Actually, the DoJ stats do not include overall white on black rape numbers. The only breakdowns are specifcally:
Single attacker rapes[sup]1[/sup], by race of victim and race of offender
Multiple attacker rapes[sup]1[/sup], by race of of offender only
Multiple attacker violent crimes[sup]2[/sup], by race of victim and race of offender
[sup]1[/sup] Includes verbal threats of rapes / sexual assaults.
[sup]2[/sup] Includes violent crimes not sexual in nature.
That’s why I had to go through all the gymnastics at the top of the thread to try and wring some meaning out of the gang-rape stats.
This case is about a college student accusing other college students of rape, which is the same demographic as the Kanin study. And as a refresher, Huerta cited Kanin back on page 4, post #162:
The batshit loons have gone off the batshit deep end because of it. I think I may have sent at least one batshit loon into a perma-coma by citing that (uncontested) DOJ study.
Still –
If Tawana III comes up, I will not subtract my knowledge on this point from my assessment of things.
But other than that, who any longer needs the DOJ to say (although it was reasonable a priori to suggest): something smells weird as to the allegation here.
It provided interesting backdrop for a few weeks until actual evidence started becoming public.
Much like the pep rally the DA put on at the accuser’s school. That also didn’t provide actual evidence as to the legitimacy of the accuser’s claim. Rather, it provided interesting backdrop. (Politically motivated prosecution to pander to your constituency, anyone?)
Since then, the alibi, the boyfriend’s DNA, the flawed identification procedure, the changing stories of both the accuser and the other stropper, the other stripper trolling for money via a PR firm, a civil litigator chumming the water, the medical report, etc…all these things are much more interesting and relevant.
So much so that the statistics issue is completely moot at this point. And to those still desiring to argue the relevance of the statistics, there is an actual thread devoted to it in GD. Why not argue it there? Or is the desire to rant and scream in this thread too overpowering?
This thread is for discussion of the Duke Lacrosse rape case, not some irrelevant statistics issue.
Good question. My very first thought when I heard the report was that it sounded really, really STUPID. I’ve been to frat parties, and it’s a universal golden truth at any college party with 40-odd males: at the first sign or sound of anything remotely out of the ordinary you’d have 20 guys snooping around trying to see where the action is. Duke is a top university, and if nothing else, the degree of stupidity involved (gang-raping someone with 40-odd potential witnesses) simply doesn’t match what you’d expect from the normal Duke student, drunk or no.
I figured there had to be witnesses, because it’s a house full of drunk frat boys - which means there’s going to be a steady stream of guys using the bathroom.
So, yeah - my intial reaction wasn’t ‘they did it’ or ‘she’s lying’ - the case seemed very weird, but I didn’t jump to any opinion either way. The more stuff came out, however, the more I thought that the whole case sounded bogus; couldn’t tell you what particular item - man, there’s been about 50 - that was the ‘deciding’ factor for me.
This thread has made me extremely angry–to an unhealthy degree. The foulness observed in these last couple of pages is enough to turn me away from the 'Dope permanently (but it won’t). Posters who I thought were semi-rational have shown how truly stupid they are…and it angers me that other posters, those not witness to their behavior in this thread, will continue to think highly of them. I await with glee the next time someone pats one of these jokers on the back and I get to link to this shit stain worth of a thread.
you with the face, you have a tremendous level of respect from me–someone who personally knows how much expertise in this area you have. I’m so very sorry you and your well-articulated, well-substantiated arguments haven’t been treated fairly here.
Uh oh, it’s the message board police! Please, I beg you not to link here, or I might not get nominated in the monthly “who’s the bestest poster ever?” MPSIMS moron-athon.
Here’s a clue: Reasoned debate stands on its own merits. It has nothing to do with posting history. Now, it’s quite possible that you with the face is fighting the good fight against all odds. Of course, it doesn’t fucking matter, and it hasn’t mattered for the last five pages. Because she’s arguing something that is irrelevant to this thread.
you’s tired refrain is also peppered with plaintive attempts at shaming people into agreeing with her. “I used to think you were smart, but now I’m so very disappointed in you.” Hey, I can play too. I used to think that you two could actually post on-topic, but apparently you just likes to argue about a meaningless hijack for TEN FUCKING PAGES, with you popping in occasionally to shout “Solidarity, sister!”
And now you’ve upped the ante on this chickenshit tactic by threatening to expose our evil-doing to anyone who dares to not consider us vile, no matter what the future topic may be. How about you two fuck off to the thread devoted to your treasured pet topic of how crime statistics should be used? Oh, that’s right, it dropped like a rock after two days because nobody fucking cares. Take a hint already.
You and you are simply spoiling for a fight, and the laughable thing is that you both think this reflects well on you. We’re trying to discuss the Duke Lacrosse rape case in this thread. Have either of you contributed any links? Noted any news stories? Offered anything constructive to the conversation? Or has your sole participation been to doggedly battle to invalidate a meaningless, irrelevant piece of temporary backdrop?
Peddle your righteous indignation to somebody who gives a shit.
And in the post immediately preceding mine you admitting that you were "hinting that Huerta88 had racist ideas floating around in his head.
Because of your unpleasant habit of misstatement-bordering-on-direct-lying, as evidenced above.
See my previous post.
No, but your dishonesty, ad hominems, obvious discomfort with the discovery that your attempt at playing the race card was not a trump, and general failure to address the cites as presented do.
So my reference to your fairly lame argumentaton as “mildly amusing” struck you as an outrageous overreaction?
Project much, do you?
I can, but it really isn’t worth it. You’ve lost the argument, and are just flailing at this point.
Like I said, the race card thing blew your credibility out of the water. You want to pitch the shit, and then to be taken seriously in return? Not gonna happen.
Yeah, YWTF is a horrible, malicious person for suggesting that anyone that comes to the determination that race influences rape-behavior is being racist. That is an uncalled for assertion, especially in the Pit. And it’s a much worse ad hominem than accusing another poster of being disappointed that white guys aren’t trying to rape her. How silly of me to have thought otherwise. My sense of scale must be off this week.
But anyone who is following the discussion has probably already noted that the Evil, Ad Hominem of a Question…
…still remains unanswered.
Makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? Seems to me if Huerta has legitimate reasons to think that race is a germane consideration, we’d know them by now. So I’m going to assume that they aren’t legitimate and try, once again, to ignore this pus-filled blight of a thread.
Alright, I’m gonna ask an honest question here, and I hope I can get an honest answer. When I read this thread, I see a poster (face) who has kept up an unceaseing diatribe based upon…nothing. The closest she’s come is proclaiming herself an “expert” because of her job in a non related field. We’ve seen no cites, no documentation, no nothing. Yet you say face has “a tremendous level of respect from me”. Why? Seriously, why? I’m baffled. Could you explain to me why exactly she has such a high level of respect from you? It makes no sense, I see no substance here, please explain it to me, wouldja?
See this post. It has all the information you need to understand the arguments I’ve been making ad nauseum throughout this thread. My stance is that race is a red herring in this case. Race has no bearing on the plausibility of this allegation and should not be used to justify skepticism. It’s very simple.
Important things to note in the CDC’s link are:
– The risk factors associated with rape victimization, which includes:
Bolding mine.
—The relationship between victims and perpetrators, which I’ve already pointed out have no direct relationship with race.
–The risk factors for perpetration, which also have nothing to do with race
AND
–Rape protective factors, which once again have nothing to do with race.
Take a look at the article and at least try to understand where I’m coming from. If anyone needs cites, it’s those who maintain that race is relevant in assessing plausibility. For some reason you think the greater burden of proof rests on me, just because I state that race is not a determinant of rape. Wonders never cease.
Dave, I believe YWTF is monstro’s sibling. I would imagine she knows her best.
Either way, I find it disgusting that Huerta88’s suggestion that YWTF wants to be gang/master/slave raped. Even more disgusting is that hardly anyone even commented on it.
It’s funny, Weirddave. The only person I see running an incessant diatribe is Huerta88. He’s the only who has kept this thread alive, not you with the face.
Her field is epidemiology, which requires a solid background and appreciation for demographic statistics, data interpretation, and data extrapolation. Have you asked Huerta why he’s so qualified to post on this topic? I’m betting Dr. you with the face wins hands down in the qualification arena.
I know from your past posts that you know a lot about medical insurance policies. (Please correct me if I’m wrong…I could be getting you confused with someone else). You may not be an expert in all forms of insurance policies, but you would have the know-how and self-confidence to be able to talk intelligently about insurance policies in general. And posters would be kind enough to defer to you and not challenge you without thinking real deep and hard first.
I know you’re probably better known than you with the face. She doesn’t often get the chance to broadcast her area of expertise–whether its because she’s too busy to post or she uses the 'Dope for strictly entertainment purposes. So when I see her working her ass off in this thread to defend truth against ignorance, and people–especially the Johnny-come-latelys–shit on her very reasonable arguments, misconstrue what she’s saying, and even defend pieces of shit that intimate she wants to be raped…I get EXTREMELY ANGRY. Granted, she is my sister and my love for her makes this all personal, but this thread has been utterly ridiculous.
She has never wavered from her very reasonable argument: judging the merits of THIS case based on nationwide crime stats is ERRONEOUS. It’s especially erronenous when people are focused on an irrelevant variable like race.
If Bricker were the defense attorney for the accused in this case, do you think he’d walk in there with a bunc of DOJ stats? I’m not a lawyer, but I’m thinking the prosecution would cite the irrevelancy of that information and the judge would agree wholeheartedly. He probably wouldn’t even allow a discussion of crime stats. Would the judge be stupid if he did this? Would he be racist, secretly longing for the slavemaster to rape him?
Maybe it’s too much to ask for people to evaluate a case with the same level of objectivity and rationality as the judge and jury. But at least you with the face sees the sense in at least striving towards this goal. I thinks this makes her far more admirable than her opponents.
I’m baffled why other posters are refusing to see this.
Gee, that’s two with doctorates for the siblings! Cool!
Has anyone besides me had difficulty finding the actual DOJ cite that has been referred to so frequently? Huerta88 indicated that the relevant information was in Table 42 on page 32 and his link provided a way of accessing that page. But when I went there, Table 42 had been replace with Table 43A (which was supposed to be on another page.) I didn’t pursue the information further. At any rate, Huerta88, you might want to update your own source from time to time to make sure it’s still where it was since the last time you used it.
[quote]
Originally posted by me: Zoe: you with the face, I see many things as you do. This thread has been unpleasant. But that’s not quite the word.
Calm yourself. You’ve made more than one assumption in your post. I’m not “upset.”
Jesus Jumping Christ on a Pogo Stick. How many pages does this thread have to reach before you and YWTF get it? NO ONE HAS BEEN JUDGING THE MERITS OF THIS CASE BASED ON NATIONWIDE CRIME STATS.
Talk about shouting into the wind. You guys would try the patience of Job. Huerta88 took one factoid that, for him, made him X% more or less likely to believe the accuser. That’s it. He’s not juding the merits of the entire case solely on that one point. Huerta88 has only said this about fifteen million times, in about as many ways. What part of this can’t you guys get?
I’m baffled as to why someone supposedly smart enough to have Dr in front of their name refuses to see this.
The fact that it figures in at all is the problem, sweetie pie. Soley or not, it’s shit, it stinks, and I’ve been calling him out on it. You’re a moron if you still don’t get that.
You obviously have not been following this fucking thread if you think no one has judged this case based on crime stats. Maybe you should look up “judge” in the dictionary. I would not have entered this thread if people were just chewing the fat and pondering about what-ifs.
The fact that crime stats were brought into this thread in the first place is evidence that SOMEONE thinks they are relevant to the Duke case. They aren’t even just 1% relevant, which is what you has been arguing. They have no place in a courtroom–why then do they have a place here?
A retarded chimpanzee can understand this impenetrable argument.
monstro and you with the face, I don’t understand why some of the people you have respected have broken as they have on their reaction to the incredible comments posted here. They forget that it is their daughters and sisters that are savaged here too.
But I think I understand why some people have stopped posting. They are probably following an old Doper rule of thumb. I’m about to move on myself. Before I do, I just want you to know how much I value your opinion and envy your ability to coax them into exposing the worst of their arguments themselves. Well done!
