# 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:** 57
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1121 "2006-05-31T19:30:48Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > _every allegation to an extent is unique_. You could latch onto any number of characteristics and claim that something is rare and therefore (according to you) unlikely. Got it. In fact, I am way beyond you on this. I have repeated repeatedly that the justice system is a repeat player. That is, it has to calibrate its expectations so as to afford more resources and credibility to the most serious and plausible allegations, and to calibrate burdens of proof and going forward in a fashion that (roughly) balances false-positives and false-negatives in an appropriate way, over the long haul. We as armchair observers of the justice system are also repeat players, trying to figure out what seems to work or produce “justice” over a large number of cases as to which none of us can ever have “all the unique facts.” You’ve missed my point that criminal justice isn’t concerned with flushing out all the unique characteristics of every alleged crime. Harsh but true. Prosecutorial discretion means that some borderline cases get dropped, and there can be no question that some of this discretion is being exercised on the basis of past patterns and past occurrences. No one has denied (I think) that actuaries make lots of money (as repeat players) over the long haul by making a bet with \ white smokers who like skydiving, but also have “any number of characteristics” that may distinguish them from other white smoking skydivers, that they will likely live X years, based on the past experience of other white smoking skydivers, despite the fact that any particular white smoking skydiver may have “any number of characteristics” distinguishing his situation from that of the prior risk cohort. In observing and suggesting policy for the justice system or for our amateur interest in how it might be administered, we are indeed repeat players, just like the actuaries, and it would be going against human nature (and would be a money-losing proposition) to ignore willfully any statistically-corellated data pattern in doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1122 "2006-05-31T19:36:40Z")
And, on further review - > [@](#): > > And Shodan wanted to put forth this proposition: > > Let B = Black woman reports rape by White man > Let T = True; and F = false; and R = Rare event happens > > B -\> T and B -\> R > B, therefore F; simply because B -\> R, even thought we know (ie, assumed per his hypthetical) that B -\> T. I don’t know symbolic logic, if that is what this is, but you are correct that if any report of a white-on-black rape is true, then every individual report of such a rape must be true. Therefore assume that the incidence of false reporting of white-on-black rape is the same as for rape in general. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1123 "2006-05-31T19:40:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I suppose technically \*\*Shodan \*\*was proposing: > > B -\> T and B -\> R > B, therefore T + F (true or false). > > I mean, come on! If we assume that B -\> T. How can you come to any conlcuions other than “T” once “B” has occured? **John Mace** Are you grabbing your head, yet? Can you imagine trying to explain this to a hostile crowd, like **YWTF** had been? You can explain this to you’re blue in the face, but they won’t have it. No one’s talking past each other, they won’t have it. ---
**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 31, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1124 "2006-05-31T19:43:21Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not every rape, just the white-on-black ones. Oh for crying out loud… Insert “White on Black” in front of “rape” in that quote. Now, does it make a difference? > [@](#): > > Well, this comes dangerously close to saying that we have no idea of how many rapes are committed, by who, or anything else. So the whole purpose of collecting crime statistics is completely foiled, since they cannot be relied upon. So the entire field of statistics is completely invalid, and has no predictive power. No, it says that one small, but crucial, piece of statistical data is missing for this particular case. You can rest assured that that will not cause the field of statistics to be abandoned. > [@](#): > > No, actually he said “until other, more dispositive facts become available”. Let’s not wind up like the more dishonest folks also posting to this thread. Is it “more” facts or “any” facts (evidence)? You need to make up your mind. Originally you just said “evidence”, not “more evidence”: > [@](#): > > nobody in this thread - not me, and certainly not Huerta88 - has ever suggested that we should rely on statistics if evidence pertaining to the case is available. Well, in that quote I gave from **Huerta** , evidence was available. ---
**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 31, 2006, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1125 "2006-05-31T19:45:15Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I have repeated repeatedly that the justice system is a repeat player. That is, it has to calibrate its expectations so as to afford more resources and credibility to the most serious and plausible allegations, and to calibrate burdens of proof and going forward in a fashion that (roughly) balances false-positives and false-negatives in an appropriate way, over the long haul. We as armchair observers of the justice system are also repeat players, trying to figure out what seems to work or produce “justice” over a large number of cases as to which none of us can ever have “all the unique facts.” So you mean to tell me that in the scenarios I just presented, you _actually agree_ that skepticism is called for just because, when seizing upon the details that I did, those events are statistically rare and therefore unlikely? :eek: > [@](#): > > You’ve missed my point that criminal justice isn’t concerned with flushing out all the unique characteristics of every alleged crime. How do they determine which characterisitics are germane? What is the underlying assumptions? Why should race be anymore important than any other factor, such as religion, eye color, and bra cup size? ---
**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 31, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1126 "2006-05-31T20:05:02Z")
BTW, for those who want to dwell on racial statistics: > [@](#): > > [Durham, North Carolina](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durham%2C_North_Carolina) > > Durham is a city located in Durham County, North Carolina. It is the county seat of Durham County, the home of Duke University and North Carolina Central University, and the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics, and is a cornerstone of the Research Triangle region of North Carolina. > > \ > > As of the census of 2000, there were 187,035 people, 74,981 households, and 43,563 families residing in the city. The population density was 763.1/km² (1,976.4/mi²). There were 80,797 housing units at an average density of 329.7/km² (853.8/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 45.51% White, 43.81% African American, 0.31% Native American, 3.64% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 4.75% from other races, and 1.94% from two or more races. 8.56% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. Blacks make up about 13% of the US population, but 44% of Durahm. In fact, the number of Whites and Blacks is essentially the same. Even more reason to not use national statistics on interracial rape for this particular instance. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1127 "2006-05-31T20:17:24Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > So you mean to tell me that in the scenarios I just presented, you _actually agree_ that skepticism is called for just because, when seizing upon the details that I did, those events are statistically rare and therefore unlikely? Your hypothetical wasn’t the best analogy. If we had the Zapruder film of the lax house bathroom that night, no one would be talking about the timelines, the DNA, demographics, or anything else. We don’t. Also, your hypothetical does not establish whether there is a past pattern of people named Lee killing at higher or lower rates than indicated by their incidence in the population, or of people named John being killed at higher or lower rates. The suggestion in the other situation was that there was some statistically-significant over/underrepresentation of particular combinations of rapists and victims that was unusual vis a vis their proportions in the population. > [@John Mace](#): > > Even more reason to not use national statistics on interracial rape for this particular instance. And so I haven’t relied on them for any purpose for many a long page, and never placed principal or even heavy reliance on them as a data point. BTW, you earlier asked about the DoJ methodology. The notations on the tables/study are still kind of unclear to me but if the samples were as small as implied then the extrapolation gives me less confidence in their being fully accurate. ---
**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 31, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1128 "2006-05-31T20:38:58Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Also, your hypothetical does not establish whether there is a past pattern of people named Lee killing at higher or lower rates than indicated by their incidence in the population, or of people named John being killed at higher or lower rates. What if having the name “John Fitzgerald” was an extra popular name among aristocratic New England families and flourished only in that area. And a disproportionate number of “Harvey Lees” resided in trailer parks in the Gulf Coast area. Due to geographic (regional) and socioeconomic barriers, contact between the two groups will be limited. If there were stats for killer/victim names, odds are the numbers would show few Harvey Lees killing John Fitzs due to those barriers. _But so fucking what!_ If one John Fitzgerald and one Harvey Lee eliminate the geographical barrier that exists between them by both choosing to be at the same place at the same time, then the stats tell you nothing about the likelihood that Harvey will kill John. > [@](#): > > The suggestion in the other situation was that there was some statistically-significant over/underrepresentation of particular combinations of rapists and victims that was unusual vis a vis their proportions in the population. It’s not unusual if you realize that the US population is hardly a heterogeneous mixture of races who interact with one another indiscriminately. ---
**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 31, 2006, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1129 "2006-05-31T21:03:20Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > I have repeated repeatedly that the justice system is a repeat player. That is, it has to calibrate its expectations so as to afford more resources and credibility to the most serious and plausible allegations, and to calibrate burdens of proof and going forward in a fashion that (roughly) balances false-positives and false-negatives in an appropriate way, over the long haul. We as armchair observers of the justice system are also repeat players, trying to figure out what seems to work or produce “justice” over a large number of cases as to which none of us can ever have “all the unique facts.” > > You’ve missed my point that criminal justice isn’t concerned with flushing out all the unique characteristics of every alleged crime. Harsh but true. Prosecutorial discretion means that some borderline cases get dropped, and there can be no question that some of this discretion is being exercised on the basis of past patterns and past occurrences. > > No one has denied (I think) that actuaries make lots of money (as repeat players) over the long haul by making a bet with \ white smokers who like skydiving, but also have “any number of characteristics” that may distinguish them from other white smoking skydivers, that they will likely live X years, based on the past experience of other white smoking skydivers, despite the fact that any particular white smoking skydiver may have “any number of characteristics” distinguishing his situation from that of the prior risk cohort. > > In observing and suggesting policy for the justice system or for our amateur interest in how it might be administered, we are indeed repeat players, just like the actuaries, and it would be going against human nature (and would be a money-losing proposition) to ignore willfully any statistically-corellated data pattern in doing so. I’m really having trouble understanding how that should be put into practice in our criminal justice system. Do you envision some vast database of crime stats cross referenced against the dozens (or more) key categories of interst? Or, is it just that this is inevitable to happen, and that DAs will go on “gut feel” and their own personal experience? I can certainly imagine the latter-- we’re only human, so we’re going to behave like human beings. However, I would think we would want to institutionalize against certain of these practices rather in favor of them. One of those practices is making decisions based on race. Do we really want to assign 30% truth probability when a White woman reports a crime and 20% truth probability when the same crime is reported by a Black woman (or vice versa)? Besides being abhorant to a race neutral society, wouldn’t that very parctice lead to a skewing of the results in favor of those which meet preconceived ideas? White on Black rape doesn’t happen much, so we won’t put much resources on investingating White on Black rape claims, therefore the ones that actually do happen have a lower likelihood of being prosecuted and of entering the data base. Rather, I’d like to see our law enforcement officials trained to spot when people are lying about crimes by analyzing their speech patterns, body language, etc. And to do vigorous questioning and cross-questioning of accusers and accused as well as witnesses to vet the ones that are plausible. In cases of rape, part of that process is going to be a medical examination. If that examination comes up positive, I expect a more thorough investigation than if it comes up negative (assuming this has some confidence level of being accurate). ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1130 "2006-05-31T21:10:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Rather, I’d like to see our law enforcement officials trained to spot when people are lying about crimes by analyzing their speech patterns, body language, etc. And to do vigorous questioning and cross-questioning of accusers and accused as well as witnesses to vet the ones that are plausible. In cases of rape, part of that process is going to be a medical examination. If that examination comes up positive, I expect a more thorough investigation than if it comes up negative (assuming this has some confidence level of being accurate). That too, by all means. And what I am suggesting as human nature for prosecutors and spectators is not a mechanistic process – it is as you say a gut feel. By the way, Nifong at the outset made mutterings about this as a “hate crime.” The “activists” invoked alleged patterns of sexualized degradation of black women by white men. Duke’s President issued a press release with some dark overtones of “our shameful past.” I am not suggesting that rarity of white on black rape means reports don’t get investigated thoroughly and holistically or that it is definitely or maybe exclupatory as to a particular white suspect. I’ve never suggested it as a go/no-go factor for prosecution or further investigation. My suggestion, however, is that Nifong and the others **did** allow race to be a dominant probably-inculpatory factor (in exactly the opposite way to the one you and others would warn against) once they decided to start thinking of this as a “hate crime,” unaware perhaps of how little modern precedent there would be for such crime and perhaps even believing it to be a prevalent problem. Else how to explain the crapoid investigation he and the Durham PD superintended, and the slipshod decision to indict? ---
**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 31, 2006, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1131 "2006-05-31T21:34:27Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > That too, by all means. And what I am suggesting as human nature for prosecutors and spectators is not a mechanistic process – it is as you say a gut feel. You don’t fall back on stats for gut feelings, though. Remember the concept of common sense that I talked about a looong time ago? _That’s_ where gut feelings from. Not PDF files. > [@](#): > > My suggestion, however, is that Nifong and the others **did** allow race to be a dominant probably-inculpatory factor (in exactly the opposite way to the one you and others would warn against) once they decided to start thinking of this as a “hate crime,” unaware perhaps of how little modern precedent there would be for such crime and perhaps even believing it to be a prevalent problem. It’s funny that you take issue with the racial allegations associated with the complaint, since out of everything in the story [that’s](http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-na-lacrosse30apr30,0,5838244.story?coll=ktla-news-1) one of the only things that has been at least partially corroborated by outside witnesses. So it puzzles me why this notion so offends your worldview. The statistics on racially motivated [hate crimes](http://hate-crime.website-works.com/hate-students.htm#STATS) lend doesn’t support your idea that these type of crimes are especially rare. I have to wonder why it bothers you so much that this aspect of the allegation has received attention. If it happened, it happened, and that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1132 "2006-05-31T21:50:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Oh for crying out loud… Insert “White on Black” in front of “rape” in that quote. Now, does it make a difference? Did you see my follow-up? > [@](#): > > No, it says that one small, but crucial, piece of statistical data is missing for this particular case. You can rest assured that that will not cause the field of statistics to be abandoned. Again, assuming the rate of false reporting to be roughly the same. > [@](#): > > Is it “more” facts or “any” facts (evidence)? You need to make up your mind. Originally you just said “evidence”, not “more evidence”: The key word is “until”, which is why I underlined it. All this is useful until more, or any, facts are available. You were implying that the statistics should be used to overrule more direct evidence. No one has suggested this. If you feel it makes a difference, then use “any”. Does that help? I can’t imagine that it does. > [@](#): > > Well, in that quote I gave from **Huerta** , evidence was available. Yes, and so he has been repeatedly relying on it, rather than anything else. And it seems to bear out that the preliminary assessment, made before any, or more, or some, evidence is available, was correct. She seems to be lying, just as would be expected if white-on-black rape were rare. I keep repeating the obvious, and you seem to keep denying that it is true. This person presents herself, saying “I was raped by white guys”. And others react by saying something equivalent to “that’s pretty unusual - white-on-black rape is rather rare. A bit hard to believe, just off the top of my head - let’s look into this more deeply.” And sure enough, her story has very little to substantiate it. And then there is a chorus of people all saying, “No! No! Your assumption can’t be true, because she might be a left-handed Eskimo, and we don’t know the rate of false reports for Arctic-dwellers!” Is that all there is to this? The fact that I see nothing to indicate that our assumptions about the rate of false reporting should be any higher or lower for this than for any other case? That seems bizarre. Why would we assume this? And why don’t you (the generic you, not **JM** ) react to any statistical study in the same way? So that > [@](#): > > Blacks make up about 13% of the US population, but 44% of Durahm. In fact, the number of Whites and Blacks is essentially the same. There is no reason to believe that this is correct, because you haven’t provided the rate of false reporting of racial affiliation. How do you know that all the whites in the county are blacks passing for white? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1133 "2006-05-31T21:58:10Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > You don’t fall back on stats for gut feelings, though. Remember the concept of common sense that I talked about a looong time ago? _That’s_ where gut feelings from. Not PDF files. Says who? I used to think incidents of Catholic priests molesting kids would be vanishingly rare. Then I read some fairly persuasive studies that seemed to peg the number at 1%-2% of priests offending in recent history. That’s still small, but not vanishingly small, and it influences (does not determine) my assessment of the prima facie likelihood of any particular molestation allegation. (As do non-statistical anecdotes of such incidents). I used to think there were a few drunk drivers on the road at night. Then I read some statistic, again fairly convincing, to the effect that at 3:00 a.m. 35% (or something – I don’t exactly recall) of drivers on the road were drunk. I have a “gut feeling” that keeps me from driving unnecessarily at night, but it’s based in part on data. > [@](#): > > It’s funny that you take issue with the racial allegations associated with the complaint, since out of everything in the story [that’s](http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-na-lacrosse30apr30,0,5838244.story?coll=ktla-news-1) one of the only things that has been at least partially corroborated by outside witnesses. So it puzzles me why this notion so offends your worldview. The statistics on racially motivated [hate crimes](http://hate-crime.website-works.com/hate-students.htm#STATS) lend doesn’t support your idea that these type of crimes are especially rare. > > I have to wonder why it bothers you so much that this aspect of the allegation has received attention. If it happened, it happened, and that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. There are two ways of parsing this. It seems pretty clear they called her some slurs. That is not a “hate crime” in the U.S. Slurs are not rape. If they didn’t sexually attack her, there was no “hate crime.” Nifong assumed there was. The alternate view was that the slurs arose out of a quarrel (in which I doubt you’re prepared to vouch that the stripper did not hurl equally vile stuff at them) and the quarrel led to a vindictive bogus allegation. ---
**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 31, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1134 "2006-05-31T22:02:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > She seems to be lying, just as would be expected if white-on-black rape were rare. God, why have thou forsaken this thread? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1135 "2006-05-31T22:04:24Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > That too, by all means. And what I am suggesting as human nature for prosecutors and spectators is not a mechanistic process – it is as you say a gut feel. But it shouldn’t be, which is what **John** keeps telling you. “Gut feelings” are often wrong and irrational, even when someone is using statistics (as evidenced by the misinterpretation of facts and figures demonstrated in this thread). I’m a scientist. I don’t design experiments which will prove my “gut feelings”. Rather, I set out with the idea of disproving whatever “gut feeling” I bring to the table. It’s how scientists strive towards objectivity, despite knowing we never will be completely. People typically have tons of respect for the scientific method. I don’t see why we can’t hold law enforcement and the judicial system to the same high standard. > [@](#): > > My suggestion, however, is that Nifong and the others did allow race to be a dominant probably-inculpatory factor (in exactly the opposite way to the one you and others would warn against) once they decided to start thinking of this as a “hate crime,” unaware perhaps of how little modern precedent there would be for such crime and perhaps even believing it to be a prevalent problem. If the accuser had not alleged that her attackers had hurled racial insults at her and Nifong had then cited the possible role of race, then I would agree with you that he played the race card. But Nifong didn’t play the race card. The accuser said her attackers had called her racial slurs before raping her. Wouldn’t it be irresponsible for Nifong to either downplay or ignore these charges? Wouldn’t they indicate motive for the attack? Another thing: Is everything the alleged victim claimed happened statistically unlikely? From my personal experience, being yelled at with racial slurs by drunken whites is NOT implausible at all. In fact, it’s a likely event. If we multiply the supposed probability of “drunken white guys yelling out racial slurs at a black girl” by the supposed probability of “white guys raping a black girl” and then the probability of “drunken guys raping a stripper”, wouldn’t her accusation be more likely than if these were straight-laced guys had been singing negro spirituals right before the strippers came a-knocking? You seem keen on the most “unlikely scenario” (white guys raping black women). But an objective observer notices many “likely” scenarios in this case. There’s no evidence Nifong has implied that the race of the accuser and her attackers makes her charge more likely, which is the line you keep hammering into the ground for your case about white-on-black rape. The racial aspect may make the allegation more sensationalized, and–if the charge is true–more tragic, but Nifong has never gone on the record saying, “We have a long history of white guys raping black girls, so therefore her allegation is very likely.”\* And no one on this thread has said that (but plenty of people have done the reverse). No one has presented a citation from one of those well-loved “black leaders” saying this either. Have you been arguing a strawman all along, or do you care to share with us your evidence of all this race-blaming? \*If he had the stats to back him up, though, would you agree with him? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1136 "2006-05-31T22:26:14Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Nifong has never gone on the record saying, “We have a long history of white guys raping black girls, so therefore her allegation is very likely.”\* And no one on this thread has said that (but plenty of people have done the reverse). No one has presented a citation from one of those well-loved “black leaders” saying this either. Have you been arguing a strawman all along, or do you care to share with us your evidence of all this race-blaming? Yes. Start with: Lexington Herald-Leader April 16, 2006 Pg. C16 > [@](#): > > \*\*Overtones of race permeate Duke case > \*\* > > * * * > > But in a recent interview with The Associated Press, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said history can’t help but loom large over this case. It is particularly horrible because these white men hired black women to strip for them. > > “That fantasy’s as old as slave masters impregnating young slave girls,” he said. So no, I wasn’t making this shit up. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1137 "2006-05-31T22:27:55Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > God, why have thou forsaken this thread? OK, one more time. If you like, please answer the questions below. **Rape of blacks by whites is relatively less common than rape of blacks by blacks, or rape of whites by whites.** Is this statement true, false, unknown, unanswerable, or other? **There is no way to reliably determine the incidence of rape in this country.** Is this statement true, false, unknown, unanswerable, or other? **Being yelled at with racial slurs by drunken whites is a likely event.** As above. That’ll do to start with. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 31, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1138 "2006-05-31T22:29:00Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Says who? I used to think incidents of Catholic priests molesting kids would be vanishingly rare. Then I read some fairly persuasive studies that seemed to peg the number at 1%-2% of priests offending in recent history. That’s still small, but not vanishingly small, and it influences (does not determine) my assessment of the prima facie likelihood of any particular molestation allegation. Yeah, you keep saying this but it still sounds as nutty as the very first time you said it. To what do you attribute the apparent “vanishingly rareness” of priest molestations back in the day? Was it because priests were just better behaved? Or could it possibly be because _victims were less likely to report the crimes commited against them_. Hmmm, I’m thinking its probably the latter. Unless you can provide any reason we should believe the priests of today are extra touchly feeling, then the reporting behavior is the likelier explanation for something like this being apparently rare. In actuality, it may not have been rare at all. It’s very possible that the true prevalence of molestations was higher back in the day. We don’t know. The problem with basing your preliminary assessments on stats is becuase this data is only available if someone collects it first. If no one has collected this data, then what you are going to use? Will your default position change in the absence of stats that will tell you what to believe? Or will you use this nebulous concept called _common sense_ that I keep talking about? I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not or if you have kids, but I should hope that if your kid told you that the priest fondled them you would not be initially skeptical just because some PDF file told that touchy-feeling priests were “vanishingly rare”. This concept makes absolutely no sense to me. > [@](#): > > There are two ways of parsing this. It seems pretty clear they called her some slurs. That is not a “hate crime” in the U.S. Slurs are not rape. Of course not. But if you have evidence of at least this much (racial slur), why is the idea of a hate-crime so much in the realm of fantasy and delusion? > [@](#): > > If they didn’t sexually attack her, there was no “hate crime.” Nifong assumed there was. He’s the prosecutor. If he is not going to advocate for the plaintiff, then I don’t know who else will. “If they didn’t sexually attack her” is going to have to be established in the court of law. In your head you’ve already convinced yourself that the former did not occur and therefore the latter didn’t either. But until you’ve reviewed the same evidence that Nifong has, he has the advantage. > [@](#): > > The alternate view was that the slurs arose out of a quarrel (in which I doubt you’re prepared to vouch that the stripper did not hurl equally vile stuff at them) and the quarrel led to a vindictive bogus allegation. I’m not prepared to defend the accuser (I haven’t done this at all, if you’ve paid attention) but you sure as hell seem prepared to defend the accused. Even though they are the ones who actually may have commited a crime. This amazes me. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1139 "2006-05-31T22:39:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Did you see my follow-up? > Again, assuming the rate of false reporting to be roughly the same. > The key word is “until”, which is why I underlined it. All this is useful until more, or any, facts are available. You were implying that the statistics should be used to overrule more direct evidence. No one has suggested this. Several times other posters have said that statistics can be _combined_ with actual evidence to make a case. One in particular said that they should be used in court cases, as in testifying to the innocence of an “unlikely” thief. So even though no one has said that stats should be used to “overrule” evidence (and your use of “more direct evidence” makes me wonder if you consider stats to be a form of evidence), posters have said they should be used in conjunction with evidence. Which, to me, is a distinction without a difference. > [@](#): > > Yes, and so he has been repeatedly relying on it, rather than anything else. And it seems to bear out that the preliminary assessment, made before any, or more, or some, evidence is available, was correct. She seems to be lying, just as would be expected if white-on-black rape were rare. You would only expect this if your default judgement was set to “the whore is lying”. As **YWTF** said earlier to you, lots of events are rare but we don’t question their plausibility when they are said to have happened. Earlier in this thread (ages ago, it seems), I stated that finding a dollar on the floor is a rare event. If someone tells you they found a dollar on the floor, do you automatically doubt their story? Do you mine the internet for specific stats that will tell you the probability of encountering a dollar on the floor? Or do you accept that their story is true, since the idea of finding money on the floor is not foreign to you, and congratulate them? You keep saying white-on-black rape is rare. Rare to _what_? Rare compared to the likelihood of guys _not_ raping a possibly intoxicated, half-dressed woman who shows up to their door? How do you decide this, when there are no stats estimating the probability of people NOT doing something? > [@](#): > > I keep repeating the obvious, and you seem to keep denying that it is true. This person presents herself, saying “I was raped by white guys”. And others react by saying something equivalent to "that’s pretty unusual - white-on-black rape is rather rare. If you go waaay back in this thread, you’ll see that **Huerta** actually speculated about the rareness of white-on-black rape in the absence of statistics. Now I doubt he had never seen those stats before due to the rapid speed at which he produced them (and since no one had prodded him to do the “research”, it seems he was just itching to bring them up). It took umpty-ump pages for it to be revealed that white-on-black rape is actually not all that uncommon when you look at cases of interacial rapes. So it seems to me that **Huerta’s** “gut feeling” drew him to dig up stats that would support his hunch. He didn’t do a query on stats which show high reported incidents of rape when alcohol is involved. No, his gut feeling took him to the statistics that would “show” the girl was lying. Which is exactly the WRONG way to use data. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1140 "2006-05-31T22:42:00Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If you go waaay back in this thread, you’ll see that **Huerta** actually speculated about the rareness of white-on-black rape in the absence of statistics. Now I doubt he had never seen those stats before due to the rapid speed at which he produced them (and since no one had prodded him to do the “research”, it seems he was just itching to bring them up). Eye on the ball. There’s a separate thread for speculating about my trove of racist (government published) literature. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=56) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=58)