Racial crime stat facts.

[bigdavediode]

Quote from cheval fonce:

Cherry picking one African nation which has a reasonably low homicide rate doesn't "disprove" anything anymore than cherry picking one mostly caucasian nation with a relatively high homicide rate. You can cherry pick one single person, or one single nation which deviates from the statistical norm, but that merely highlights the weakness of your position. I never said that ALL black nations are carnage filled violent places. I never said that ALL black people are violent. I said that on average, blacks and hispanics commit a highly disproportionate amount of the violent crime, as compared to the portion of the population that they represent.

No, you now want walk back your position because you got your ass handed to you on a plate. You wrote "It does, however, perfectly fit my initial assertion which is that the best indicator of crime in a given area is how much of the population is black or hispanic."

Ghana has nearly 100% black population, and that is a very poor indicator of crime.

Uganda has a lower homicide rate than places like Tennessee, just as another example. Peru (which has a few latinos in it) has a lower homicide rate than Tennessee and many if not most other southern bootstrappy states. Ivory Coast has a lower homicide rate than the entire US average. And I could go on, since you obviously haven't really done much research on your own theory.

Your argument is lying in tatters, shivering, beaten and bruised. Maybe you should get it a glass of water.

 

[Ricter]

You fucked up with your op. There are no qualifiers, for time or place. You simply say, and it's your bold typeface: The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Since you did not specify a context, we have free rein to present exceptions from all over time and space. Two exceptions have been given you. 1) where people with non-black skin are more violent than "our" blacks (I could have mentioned the white, probably pasty white, European slavers who started this whole mess, and who were definitely more violent, and cruel, than your target group), and 2), where people with more black skin are less violent. Thus, your boldface assertion does not stand up.

And everyone here knows your super calm posting tone is a pose. Interestingly, it's a lot like another poster on this board, and it would be a great irony if you and he are one and the same person, since he has, based on his own admissions, reason to be diametrically opposed to your views.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Ricter:

You fucked up with your op. There are no qualifiers, for time or place. You simply say, and it's your bold typeface: The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Since you did not specify a context, we have free rein to present exceptions from all over time and space. Two exceptions have been given you. 1) where people with non-black skin are more violent than "our" blacks (I could have mentioned the white, probably pasty white, European slavers who started this whole mess, and who were definitely more violent, and cruel, than your target group), and 2), where people with more black skin are less violent. Thus, your boldface assertion does not stand up.

Hey, the civil rights act has been law for a whole 46 years -- it's time to pretend all that stuff never happened.

And everyone here knows your super calm posting tone is a pose. Interestingly, it's a lot like another poster on this board, and it would be a great irony if you and he are one and the same person, since he has, based on his own admissions, reason to be diametrically opposed to your views.

Calm? I find his endless whining about people being hostile to him to be quite entertaining.

 

[cheval fonce]

I didn't "fuck up" at all. My statement is a mathematical fact. It's true. The single best indicator of violent crime levels in a given area is how much of the population is black or hispanic. Of course there is a qualifier. The word "is" refers to the present tense. I didn't make the assertion that it "was", "always has been" or "will be" the best indicator of violent crime. I said that it is. If English isn't your first language, I apologize. But "is" is a reference to the present. Your very desperate and contrived semantically based retorts really expose the extent of your position's weakness. It's too bad that you are so fearful of the truth that you are willing to perform such absurd contortions to avoid it.

Exceptions don't invalidate the data. Exceptions, both in terms of individuals and communities will always exist. That doesn't change the mathematical facts about group averages. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that point.

Whether or not people with lighter or darker skin color than american blacks have more favorable crime statistics isn't a relevant point to my position. The few cherry picked examples offered do not change group averages. Deviations from mean will almost always occur when studying large bodies of data.

Again, I never said there aren't exceptions. In fact I noted that there are and always will be exceptions. Smokers, on average, develop lung cancer much more than non smokers. However, non smokers can also develop lung cancer. Also, some people smoke their whole lives and never develop lung cancer or any serious respiratory complications. So according to your logic, because some people have successfully smoked for decades with no serious effects, smoking is unrelated to the development of lung cancer and respiratory complications. Interesting logic, but it's incongruous with reality.

Quote from Ricter:

You fucked up with your op. There are no qualifiers, for time or place. You simply say, and it's your bold typeface: The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.

Since you did not specify a context, we have free rein to present exceptions from all over time and space. Two exceptions have been given you. 1) where people with non-black skin are more violent than "our" blacks (I could have mentioned the white, probably pasty white, European slavers who started this whole mess, and who were definitely more violent, and cruel, than your target group), and 2), where people with more black skin are less violent. Thus, your boldface assertion does not stand up.

 

[bigdavediode]

So there you go, ladies and gentlemen, it's always true except when it isn't.

 

[cheval fonce]

Ah, "everyone here" knows that because I can have a civil debate, and not be senselessly aggressive and hateful in a discussion that it is a "pose". That's interesting. You can't make a valid critique of my argument, or a valid personal attack so then you venture to say that my personality is merely a ruse, as if that were somehow relevant to the discussion.

Yes, I know, I know, it would better fit your brainwashed and intellectually bankrupt narrative for me to be a frothing, hateful, ignorant barbarian. It helps you to lick your wounds and reinforce your desired beliefs to think that my abject lack of hatred is just a facade. Alas, reality one again fails to conform to your desires and the only people who are being hateful are the people who are attacking my observations.

I'm sure that by supplementing your imaginary character trait projections with conspiracy theories about alter egos makes you feel better too, but let's try to stay on topic.

Something to ponder- A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Quote from Ricter:



And everyone here knows your super calm posting tone is a pose. Interestingly, it's a lot like another poster on this board, and it would be a great irony if you and he are one and the same person, since he has, based on his own admissions, reason to be diametrically opposed to your views.

 

[trendlover]

Cheval, you are talking about smoking cause cancer (average) is the same (average) that latino or black people cause crime?
So you say latino and black people have the biology to be criminals? Hmm?
Ok, so what will happen of your opinion if someone take 1 million white USA babies and put them in Sierra Leone or Northern Bolivia?

 

[cheval fonce]

I guess it would be pointless to point out how I never said that it was "always true", and in fact always said that like most large bodies of statistical data there are always exceptions, and deviations from the mean. I have stated, on several occasions, that we are discussing group averages, not individual men and women, or individual communities. Much like the best indicator that someone is likely to develop lung cancer or emphysema is if they are a long term smoker. It doesn't mean that all smokers, or even long term smokers will always develop it, but it is the most statistically valid indicator. Why do you feel the need to argue against a point I never tried to make?

Your logic is much like the tobacco executives who would take a small handful of people who had smoked for 65 years and had no lung cancer, and had a relatively healthy respiratory system and use them as evidence that cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer or respiratory complications. Identical logic was used by the tobacco industry.

Quote from bigdavediode:

So there you go, ladies and gentlemen, it's always true except when it isn't.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from cheval fonce:

I guess it would be pointless to point out how I never said that it was "always true", and in fact always said that like most large bodies of statistical data there are always exceptions, and deviations from the mean. I have stated, on several occasions, that we are discussing group averages, not individual men and women, or individual communities.

No, you're not. You're discussing averages of people, then excluding 24.5 million of them because they're inconvenient, then you're discussing averages again, then you're disregarding another country, then you're back to discussing averages...

And that's why your argument failed. Would you like to start a different thread on another topic where you'd have more luck?

 

[cheval fonce]

No, I never excluded anyone. I said that certain individuals and certain communities will deviate from the average. You have found a few examples of that in a desperate attempt to disprove the existence of averages altogether. You seem to think that finding examples of a deviation from the average constitutes proof that the average doesn't exist at all. I never excluded any one or any community. I simply said it deviates from the average, and it does.

Your tobacco executive logic wont fly.

Me: the average oak tree is 25 feet tall.

You: that's not possible because I there is one oak grove which most of the trees are 35 feet tall. you can't say that average oak trees are 25 feet tall unless you've ignored the 35 feet tall oak trees that i saw.

^= dave's faulty logic.

Perhaps you'd like to go find another thread to participate in where you don't have to perform such absurd contortions in a desperate attempt to support an indefensible position. Maybe you can also find someone who has a derogatory and hateful attitude like yourself.

Quote from bigdavediode:

No, you're not. You're discussing averages of people, then excluding 24.5 million of them because they're inconvenient, then you're discussing averages again, then you're disregarding another country, then you're back to discussing averages...

And that's why your argument failed. Would you like to start a different thread on another topic where you'd have more luck?