The difference

[boedicca]

I'm not confused about a damn thing. Whites commit more crime. That's just the way it is. There is only one rate, the total.

Whites commit more crime because their group is over 3 times bigger. Just like Pekinese bite more humans than Doberman.. Doesn't say a thing about which breed is MORE LIKELY to bite does it?

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You are such a sad little racist hack.

SRSLY

 

[flacaltenn]

White Men: Time to Discover Your Cultural Blind Spots | Michael Welp

Here we go again. With the lists of "white privilege" that include "post cards or greeting cards" with pictures of folks my own race. Dammit -- Start a NET business. Give Hallmark a fucking HEART ATTACK when you reach $10Mill in sales your first year.

Go post a GOFUNDME or organize the business. This is NOT "white privilege" -- this is whining. Whining when you could be FIXING things. Hell, maybe I'll do it just so I don't have to listen to lists of stupid "white privileges" like this anymore..

Can't stand the truth son?

What truth? that post cards and Greeting Cards are RACIST and part of white privilege? No -- I don't accept that. And any right thinking group of blacks could have fixed that issue 44 yrs ago.. Even easier now with the Web.

I can fix your inferiority complex for $14.95 with an assorted gift box of fine art Black Greeting cards from at least a DOZEN Black entrepreneurs who have FIXED THE PROBLEM. And gotten rich in the process...

Here's a picture of one of them that didn't sit around moaning about "white privilege" over greeting cards..

African American Greeting Cards | The Black Art Depot

Best Shop For African American Gifts | Black-Gifts.com

Now I've fixed the geneological heritage that "white people destroyed" for you with $100 DNA test kit and some of your own work to research it. And for FREE -- I've busted up all that "white privilege" about greeting cards.

Heck man -- in about a week you might start to lose some of the rage and anger if I keep helping you fix your issues..

A sign of feeling inferior is fragility and the inability to deal with the truth. You have shown these traits consistently.

Only trait I've shown is an unerring dedication to "fixing things". I'm super confident in my abilities to do that. And be patient. I CAN fix most of your issues like these for a relatively cheap price and time investment on your part.

What else is bugging you bunky??

Michael Welp's other example was that WHITE folks have easy access to MENTORS in their field. Let me fix that one for you..

There's this thing called "linked in".. I get tons of contacts and suggestions for associates in my field from them every week. I KNOW that not having a "mentor" is a severe disadvantage. I had several in my fields. But I never looked at their color. Does it MATTER? OK -- maybe it does to you. But it shouldn't.

If you're looking for one in YOUR small company group -- perhaps there is not a great selection. But if you join societies or groups like "Linked In" there should be enough VARIETY to find those who are the best and willing to help.. Why this is a "white privilege" --- I don't know. But it can be overcome quite easily. Even if you have to find a black Prof at a Comm. College or some extension course work to do "by racial preference".

Other Mike Welp whining is about cisgender advantage is about bathrooms. You have a problem with bathroom access?

 

[MizMolly]

I'm not confused about a damn thing. Whites commit more crime. That's just the way it is. There is only one rate, the total.

Whites commit more crime because their group is over 3 times bigger. Just like Pekinese bite more humans than Doberman.. Doesn't say a thing about which breed is MORE LIKELY to bite does it?

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whites commit more crime because their group is over 3 times bigger. Just like Pekinese bite more humans than Doberman.. Doesn't say a thing about which breed is MORE LIKELY to bite does it?

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

I think that he actually does. But the material that feeds his pain and anger is propaganda to build up a race industry of division and segregation. PROGRESS on race is like garlic to vampires here. And individual thinking on the topic is the enemy of the race separation and whiteness abolition movement...

 

[IM2]

he is full of it when he defends the violence of rioting blacks by comparing it to the Revolutionary War. I.E., that whites were willing to commit violence to achieve their ends. Here's the difference though: American whites did not start the violence, Britain did. All we did was declare our independence.
In the case of the black rioters, half the time they rioted after a police involved shooting, they did so immediately after the shooting instead of waiting to see if the investigation ruled it unjustified.

That's kind of a whitewash.

So when the slave revolts occurred why were the events not viewed as the slaves merely defending their lives and attempting to escape their captors? How were they different than the violence perpetrated during the Revolutionary War?

I have no idea and it's irrelevant to my point. The point is that a lot of these riots were unjustified as they assume that every time an officer shoots a black man that it is racially motivated and they riot before motivation can even be ascertained through inquiry or investigation.

The point is that you have nothing to say about riots in the black community.

Philando Castile & Alton Sterling killings unjustified; neither presented threat – former cop



Especially when you come with this stupid assumption you have now posted on several occasions. Given the history of race relations in this country we have a RIGHT to think as we do and you don't have the right to criticize us for feeling as we do.

You have been told this does not happen every time a cop shoots a black man or woman but you seem to think your opinion as a white person who hasn't stepped a foot in the black community justifies why you can just keep repeating these kinds of lies.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whites commit more crime because their group is over 3 times bigger. Just like Pekinese bite more humans than Doberman.. Doesn't say a thing about which breed is MORE LIKELY to bite does it?

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

Careful here. MOST violent crimes ARE committed by whites. Just like most manslaughter with cars is committed by whites. BECAUSE of the demographic multipliers -- just as you mentioned. But the RACIAL question is the LIKELIHOOD or RATE of commission of those crimes normalized relative to the whole subset (cohort) of the population by race. It's a very careful phrasing that matters.

 

[IM2]

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

I think that he actually does. But the material that feeds his pain and anger is propaganda to build up a race industry of division and segregation. PROGRESS on race is like garlic to vampires here. And individual thinking on the topic is the enemy of the race separation and whiteness abolition movement...

This is straight stump stupid.

 

[IM2]

Piss poor excuse. ..

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

Careful here. MOST violent crimes ARE committed by whites. Just like most manslaughter with cars is committed by whites. BECAUSE of the demographic multipliers -- just as you mentioned. But the RACIAL question is the LIKELIHOOD or RATE of commission of those crimes normalized relative to the whole subset (cohort) of the population by race. It's a very careful phrasing that matters.

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime. If 2,000 blacks commit murder, 2,000 blacks are not the entire black population. 2000 blacks out of 40 Million is not 13 percent of the American population. So the per capita argument has no merit based on that simplistic conclusion based on how blacks are 13 percent of the population. So if you want to argue rate you use the total number of people committing the crime in that population not the whole population. But whites like you can't do that because it does not fit your white supremacist lie of how violent and criminal blacks are.

 

[IM2]

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

I think that he actually does. But the material that feeds his pain and anger is propaganda to build up a race industry of division and segregation. PROGRESS on race is like garlic to vampires here. And individual thinking on the topic is the enemy of the race separation and whiteness abolition movement...

This is straight stump stupid.

I was talking about your post.

 

[flacaltenn]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

 

[ATL]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

 

[flacaltenn]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

I'm a patient man. Let's talk this out. Whites commit more serious crimes than blacks because their subgroup is about 3 times larger. There's your argument. There's the explanation. NOW --

Why is it that blacks commit more serious crime than Asians? Or Hispanics? Your turn. Explain that using the definitions of probability or likelihood..

.

 

[IM2]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

I'm a patient man. Let's talk this out. Whites commit more serious crimes than blacks because their subgroup is about 3 times larger. There's your argument. There's the explanation. NOW --

Why is it that blacks commit more serious crime than Asians? Or Hispanics? Your turn. Explain that using the definitions of probability or likelihood..

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

In 2016, 4,935 blacks were arrested for murder. Now is 4,935 people 13 percent.of the population? .So what is the real probability that blacks commit murder based on 4,935 blacks out of a US population of over 300 million people? For the subset here in this example are the number of people committing murder.

I can keep going in the destruction of your dumb ass argument. I'm a patient man and we shall not be trying to compare anything to Asians or Hispanics. For Asians and Hispanics did not create this falsehood.

 

[flacaltenn]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

I'm a patient man. Let's talk this out. Whites commit more serious crimes than blacks because their subgroup is about 3 times larger. There's your argument. There's the explanation. NOW --

Why is it that blacks commit more serious crime than Asians? Or Hispanics? Your turn. Explain that using the definitions of probability or likelihood..

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

In 2016, 4,935 blacks were arrested for murder. Now is 4,935 people 13 percent.of the population? .So what is the real probability that blacks commit murder based on 4,935 blacks out of a US population of over 300 million people? For the subset here in this example are the number of people committing murder.

I can keep going in the destruction of your dumb ass argument. I'm a patient man and we shall not be trying to compare anything to Asians or Hispanics. For Asians and Hispanics did not create this falsehood.

You're simply not equipped to trash math and statistics. No. 4,935 people are not 13% of the US population. But then again that's a stupid statement. Would you EXPECT blacks to be killing and murdering 13% of the population ? Would 1% be awful? That's not how you would analyze it. It's meaningless.
Because if Whites murdered 42% of the population every year or even 1% --- you'd might see that on the news.. That's meaningless to point out.

You would find out what PERCENTAGE of blacks killed someone in a year. The RATE per black person. And do the same for any other subgroup you wanted to compare to..

 

[MizMolly]

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

I think that he actually does. But the material that feeds his pain and anger is propaganda to build up a race industry of division and segregation. PROGRESS on race is like garlic to vampires here. And individual thinking on the topic is the enemy of the race separation and whiteness abolition movement...

This is straight stump stupid.

Why yes, most of your posts are.

 

[MizMolly]

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

Careful here. MOST violent crimes ARE committed by whites. Just like most manslaughter with cars is committed by whites. BECAUSE of the demographic multipliers -- just as you mentioned. But the RACIAL question is the LIKELIHOOD or RATE of commission of those crimes normalized relative to the whole subset (cohort) of the population by race. It's a very careful phrasing that matters.

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime. If 2,000 blacks commit murder, 2,000 blacks are not the entire black population. 2000 blacks out of 40 Million is not 13 percent of the American population. So the per capita argument has no merit based on that simplistic conclusion based on how blacks are 13 percent of the population. So if you want to argue rate you use the total number of people committing the crime in that population not the whole population. But whites like you can't do that because it does not fit your white supremacist lie of how violent and criminal blacks are.

If there are 50 whites and they commit 20 crimes and

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

Careful here. MOST violent crimes ARE committed by whites. Just like most manslaughter with cars is committed by whites. BECAUSE of the demographic multipliers -- just as you mentioned. But the RACIAL question is the LIKELIHOOD or RATE of commission of those crimes normalized relative to the whole subset (cohort) of the population by race. It's a very careful phrasing that matters.

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime. If 2,000 blacks commit murder, 2,000 blacks are not the entire black population. 2000 blacks out of 40 Million is not 13 percent of the American population. So the per capita argument has no merit based on that simplistic conclusion based on how blacks are 13 percent of the population. So if you want to argue rate you use the total number of people committing the crime in that population not the whole population. But whites like you can't do that because it does not fit your white supremacist lie of how violent and criminal blacks are.

If there are 100 whites and out of 10 violent crimes they commit 7, and the other 3 violent crimes are committed by

It's not an excuse. That's the language of communicating with statistics and facts. You might get away with loose and fast at a street rally. But not ever in any kind of meaningful debate or conversation..

It's already been determined that some don't understand percentages and per capita. It is a waste of time arguing with these kinds of people. Better to just mock them and let them continue on their miserable ways.

What has been determined is dumb uneducated whites use per capita as a defense to deny they .commit the most crimes. So it's better to mock mentally fragile whites with cognitive dissonance and let hem continue on their miserable ways.

You arent very smart, that much is evident. Per capita means everything. If there are more white people, it would seem logical that more whites commit crimes. Guess what? There are more white people buying cars, because there are more white people. So, one would assume most of the violent crimes in america would be commited by whites, but that is false. You are the one not understanding percentages or per capita.

Careful here. MOST violent crimes ARE committed by whites. Just like most manslaughter with cars is committed by whites. BECAUSE of the demographic multipliers -- just as you mentioned. But the RACIAL question is the LIKELIHOOD or RATE of commission of those crimes normalized relative to the whole subset (cohort) of the population by race. It's a very careful phrasing that matters.

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime. If 2,000 blacks commit murder, 2,000 blacks are not the entire black population. 2000 blacks out of 40 Million is not 13 percent of the American population. So the per capita argument has no merit based on that simplistic conclusion based on how blacks are 13 percent of the population. So if you want to argue rate you use the total number of people committing the crime in that population not the whole population. But whites like you can't do that because it does not fit your white supremacist lie of how violent and criminal blacks are.

You sure do take everything out of context. Who said all 2000 blacks are the entire population? And YES, per capita, since there are less black people, if they commit 3 out of the 10 crimes, PER CAPITA, they commit the most, since there are less black people to commit the crimes. If you thin out the population and have equal amount of

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

Nobody has used black to encompass all blacks. Whereas, there sure are alot of anti white posts about us evil whites as if we are all one entity. Nobody is denying that whites commit crimes either. The safest neighborhoods are white neighborhoods, although that doesnt mean all white neighborhoods are safe.. Just sayin.

 

[ATL]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

I'm a patient man. Let's talk this out. Whites commit more serious crimes than blacks because their subgroup is about 3 times larger. There's your argument. There's the explanation. NOW --

Why is it that blacks commit more serious crime than Asians? Or Hispanics? Your turn. Explain that using the definitions of probability or likelihood..

.

Because where blacks commit the violent crime, they are living like sardines infested with gang activity. Just like whites that live in trailer parks.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

he is full of it when he defends the violence of rioting blacks by comparing it to the Revolutionary War. I.E., that whites were willing to commit violence to achieve their ends. Here's the difference though: American whites did not start the violence, Britain did. All we did was declare our independence.
In the case of the black rioters, half the time they rioted after a police involved shooting, they did so immediately after the shooting instead of waiting to see if the investigation ruled it unjustified.

That's kind of a whitewash.

So when the slave revolts occurred why were the events not viewed as the slaves merely defending their lives and attempting to escape their captors? How were they different than the violence perpetrated during the Revolutionary War?

I have no idea and it's irrelevant to my point. The point is that a lot of these riots were unjustified as they assume that every time an officer shoots a black man that it is racially motivated and they riot before motivation can even be ascertained through inquiry or investigation.

The point is that you have nothing to say about riots in the black community.

Philando Castile & Alton Sterling killings unjustified; neither presented threat – former cop



Especially when you come with this stupid assumption you have now posted on several occasions. Given the history of race relations in this country we have a RIGHT to think as we do and you don't have the right to criticize us for feeling as we do.

You have been told this does not happen every time a cop shoots a black man or woman but you seem to think your opinion as a white person who hasn't stepped a foot in the black community justifies why you can just keep repeating these kinds of lies.

You're still missing the point. Most of these riots and protests took place before any investigation even took place. That's the biggest problem I have with it.

Just so you know I'm an equal opportunity riot hater, I thought the protests at U.C. Berkeley were unjustified too. These idiot pantywaist white kids trying to keep a conservative from speaking on their campus because they didn't like what they had to say made me furious.

 

[IM2]

If there are 10 violent crimes and 7 are committed by whites, the likelihood is that a white person commits the violent crime.

Flat ass no.. "LIKELIHOOD" has a very specific meaning if you apply it to a subset of criminals. Doesn't mean the likelihood of whites committing that crime is higher. Only means that they commit MORE of them due to their higher population number of that group..

Works for ANY subgroup. It could be the LIKELIHOOD or probability that felonies are committed more or less by ex-felons. It's meaningless without NORMALIZING for the size of that group... Felons commit a future felonies at a very high rate of probability compared to other demographics. But more than certainly, the number is far less than other populations.

Any time you COMPARE those subset populations, you MUST take into account the size of that population. If you're NOT comparing them -- no one cares what you do...

That's exactly where white privilege is spurred from. Social cons/white nationalists like to make the argument on "per capita" means, because using total would paint them in a negative light...a negative light that they have no qualms of denigrating minorities over. You use the term "black" to encompass all blacks, but when the same is done for whites, you show up and argue how we should all get along or pretend that social cons don't see race.

I'm a patient man. Let's talk this out. Whites commit more serious crimes than blacks because their subgroup is about 3 times larger. There's your argument. There's the explanation. NOW --

Why is it that blacks commit more serious crime than Asians? Or Hispanics? Your turn. Explain that using the definitions of probability or likelihood..

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

In 2016, 4,935 blacks were arrested for murder. Now is 4,935 people 13 percent.of the population? .So what is the real probability that blacks commit murder based on 4,935 blacks out of a US population of over 300 million people? For the subset here in this example are the number of people committing murder.

I can keep going in the destruction of your dumb ass argument. I'm a patient man and we shall not be trying to compare anything to Asians or Hispanics. For Asians and Hispanics did not create this falsehood.

You're simply not equipped to trash math and statistics. No. 4,935 people are not 13% of the US population. But then again that's a stupid statement. Would you EXPECT blacks to be killing and murdering 13% of the population ? Would 1% be awful? That's not how you would analyze it. It's meaningless.
Because if Whites murdered 42% of the population every year or even 1% --- you'd might see that on the news.. That's meaningless to point out.

You would find out what PERCENTAGE of blacks killed someone in a year. The RATE per black person. And do the same for any other subgroup you wanted to compare to..

But I just did exactly that. And your rebuttal shows you cannot read or comprehend written language. The per capita argument is always that blacks are 13 percent if the pupation so.....

 

[IM2]

he is full of it when he defends the violence of rioting blacks by comparing it to the Revolutionary War. I.E., that whites were willing to commit violence to achieve their ends. Here's the difference though: American whites did not start the violence, Britain did. All we did was declare our independence.
In the case of the black rioters, half the time they rioted after a police involved shooting, they did so immediately after the shooting instead of waiting to see if the investigation ruled it unjustified.

That's kind of a whitewash.

So when the slave revolts occurred why were the events not viewed as the slaves merely defending their lives and attempting to escape their captors? How were they different than the violence perpetrated during the Revolutionary War?

I have no idea and it's irrelevant to my point. The point is that a lot of these riots were unjustified as they assume that every time an officer shoots a black man that it is racially motivated and they riot before motivation can even be ascertained through inquiry or investigation.

The point is that you have nothing to say about riots in the black community.

Philando Castile & Alton Sterling killings unjustified; neither presented threat – former cop



Especially when you come with this stupid assumption you have now posted on several occasions. Given the history of race relations in this country we have a RIGHT to think as we do and you don't have the right to criticize us for feeling as we do.

You have been told this does not happen every time a cop shoots a black man or woman but you seem to think your opinion as a white person who hasn't stepped a foot in the black community justifies why you can just keep repeating these kinds of lies.

You're still missing the point. Most of these riots and protests took place before any investigation even took place. That's the biggest problem I have with it.

Just so you know I'm an equal opportunity riot hater, I thought the protests at U.C. Berkeley were unjustified too. These idiot pantywaist white kids trying to keep a conservative from speaking on their campus because they didn't like what they had to say made me furious.

I'm not missing a thing. These killings were saw in tape and the ape showed that police had no reason to do what they did. You want people to wait for some sham instigation whereby the police can lie and say their lives were in jeopardy so they get out of a trial and you will say how the investigation proved they were innocent.

No one wants to hear racist bullshit. So those kids at Berkeley were well within their right to protest their tuition money going to pay for racists and hatemongers to speak at their campus. But what you don't touch is how those white kids rioted at the pumpkin festival, on spring break every year, after winning football games and how thy do so just for the fun of it while whites like you say nothing.