# 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:** 48
**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, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/941 "2006-05-29T21:22:05Z")
> [@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. That and due to the historical use of the “Undentified Black Man” syndrome, the DA is acting too fast and clearly has an agenda. Hmm, OK, you had me until that last sentence. No one would (or should, anyway) hand you your head because you think that due to statistical data, you think her story is X% not believable. > [@holmes](#): > > For me, it’s because he ignored other statistics that IMO negated that one data point. Hmm, I disagree. This thread was started, remember, by a post back in April when the media reported that no DNA matching any of the players had been found on the accuser’s body. The following days saw more reports - such as the accuser’s previous run-in with the law - almost all that would be considered to be undermining the accuser’s believability. Besides, it’s not until page four that we get into the ‘white-on-black’ data thing. Go back and re-read posts 159 through about 166. This entire thread is boiled down to a nutshell in those 7 or 8 posts. And in post 173 we have: > [@YWTF](#): > > I don’t get how the rate of white-on-black rape should have any bearing on how likely it is that I, a black woman, am telling the truth when I say I’m raped by a white man. It may not be relevant with regards to whether you are telling the truth. It may be relevant in terms of how believable I think you are (obvious disclaimers about ‘assuming the lack of other/direct evidence etc.’ apply). I think there’s a difference. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/942 "2006-05-29T21:25:14Z")
> [@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.** Emphasis added. But that’s the whole point! We’re not talking about some arbitrary case about which we only know the race of the individuals. We’re talking about this case in particular and whether or not the DA should have given more or less weight to the charge based on the race of the people involved. And why on earth would he use national averages as opposed to averages for his state or county? We (the collective we) are choosing to view this thru it’s racial angle primarily because that’s how it was played up in the press, and that’s how many activitists have tried to spin it. Instead, we should be looking at the facts of the case to see who’s story holds up the best. I don’t care how “rare” White on Black rape is, because we’re not asking a quesiton like: How likely is it that a White on Black rape will occur in a give city today. We’re trying to evaluate whether this specific rape took place or not. ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/943 "2006-05-29T21:26:38Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You’ve earned a seat on the shortbus along with **Huerta** , **Ellis Dee** , **Weirddave** , **Malacandra** , and **Bricker**. 1. Is this the best that you can do? Your debating tactics fail to impress. So sorry that you consider me an evil heretic. 2. I’m not familiar with the overall beliefs of most of these people, but in this thread, I’d much rather be on their bus than on yours. 3. I am somewhat familiar with **Bricker’s** overall posting history. Your attempted insult fails to wound me. > [@you with the face](#): > > 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? I assume that you are positing a statistic along the lines of “The percentage of Enron-type crimes involving CEOs of multimillion dollar corporations that are committed by black females is very small.” Is my assumption correct? If not, I don’t understand your attempted point. Without such a statistic, there’s no race/gender issue to wonder about. If my assumption **is** correct, and such a statistic is brought to my attention, then I might (at least briefly) consider the issue. My first step would be to compare the percentage cited to the percentage of the population of such CEOs who are black females. I’m guessing that the meaningfulness of the statistic would fall apart here, either (1) because the first percentage (although small) isn’t much smaller than the second percentage; or (b) the population (absolute number, not percentage) of black female CEOs of multimillion dollar corporations is not large enough for such statistics to have meaning. But if not… if after correcting for population, the % of such crimes committed by black females were extremely low, then yes, I’d consider that as a factor. ---
**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, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/944 "2006-05-29T21:28:07Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > And in post 173 we have:It may not be relevant with regards to whether you are telling the truth. It may be relevant in terms of how believable I think you are (obvious disclaimers about ‘assuming the lack of other/direct evidence etc.’ apply). > > I think there’s a difference. Well, explain it please. But first read and respond to my other post to you. ---
**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, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/945 "2006-05-29T21:40:45Z")
> [@Random](#): > > I assume that you are positing a statistic along the lines of “The percentage of Enron-type crimes involving CEOs of multimillion dollar corporations that are committed by black females is very small.” Is my assumption correct? > > If not, I don’t understand your attempted point. Without such a statistic, there’s no race/gender issue to wonder about. The point is that the stats are irrelevant. If the first question that pops into your mind when assessing the bare bone facts is the possible race or gender of the accused, then you are an idiot. Yeah, harsh words. But it’s the truth. The presence or absence of stats is moot, because before you even get the stats, you have to have the preconceived idea that race and gender are worthy of consideration. What makes you think they would be? Stats don’t just fall into our laps from nowhere. They have to be searched for. > [@](#): > > If my assumption **is** correct, and such a statistic is brought to my attention, then I might (at least briefly) consider the issue. My first step would be to compare the percentage cited to the percentage of the population of such CEOs who are black females. What if your stats could only tell you crude percentages? In other words, what if the stats only told you that in the year 2006, .01% of white-collar criminals were reported as being black and female? What could you do with this information? ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/946 "2006-05-29T21:43:25Z")
[QUOTE=monstro] > [@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. This may be your most idiotic post yet. Did you really think about this before pressing submit? Yes, **Lochdale** used the word. Correctly. He said that no one had said the statistic under discussion was dispositive (of guilt). You responded, with a lengthy post, quoting other people. In that post, you asserted that Lochdale was wrong, in that those other people had said that the stat was dispositive. But the people you quoted hadn’t said that. They hadn’t used the word dispositive, or any synonym for it. However, you apparently think that the words used by those people equate to “dispositive”. You are wrong, and you therefore (a) don’t know what the word means; or (b) are dishonestly debating. I gave you the credit of assuming (a). If I’m correct, and you are being honest, consult a dictionary. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/947 "2006-05-29T22:17:04Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > First mistake: Taking population-based statistics and applying it to an individual case. \ OK, my stats experience is limited to my financial background, but I suspect I see why we’re at odds on this - the finance world makes extensive use of Bayesian statistics - and in a nutshell, I think this says we can apply a probability to an individual case, and revise that probability as we obtain new information. My exposure to quants analysis is limited, so I could well be wrong here, of course. In your obesity example: of course I don’t have a 33% chance of becoming obese simply because I’m American. However, if the only thing I knew about you was that you were American, I’d feel pretty confident in stating that there was a 33% chance that you were obese. I’d revise that probability higher or lower as i knew more about your age/race/gender, where you live, etc. > [@you with the face](#): > > Second mistake: Looking at race when gauging the likelihood of rape is based on the assumption that race determines behavior. Hmm. So, your point is that if race doesn’t determine why rapists choose a particular victim, the ‘white-on-black rape as a rarity’ stat is due to random chance, and isn’t useful in determining any sort of probability. Do I understand you correctly? ---
**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, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/948 "2006-05-29T22:23:46Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > The point is that the stats are irrelevant. You’ve said this. Repeating it again and again, while you ignore everything to the contrary, fails to convince. > [@you with the face](#): > > If the first question that pops into your mind when assessing the bare bone facts is the possible race or gender of the accused, then you are an idiot. Who said it was the first thing that popped into the mind of me or anyone else? I certainly never said that. > [@you with the face](#): > > Yeah, harsh words. But it’s the truth. The repetition counter just went “Bing!” > [@you with the face](#): > > The presence or absence of stats is moot, because before you even get the stats, you have to have the preconceived idea that race and gender are worthy of consideration. Or in other words, “I can ignore any stats, even though they exist, because anyone who collects racial or gender stats is wrong, and nothing done by such a person should be considered. That’s what my social religious beliefs demand. Go away, you inconvenient facts!” > [@you with the face](#): > > What makes you think they would be? Because they are factually true? Even you seem to admit that the percentage cited is accurate. We can debate its relevance. What we can’t do is just wish it away because it’s inconvenient. (Well, I can’t, anyway. Pesky logic.) > [@you with the face](#): > > Stats don’t just fall into our laps from nowhere. They have to be searched for. Yes. Researchers search for facts and statistics. The search for knowledge is a morally-neutral act. (barring any Mengele or Milgram methods). Your argument is both circular and based on false premises, you know. Your thinking appears to be somethiing like: “(1) I have a worldview that I think is accurate. (2) I don’t like the idea that the claimed fact implies - it conflicts with my preconceptions. (3) All researchers form hypotheses/ideas before gathering facts. (4) Anyone who could form the idea that I dislike is guilty of bad thoughts. (5) People who have bad thoughts cannot collect accurate data. (6) The claimed facts discovered by such people cannot be valid and may be safely ignored. (7) My worldview is therefore accurate.” As one heretic supposedly said to his accusers (after his supposed forced recantation): “Still, it moves!” Or is your argument really that “Even if the fact is true, it shouldn’t be, and therefore we should all act as if it didn’t exist”? I don’t know which alternative is scarier. > [@you with the face](#): > > What if your stats could only tell you crude percentages? In other words, what if the stats only told you that in the year 2006, .01% of white-collar criminals were reported as being black and female? > > What could you do with this information? See my prior reply on this issue (to your sister, I believe). ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/949 "2006-05-29T22:30:46Z")
> [@Random](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by 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. But, as has been said so many times already, there is no absence of better evidence. I’m sure there’s even more info that we’re not privy to, but there are scads of news stories telling us about the accuser’s actions and words that we can use to make up our minds. Your example of being challenged to find out the weather without being given access to any research tools is silly, because we have lord knows how many links right here in this thread to stories about this case, and should we feel the need for still more, we’re all online here and can search for them. And, as **John Mace** said, we’re not talking about some random hypothetical case but one very specific one. What other people did or didn’t do doesn’t tell us whether these guys did what they’re accused of. ---
**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, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/950 "2006-05-29T22:37:30Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > OK, my stats experience is limited to my financial background, but I suspect I see why we’re at odds on this - the finance world makes extensive use of Bayesian statistics - and in a nutshell, I think this says we can apply a probability to an individual case, and revise that probability as we obtain new information. My exposure to quants analysis is limited, so I could well be wrong here, of course. > > In your obesity example: of course I don’t have a 33% chance of becoming obese simply because I’m American. However, if the only thing I knew about you was that you were American, I’d feel pretty confident in stating that there was a 33% chance that you were obese. I’d revise that probability higher or lower as i knew more about your age/race/gender, where you live, etc. > > Hmm. So, your point is that if race doesn’t determine why rapists choose a particular victim, the ‘white-on-black rape as a rarity’ stat is due to random chance, and isn’t useful in determining any sort of probability. Do I understand you correctly? It’s as relevant as what kind of shoes the rapists are wearing, how much they weigh, or what their favorite brand of cereal is. If we had stats that showed 40% of rapists like Fruity Pebbles, should this make us suspect an allegation against a man who likes Captain Crunch? The only way race-based stats would be in any way meaningful to this case is if skin color is causally linked to sexual aggression. People keep bringing up examples involving elderly ladies. We don’t need stats to doubt an elderly female rape suspect: we have plenty of evidence demonstrating that elderly females, in general, are physically weak and incapable of overtaking most adults. But there’s nothing about young white guys that should make us doubt the plausibility of them raping someone–black, white, or zebra. That variable–“race”–is irrelevant to a man’s ability to sexually assault someone. In fact, the variables “gender” and “age” are overwhelmingly more important, but this is overlooked by the stats lovers in this 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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/951 "2006-05-29T22:39:41Z")
Whew. If I missed anyone, sorry, but I’ve already spent too much time on this. I have to do some work. As it’s likely that at least a few people who read this thread know what I do for a living, and as at least one person asked for a lawyer’s input, I want to point out that both (a) my lack of a direct reply to that person and (b) my avoidance of questions pertaining to criminal procedure / criminal evidence standards / prosecutorial discretion were deliberate omissions. I don’t practice criminal law, and while I may have a better idea that most people as to what the answers to these questions might be, I avoid answering legal questions if I’m at all uncertain. Also, others here know a lot more than I do about criminal law issues. If anyone else has replied since I started this, I won’t see it for a while, and likely won’t be participating further in this thread any time soon. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/952 "2006-05-29T23:00:33Z")
I think we’ve reached the crux of the argument: if race doesn’t play a role in how a rapist decides on a victim, that data point is not relevant in applying (or subtracting) an X% of believability to the case. I’ve done a lot of thought and reading (as it were) for this thread (who says this ‘trainwreck’ of a thread isn’t fighting ignorance?) We know that rape, in general, is generally thought of as not being a sex crime per se – in other words, it isn’t motivated by sexual desire. Rather, it is motivated from a power to dominate the victim; sexuality is the vehicle for this desire. YWTF noted, however, in [post #821](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7431044&postcount=821) : > [@YWTF](#): > > The jury is still out on that. I’m sure for some rapists it is a strictly a power thing, but there’s no way you can make a broad brush assertion that sexuality plays no role in it when there’s evidence that castration lowers rape recidivism. If sexuality might indeed play a role in how a rapist chooses a victim, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that race would be a factor in determining whether someone views another person as sexually attractive or not? **Monstro** , obviously race has no factor in the _ability_ of someone to commit rape - but might not it play some role in who a rapist chooses as a victim? If gender and age play a role (as you yourself noted), why would’t race? Further, going back to [this (warning: PDF file)](http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0342.pdf), we see that the ratios for white-on-white, black-on-black, white-on-black, and black-on-white crimes differ based on the type of crime involved. Wouldn’t it be naïve to assume that race doesn’t play any role at all? ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/953 "2006-05-29T23:09:14Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > OK, my stats experience is limited to my financial background, but I suspect I see why we’re at odds on this - the finance world makes extensive use of Bayesian statistics - and in a nutshell, I think this says we can apply a probability to an individual case, and revise that probability as we obtain new information. My exposure to quants analysis is limited, so I could well be wrong here, of course. I don’t know exactly what kind of stats you work with, but I know with population stats you have to be very careful what you do with them. Human beings are so diverse that without knowing beforehand where any individual sits on the “normal” to “abnormal” continuum, any armchair predictions you make about an individual will likely be wrong, especially if the factor being examined has no direct bearing on an outcome. > [@](#): > > In your obesity example: of course I don’t have a 33% chance of becoming obese simply because I’m American. However, if the only thing I knew about you was that you were American, I’d feel pretty confident in stating that there was a 33% chance that you were obese. If you are saying that if you were to random select a person out of the US pop, you’d have a 33% chance of picking an obese person, I agree with you. If you are saying that any given American has a 33% chance of being obese, you are wrong, as I already stated. In this thread, **Huerta** has taken “factoids” about race and false rape accusations at a college and used them suggest that it makes him X% less likely to believe the accuser. Because she is black and because she is a college student. That is not substantially different than me taking the obesity prevalent stats and saying that you, **Random** , have a 33% chance of being obese. Just because you are an American. See the error, yet? The numbers don’t provide any meaningful predictive information about any individual and therefore are irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Hmm. So, your point is that if race doesn’t determine why rapists choose a particular victim, the ‘white-on-black rape as a rarity’ stat is due to random chance, and isn’t useful in determining any sort of probability. Do I understand you correctly? No, I’m not saying that its random. _If_ white-on-black rape is a rarity (did you read where **zagobla** argued that the data does not show this?), it’s likely due to the confounders that I’ve already posted: geographical and socio-cultural barriers that only are _associated_ with race, but not dictated by it. These barriers are not random things. They are products of history. In this thread, I mentioned that I’m a black woman who dates white men. Compared to intra-racial dating, this particular pairing (BW/WM) is not exactly common. The reasons for this could very well be the same for why white-on-black rape is relatively uncommon. But because race is not a determinant of behavior, it is perfectly plausible that a white man and a black woman will date. In fact its more than plausible; it happens everyday. Say I’m dating a white guy and I accuse him of rape. Does it make any sense to go factoring in race when assessing this scenario? It’s obvious that if we are dating, the very nature of our relationship alone makes mine a plausible accusation. To overlook the particular relationship that the accuser has to the accused in this case, and focus on race instead is utter nonsense. Hope that by now you are starting to see that. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/954 "2006-05-29T23:12:58Z")
> [@Random](#): > > You’ve said this. Repeating it again and again, while you ignore everything to the contrary, fails to convince. Everything to the contrary? You have presented no cites, no rational argumentum, no apt analogies. What is there on the table to consider? Nothing but slobbering attacks that invite the scroll key. > [@](#): > > Or in other words, “I can ignore any stats, even though they exist, because anyone who collects racial or gender stats is wrong, and nothing done by such a person should be considered. That’s what my social religious beliefs demand. Go away, you inconvenient facts!” You are a weak debater. Rather than actually addressing the points she brings up, you misconstrue her posts so you can pecker-bump with strawmen. Nice. > [@](#): > > Because they are factually true? Even you seem to admit that the percentage cited is accurate. > > We can debate its relevance. What we can’t do is just wish it away because it’s inconvenient. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but debating the relevance of crime stats is pretty much ALL **ywtf** has done in this thread. What have you been doing? > [@](#): > > Yes. Researchers search for facts and statistics. The search for knowledge is a morally-neutral act. (barring any Mengele or Milgram methods). No, it _should_ be a “morally-neutral” act. People dig up information to support all kinds of wacky ideas. And the funny thing is that they don’t even know they’re doing it! Everyone thinks they are being objective and rationale. Doesn’t mean they are. Stats, in the wrong hands, can be used carelessly. If people don’t understand the underlying assumptions involved with their use, they can draw faulty conclusions. Data-collecters employ different methodologies, seek answers to different questions, and use different statistical analyses for data interpretation. Every study has its own experimental error and set of shortcomings. If people don’t understand these principles, they have no business using stats to make conclusions. The DOJ crime stats don’t answer the question, “Who’s doing all the raping?” They answer, “Who’s being charged in rape cases?” Even if the stats were relevant to this case, off the bat people are ascribing information to them that’s not even there. > [@](#): > > Your thinking appears to be somethiing like: “(1) I have a worldview that I think is accurate. (2) I don’t like the idea that the claimed fact implies - it conflicts with my preconceptions. (3) All researchers form hypotheses/ideas before gathering facts. (4) Anyone who could form the idea that I dislike is guilty of bad thoughts. (5) People who have bad thoughts cannot collect accurate data. (6) The claimed facts discovered by such people cannot be valid and may be safely ignored. (7) My worldview is therefore accurate.” You know, it’s easy to sit there and distort people’s positions. It’s much harder to argue with rationality and reason and actually _listen_ to people who are more qualified and well-spoken than you are. A chorus of other people have chimed in on **you with the face’s** side. Do they share her “thinking” too? ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/955 "2006-05-29T23:18:53Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > IThat is not substantially different than me taking the obesity prevalent stats and saying that you, **Random** , have a 33% chance of being obese. Just because you are an American. Sorry, BTW, for calling you out of your name, **Dragon Ash**. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/956 "2006-05-29T23:26:54Z")
> [@DragonAsh](#): > > If sexuality might indeed play a role in how a rapist chooses a victim, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that race would be a factor in determining whether someone views another person as sexually attractive or not? Surely you can see how I disagree with this as a universal given, since I find white men attractive. And I’m assuming the feeling is mutual, since they ask me out on dates and stuff\*. So I would think in order for this assumption to be accepted without dispute from me, first the mechanism behind what you propose would need to be explained in great detail. \*use your imagination ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/957 "2006-05-29T23:27:15Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > INo, I’m not saying that its random. _If_ white-on-black rape is a rarity (did you read where **zagobla** argued that the data does not show this?), it’s likely due to the confounders that I’ve already posted: geographical and socio-cultural barriers that only are _associated_ with race, but not dictated by it. These barriers are not random things. They are products of history. This is an important point. For instance, we know that most rapes occur by men who know their victims. Interracial rape may be rare\* simply because of the preponderance of associating we do with those of our own race. In this particular case, though, the students did know the accuser-- in fact they know her primarily thru a sexual context (as a stripper). So that’s one big difference right there. \*I’ve seen on several cites that something like 90% of all rapes occur between people of the same race. But this cite from [WebMD](http://www.webmd.com/content/article/13/1674_50397.htm) is interesting: > [@](#): > > The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that 90% of all rapes occur between people of the same ethnic or racial background. In a majority of the 10% of rapes that are interracial, white men rape black women. Which shouldn’t be too shocking since the majority of men in the US are White. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/958 "2006-05-29T23:28:57Z")
proximity is more likely the important factor. can’t remember which thread it is wherein some one states that I’m a scientist. I’m not, have not made that claim. I work w/offenders for a living. just wanted to set that paritcular record straight. for me, one of the more interesting aspects of the argument put forth by mr. H is the selection of white on black sexual assaults, vs. say, the demographics of who commits gang rape. the reason this is important, IMHO, is that in order to select that piece of data, one must first decide **that** is the most important factor to look at, vs. say the ages of the various persons, the fact that it was a gang rape etc. IOW, selection of that particular data point assumes that the racial background of the participants is the most relevant data point to research, vs. any other. (even if we believe that blacks are rarely the victim of gang rapes). in any specific event, there are quite a few factors involved (demographics of victims, accused, educational level, drug /alchol involvment etc.)\> Stats have some use in criminal justice investigations, for example, a child death is more likely to be at the hands of their primary care giver, so it would be important for investigators to be aware of that when investigating. however, the fact that the parents are often the perps is not a relvant data point to reflect on when a case emerges that a stranger is accused of killing a specific child. and that’s what’s being argued here. the fact that it’s relatively rare that it’s a stranger that harms/kills a child isn’t relevant when discussing a particular case where a specific stranger is accused. (can you imagine the trainwreck that would ensue if in any of the numerous pit threads about some bad guy killing some child, some idiot came in w/doj stats suggesting that strangers are relatively rarely involved in the killing of children? wouldn’t we expect most dopers to say “so? why is that relevant info in this thread?”) ---
**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 29, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/959 "2006-05-29T23:55:27Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Stats have some use in criminal justice investigations, for example, a child death is more likely to be at the hands of their primary care giver, so it would be important for investigators to be aware of that when investigating. > however, the fact that the parents are often the perps is not a relvant data point to reflect on when a case emerges that a stranger is accused of killing a specific child. Why not? Are you saying that in a case of a child being killed, if a stranger is accused, the police should not look at the parents as potential suspects at all? I would think that they should, and do, simply _because_ it’s more statistically likely, if only to conclusively establish that the parents didn’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/960 "2006-05-29T23:58:00Z")
> [@Ellis Dee](#): > > Why not? Are you saying that in a case of a child being killed, if a stranger is accused, the police should not look at the parents as potential suspects at all? I would think that they should, and do, simply _because_ it’s more statistically likely, if only to conclusively establish that the parents didn’t do it. Of course not. But if all evidence pointed to a stranger, would you dismiss it out of hand saying, “Well, statistics say that the parents are the most likely suspect, so it probably didn’t happen this way!” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=49)