny is happening. (several **Monstro** quotations of other posters, which say nothing about stats being dispositive, are omitted.) Please look up the word “dispositive”, **Monstro**. > [@Monstro](#): > > How in one breath can you say no one is claiming that stats are relevant to this case, and then in the next say that they can be used to judge the worthiness of an allegation? Aren’t you contradicting yourself? No. Because he’s not saying that. Dispositive and relevant are not synonyms ---
**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, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/935 "2006-05-29T20:50:34Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Now as a general discussion then statistics are quite helpful and important. They’re helpful in discussing trends, developments, historical issues etc. So, in the right context, the DOJ statistics are relevant as would the other statistics you mentioned. As you have noted, however, they are not relevant to the case at hand. All of this is 100%. But **Huerta** was not advocating this position. Nor is **Weirddave** currently presenting this argument. No one is going to challenge the sentiment, “Statistics can be helpful”. Of course they can be. That’s why **ywtf** works with them on a daily basis. Even though we’ve been going back and forth a bit, at least I can say you’ve been reasonable and considerate. Thanks, **Lochdale**. ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/936 "2006-05-29T20:53:45Z")
[QUOTE=Random] Please look up the word “dispositive”, **Monstro**. Maybe you should present this challenge to **Lochdale** , **Random** , since he was the one who used that word. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/937 "2006-05-29T21:02:31Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > Let’s take that to it’s logical conclusion. Let’s say we have a white woman who says she escaped THE serial killer. She looks beat up, but looks a bit “off”, she says no it’s not a white man, it’s a black man. The cops and DA, begin looking for a black man who matches her description. > > Now imagine I made a post suggesting that due to statically data, I think that adds another X% why she’s not believable. Actually, I would agree with this part. How big of a number “X” is may be debated, but I agree that it is a non-zero number. > [@holmes](#): > > That and due to the historical use of the “Undentified Black Man” syndrome, the DA is acting too fast and clearly has an agenda. You would have accused me of white guilt, of playing the race card and all the other things; being tossed around here. Let’s go one step further and say I told the person I’m having to most trouble convincing, that he really had a Mandingo fantasy and likes the though of a black man having his way with white women. > > Now maybe I’m wrong, but I think you guys would’ve handed my head… If you made this second set of claims (about the prosecutor) based only on a statistic? Yeah, I’d challenge that. On the other hand, if your hypothetical prosecutor was faced with an election, with white pressure groups pressing for an indictment, and the prosecutor was playing to the media, and there were other problems with the accuser’s story? And you cited that, along with the stat? Nope, I probably would not challenge you then. ---
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/938 "2006-05-29T21:08:07Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > Please explain it again, in straight and simple terms. I’m trying to bring a bit of order to this so we don’t have to track back over 20 pages of a meandering thread. Since you are asked this calmly and nicely, I’ll try to respond to you in the same manner. First mistake: Taking population-based statistics and applying it to an individual case. Earlier in this thread, I used the prevalence of obesity to illustrate this particular error and I’ll use it again. Let’s assume obesity prevalence in the US is 33%. Which means, in other words, that 33% of the American population qualifies as obese. Does this mean that all Americans have a 33% chance of being overweight? No, it does not. Older people have a different risk level than the young. Poor people have a different risk level than rich. There are regional factors, cultural factors, socioeconomic factors, etc. that influence people’s susceptibility to obesity. Thus, it is erroneous to say that you, just by virtue of your American citizenship, have a 33% chance of becoming obese. You may be in demographic group that is at low risk for the condition. Or you might be in a group that is higher. So you can not use statistics derived from a large diverse population to predict anything about an individual. Tell me if this illustration doesn’t make sense to you. Second mistake: Looking at race when gauging the likelihood of rape is based on the assumption that race determines behavior. I talked extensively in this thread about causative factors that may be correlated with race. If our intent is to figure out the plausibility of an race allegation, we should seize on the causative risk factors not superficial stuff like race. No one has provided any evidence that race is a determinant of rape, but it’s been treated as a assumption. In post #853, I broke down what the CDC has identified as the pertinent factors when looking at rape. Notice how oddly silent they are on race. The only time they mention race is when they suggest that Native Americans may be at greater risk of being raped, which is probably due to cultural factors. Whites and blacks are about equal, though. I hope (pray, actually) that this all makes sense to you. You called me stupid earlier and weeped for our gene pool, but honestly that doesn’t hurt my feelings. It’s clear you declared that out of ignorance. But do it again, and I’ll hand you your ticket for a ride on the shortbus. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/939 "2006-05-29T21:10:49Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Can you please stop saying this, **Lochdale**? This isn’t true because **Weirddave** has repeatedly expressed his belief that they are relevant in evaluating legal cases. No I am not, NO I AM NOT. Can _ **YOU** _ please stop stating this? That’s your strawman, and I’m not going to argue it anmore. What I said was: > [@me in post 795](#): > > absent other forms of proof and coroborating evidence, it was acceptable to consider the statistical likelyhood of a given event when trying to determine just how truthful the accuser was being. “Absent other forms of proof and coroborating evidence”. How many times will you ignore that statement? I’ve even said multiple times that stats can show us absolutely **nothing** about this specific case as well. Geobabe, this answers your post too, along with Random’s post dealing with the weather. ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/940 "2006-05-29T21:17:48Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > “Absent other forms of proof and coroborating evidence”. How many times will you ignore that statement? We aren’t ignoring it. We’re just amazed that you see it as changing anything. And when you say stuff like this: > [@Weirddave](#): > > 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. …I can’t help but believe you are having a hard time getting your disclaimers straight. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=46) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=48)