It is NOT racism

[Asclepias]

Regarding the total number of crimes vs the rates of crime by race:

Based on the available crime statistics, yes, whites commit the most crimes by total numbers. Yes, blacks commit the most crimes per capita.

It is important to note a couple of facts, however, when trying to draw any conclusions from those numbers.

First: there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the total number of crimes reported. Further, there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the number of crimes for which a conviction was obtained. Further still, there is a difference between total number of crimes committed, or reported, and total number of crimes for which the race of the perpetrator(s) is known.

So while something like the FBI crime statistics can be a valuable tool and provide some helpful statistics regarding crime, they are not the entirety of the story.

Second: there is no rule that says crimes are committed at a rate of 1 per person. In other words, one would need to know the actual number of perpetrators of crimes to get a more accurate breakdown of how often crimes are committed by a particular group. For example, let's use a sample of 100 people and the percentages that have been shown about crimes committed. If 69% of crimes are committed by whites, and 28% are committed by blacks, one might look at those numbers and say that 69 whites of 100 people committed a crime, while 28 blacks of the 100 people committed a crime. However, it's entirely possible that 69 whites could have committed crimes, while only 5 blacks committed enough crimes to equal 28%. Alternatively, it's possible that 28 blacks committed crimes while only 15 whites committed 69% of the crimes.

Yet again, we see that the statistics do not tell the entire story. How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes? Is there a widespread crime problem among either racial population, or is it a small minority of each? There is not enough data provided to draw many conclusions when you are limited to only knowing the percentage of total crime without having the number of perpetrators.

Of course, there's no way to know what changes might be shown with more data. Perhaps only 2% of blacks actually commit crimes, while 5% of whites do. Perhaps it's the other way around. What about multiple offenses? How many people commit more than 1 crime, and is that an important consideration? It's certainly troubling that blacks commit such a high percentage of crimes per capita, but there are many possible interpretations and reasons that could be ascribed to that. Is there a problem with a small subsection among blacks that commit a disproportionately high number of crimes? Is there more of a widespread cultural issue? Is the problem more related to bias in arrests and prosecutions than to actual commission of crimes?

As with most statistics, there are facts to be taken away, and there are inferences that can be made, but the inferences are often very subjective and open to debate.

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

 

[Montrovant]

Regarding the total number of crimes vs the rates of crime by race:

Based on the available crime statistics, yes, whites commit the most crimes by total numbers. Yes, blacks commit the most crimes per capita.

It is important to note a couple of facts, however, when trying to draw any conclusions from those numbers.

First: there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the total number of crimes reported. Further, there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the number of crimes for which a conviction was obtained. Further still, there is a difference between total number of crimes committed, or reported, and total number of crimes for which the race of the perpetrator(s) is known.

So while something like the FBI crime statistics can be a valuable tool and provide some helpful statistics regarding crime, they are not the entirety of the story.

Second: there is no rule that says crimes are committed at a rate of 1 per person. In other words, one would need to know the actual number of perpetrators of crimes to get a more accurate breakdown of how often crimes are committed by a particular group. For example, let's use a sample of 100 people and the percentages that have been shown about crimes committed. If 69% of crimes are committed by whites, and 28% are committed by blacks, one might look at those numbers and say that 69 whites of 100 people committed a crime, while 28 blacks of the 100 people committed a crime. However, it's entirely possible that 69 whites could have committed crimes, while only 5 blacks committed enough crimes to equal 28%. Alternatively, it's possible that 28 blacks committed crimes while only 15 whites committed 69% of the crimes.

Yet again, we see that the statistics do not tell the entire story. How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes? Is there a widespread crime problem among either racial population, or is it a small minority of each? There is not enough data provided to draw many conclusions when you are limited to only knowing the percentage of total crime without having the number of perpetrators.

Of course, there's no way to know what changes might be shown with more data. Perhaps only 2% of blacks actually commit crimes, while 5% of whites do. Perhaps it's the other way around. What about multiple offenses? How many people commit more than 1 crime, and is that an important consideration? It's certainly troubling that blacks commit such a high percentage of crimes per capita, but there are many possible interpretations and reasons that could be ascribed to that. Is there a problem with a small subsection among blacks that commit a disproportionately high number of crimes? Is there more of a widespread cultural issue? Is the problem more related to bias in arrests and prosecutions than to actual commission of crimes?

As with most statistics, there are facts to be taken away, and there are inferences that can be made, but the inferences are often very subjective and open to debate.

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

 

[Asclepias]

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

 

[Asclepias]

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.

Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.

 

[Paul Essien]

So, name the list of Blacks on this forum which don't participate in prejudices against Whitey?

Can you point to any black poster that has said white people are intellectually inferior to black people ?

I mean should be easy if this place is full of black supremacists. Right ?

Black users here consistently imply that Whites are inferior in terms of morality, and in terms of prowess.

It doesn't have to be mental inferiority, to be "Racist"

Where would you get an idea like that, exactly?

So you can't point to any black poster that has said that white people are intellectually inferior.

Where as white people (white supremacists) have spent THE LAST FIVE HUNDRED YEARS trying to prove that black people are intellectually inferior.

But you can't point to ONE example of any black (hell, I'll make it easier you) or non white poster that has said white people are intellectually inferior.

But USMB is full of black supremacists. Right ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, name the list of Blacks on this forum which don't participate in prejudices against Whitey?

Can you point to any black poster that has said white people are intellectually inferior to black people ?

I mean should be easy if this place is full of black supremacists. Right ?

Ask ass lips he says it all the time.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, "Further it is NOT racist to point out that black communities do NOT care and do nothing to help themselves from this rampant crime" is indeed racist.

you are right --it is not racist
rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Right..the OP doesn't think that other races are any better than blacks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Regarding the total number of crimes vs the rates of crime by race:

Based on the available crime statistics, yes, whites commit the most crimes by total numbers. Yes, blacks commit the most crimes per capita.

It is important to note a couple of facts, however, when trying to draw any conclusions from those numbers.

First: there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the total number of crimes reported. Further, there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the number of crimes for which a conviction was obtained. Further still, there is a difference between total number of crimes committed, or reported, and total number of crimes for which the race of the perpetrator(s) is known.

So while something like the FBI crime statistics can be a valuable tool and provide some helpful statistics regarding crime, they are not the entirety of the story.

Second: there is no rule that says crimes are committed at a rate of 1 per person. In other words, one would need to know the actual number of perpetrators of crimes to get a more accurate breakdown of how often crimes are committed by a particular group. For example, let's use a sample of 100 people and the percentages that have been shown about crimes committed. If 69% of crimes are committed by whites, and 28% are committed by blacks, one might look at those numbers and say that 69 whites of 100 people committed a crime, while 28 blacks of the 100 people committed a crime. However, it's entirely possible that 69 whites could have committed crimes, while only 5 blacks committed enough crimes to equal 28%. Alternatively, it's possible that 28 blacks committed crimes while only 15 whites committed 69% of the crimes.

Yet again, we see that the statistics do not tell the entire story. How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes? Is there a widespread crime problem among either racial population, or is it a small minority of each? There is not enough data provided to draw many conclusions when you are limited to only knowing the percentage of total crime without having the number of perpetrators.

Of course, there's no way to know what changes might be shown with more data. Perhaps only 2% of blacks actually commit crimes, while 5% of whites do. Perhaps it's the other way around. What about multiple offenses? How many people commit more than 1 crime, and is that an important consideration? It's certainly troubling that blacks commit such a high percentage of crimes per capita, but there are many possible interpretations and reasons that could be ascribed to that. Is there a problem with a small subsection among blacks that commit a disproportionately high number of crimes? Is there more of a widespread cultural issue? Is the problem more related to bias in arrests and prosecutions than to actual commission of crimes?

As with most statistics, there are facts to be taken away, and there are inferences that can be made, but the inferences are often very subjective and open to debate.

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

 

[Asclepias]

Regarding the total number of crimes vs the rates of crime by race:

Based on the available crime statistics, yes, whites commit the most crimes by total numbers. Yes, blacks commit the most crimes per capita.

It is important to note a couple of facts, however, when trying to draw any conclusions from those numbers.

First: there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the total number of crimes reported. Further, there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the number of crimes for which a conviction was obtained. Further still, there is a difference between total number of crimes committed, or reported, and total number of crimes for which the race of the perpetrator(s) is known.

So while something like the FBI crime statistics can be a valuable tool and provide some helpful statistics regarding crime, they are not the entirety of the story.

Second: there is no rule that says crimes are committed at a rate of 1 per person. In other words, one would need to know the actual number of perpetrators of crimes to get a more accurate breakdown of how often crimes are committed by a particular group. For example, let's use a sample of 100 people and the percentages that have been shown about crimes committed. If 69% of crimes are committed by whites, and 28% are committed by blacks, one might look at those numbers and say that 69 whites of 100 people committed a crime, while 28 blacks of the 100 people committed a crime. However, it's entirely possible that 69 whites could have committed crimes, while only 5 blacks committed enough crimes to equal 28%. Alternatively, it's possible that 28 blacks committed crimes while only 15 whites committed 69% of the crimes.

Yet again, we see that the statistics do not tell the entire story. How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes? Is there a widespread crime problem among either racial population, or is it a small minority of each? There is not enough data provided to draw many conclusions when you are limited to only knowing the percentage of total crime without having the number of perpetrators.

Of course, there's no way to know what changes might be shown with more data. Perhaps only 2% of blacks actually commit crimes, while 5% of whites do. Perhaps it's the other way around. What about multiple offenses? How many people commit more than 1 crime, and is that an important consideration? It's certainly troubling that blacks commit such a high percentage of crimes per capita, but there are many possible interpretations and reasons that could be ascribed to that. Is there a problem with a small subsection among blacks that commit a disproportionately high number of crimes? Is there more of a widespread cultural issue? Is the problem more related to bias in arrests and prosecutions than to actual commission of crimes?

As with most statistics, there are facts to be taken away, and there are inferences that can be made, but the inferences are often very subjective and open to debate.

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Regarding the total number of crimes vs the rates of crime by race:

Based on the available crime statistics, yes, whites commit the most crimes by total numbers. Yes, blacks commit the most crimes per capita.

It is important to note a couple of facts, however, when trying to draw any conclusions from those numbers.

First: there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the total number of crimes reported. Further, there is a difference between the total number of crimes committed and the number of crimes for which a conviction was obtained. Further still, there is a difference between total number of crimes committed, or reported, and total number of crimes for which the race of the perpetrator(s) is known.

So while something like the FBI crime statistics can be a valuable tool and provide some helpful statistics regarding crime, they are not the entirety of the story.

Second: there is no rule that says crimes are committed at a rate of 1 per person. In other words, one would need to know the actual number of perpetrators of crimes to get a more accurate breakdown of how often crimes are committed by a particular group. For example, let's use a sample of 100 people and the percentages that have been shown about crimes committed. If 69% of crimes are committed by whites, and 28% are committed by blacks, one might look at those numbers and say that 69 whites of 100 people committed a crime, while 28 blacks of the 100 people committed a crime. However, it's entirely possible that 69 whites could have committed crimes, while only 5 blacks committed enough crimes to equal 28%. Alternatively, it's possible that 28 blacks committed crimes while only 15 whites committed 69% of the crimes.

Yet again, we see that the statistics do not tell the entire story. How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes? Is there a widespread crime problem among either racial population, or is it a small minority of each? There is not enough data provided to draw many conclusions when you are limited to only knowing the percentage of total crime without having the number of perpetrators.

Of course, there's no way to know what changes might be shown with more data. Perhaps only 2% of blacks actually commit crimes, while 5% of whites do. Perhaps it's the other way around. What about multiple offenses? How many people commit more than 1 crime, and is that an important consideration? It's certainly troubling that blacks commit such a high percentage of crimes per capita, but there are many possible interpretations and reasons that could be ascribed to that. Is there a problem with a small subsection among blacks that commit a disproportionately high number of crimes? Is there more of a widespread cultural issue? Is the problem more related to bias in arrests and prosecutions than to actual commission of crimes?

As with most statistics, there are facts to be taken away, and there are inferences that can be made, but the inferences are often very subjective and open to debate.

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

 

[Asclepias]

" How many black perpetrators committed those 28% of crimes? How many white perpetrators committed those 69% of crimes?"

Since 28% is less than 69% its not hard to figure out whites committed the vast majority of the crime. Lets say its a 1 to 1 ratio. Whites still committed more crime.

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

You didnt show me the stat I asked for. This is why I dont use per capita. Its a guess not a fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, whites committed more crimes.

The question you quoted, however, regarded number of perpetrators. It would be possible, even if exceedingly unlikely, for there to have been more black perpetrators committing the 28% of crimes than white perpetrators committing the 69% of crimes. Knowing the actual number of perpetrators, rather than just the number of crimes, would give a better view of the data.

If someone is interested in only 1 limited statistic (total number of crimes committed, per capita number of crimes committed) they will not be looking at the whole picture.

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

You didnt show me the stat I asked for. This is why I dont use per capita. Its a guess not a fact.

LOL you have no idea how math works. Did you even finish grade school? Remind us how white people are dumb but you are so smart you can not even figure out basic math.

 

[Asclepias]

The stats dont include how may whites committed 69% of the crime or how many Blacks committed 28% of the crime. The odds are that number percentage wise is going to be roughly the same for both groups or less for Blacks. Since we cant tell I specified taking a 1 to 1 ratio.

I gave this analogy earlier. if 12 out of 100 people stole 2 apples they would have 24 apples. If 70 out of 100 people stole 1 or even half an apple that would still be greater than 24 at 70 and 35 respectively.

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

You didnt show me the stat I asked for. This is why I dont use per capita. Its a guess not a fact.

LOL you have no idea how math works. Did you even finish grade school? Remind us how white people are dumb but you are so smart you can not even figure out basic math.

You still didnt show me the stat in per capita that says which of the 70% did a crime vs more than 1 crime. If whites are so smart why cant you provide that stat?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And again for the slow if 12 people have 28 apples that is more then 2 apples apiece If 70 people steal 70 apples that is ONE apiece so which group per person has more apples?

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

You didnt show me the stat I asked for. This is why I dont use per capita. Its a guess not a fact.

LOL you have no idea how math works. Did you even finish grade school? Remind us how white people are dumb but you are so smart you can not even figure out basic math.

You still didnt show me the stat in per capita that says which of the 70% did a crime vs more than 1 crime. If whites are so smart why cant you provide that stat?

You are to stupid to breathe tell us how you get by every day?

 

[Asclepias]

How do you know if its 2 apples apiece? Show us the stat that say each Black person has 2 apples.

Fucking retard.That is how per capita works dumb ass. You fail basic math in school?

You didnt show me the stat I asked for. This is why I dont use per capita. Its a guess not a fact.

LOL you have no idea how math works. Did you even finish grade school? Remind us how white people are dumb but you are so smart you can not even figure out basic math.

You still didnt show me the stat in per capita that says which of the 70% did a crime vs more than 1 crime. If whites are so smart why cant you provide that stat?

You are to stupid to breathe tell us how you get by every day?

So you cant show me the stat I asked for? I figured. Keep deflecting. Its your best argument.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know why you would assume the number is the same for both groups or less for blacks. Is there some reason to assume whites might commit fewer crimes per perpetrator?

Again, I'm not arguing that blacks commit more total crimes. That would be foolish, as it's one of the statistics that is clear. However, simply saying whites commit more of the the total crimes committed is far from the whole story.

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.

Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.

Per capita is not a data source at all. As far as I know the FBI crime statistics are the data source in question here. Per capita is simply one way to describe the data. Total number of crimes committed by each race is another.

Per capita crime numbers do not accurately tell if a member of one group is more or less likely to commit a crime than another group. It simply describes how many crimes were committed per person within each group. I've already said that there are data limitations involved.

Yes, in your hypothetical you might say that whites are more likely to commit crimes. However, the per capita numbers would not change. Whites would still be committing crimes at a lower per capita rate in that example (assuming each apple stolen counts as a separate crime). That just highlights why the per capita stat is not enough on its own to draw those kinds of conclusions, at least not with the data set being used.

Which white historians value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder, enslavement etc.? Are you perhaps saying that merely describing the US in a positive light is showing those things as being valued because of the history of slavery, war, and occupation?

 

[Asclepias]

I assume that because I know generally Blacks are hard working people that get the blame for a few repeat criminals. I know whites on the other hand tend to claim their criminal whites are a tiny subset of their population. My experience with whites show me that its actually the opposite.

I figured you werent arguing that. White people hate admitting that fact and dont like to talk about it. So what they do is try to argue the per capita to make themselves look less criminally inclined. The point is that is exactly what I am arguing. I agree the statistics are not very clear on most things associated with crime but that is the only stat that is undeniablely clear and the only one worthy of arguing.

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.

Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.

Per capita is not a data source at all. As far as I know the FBI crime statistics are the data source in question here. Per capita is simply one way to describe the data. Total number of crimes committed by each race is another.

Per capita crime numbers do not accurately tell if a member of one group is more or less likely to commit a crime than another group. It simply describes how many crimes were committed per person within each group. I've already said that there are data limitations involved.

Yes, in your hypothetical you might say that whites are more likely to commit crimes. However, the per capita numbers would not change. Whites would still be committing crimes at a lower per capita rate in that example. That just highlights why the per capita stat is not enough on its own to draw those kinds of conclusions, at least not with the data set being used.

Which white historians value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder, enslavement etc.? Are you perhaps saying that merely describing the US in a positive light is showing those things as being valued because of the history of slavery, war, and occupation?

Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

 

[Montrovant]

The per capita stats are just as clear as the total stats. The one is based on the other, in relation to total population, after all.

You imply that whites are not hard working people and are more generally criminal.

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.

Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.

Per capita is not a data source at all. As far as I know the FBI crime statistics are the data source in question here. Per capita is simply one way to describe the data. Total number of crimes committed by each race is another.

Per capita crime numbers do not accurately tell if a member of one group is more or less likely to commit a crime than another group. It simply describes how many crimes were committed per person within each group. I've already said that there are data limitations involved.

Yes, in your hypothetical you might say that whites are more likely to commit crimes. However, the per capita numbers would not change. Whites would still be committing crimes at a lower per capita rate in that example. That just highlights why the per capita stat is not enough on its own to draw those kinds of conclusions, at least not with the data set being used.

Which white historians value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder, enslavement etc.? Are you perhaps saying that merely describing the US in a positive light is showing those things as being valued because of the history of slavery, war, and occupation?

Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?

 

[Asclepias]

No the per capita stats dont count the number of people in each group committing the crimes. If you have one that shows that then you would have a point.

I dont imply that. Your historians imply that. I just agree because it matches up with what I have seen with whites.

The per capita stats don't require the number of people in each group committing the crimes. They merely show the number of crimes committed per person within the population. Per capita basically means 'per person', although I think it more directly translates to 'by head'.

You absolutely implied that whites are not hard working and are more widely criminal. When asked why blacks might commit more crimes per perpetrator, you gave the reason as blacks are hard working (implying whites are not so) and that blacks get blamed for a few repeat criminals (implying whites are not blamed for a few repeat criminals, which would instead mean crime is more common among whites). I don't know what you mean by "your historians imply that."

Kind of convenient and non specific right? The only way per capita would be a solid data source is if it did count the number of each people in each group committing the crimes. For example if Blacks are 12 out of 100 and only 2 black people steal 24 apples and whites are 70 out of 100 and all steal 1 apple each which group is more likely to be criminals? The data would show whites are more likely to be criminals simply because more whites stole an apple.

Your white historians have documented the crimes of whites. Not to signify that they were crimes but to glorify them as great accomplishments. Having pride in being criminals shows the mindset of the white culture. They value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder enslavement, etc etc.

Per capita is not a data source at all. As far as I know the FBI crime statistics are the data source in question here. Per capita is simply one way to describe the data. Total number of crimes committed by each race is another.

Per capita crime numbers do not accurately tell if a member of one group is more or less likely to commit a crime than another group. It simply describes how many crimes were committed per person within each group. I've already said that there are data limitations involved.

Yes, in your hypothetical you might say that whites are more likely to commit crimes. However, the per capita numbers would not change. Whites would still be committing crimes at a lower per capita rate in that example. That just highlights why the per capita stat is not enough on its own to draw those kinds of conclusions, at least not with the data set being used.

Which white historians value brute force, lying, stealing, rape, murder, enslavement etc.? Are you perhaps saying that merely describing the US in a positive light is showing those things as being valued because of the history of slavery, war, and occupation?

Per capita is indeed a data source its just obviously a very poor one to accurately describe reality. Precisely because the rates wouldnt change tells me is really pretty useless. Since it disregards reality its irrelevant which is why I dont use it.

Claiming 4 out 5 people did an action when only 1 person really did the action 4 times is silly math.

Pretty much most of them. You shouldnt describe something in a positive or negative light if youre a historian. You should present the facts....all the facts...even the ones that paint a less glorious picture of your races violent tendencies.

How is per capita a data source? That doesn't make sense. You don't get data from per capita. Per capita is a way to describe the data you have. The data comes from the FBI, that's the source. Per capita may be an inaccurate way to describe the data, but that doesn't make it a source of data.

You are not understanding. Per capita does not claim how many people committed crimes. It describes how many crimes were committed per person in the population. If the population consists of 100 people, and 10 crimes are committed, there is a crime committed once for every 10 people. It doesn't matter if 1 person committed every crime, or if 10 people did, there is still 1 crime committed for every 10 people in the population.

Pretty much most of them...that is one hell of a vague answer. And is it only white historians who value these things you've described in vague terms? Do historians of other races only present facts with no biases?

You do get data from per capita. GDP has a per capita category as well. The validity of the data is what I consider shaky to put it diplomatically. Keeping with my example...

4 out of 5 whites arrested stole apples. Thats definitely data.

I understand just fine what per capita means. I know what it does and doesnt do. My point is that its only valid for guessing not actually realizing true numbers.

I've never seen other races glorify and lie about history to make themselves look good. However, I havent read all historians of every race. Most of my knowledge is from Black and white historians.