Blacks are more often criminal is just a myth. Whites account for most violent crimes by over 2:1

[Derideo_Te]

Good god, try to comprehend

Ironic!

Ask an adult to explain post #57 to you, K?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Blacks disproportionally commit violent crime in America. That cannot be argued. The FBI defines violent crime as rape, murder, armed robbery, manslaughter and aggravated assault.

Per FBI data blacks are roughly 2.5X-3X more likely to commit a violent crime in America than whites.

You kids can debate why...but the facts are the facts. The OP is a dumbass and his thread blew up in his face.

Now it is fair to say the poor and blacks and sentenced more severely, and that does need to be addressed by the criminal justice system.

 

[Correll]

I'm good. YOu want to dismiss FBI stats, but you don't want to admit that you want to dismiss FBI stats because you fear that would make you look like ridiculous.

SO, you dismiss them.

If anyone uses them you attack the FBI stats.

But is someone asks you about your dismissal of the stats, you deny that you dismissed them.

A new twist, I admit, but fairly standard lib intellectual dishonesty.

I just wish I knew if you really believe your crap.

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

 

[Pop23]

Good god, try to comprehend

Ironic!

Ask an adult to explain post #57 to you, K?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Your lies are your problem.

The FBI only collects data from about 60% of all of the Law Enforcement Agencies nationwide.

Therefore their data is incomplete.

If you try and extrapolate their incomplete data and use it calculate percentages based upon the demographics of the entire US population you are going to come up with garbage.

That is YOUR problem since you obviously don't have a clue about math.

Now run along and ask someone to help you enroll in adult remedial education classes at your local community college.

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

Thanks for admitting that you are incapable of learning even the most basic of mathematical principles.

And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic since you are incapable of understanding the math or the implications of erroneous results.

You are dismissed to wallow in your own ignorance and dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Sad little people.


Per the OP's FBI data set.

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter: White: 4,101 Black: 4,203.

So blacks are 12.5% of the U.S. population and per the FBI commit 52% of all murders. Pesky facts are racist!

 

[Rozman]

FBI Table 43

"TOTAL 9,390,473 (whites)6,502,919 (blacks)2,640,067"

Suck it.

I think the figures are wrong but hey that's just me....
White people commit ALL the crime in the country....

Fuckin whitey.
Why do we put up with these people?

 

[mudwhistle]

FBI Table 43

"TOTAL 9,390,473 (whites)6,502,919 (blacks)2,640,067"

Suck it.

Hispanics, Arabs, and Eastern European immigrants are counted as White btw......

They lump everyone into White except blacks, Native Americans, and Asians in your link. I think Whitey got screwed.....


Ten Most Wanted

The FBI is offering rewards for information leading to the apprehension of the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Select the images of suspects to display more information.

Facts on the Program | Historical Photos of Each Top Tenner | 60th Anniversary Booklet


SEMION MOGILEVICH


YASER ABDEL SAID


ALEXIS FLORES


VICTOR MANUEL GERENA


JASON DEREK BROWN


FIDEL URBINA


EDUARDO RAVELO


WILLIAM BRADFORD BISHOP, JR.


GLEN STEWART GODWIN


ROBERT WILLIAM FISHER

 

[mudwhistle]

FBI Table 43

"TOTAL 9,390,473 (whites)6,502,919 (blacks)2,640,067"

Suck it.

total number of white Americans please
Total number of black Americans please.

Thanks.

That's the only defense to the facts. The percentage based on populations of each. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the reality that a white is much more likely to criminally offend against you than a black.

Depends where you live.
If you live in a black neighborhood....the chances of a drive-by are high. Not so in a White neighborhood.

 

[Pop23]

FBI Table 43

"TOTAL 9,390,473 (whites)6,502,919 (blacks)2,640,067"

Suck it.

total number of white Americans please
Total number of black Americans please.

Thanks.

That's the only defense to the facts. The percentage based on populations of each. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't change the reality that a white is much more likely to criminally offend against you than a black.

a white

Not true, unless you look at the base numbers that is not a fact, it's a guess.

Unless there are only twice as many whites as there are blacks your ratio would be relevent. But there are far more the double the amount of white to black

In reality that ratio is no where close to your suggestion.

In reality, the ratio would have to be in the range somewhere around 5:1 for it to be close to true.

 

[ninja007]

White people like to use the excuse of "percentages".

They claim that they are the majority in America and it only makes sense there are more crimes by them.

Except they never say why? They say blacks who commit crimes are bad people, no home training etc etc. But whites lead in all categories just because its more of them.

Which doesnt answer the question at all about why whites are the leader in all violence. Is it an upbringing thing? Do whites just have to commit crimes just because?

YOu really need to know why a larger group is expected to have more criminals in it than a smaller group?

One would expect, all things being equal, that a group approximately 5 times bigger than another group, would have 5 times more of everything, 5 times more men, 5 times more women, and 5 time more criminals.

If that is NOT the case, for example that the much larger groups ONLY has 2 times as many criminals as the smaller group, one wonders why that is.

That is why the search for reasons with regard to black crime.

For this to be news to you is a testimony to your willful ignorance.

and if blacks had 5 times the amount pop. as whites you know it would be a hell of a lot more than two times as much crime. More like 20 times.

 

[Correll]

Mmm, if you were really so confident in your argument, you wouldn't rely so heavily on Appeal to Ridicule.


COuld you explain why you did not attack the OP for using FBI stats?

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

Thanks for admitting that you are incapable of learning even the most basic of mathematical principles.

And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic since you are incapable of understanding the math or the implications of erroneous results.

You are dismissed to wallow in your own ignorance and dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It seems like since blacks are arrested more often then that means theres something wrong with blacks.

But that would also mean there is something wrong with America since we jail more than every other nation in the world.

When you put it like that then watch the white people offer up reasons that will sound a lot like the reasons I give for blacks being locked up so much.

 

[007]

It seems like since blacks are arrested more often then that means theres something wrong with blacks.

Yup, you got it, they're far more prone to violence than any other race, because it was only in their recent evolutionary past that they were drug out of the jungle, where violence was a part of life. They're also closer to the cave man than any other race on the planet. They're having a hard time adjusting to modern, peaceful society.

 

[ClosedCaption]

It seems like since blacks are arrested more often then that means theres something wrong with blacks.

Yup, you got it, they're far more prone to violence than any other race, because it was only in their recent evolutionary past that they were drug out of the jungle, where violence was a part of life. They're having a hard time adjusting to modern, peaceful society.

But that would also mean there is something wrong with America since we jail more than every other nation in the world.

 

[JFK_USA]

From the table, whites are twice as rapey as blacks, more than twice as likely to steal from you or burgle your home or business, almost twice as likely to assault you, twice as likely to steal your car, three times as likely to commit arson, etc etc.

From these facts what we can conclude is whites are 2-3 times as likely to be criminal than blacks.

Stats don't lie but you see our society has been conditioned to believe black people are criminals. That they are inferior and therefore don't have the same rights as white people.

Chief Justice Roger Taney would be quite proud of America today:

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

 

[Derideo_Te]

I already explained it once but for the dull witted I will type this slowly.

The FBI only obtains data from about 60% of all law enforcement agencies nationally.

Comparing the FBI data to Census data is invalid because Census data is based upon 100% of the population.

Comparing FBI data to FBI data is valid because it is the same 60% source.

Therefore the 2:1 ratio is based upon the same 60% subset. Mathematically it is a valid result because the base is the same for both sides of the ratio.

But to compare the FBI data to Census data is invalid because the FBI base is 60% whereas the Census base is 100% therefore the math won't yield a valid percentage.

Please make your $500 payment to my Paypal account for this lesson in basic mathematics.

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

Thanks for admitting that you are incapable of learning even the most basic of mathematical principles.

And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic since you are incapable of understanding the math or the implications of erroneous results.

You are dismissed to wallow in your own ignorance and dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

The math doesn't lie. Too bad the same cannot be said about you.

 

[Correll]

It seems like since blacks are arrested more often then that means theres something wrong with blacks.

But that would also mean there is something wrong with America since we jail more than every other nation in the world.

When you put it like that then watch the white people offer up reasons that will sound a lot like the reasons I give for blacks being locked up so much.

Yes. The arrests stats show that there is likely some serious problem(s) either unique to, or far worse in the black community than the nation in general.

Err, if significant portions of the population are committing crimes at high rates, then imprisoning the high numbers of criminals is consequence of the first problem(s).

And yes, as the black population is part of America, then yer, there is something wrong with America.

Reasons? You know my opinion on the reasons. Unless you've been willfully ignorant.

Illegitimacy.

 

[Correll]

If that 60% is not a representative sample than representing it as valid for "whites" and "blacks" is invalid.

And yet you have no problem with that.

But if the sample IS representative then comparing it to the rest of the nation, as I did IS valid.

Your attempt to insult my intelligence when your argument is, well what it is, really does not reflect well on you.

Like I said. GREAT AVATAR!

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

Thanks for admitting that you are incapable of learning even the most basic of mathematical principles.

And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic since you are incapable of understanding the math or the implications of erroneous results.

You are dismissed to wallow in your own ignorance and dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

The math doesn't lie. Too bad the same cannot be said about you.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Congratulations, it looks like you actually managed to learn something today.

Yes, the FBI 60% data set is probably not an accurate representative sample of crime nationwide.

However the mathematical ratio derived from that sample was correct.

Now you can argue that the OP made an assumption based upon incomplete data but you cannot argue that his math was wrong, because it wasn't.

On the other hand you and Pops both were intent upon making mathematical errors because you didn't understand the flaws in using different source data.

So in that respect your math was wrong whereas the OP's math was correct.

Now where is that $500 Paypal deposit?

If the sample is representative for one comparison to the population, it is useful for all of them.


THe "second set" of data in both cases in the same, ie the whole of the COuntry.

Patting yourself on the back while you are spinning so much, just makes you look dishonest.

Err, more dishonest.

Thanks for admitting that you are incapable of learning even the most basic of mathematical principles.

And thank you for disqualifying yourself from this topic since you are incapable of understanding the math or the implications of erroneous results.

You are dismissed to wallow in your own ignorance and dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

The math doesn't lie. Too bad the same cannot be said about you.

Meaningless blather.

You are here trying to deny documented reality.

While giving those on your side a pass for using the same numbers cons use to prove you wrong.

Can't stop lying, can you?

Nowhere have I denied any of the FBI stats.

I have simply put them in the correct context and proven that people like you lie about them because you aren't honest enough to admit that they are incomplete.

That is YOUR problem, not mine.