I did? Single-handedly?
Look who’s been posting the bulk of stuff in this thread for the past x pages, and all of the stuff in Bricker’s thread, which I haven’t bothered with at all other than for some cursory position statements to him.
Hint: Not me.
Hint: ywtf has a lot more to “answer” for if posting voluminously on a voluminous bulletin board is a violation of voluminous bulletin board posting etiquette as enforced by you (but then, I don’t think she does).
You mean . . . as HITLER INCARNATE?
Eye on the ball, dumb fuck – there’s another thread for that idiocy.
But people, good news – we have Jesus Christ Himself come down from heaven to “see [people] as [they] are.”
Look, if I wanted to call you a Nazi, I would have. Those nails must hurt your hands and feet.
You can me anything else you want to. I stand by my opinion of you and your moviations.
I know exactly what you are and with any luck some others will too.
no, you supplied the shit, we did our best to correct it. Obviously your number of posts would be fewer.
D’oh. Sorry to be repetitive. As a bit of a tangent, (if these various stats are reflective at all of the true prevalence rates) what also strikes me as well is that in North Carolina, arrests for rapes of black women by white men are roughly in the ballpark of the national stats, but arrests of black men for raping white women are about double the rate of the national stats.
All this talk of stats should not detract from the main point, however, that population prevalence rates have no bearing in the discussion of the credibility of an individual claim of rape.
If I’ve posted a lot, it’s only to undo the damage that your slimy, race-obsessed ramblings have left on the brains of Dopers who are less than acquainted with reason.
So sue me.
Well, as of three minutes ago…
**Who Posted?
Total Posts: 1,206
User Name Posts **
Huerta88 238
you with the face 210
**Contrapuntal ** 94
**Ellis Dee ** 46
wring 45
**monstro ** 43
Malacandra 34
**holmes ** 31
John Mace 28
Zabali_Clawbane 26
Emphasis supplied – I was specifically not complaining about your post count.
“Race-obsessed?” That’s the strawman for the other thread. Race wasn’t the first topic I mentioned in this thread, it certainly hasn’t been the only one or the area of my predominant interest or reliance, and it is not me who made it a dominant one. If we are focusing on alleged obsesssions, I’d imagine many others in this thread have had a far higher percentage of their posts herein on race issues only, as opposed to my discussion of the other evidence and the prosecutorial tactics that have been applied here.
No, its the very basis for both threads.
“Race-obsessed” was used an euphemism, by the way. I wouldn’t want to offend your sensibilities by using the more precise term.
Knock yourself out then Godwin.
And the basis for the OP (not by me) was the (inelegant) contention (not by me) that this woman was a “lying whore.” Given that her stories have seemingly been sufficiently inconsistent as to indicate that at least one version of them is not true, and that her timeline does not appear to jibe, the “lying” part looks more and more likely. The “whore” part, which I’ve never joined in, has been deemed by some here not-implausible in view of the fact she worked for an escort agency – but I do not know whether this woman ever actually had sex for money, so that’s not my contention.
But neither of those OP contentions had race as their “very basis.” People could and did say similar if not identical things about Katelyn Faber, and chicks don’t get much whiter than her.
Yeah, but the funny thing is that there wasn’t a thread like this for Faber. A comparable one existed for Kobe, but no 20-page, she’s-a-drunk-lying-slut-whore-Tawana-wannabe monstrosities for his accuser.
And certainly no thread that touted DoJ stats as a data point against her credibility. That idea would have never been floated as a reasonable position, not on a board that prides itself on critical thinking, never in a thousand years. The same people in this thread who’ve demonstrated the failure to understand such intricate concepts as “reporting rates” versus “occurence rates” would have seen such of proposition and laughed their heads off, even if they believed Kobe was innocent.
But when you switch the races of those involved, though, things suddenly change. Rational people turn into dolts. All they can see is race. It’s like as soon as they hear “black woman” blinders come on and they can’t see anything else. They can’t see a woman in a sexually-charged atmosphere hired to be a sexualized object. They can’t see a houseful of men who are probably drunk and rowdy. No, all they can see is her race. I don’t even want to know what image of “black woman” they have going on in their mind, because it’s probably a distillation of all their prejudices and deeply-entrenched stereotypes collated into one ugly picture. It makes me shudder.
Huerta, because of you and your nonsense, this thread has become a game of Wack-a-Mole. The mole is willful ignorance. Just when I’d think the mole was finally suppressed, it would pop up again. If you’re mad that the direction of the thread has gone this way, don’t be mad at us. Be mad at yourself. Because it was you (not Jesse Jackson, not Tawana, not Nifong) who put a racial tint to this thread they probably wouldn’t have been there otherwise. If you hadn’t felt it necessary to crow about the supposed “vanishing rarity” of white-on-black rape, I would have not bothered arguing with you. You’re first mistake was playing the race card in an inflammatory manner. Your second mistake was offering up an illogical justification for it.
For me, this thread has been about more than winning a debate. I don’t care about the Duke accuser at all, but I do care about fairness and objectivity. And most of all, racism. Bristle all you want at the term, I don’t care. Our society has come too far to have thoughts like yours poison people and spill into our justice system.
I don’t care about your name, BTW. I think you should keep it. It suits you well.
Since it’s my cite that is being brought into this thread, I might as well respond. I noted several times that while the percentage wasn’t high by any means, it was high enough to not take away from the claimant’s credibility in any way, even for those who think probabilities are important when making determinations about whether to proceed in a case (I’m not one of that crowd). White males raping black women happened once a week in the state of North Carolina during the most recent year that was reported. It’s not some shockingly rare occurrence.
Of course, you should probably also note what else I stated (and John Mace has brought up here already). If you want to use stats to determine credibility, why not use an actual stat that measures credibility in these cases? That being the percentage of rape accusations that turn out to be false. You’ll note that it’s much lower than the percentage that turn out to be true, so if we want to use stats alone to determine likelihood of this event occurring, we should definitely believe the claimant, as all alleged victims of rape are far more likely to be telling the truth than lying.
Before I ever cited anything touching on race (other than possibly deprecating Nifong for racial politicking), I posted several items on false rape report rates (because I do deem these more relevant data points than anything to do with race). One (FBI, which is an arm of DoJ) concluded that 8% of rape alllegations were established to be false (approximately four times the amount of the overall false-crime allegations). One that was specific to university rape reports (based on a small sample, but not contradicted by countervailing or larger university studies that I know of) found a very large number (approaching half) to be false.
And DMC, no, as you know if you’re reading fairly, I do not claim and never have that any of that means we should use “stats alone” to “definitely believe” or ‘definitely disbelieve’ anything – the purpose of my dozens of qualifiers.
And another qualifier I have popped in many times, but that has been ignored: Corellated statistics (whatever you will agree those may be – let’s remain completely agnostic on what does or doesn’t corellate in a meaningful way) do not, on my theory, determine the outcome in any particular case. I have never said it does. My argument has instead been that over n cases, betting on more-likely-corellated events will actuarially lead one to be right, more often, in the aggregate. Further, I argue, the justice system is a repeat player and to some extent necessarily engages (as we ALL do) in actuarial-style bets on the likelihood of particular patterns, knowing that the actuarial numbers don’t determine existential “truth” or outcome in any given stake. As I’ve noted and everyone’s ignored, the justice system and our armchair handicapping of “how likely is X” is not a search for existential comprehensive truth.
Thanks. I was worried!
You can keep yours, too!
But you don’t feel I’ve demonstrated that the more valid corellated event is the act of telling the truth or lying about being raped? That’s the topic on which this thread was premised. Even if we take the most slanted cites I can find on the most biased sites I could dig up, less than half of rape victims are lying, so actuarially one should side with the claimant.
I’ve been away from the thread for a couple of day, but assuming that this is directed at my post, my response is:
FUCK YOU YOU LYING BITCH!
STOP putting words in my mouth. STOP lying about what I have said. STOP atributing things to me that I never posted. Most of all, STOP with your dishonest strawman debating. If I say “Here’s a case where stats were used in court testimony”, do not post “Weirddave said that stats should be used in court”. The two are not the same thing. IF you’re not going to respond to what people say than…just go mumble to yourself in a corner somewhere.
If that was directed at somethng else from this long thread…nevermind.
Oooh, such anger. Such rage. Big fonts. I’m sure monstro just shit her pants looking at this. :rolleyes:
If you didn’t mean to suggest that things like the DoJ stats have a place in the court room, please don’t write stuff like this:
(bolding mine)
You protest too much, buddy.
There’s nothing in that quote that says that statistics should be used in courtrooms. He’s saying they were used, although I can’t imagine that a good defense attorney would allow a comment like that to sit unchallenged. And I especially can’t imagine a judge giving instructions to a jury that they should consided crime statistics when deciding guilt or innocence. Not in this country, anyway.
Thank you, that was my point. And yes, my lawyer did challenge it, and yes I did get off.
YWTF, the reason I was angry in that post is that many pages after I made that post you quoted, many pages after I made a lengthy (and colorful!) post explaining exactly what I meant and how such stats are not applicable WRT specific cases, your sister is still stating “other posters have said that statistics can be combined with actual evidence to make a case.”, which is a bald faced lie and is in fact completely different from what I did actually say. Having your posts misrepresented has made you angry in this thread before, why shouldn’t I get angry at the same thing?