Where did the hypothetical come from? You know, the one that mirrored my words? What transpired previous to your post that suggested to you that I found the slavemaster comment not to be a nasty one?
This what you do. You answer a piece of this or a snippet of that and hope that folks will just forget that you are blowing smoke. It is tiresome, but since my honor has been impugned I will not let you get away with it.
To recap: I asked holmes for a few examples and he provided two, to which I replied (emphasis added)
to which you replied with your quote above. To borrow a phrase from you, any fool could see I was referring to those two posts and those two only. After I challenged you on that slur, you hemmed and hawed and equivocated about the meaning of the word “if,” all the while refusing to provide simple answeres to direct questions. Now, it turns out, you were just to busy to give a real answer, but now that you think of it your post was actually a suggestion to me to read more posts, not a suggestion that I found the slavemaster remark to be benign. This is patent bullshit. If you wanted me to consider that remark it would have been but the work of a moment to point me to the post and ask me what I thought of it. But you accuse me, get called on it, and proceed to backpedal and wince around like a fucking idiot, when a simple “My bad” would have cleared the air.
Try to learn to say what you mean, and mean what you say. Your path will be the smoother for it.
Do you have another cite for this? Did you read my post above demonstrating with your own data source that your selection of the year 2003 and your neglect of the previous years of data gave a false impression of the “comparative rarity” of white rapists of black women?
If you do not have another cite to demonstrate that black women report fewer instances of rape by white men than white women report of black men, then FUCKING STOP MAKING THIS BULLSHIT CLAIM!.
Here, try this:
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY “COMPARATIVE RARITY” OF THE RAPE OF BLACK WOMEN BY WHITE MEN
If you, or anyone else make this claim again without any further evidence, you are intentionally being a lying cocksucker.
Fist order answer: Of course it is “comparatively rare” because as everyone here has said, “by comparison” to interracial rape, intra-racial rape is significantly more common across the board.
Second order answer: DMC posted this elsewhere, positing it as more germane to the circumstances. I am not going to represent that year-on-year patterns in N.C. would exactly replicate these numbers, because I haven’t looked at any year other than the one DMC found. Those N.C. Justice numbers suggest that for the year in question, whites were alleged to have committed a smallish (mid single-digit) percentage of the total reported rapes of black people in the State.
Stop being a dick. You know full well that Hentor was referring to your constant mantra of white rape of black women being rare in comparision to blacks raping whites.
Actually, this post that I made a few days ago cites statistics for rape* in North Carolina. It does show that the type of rape, listed from most frequent to least, are: 1) White on White 2) Black on Black 3) Black on White 4) White on Black. The last category represnts about 5-7% of the cases, depending on the year you look at.
I also noted in that post that Blacks in Durham represent twice the % of the population as compared to the state as a whole (in fact Whites and Blacks are about equally represented in Durham), which could change the stats for that city. One would expect White on Black rape to be more common in Durham than for the state as a whole, but I don’t have stats to show that, and there could be other factors affecting that rate as well.
*I assume those stats are for rape convictions, not the raw data of reported rapes.
Show me my “constant mantra” on anything about blacks raping whites, dumbass. I have never adverted to or relied upon the frequency or non-frequency of blacks raping whites because it is not directly germane to this thread.
If the proposition is that (supposedly) “when black women are raped, it is most often not by a white man,” the proof vel non of that statement has nothing to do with whether when a white woman is raped, her assailant is white, black, or purple. The proposition could be true if no white women were raped at all, but some black women were, and I’ve never cared in this thread about the statistics on who was being reported as raping white women.
Somethings funky about those numbers. For example, in 2004, the table of victims by race suggests that there were 1,398 white victims and 790 black victims. Yet, in the offenders OF white victims, there are 1,591 total, and 913 offenders of black victims.
Is it that in approximately 200 cases there were two offenders per victim?
This whole thread is full of it, as are you. Despite your claims to contrary, I seriously doubt had this been a black on white case, I seriously doubt that you would’ve even thought to dig up stat on the ‘rarity’ of such things or bothered wanking off to it, for 20+ pages.
You have a fundamental belief that whites aren’t attractive to blacks and that’s the reason you explain why the stats are what they are. You suggest that the DUKE team have an issue towards black women, but since as far I as know no one’s ever suggested that, it comes from YOU, what you think.
In the same post you give this gem:
So what you appear to be saying is that black men loves them some white trim and will cross town to get some, but the DUKE players due their upbringing would most likely wouldn’t be attracted to black women, the same as you and your friends. That’s the underlying theme in this thread; your bias, your unspoken belief that it’s more ‘likely’ for a black man to rape a white woman, then white man to rape a black one, because white men aren’t aren’t attracted to them.
Well then you ask, explain the stat. Simple, blacks are more prone to leave their neighbourhoods and come into contact with whites, then whites are to come into theirs. It has nothing to do with attractiveness, but promixity. The back alley stranger rape, is the exception; not the rule. Most woman are raped in their home, regardless of their skin color, or age or finances.
What you consider to be matter of white boys not being "hot’ for black women, is simply your projection; your issues. In reality, the cause is another manifestion of the social segregation that we still have. The reason whites don’t appear to rape blacks, is not because they don’t want to, but because the opportunity doesn’t present itself.
The DUKE case is classic in that it fullfills most of the ‘rules’, that would allow an interracial rape to occur; and still there’s plenty of reason to doubt her, race however isn’t one of them.
Which part of “I won’t quote them” (which was my only even oblique reference or rather non-reference to the possible differential of white-on-black vs. black-on-white rape rates) do you have trouble understanding as not being a “quote” or reliance, let alone a “mantra,” of discussions of black-on-white rape incidence, you ignorant fuck?
Seriously, ignorant fuck, if the thread is “full of” such “mantras,” ignorant fuck, you can provide multiple instances of my saying black men love raping some white women, you ignorant fuck. Instead of putting words in my mouth, ignorant fuck.
What about a person who seems unduly attached to the notion that White on Black rape is so extremely rare that he misreads DoJ statitics and makes the claim that there were 0 instances of such rape (actually, sexual assault, which is more generic) in the US in 2003? Perhaps if he hadn’t been so wedded to his own misinformed worldview, he would have looked at those stats with a more critical eye. Because I think anyone whose worldview is grounded in reality would dismiss such stastitics as obviously in error (or obviously misinterpreted). He certainly wouldn’t rush off to gleefully post them on a mesage board.
I know you, I 've had 20+ pages to get to know you. Your disclaimers aren’t enough to cover you, your contribution to this whole thread is the mantra, buddy.
Nor did I, as you have no basis for imputing “glee” to me. In fact, I urged everyone who was having a cow over them to pretend they’d never existed, and this at a point before any meaningful methodological criticisms had been made of them, because they weren’t that important to me. Have I continued to react on occasion and say, no, I would not absolutely exclude any identifiable demographic patterns as ever possibly being a predictive data point, over n cases, assuming the state is a repeat player? Yes. But I also have been repeatedly and from an early date in this thread accused of or imputed with racism, fascism, and every other -ism under the Sun by the Godwinists and numerologists – still, I have not been the one posting the bulk of the verbiage on this issue in recent memory.