Featured Race Riot Question

How is that any more out of control than 65% of forcible rapes being committed by Whites? Forcible rape- Whites 65%, Blacks 33%
Robbery-Whites 43%, Blacks 56%
Aggravated assault 63.9 to 33.6
Burglary 66.7 to 31.7
Larceny-theft 68.6 to 28.8
Motor vehicle theft 64.0 to 33.9
Arson 72.3 to 25.7
Violent crime2 59.4 to 38.3
Property crime 68.1 29.5
Other assaults 65.7 31.9
Forgery and counterfeiting 65.5 32.9
Fraud 66.5 31.8
Embezzlement 65.5 32.4
Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing 66.1 32.3
Vandalism 72.8 24.7
Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. 58.1 40.3
Prostitution and commercialized vice 53.4 43.6
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 72.6 24.9
Drug abuse violations 66.9 31.7
Gambling 29.8 66.9
Offenses against the family and children 65.0 32.2
Driving under the influence 85.3 12.1
Liquor laws 82.0 13.5
Drunkenness 81.9 15.5
Disorderly conduct 63.0 34.4

How does one look at the numbers for just murder and conclude that black crime is out of control without looking at the numbers for every other category and deducing and saying the same thing about white crime?

But you've got the same thing going on in different areas in EVERY culture.

 

That's also a bad stat for blacks, Zaac. 13% of the population committing 35% of rapes. Meaning that a black man is roughly 3x likely to rape than a white man.

It's not about raw numbers. It's about the numbers vs population. Any statistician knows this.

 

Spoken like a blind member of the majority. This board is proof that racial prejudice is just as active as it's always been. It may not be as blatant as it was in the 50s and 60s, but it certainly, as political anger increases, is starting to make the same blatant return.

 

Oh I understand statistics. I understand that because of what you just said that even though Whites commit the majority of rapes, Blacks will be looked at as the rapists.

I understand that even though Whites kill Whites not far off the clip that Blacks kill Blacks, that the Blacks will be looked at as out of control, angry and violent.

I understand that even though Whites commit the majority of aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, arsons, etc, that if there is a black person in the group, he'll be looked at as more likely to have committed the crime.

That's racial prejudice and it is a sad thing that continues to be perpetuated even by those in the church.

 

It's not racial prejudice to state a fact. A black man is 3x more likely to rape a woman. A black man is roughly 5x more likely to kill someone. It's not prejudiced. It's fact.

Prejudice would be to say these things without proof. Prejudice is assuming a black man will rape someone.

But these figures aren't prejudiced. They are proven fact. If 13% of the population is responsible for any more than 13% of a crime, then that means that group is more likely to commit that crime.

 

Well that is what they do. Just like they are saying it is racist to point out that he had robbed a store that day and that he was on drugs at the time of the confrontation with the officer.

No matter how much truth you use if it places them in a negative light they will pull the race card simply because they have no defense against the truth.

 

You misunderstand the statistics and attempt to make Black men more likely to rape or kill than men of other skin color. The statistics show what HAS happened. Statistics are not projectable fact.

They Do NOT show the likelihood of what could happen. The likelihood of a black man committing a rape or murder is the same as it is for a white, yellow, pink or blue men: 50/50. Either they will or they won't.

What you're talking about is racial prejudice.

If white men raped 12000 people last year and black men raped 1200, that doesn't mean that white men are more likely to rape someone. That just means that last year, they committed more of the rapes.

Extrapolating old data does not equate to looking at such a white man and saying you're 10xs more likely to rape someone than someone of another skin color. That's crazy.

What you said is DEFINITELY not factual for any time frame other than the one in which the stats cover.

Black men are no more likely to commit rape or murder than any other men. What kind of foolishness would it be to walk up to a black man on the street and say "hey you know you're 3xs more likely to rape a woman and 5xs more likely to kill someone"?

There's a 50/50 likelihood that anybody would ever do the right vs wrong thing.

And the crazy part is that most of yall believe that actual stats from past occurrences immediately mean that it's okay to label people off of that.

No it doesn't. It means that during that measurable period they committed more crime than the 13%. It does not mean they are more likely to do it next year.

The propensity of everyone at any point in time to choose to do right or wrong is ALWAYS 50/50.

But somewhere along the way, people have taken actual results from a time frame and incorrectly starting to label folks as probable of doing that thing.

The probability of you raping or murdering someone is the same as it is for a black man.

 

So, what you're saying is that you don't understand how to read stats and probability. What you are saying is directly opposing everything that stats and probability are there for.

If a man shoots 83% from the free throw line, there is an 83% probability he will make the next one. We're not talking odds, which is what you are doing, we're talking probability.

Odds are different. A coin has 50/50 odds to land one way. That will never change. It has almost zero variables.

When there are several variables to consider, you use probability. And when speaking of humans, there are more variables than we even know of. So we use statistics to determine probability.

That's why I said it's not about color, but culture. Obviously, a man's skin color will not make him more likely to commit a crime. But whether or not there is a father, his relationship with his mother, his examples of attitude towards authority, all these play a part.

And, probability states that these variables are more prevalent in a negative way in the black culture, meaning that a black man is more likely to rape or murder.

It's not racial. It's fact. It's a sad fact that can't be corrected until people quit calling race and actually address the problem.

 

The problem is that they want everyone to leave these problems in place that cause the issues for them and have everyone around them change to accomodate their issues or they will call you racist.

 

I understand how to read them just fine. You apparently don't.

I'm talking probability. The probability of that shot going in is 50/50 and resets to 50/50 every time he shoots. Either it's going in or it isn't and that doesn't change based upon the number that have gone in in the past.

Then you're using it incorrectly because the probability of you doing something hinges upon YOU doing it or not and not upon what somebody else has done.

If 90% of white men last year decided to engage in a homosexual affair, does that mean that you can walk up to any white guy on the street and say "hey there's a 90% chance that you'll have sex with a guy this year?"

Either he will or he won't. It doesn't hinge upon what was done in the past.

How is it not about color if you said a Black man is 3xs more likely to rape and 5xs more likely to murder? If it wasn't about skin color, you didn't have to mention skin color.

That's a bunch of hoo hoo when you look at the majority of rapes being committed by Whites. What factors are you suggesting are making them rape?

It's fact for a past measured time frame. That does not project onto a probability of what an action to do or not do will be tomorrow or next year. As when you're dealing with to rape or not to rape or to murder or to not murder, it's always either you do or you don't. 50/50.

 

Salty, interesting questions. I found only one reference that approaches these questions. It is at:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_officers_convicted_of_murder

Your questions bring up another interesting question, how many people have been killed by policemen. Here is a link that goes into this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013

 

No, you don't. As evidenced by your next paragraph:

This is absolutely ridiculous. Let's say you have a chance to win $1,000,000, and it rides on one free throw. You get to choose the shooter, either Shaq or Kobe. Who are you going to choose? Well, in your logic it wouldn't matter, there's a 50/50 chance either way. But anyone will tell you to choose Kobe. There's a much higher probability that he'll make the shot.

Again, you're ignoring what I am saying. I am not saying that I can walk up to a black man and tell him that he has a 500% more likelihood of killing someone. What I am saying is that if you chose a random white guy, and a random black guy, the black guy is 5x as likely to be a killer than the white guy is, and 3x more likely to be a rapist.

I have already explained this. The black culture is to blame, not the color of their skin. There's no way to simplify it any more.

I'll be honest. You're making it real hard to remain civil with your continued ignoring of the obvious. If a school has 100 students, 25 black and 75 white, and all of them cheat once, then obviously more white people cheated than black people. But the ratio of the percentage is the same 1:1. If all the black people cheat, and only 67% of the white people cheat, then that means that 50 white people cheated - double the amount of black people. But there's still more of a prevalence among black people in this scenario.

It's not about the raw numbers. I can't state that emphatically enough. Raw numbers mean absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Worthless. Numbers mean nothing without a reference point.

You're trying to be like I was in 2nd grade, when I used to brag about getting 3rd place in a wrestling tournament. I conveniently left out that there were only three competitors. That's what you are doing by trying to use raw numbers without a reference point.

Let me make this real simple. 13% of the population is black. If things were even, then they'd commit 13% of all crimes. But that's not the case. Per Capita, black people commit more crimes. More than double in almost every category, all the way up to 500% more in the murder category.

I've already addressed this. You're just degenerating it into a "Yes huh" "Nu huh" debate. Because what you are saying it does not do is exactly what it does.

I used statistics and probability in military intelligence in Iraq. We used statistics to determine the likelihood of an IED being placed in a certain area at a certain time. It's called pattern analysis. We were able to have a high find to detonation ratio (in the 70% range) due to our looking at past statistics and using them to determine the probability of the future. In short, that's exactly what statistics are used for. It's used in military intelligence, in scouting for sports teams, in investing. You even use it when you decide what route to take while driving, trying to avoid traffic jams or rush hour.

So, if you really believed what you are saying, then there's no point in investing money. You have a 50/50 chance of making a profit or loss. There's no point in avoiding a crowded street during rush hour. There's a 50/50 chance it'll be busy. And most importantly, there's no reason I am not playing in the NBA right now.

There's a problem anytime anyone commits a crime. But when one group is committing 5x more than another, then that group has some variable that either is not present or not as significant in the other group. You are looking at this as white vs black. I am looking at it as a group of people who obviously have a problem somewhere, and I want to find a solution to help. As long as it stays white vs black, nothing will get accomplished. It needs to be American helping American.

 

SW: You are making too much sense. You are being very reasonable --therefore your answers will be totally unacceptable by Zaac's mindset.

 

You are wrong. There is exactly a 50/50 chance that Zaac will accept Sapper Woody's. There is absolutely nothing that could influence that 50/50 chance. Each and every time that there are two outcomes for a situation, there is always, without a doubt, a 50/50 chance.

 

Your wrong statistics don't make my paragraph wrong.

You're mixing apples and oranges. You're making a determination about Shaq or Kobe based upon what EACH has already done. Whereas you're telling the Black men that they are 5x more apt to commit murder and 3Xs more likely to commit rape based upon what OTHER black men have done. It simply isn't the same.

That's a crazy, racially prejudiced lie. That's just like me saying that because 9Xs more white parents were racists in the 60s than were black parents racists during the 60s that I could walk up to their white kids and say there's 9xs more of a probability that because your parents were racists you too will be a racist.

That's beyond crazy. You can't determine whether somebody will be a rapist or a murderer based off their skin color.

If that were the case, then Blacks should assume that every person with white skin is a racist.

You're trying to separate the two. Do you separate your skin color from your white culture? People of all cultures tend to share the same basic wants and desires. They just have different ways of going about it

I didn't ask you to remain civil. You be as mean and nasty as you want. You're still WRONG.

And just because three times more white students cheated than black students cheated does NOT mean that if you bring another white student into the school that he's three times more likely to cheat than would a black student.

You can't make a deduction about what someone else will do based upon stats that don't include them.

You'd think I was a straight nutt if I walked into your church as a pastor and started to tell you all that based on past statistics, every white guy in here is 70Xs more likely to be a racist just because he's white.

That's foolishness.

It is about the raw numbers. You bringing another black student into that situation doesn't mean that because ALL the black students cheated that the probability of the new student cheating too will be 100%.

His probability of being a cheater is 50/50. It has NOTHING to do with what the other students decided to do.

They don't mean anything the way you're trying to not use them.

I'm not trying to use raw numbers as a reference point. I'm flat out telling you that you can't make a probability assumption about what someone else will be or likely do in the future based upon past data that did not include them. That's just ludicrous.

That's just like saying you've got 10 little sapper woody kids. The first nine get through high school but are dumb as little red bricks and have to take all remedial classes.

Number 10 shows up and is an absolute genius. But the guidance counselor says, we've had 9 of you little sapper woodys here already. So I don't care what you say to me or what you show me, we're placing you in remedial classes since 100% of the sapper woodys before you had to take remedial classes.

Yes let's make this real simple. Blacks between the ages of 18 and 30 could have in 2013 committed 100% of the crimes in the United States. It STILL wouldn't mean that you would be correct to go up to a generic black man turning 18 and say there's a 100% chance that you'll commit a crime.

Because statistically that simply isn't true. That may have been true of a measure for 2013. But that has no standing in what someone who wasn't part of that measure will do. Whether he will or not STILL remains 50/50.

It's not degenerating into anything other than you think you know what you're talking about when what you're saying shows that you do not.

I have doctorates in Chemistry and Advanced Mathematics. Go JACKETS!!! You used statistics to determine a pattern for PEOPLE placing an inanimate object in a certain place. You didn't use pattern analysis to determine what people were going to place them there. You didn't walk up to your average Iraqi and say because of pattern analysis, we've determined that you're 5Xs more likely to place an IED than Uday down the street.

That's correct. Breaking even isn't an option. :laugh:

That's correct. Either it's busy or it's not.

Either you had NBA talent or you did not.

And what was that variable when all those white folks were lynching black folks?

You're the one who looked at it like that. I SPECIFICALLY said you can't say that someone is 5xs more likely to be a murderer and 3Xs more likely to be a rapist because of the color of their skin.

Then you're as ridiculously lost about black people as they probably think most white people are. That's a mouth full of nothing to tell somebody you're 5xs more likely to be a murderer and 3Xs more likely to be a rapist than I am because of the color of your skin. But hey, let me help you find a solution after I've snidely told you the problem is your skin color.

You keep trying to use statistical measures of the past to tell folks not in those statistics what they are more likely to do in the future.

That's not statistical analysis. That's stereotyping.

You're again being silly if you think any black person is going to believe you about American helping American when you immediately stereotype them to be 5xs more likely to be a murderer and 3Xs more likely to be a rapist .

 

'Can We All Get Along'
__________________

 

No Rodney. Even a dead Rodney knows that it just ain't gonna go very far with Blacks as far as thinking that Whites just want to get along when they look at them and automatically stereotype them as 5xs more likely to be a murderer and 3Xs more likely to be a rapist .

 

Great post!

It will be ignored again.

You are wasting your time on him