It is NOT racism

[Montrovant]

So you want whites to be responsible for none of the crimes committed, leaving that for all other races? How would that be a positive thing? We'll ignore how completely irrational it is to think an entire race, particularly one that makes up most of the population, would not commit any of the crimes. Of course, since you brought up 28%, it seems as if you were actually talking about crimes committed by blacks rather than whites.

I would guess that economic status/financial issues are a motivation for many crimes by people of all races. However, people commit a whole lot of crimes based on things completely separate from finances.

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

You are still not understanding. The comment that I responded to involved whether whites committing 69% of crimes was an acceptable number. Would it be acceptable if whites committed 50% of crimes? Would it be acceptable if whites committed 40%? Those questions don't specify the number of total crimes, just the percentage of those crimes committed by whites. If there are 2 million crimes, what is a reasonable percentage to have been committed by whites? What about if there are 1 million crimes? 100,000? Does the percentage which is acceptable change depending on the total number of crimes, and if so, how?

In other words, why is 69% too much? Not why is 3.5 million crimes committed by whites too much, but why is 69% of the total too much.

 

[Asclepias]

Correct. Whites own the system so they literally have no reason to commit crimes. They should have an incredibly low crime rate. It would be a positive thing because overall the crime rate would drop significantly if whites were not committing 69% of the crime. Think about that for a moment. 69% of all crime gone. That would cut the crime rate by more than half. Dont get me confused. I dont think its possible for whites to do it. You asked what I thought would be appropriate. No I was talking about crimes committed by whites. Thats why I said whites instead of Blacks.

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

You are still not understanding. The comment that I responded to involved whether whites committing 69% of crimes was an acceptable number. Would it be acceptable if whites committed 50% of crimes? Would it be acceptable if whites committed 40%? Those questions don't specify the number of total crimes, just the percentage of those crimes committed by whites. If there are 2 million crimes, what is a reasonable percentage to have been committed by whites? What about if there are 1 million crimes? 100,000? Does the percentage which is acceptable change depending on the total number of crimes, and if so, how?

In other words, why is 69% too much? Not why is 3.5 million crimes committed by whites too much, but why is 69% of the total too much.

Youre still not understanding and I know you are a bright person. Its not difficult.

Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime.

 

[Montrovant]

And yet whites commit crimes just like members of any race. Perhaps that should make you rethink just what "whites own the system" actually means.

You also are having a hard time with the idea of percentages. Whites commit 69% of crimes. I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. Changing the percentage of crimes whites commit has no effect on the actual number of crimes being committed. I asked about the percentage. Let's go back to apples, since you seem to like them as an example. If there are 100 apples, and whites have 70 of them, they have 70% of the apples. If I ask what an appropriate percentage of apples for whites to have is, and you say 0, there are still 100 apples, whites just don't have any of them.

Of course if whites stopped committing crimes it would lower the total number of crimes significantly, which would be good. That wasn't the question. I didn't ask how many crimes whites should commit, but what percentage of crimes committed should appropriately be done by whites.

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

You are still not understanding. The comment that I responded to involved whether whites committing 69% of crimes was an acceptable number. Would it be acceptable if whites committed 50% of crimes? Would it be acceptable if whites committed 40%? Those questions don't specify the number of total crimes, just the percentage of those crimes committed by whites. If there are 2 million crimes, what is a reasonable percentage to have been committed by whites? What about if there are 1 million crimes? 100,000? Does the percentage which is acceptable change depending on the total number of crimes, and if so, how?

In other words, why is 69% too much? Not why is 3.5 million crimes committed by whites too much, but why is 69% of the total too much.

Youre still not understanding and I know you are a bright person. Its not difficult.

Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime.

I didn't ask the question of you, I asked it of IM2. He was the one who implied that whites committing 70% of crimes was too much. You then responded with something about whites committing less than 28% of crime, followed by 0% being optimal.

The idea that whites will commit 0 crimes is clearly not something that will actually happen. Nor is it really answering the question, unless you think it is perfectly acceptable for minorities to commit 100% of crime in the country. The question assumes that crimes are being committed (as they always have been and likely always will be). I don't know if you're just messing with me, but assuming people continue to commit crimes, what percentage of those crimes being committed by whites would be acceptable?

 

[gallantwarrior]

OP says it's not racist to point out certain statistics about Blacks committing crime. Sounds racist to me. He went shopping for statistics that made Blacks look way more dangerous than whites and he just couldn't wait to spread the word that when you see blacks, better be on your guard cuz they're really dangerous people.

So start your own thread about white crime statistics.

 

[gallantwarrior]

And 70 is greater then 12 dumb ass.

Good job! Now youre starting to get it. The higher the number the more crimes. Whites commit 69% of the crime and Blacks only 28%

once again SIMPLE math for you the ignoramus.There are 6 times as many whites as blacks in order for the whites to commit as much crime as the blacks do the percent must be 6 times what black rates are.

No. Simple math is the fact that 69% of the total crimes are commited by whites. 69 is more than 28 in every counting system I have encountered including decimal, binary, hexidecimal and even the 27 base counting system in New Guinea called Oksapmin

And again you ignore facts. 68 percent of 70 percent is less then 28 percent of 12 percent. Of every 100 crimes committed 28 are committed by 12 percent of the population. That is 3 times as many as the percent of the population that commits them. And yes that means that whites need to commit 3 times more crimes to be equal to black crime rates.

Correct. I am ignoring irrelevant data. I said whites commit the most crime. 69% of the crime is way more than 28% of the crime. Why would I care if 68% is less than 70%? Thats not the data that I looked at to see that whites commit the vast majority of the crime here in the US. The point is that 69 is way larger than 28

'cause acknowledging the relative percentage of crime vs. population would totally destroy your racist narrative.

 

[Asclepias]

True. I think criminality for whites is directly attributable to either genetics or philosophy. Whites come from a land of scares resources. Blacks come from a land of plenty. When you lack (resources, melanin, positive philosophy etc) you are prone to crime and violence. At some point it becomes a genetic thing passed down like skin color. What else would make an already wealthy white person scam others out of billions? What would make whites lie about not stealing more NA land treaty after treaty? What would make whites commit criminal acts to keep Blacks from voting? They cant help it because its ingrained in their DNA or philosophy.

That makes no sense. If whites stopped committing 69% of the crime then that crime is gone from total crime. Does this make sense to you or are you claiming that other races will pick up the slack?

Apples are analogous to crime. If whites have no crime then 69 of the 100 apples are no longer there.

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

You are still not understanding. The comment that I responded to involved whether whites committing 69% of crimes was an acceptable number. Would it be acceptable if whites committed 50% of crimes? Would it be acceptable if whites committed 40%? Those questions don't specify the number of total crimes, just the percentage of those crimes committed by whites. If there are 2 million crimes, what is a reasonable percentage to have been committed by whites? What about if there are 1 million crimes? 100,000? Does the percentage which is acceptable change depending on the total number of crimes, and if so, how?

In other words, why is 69% too much? Not why is 3.5 million crimes committed by whites too much, but why is 69% of the total too much.

Youre still not understanding and I know you are a bright person. Its not difficult.

Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime.

I didn't ask the question of you, I asked it of IM2. He was the one who implied that whites committing 70% of crimes was too much. You then responded with something about whites committing less than 28% of crime, followed by 0% being optimal.

The idea that whites will commit 0 crimes is clearly not something that will actually happen. Nor is it really answering the question, unless you think it is perfectly acceptable for minorities to commit 100% of crime in the country. The question assumes that crimes are being committed (as they always have been and likely always will be). I don't know if you're just messing with me, but assuming people continue to commit crimes, what percentage of those crimes being committed by whites would be acceptable?

Post #313 was in reply to me.

It is NOT racism

You asked me this.....

"I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit."

My answer was 0.

 

[Asclepias]

Good job! Now youre starting to get it. The higher the number the more crimes. Whites commit 69% of the crime and Blacks only 28%

once again SIMPLE math for you the ignoramus.There are 6 times as many whites as blacks in order for the whites to commit as much crime as the blacks do the percent must be 6 times what black rates are.

No. Simple math is the fact that 69% of the total crimes are commited by whites. 69 is more than 28 in every counting system I have encountered including decimal, binary, hexidecimal and even the 27 base counting system in New Guinea called Oksapmin

And again you ignore facts. 68 percent of 70 percent is less then 28 percent of 12 percent. Of every 100 crimes committed 28 are committed by 12 percent of the population. That is 3 times as many as the percent of the population that commits them. And yes that means that whites need to commit 3 times more crimes to be equal to black crime rates.

Correct. I am ignoring irrelevant data. I said whites commit the most crime. 69% of the crime is way more than 28% of the crime. Why would I care if 68% is less than 70%? Thats not the data that I looked at to see that whites commit the vast majority of the crime here in the US. The point is that 69 is way larger than 28

'cause acknowledging the relative percentage of crime vs. population would totally destroy your racist narrative.

Actually it wouldnt because you cant prove shit with per capita except that you are hoping that every Black person contributed to the total number crime Blacks committed. Like I said it could be 5 Blacks out of a thousand committing the crimes. Per capita does not account for that. The only thing we know for sure is that whites commit the vast majority of crime. Of that there is zero doubt.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It is not racist to point out that 12 percent of the US population is black yet 50 percent of all murders are committed by blacks, nor is it racist to note that in all categories of violent crime blacks account for 30 percent or more of those criminals.Further it is NOT racist to point out that black communities do NOT care and do nothing to help themselves from this rampant crime. In fact they complain when the cops are forced to shoot a black criminal while he is committing a crime.

O dear,O dear...So you take NO responsibility for your historic and horrific treatment of Black people...From slavery to lynching to degredation to pauperism to exclusion to TOTAL RACISM....just sell them a Gun and then EXECUTE THEM

YOU ARE COMPLETE MORONS...YOU COMPLAIN BUT YOU GET WHAT YOU SOW...IT IS ALL TO DO WITH RACISM,You stupid White reggiN.........NOW YOU GITIT

Don't you have some aboriginals to beat down or something? Liberals cannot stand to be told the truth about blacks and crime and that is a fact.

Coming out of your ARSEHOLE THAT COMMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CREDIT IT'S DUE,SO OPEN YOU RACIST BIG MOUTH>>>SO THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN FREELY, PISS DOWN YOUR THROAT....Ladies and Gentlemen on the Board I do apologise,but THE UNEDUCATED MIKE FROM TEXAS has been Trolling Me for months,and his side kick the simpleton Sunni Man,..personally it 's all Shit Off A Ducks Back...but I do like to EXPOSE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME...HE IS UNCOUTH AND ONLY UNDERSTANDS CRUDITY

Hey, Steve, good to see you're back. Same old, same old. When you comin' to Alaska?

 

[gallantwarrior]

every person in the 12 percent group has over 2 apples every person in the 70 percent has less then one.

Ok thats fine. Which group still has the most apples?

Per capita the 12 percent one dumb ass.

Nope. the 70% have more apples dummy. You failed simple math again.

Nope in reality the 12 percent have over 2 apples which is more then less then one apple each of the 70 percent have.

No. You sound like like a retard.

Lets break it down. 1f 12 people out of 100 have 2 apples each thats only 24 apples total. If 70 out of 100 people have 1 or even half an apple thats 70 or 35 total apples respectively which is more than 24 in both cases right?

Uuummm...you really should take a class on statistics. Really.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, if you want to use the same sort of arguments that anti-black racists use, have at it.

Again, I asked about what an appropriate percentage of whites committing crime would be, not about the number of crimes. It makes perfect sense. If whites commit 69% of crimes, and that is for some reason a problem, what would be a percentage of crimes that whites commit that would be appropriate? I didn't ask how many fewer crimes should be committed overall, or how many fewer whites should commit crimes, just what percentage of overall crimes being committed by whites is appropriate. If whites committed 50% of all crimes (while still being 60-75% of the population, depending on the numbers you are using) would that be appropriate? Is it appropriate for other races to commit a higher percentage of crimes than their percentage of the total population?

To once again give you an example, if there were 100 crimes committed in the US last year, and whites committed 69 of them, apparently that's a problem. So I'm asking, if there are 100 crimes committed, how many would it be acceptable for whites to have committed? Of course if you just get rid of 69 out of 100 crimes, that's good. I'm not asking that, though, because that isn't what I was replying to. I replied to a comment about whites committing 69% of crimes not being acceptable.

Again that doesnt make any sense. In order to commit a percentage of crimes whites would have to commit a specific number of crimes which would be a subset of the total crimes. I mean how can there not be a numerical value of total crimes committed yet whites still commit 69% of crimes? Its mathematically impossible to separate the 2 values. Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime. That would be appropriate/acceptable to me in congruence with the reasons I already gave.

You are still not understanding. The comment that I responded to involved whether whites committing 69% of crimes was an acceptable number. Would it be acceptable if whites committed 50% of crimes? Would it be acceptable if whites committed 40%? Those questions don't specify the number of total crimes, just the percentage of those crimes committed by whites. If there are 2 million crimes, what is a reasonable percentage to have been committed by whites? What about if there are 1 million crimes? 100,000? Does the percentage which is acceptable change depending on the total number of crimes, and if so, how?

In other words, why is 69% too much? Not why is 3.5 million crimes committed by whites too much, but why is 69% of the total too much.

Youre still not understanding and I know you are a bright person. Its not difficult.

Like I said when you first asked me the question my answer was that whites should commit 0 crime. That would correlate to 0% of the crime.

I didn't ask the question of you, I asked it of IM2. He was the one who implied that whites committing 70% of crimes was too much. You then responded with something about whites committing less than 28% of crime, followed by 0% being optimal.

The idea that whites will commit 0 crimes is clearly not something that will actually happen. Nor is it really answering the question, unless you think it is perfectly acceptable for minorities to commit 100% of crime in the country. The question assumes that crimes are being committed (as they always have been and likely always will be). I don't know if you're just messing with me, but assuming people continue to commit crimes, what percentage of those crimes being committed by whites would be acceptable?

Post #313 was in reply to me.

It is NOT racism

You asked me this.....

"I asked what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit."

My answer was 0.

Your link didn't take me anywhere near post #313.

Yes, I did ask what percentage of crimes is appropriate for whites to commit. That question was first asked to IM2, in response to a post he made implying 70% was too much. That was post #280. Here, I'll post it for you:

If we go by your simple minded assessment you are saying it's fine for whites to commit 70 percent of the crimes.

I responded to that asking what percentage of whites committing crimes would be appropriate, in post #288. You then got involved in your reply in post #289.

 

[Asclepias]

Ok thats fine. Which group still has the most apples?

Per capita the 12 percent one dumb ass.

Nope. the 70% have more apples dummy. You failed simple math again.

Nope in reality the 12 percent have over 2 apples which is more then less then one apple each of the 70 percent have.

No. You sound like like a retard.

Lets break it down. 1f 12 people out of 100 have 2 apples each thats only 24 apples total. If 70 out of 100 people have 1 or even half an apple thats 70 or 35 total apples respectively which is more than 24 in both cases right?

Uuummm...you really should take a class on statistics. Really.

I aced Stats. I have no need to take it again. One of the things it teaches you is that stats are bullshit without context.

 

[Asclepias]

O dear,O dear...So you take NO responsibility for your historic and horrific treatment of Black people...From slavery to lynching to degredation to pauperism to exclusion to TOTAL RACISM....just sell them a Gun and then EXECUTE THEM

YOU ARE COMPLETE MORONS...YOU COMPLAIN BUT YOU GET WHAT YOU SOW...IT IS ALL TO DO WITH RACISM,You stupid White reggiN.........NOW YOU GITIT

Don't you have some aboriginals to beat down or something? Liberals cannot stand to be told the truth about blacks and crime and that is a fact.

Coming out of your ARSEHOLE THAT COMMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CREDIT IT'S DUE,SO OPEN YOU RACIST BIG MOUTH>>>SO THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN FREELY, PISS DOWN YOUR THROAT....Ladies and Gentlemen on the Board I do apologise,but THE UNEDUCATED MIKE FROM TEXAS has been Trolling Me for months,personally it 's all Shit Off A Ducks Back...but I do like to EXPOSE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME...HE IS UNCOUTH AND ONLY UNDERSTANDS CRUDITY

Living in an English prison colony has sure ruined your manners.

Mike is right on one point we did have some English,Irish,Welsh and Scottish (Prisoners Of Mother England
BUT ONLY AFTER ALL THE POME COULD NO LONGER BE SENT TO AMERICA!!!!YOU SEE THE IDIOT MIKE,trying to Insult Australia/ns has again inadvertently INSULTED AMERICA/NS YET AGAIN..I know he does not represent Americans but Goodness "HE IS A PIECE OF WORK"...steve

Why do you live in a PENAL colony?

Why do you live in a closet?

 

[miketx]

Don't you have some aboriginals to beat down or something? Liberals cannot stand to be told the truth about blacks and crime and that is a fact.

Coming out of your ARSEHOLE THAT COMMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CREDIT IT'S DUE,SO OPEN YOU RACIST BIG MOUTH>>>SO THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN FREELY, PISS DOWN YOUR THROAT....Ladies and Gentlemen on the Board I do apologise,but THE UNEDUCATED MIKE FROM TEXAS has been Trolling Me for months,personally it 's all Shit Off A Ducks Back...but I do like to EXPOSE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME...HE IS UNCOUTH AND ONLY UNDERSTANDS CRUDITY

Living in an English prison colony has sure ruined your manners.

Mike is right on one point we did have some English,Irish,Welsh and Scottish (Prisoners Of Mother England
BUT ONLY AFTER ALL THE POME COULD NO LONGER BE SENT TO AMERICA!!!!YOU SEE THE IDIOT MIKE,trying to Insult Australia/ns has again inadvertently INSULTED AMERICA/NS YET AGAIN..I know he does not represent Americans but Goodness "HE IS A PIECE OF WORK"...steve

Why do you live in a PENAL colony?

Why do you live in a closet?

'Cause you was kangz.

 

[Asclepias]

Coming out of your ARSEHOLE THAT COMMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CREDIT IT'S DUE,SO OPEN YOU RACIST BIG MOUTH>>>SO THAT ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN FREELY, PISS DOWN YOUR THROAT....Ladies and Gentlemen on the Board I do apologise,but THE UNEDUCATED MIKE FROM TEXAS has been Trolling Me for months,personally it 's all Shit Off A Ducks Back...but I do like to EXPOSE HIM FROM TIME TO TIME...HE IS UNCOUTH AND ONLY UNDERSTANDS CRUDITY

Living in an English prison colony has sure ruined your manners.

Mike is right on one point we did have some English,Irish,Welsh and Scottish (Prisoners Of Mother England
BUT ONLY AFTER ALL THE POME COULD NO LONGER BE SENT TO AMERICA!!!!YOU SEE THE IDIOT MIKE,trying to Insult Australia/ns has again inadvertently INSULTED AMERICA/NS YET AGAIN..I know he does not represent Americans but Goodness "HE IS A PIECE OF WORK"...steve

Why do you live in a PENAL colony?

Why do you live in a closet?

'Cause you was kangz.

Cause you a closet homosexual.

 

[gallantwarrior]

how come the Asians today are not treated the same way--if the whites are so racist!!??

You sound like an idiot. Whites have always been racist towards Asians.

You have odiously not worked with Asians. Talk about racist! Oh, not to mention how they treat women...

 

[Asclepias]

how come the Asians today are not treated the same way--if the whites are so racist!!??

You sound like an idiot. Whites have always been racist towards Asians.

You have odiously not worked with Asians. Talk about racist! Oh, not to mention how they treat women...

I've worked with lots of Asians. I have Asians as part of my family too. I know some are racist but not all are

 

[harmonica]

OP says it's not racist to point out certain statistics about Blacks committing crime. Sounds racist to me. He went shopping for statistics that made Blacks look way more dangerous than whites and he just couldn't wait to spread the word that when you see blacks, better be on your guard cuz they're really dangerous people.

So start your own thread about white crime statistics.

jasonfree sounds like he is blinded by hate of whties/racism
you don't have to go shopping for statistics
they are just FACTS/TRUTH
blacks commit murder at over 4 times the rate of whites
hate crimes at over twice the rate
rape at over twice the rate
crime much higher
at one time they committed murder at over EIGHT times the rate
blacks ARE more violent/dangerous --the facts show this

 

[MizMolly]

Whites do not commit the more violent crimes. I would rather have someone steal my apple than shoot me for that apple.

Whites absolutely commit more violent crimes. You have way more chance of getting shot by a white person for your apple than a Black person.

Whites committed almost 4k murders. Mostly other whites.

They committed nearly 9k rapes. Mostly against other whites.

You need more?

Not in my area. And again, per capita does matter.

Unless you live in a Black area the facts are that you are more likely to be killed by a white person.

Per capita only matters to excuse white criminality. Its a bogus stat that doesnt mean anything because the most important data that should be considered is not tracked.

I don't excuse any criminals. All crimes are wrong and violent crimes are unforgivable. I turn on the news or read the paper, most of the violent criminals where I live are NOT white.

 

[Montrovant]

how come the Asians today are not treated the same way--if the whites are so racist!!??

You sound like an idiot. Whites have always been racist towards Asians.

You have odiously not worked with Asians. Talk about racist! Oh, not to mention how they treat women...

I've worked with lots of Asians. I have Asians as part of my family too. I know some are racist but not all are

Which is true of any race of people.

 

[Coyote]

It's not a fact, though, is it?

Blacks killing other blacks is considered normal in most major cities. ...

Normal to the point that they don't even blink an eye. Imagine if they raised as much hell about blacks shooting other blacks as they do about a police officer executing his/her duty (regardless of race).

What makes you think they don’t?

Why Don't Black People Protest 'Black-on-Black Violence'? - The Atlantic

Anti-violence protesters shut down part of Chicago freeway
Chicagoans Actually DO Protest Violence In Their Communities All The Time