Since percents and per capita are NOT valid?

[RetiredGySgt]

That math you dismiss describes reality.


Without it, you are just a delusional fool spouting nosense.


I made a point about unemployment, based on the "math" you have put forth in the past.


There are more whites on unemployment than blacks. By your logic, and understanding of math, that must mean that they are discriminated against.


Explain why that is not so.


You won't do that though, because doing so would also demonstrate that all those times you dismissed proportional numbers, that you were just pretending to be that stupid to avoid admitting the truth.


I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.


You can't do it.


I await your dishonest and vile dodge.

No correll it doesn't prove anything. So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge.

I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.

So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge

The unemployment stats do that already using your math and logic.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

 

[JQPublic1]

There are no black racists here. You white racists need to understand that your every defense from the fact you are the most violent criminals in this nation by number cannot be defended by per capita.

There are more unemployed white people that unemployed black people.


By your past "logic" that means that blacks are not discriminated against in hiring.

.LOL! Wrong. There continues to be proven instances of wits discriminating against blacks in employment determined by the courts

But more whites are unemployed that blacks. By your past logic, that proves that whites are the ones discriminated against.

Well. If Whites are being discriminated against it isn't blacks who are doing it.

Do you share IM2 understanding of math?

Do you share the understanding of math with those who compiled the UCR? The total cited for arrestees doesn't match when you add the racial group totals together. It's off by 10,000.
Oh...BTW that's a silly question you asked and it deserves no response. Everyone is responsible for their own math presentations.

 

[Correll]

There are more unemployed white people that unemployed black people.


By your past "logic" that means that blacks are not discriminated against in hiring.

.LOL! Wrong. There continues to be proven instances of wits discriminating against blacks in employment determined by the courts

But more whites are unemployed that blacks. By your past logic, that proves that whites are the ones discriminated against.

Well. If Whites are being discriminated against it isn't blacks who are doing it.

Do you share IM2 understanding of math?

Do you share the understanding of math with those who compiled the UCR? The total cited for arrestees doesn't match when you add the racial group totals together. It's off by 10,000.
Oh...BTW that's a silly question you asked and it deserves no response. Everyone is responsible for their own math presentations.

This thread is addressing a serous issue, the use of complete ignorance in defense and crafting of liberal policy.


It is a very serious and valid question.

Do you share IM2's odd inability to understand math, specifically proportions?


If not, would you like to take a run at explaining them to him?

 

[JQPublic1]

No it does not.

It includes all the population of a group in the measurement. There is only one way to accurately measure crime, take the number of crimes and the number of people of each race committing those crimes and leave the rest out. Per capita doesn't do that. .Do you understand fool? No. Because you don't want to. You keep lying to yourself and what you fail to understand that as long as you deny the larger problem you whites have with crime, the greater the chance is you get done by another white. So stay stupid if you want to.

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

But they don't dumb ass and actually since 70 percent of the Country is white that means the right percent of the population is doing the crime per capita. Meanwhile Blacks commit 30 percent of violent crime which is a MUCH higher percent per population then whites and we haven't even factored in the Hispanics.

Hahaha. But as a tourist from outside the country would you be more concerned about the Caucasians committing 70% of the crime?
That 30% commited by blacks would seem less frightening considering the odds.

Actually I wouldnt be worried unless I was going to one of the shit stain cities run by democrats. You know where all that black crime occurs 50 percent of all MURDERS are by blacks.

The media does seem to portray black criminality as endemic in large metropolitan counties but table 55a of the UCR seems to dispell that myth entirely.:

 

[Correll]

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

But they don't dumb ass and actually since 70 percent of the Country is white that means the right percent of the population is doing the crime per capita. Meanwhile Blacks commit 30 percent of violent crime which is a MUCH higher percent per population then whites and we haven't even factored in the Hispanics.

Hahaha. But as a tourist from outside the country would you be more concerned about the Caucasians committing 70% of the crime?
That 30% commited by blacks would seem less frightening considering the odds.

Actually I wouldnt be worried unless I was going to one of the shit stain cities run by democrats. You know where all that black crime occurs 50 percent of all MURDERS are by blacks.

The media does seem to portray black criminality as endemic in large metropolitan counties but table 55a of the UCR seems to dispell that myth entirely.:View attachment 182186

1. My God, you do share IM2's math views. So, certainly, you need to be here.


2. I like the way your image just HAPPENED to put a thick red line over the murder stats, to hide the white vs black murder numbers. But you didn't consider that the percentage column on the other side of the page tells the story. ie of blacks committing murder way beyond their portion of the population.


3. And of course, hispanics are lumped in with whites to further hide the truth.

 

[JQPublic1]

No it does not.

It includes all the population of a group in the measurement. There is only one way to accurately measure crime, take the number of crimes and the number of people of each race committing those crimes and leave the rest out. Per capita doesn't do that. .Do you understand fool? No. Because you don't want to. You keep lying to yourself and what you fail to understand that as long as you deny the larger problem you whites have with crime, the greater the chance is you get done by another white. So stay stupid if you want to.

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

But they don't dumb ass and actually since 70 percent of the Country is white that means the right percent of the population is doing the crime per capita. Meanwhile Blacks commit 30 percent of violent crime which is a MUCH higher percent per population then whites and we haven't even factored in the Hispanics.

Hahaha. But as a tourist from outside the country would you be more concerned about the Caucasians committing 70% of the crime?
That 30% commited by blacks would seem less frightening considering the odds.

As a tourist, I'd stay away from negrohoods, since that is where the criminals are concentrated. In other words, if I had to pick where to be, whether in a town of 100 whites or a town of 100 blacks (which is realistically what you'd have to do, it's not like a tourist will visit every single part of the USA), I'd pick the town with 100 whites, since it would have fewer criminals.

As a person trying to run a country, I'd want a white population, since I'd get more good citizens per bad citizen. I can live with 99 white people who have to chip in and lock up/keep imprisoned the 1 bad white. I don't know if I can run a country where 30 blacks have to lock up and keep in prison 70 blacks. I suspect I'd have a failed state, kind of like Haiti and other black countries. Too few intelligent people per capita to run a modern civilization.

So you would rather live in a a town of 100 Hells Angels rather than a town of 100 black cops?

 

[bgrouse]

It helps clue us in which race is a net drain on society: blacks.

Nag it would be whites since policies by whites actually reduced the potential his nation has.

Is that why black-run and black-populated countries have the lowest per capita GDP in the world? Because of all their wonderful policies?
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia

Go study the history and current politics of those countries then come back and ask questions.

Historically, you shitskins were living decades, often centuries behind the whites when colonization happened. Then whites colonized you and taught you a few tricks. When the whites left, your countries started to fall apart.

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

You mean like speeding? Yeah, that's a big problem! Much bigger than murder and other violent crimes in which shitskins excel!

No. Your crime problem is much larger than that white boy.Whites commit more rapes, aggravated assaults, burglaries, vandalism, arson, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, crimes against property, violent crime, forgery, counterfeiting, buying, receiving selling and possessing stolen property, illegal weapons possession, prostitution, commercialized vice, sex offenses, drug violations, drunk driving, offenses involving family and children, driving under the influence, liquor laws, drunkenness, vagrancy, curfew and loitering, and all other offenses excluding traffic, disorderly conduct and suspicion.

That's what the UCR shows and what's worse for you is that's what it shows every single year.

Whites are the majority (by a significant margin), so of course they will commit the majority of some crime. The issue is that shitskins like you commit more than what one would expect to be your share of the crime. If 100 whites commit 5 violent crimes and 1 shitskin commits 4 violent crimes, there's a bigger problem with the average shitskin than with the average white, even though the whites committed more violent crime in total.

None of this is true. Go study then come back and talk.

None of it is true? So, starting with the first line, whites are NOT the majority?

 

[bgrouse]

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

But they don't dumb ass and actually since 70 percent of the Country is white that means the right percent of the population is doing the crime per capita. Meanwhile Blacks commit 30 percent of violent crime which is a MUCH higher percent per population then whites and we haven't even factored in the Hispanics.

Hahaha. But as a tourist from outside the country would you be more concerned about the Caucasians committing 70% of the crime?
That 30% commited by blacks would seem less frightening considering the odds.

As a tourist, I'd stay away from negrohoods, since that is where the criminals are concentrated. In other words, if I had to pick where to be, whether in a town of 100 whites or a town of 100 blacks (which is realistically what you'd have to do, it's not like a tourist will visit every single part of the USA), I'd pick the town with 100 whites, since it would have fewer criminals.

As a person trying to run a country, I'd want a white population, since I'd get more good citizens per bad citizen. I can live with 99 white people who have to chip in and lock up/keep imprisoned the 1 bad white. I don't know if I can run a country where 30 blacks have to lock up and keep in prison 70 blacks. I suspect I'd have a failed state, kind of like Haiti and other black countries. Too few intelligent people per capita to run a modern civilization.

So you would rather live in a a town of 100 Hells Angels rather than a town of 100 black cops?

A town of 100 black cops? How would such a town even exist? Who would perform all the other services in this town? And given how negroes tend to have lots of felony convictions, how the hell would they become cops?

That aside, of course I'd prefer to live in a town with Barrack Obama than a town with Jeffrey Dahmer. The point you're missing is that, knowing nothing else about a neighborhood, it's safer to move into a white one, statistically speaking.

 

[bgrouse]

Per capita is the percent of the population in question in relation to the over all stat being reported on you RETARD. the black race in America is 13 percent of the total population and per capita tells us the percent of blacks that commit a set crime it does not relate to the percent of blacks until the two are compared but when 50 percent of murder is committed by blacks and only 13 percent of the population is black we have a fucking problem, a major problem. When 30 percent of violent crime is committed by 13 percent of the population we have a MAJOR problem fuckwad. Per capita tells us how many people in the population considered are doing the event reported on.

When whites commit 7 out of every ten crimes that's the problem.

But they don't dumb ass and actually since 70 percent of the Country is white that means the right percent of the population is doing the crime per capita. Meanwhile Blacks commit 30 percent of violent crime which is a MUCH higher percent per population then whites and we haven't even factored in the Hispanics.

Hahaha. But as a tourist from outside the country would you be more concerned about the Caucasians committing 70% of the crime?
That 30% commited by blacks would seem less frightening considering the odds.

Actually I wouldnt be worried unless I was going to one of the shit stain cities run by democrats. You know where all that black crime occurs 50 percent of all MURDERS are by blacks.

The media does seem to portray black criminality as endemic in large metropolitan counties but table 55a of the UCR seems to dispell that myth entirely.:View attachment 182186

Do you understand what per capita statistics are?

 

[IM2]

That math you dismiss describes reality.


Without it, you are just a delusional fool spouting nosense.


I made a point about unemployment, based on the "math" you have put forth in the past.


There are more whites on unemployment than blacks. By your logic, and understanding of math, that must mean that they are discriminated against.


Explain why that is not so.


You won't do that though, because doing so would also demonstrate that all those times you dismissed proportional numbers, that you were just pretending to be that stupid to avoid admitting the truth.


I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.


You can't do it.


I await your dishonest and vile dodge.

No correll it doesn't prove anything. So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge.

By your own words whites MUST be discriminated against since so many are unemployed. Many more then blacks Hispanics or Asians since all you use is raw numbers then this proves whites are being discriminated against..

That's exactly the logic he used to dismiss the academic study proving massive and widespread discrimination against white applicants in Ivy League admissions.


He knows if he explains something using proportional arguments, that we will throw it in his face the next time he tries to play dumb to avoid a similar point.


Thus, he CAN'T answer the question.

I can answer the question but you can't answer my question ad you've avoided dong so for 8 months.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Already answered using your math and claims the unemployment statistics PROVE whites are discriminated against since so mnay of them are unemployed.

That doesn't prove whites are discriminated against.

 

[IM2]

That math you dismiss describes reality.


Without it, you are just a delusional fool spouting nosense.


I made a point about unemployment, based on the "math" you have put forth in the past.


There are more whites on unemployment than blacks. By your logic, and understanding of math, that must mean that they are discriminated against.


Explain why that is not so.


You won't do that though, because doing so would also demonstrate that all those times you dismissed proportional numbers, that you were just pretending to be that stupid to avoid admitting the truth.


I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.


You can't do it.


I await your dishonest and vile dodge.

No correll it doesn't prove anything. So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge.

By your own words whites MUST be discriminated against since so many are unemployed. Many more then blacks Hispanics or Asians since all you use is raw numbers then this proves whites are being discriminated against..

That's exactly the logic he used to dismiss the academic study proving massive and widespread discrimination against white applicants in Ivy League admissions.


He knows if he explains something using proportional arguments, that we will throw it in his face the next time he tries to play dumb to avoid a similar point.


Thus, he CAN'T answer the question.

I can answer the question but you can't answer my question ad you've avoided dong so for 8 months.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

I answered it repeatedly as you well know.



I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.

You answered nothing.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No correll it doesn't prove anything. So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge.

By your own words whites MUST be discriminated against since so many are unemployed. Many more then blacks Hispanics or Asians since all you use is raw numbers then this proves whites are being discriminated against..

That's exactly the logic he used to dismiss the academic study proving massive and widespread discrimination against white applicants in Ivy League admissions.


He knows if he explains something using proportional arguments, that we will throw it in his face the next time he tries to play dumb to avoid a similar point.


Thus, he CAN'T answer the question.

I can answer the question but you can't answer my question ad you've avoided dong so for 8 months.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Already answered using your math and claims the unemployment statistics PROVE whites are discriminated against since so mnay of them are unemployed.

That doesn't prove whites are discriminated against.

According to YOU raw numbers are all that count and the raw numbers put more whites out of work then blacks proving that whites are discriminated against.

 

[IM2]

No correll it doesn't prove anything. So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge.

I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.

So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge

The unemployment stats do that already using your math and logic.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I repeat my challenge to you,

explain why the larger numbers of whites on unemployment does not prove anti-white discrimination in hiring.

So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge

The unemployment stats do that already using your math and logic.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

 

[IM2]

So when you can show me the national policy of racial discrimination against whites that you were asked to show starting last july, we can talk about your so called challenge

The unemployment stats do that already using your math and logic.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

Relevant because they are the most hired so they are not discriminated against.

You lost sarge.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The unemployment stats do that already using your math and logic.

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

Relevant because they are the most hired so they are not discriminated against.

You lost sarge.

WRONG the demographic of the most ( raw numbers) not HIRED is white, this means according to you, that businesses are discriminating against whites because they are NOT HIRED THE MOST ( raw Numbers) There are tons more whites without work then blacks.

 

[IM2]

Whites are numerical majorities in every category of jobs. .

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

Relevant because they are the most hired so they are not discriminated against.

You lost sarge.

WRONG the demographic of the most ( raw numbers) not HIRED is white, this means according to you, that businesses are discriminating against whites because they are NOT HIRED THE MOST ( raw Numbers) There are tons more whites without work then blacks.

Except whites are hired the most. Wow you are stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Whites are numerical majorities in unemployment and according to you ONLY raw numbers matter so that is PROOF they are discriminated against.

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

Relevant because they are the most hired so they are not discriminated against.

You lost sarge.

WRONG the demographic of the most ( raw numbers) not HIRED is white, this means according to you, that businesses are discriminating against whites because they are NOT HIRED THE MOST ( raw Numbers) There are tons more whites without work then blacks.

Except whites are hired the most. Wow you are stupid.

LOL you calling me stupid is a hoot, you can not even do 3rd grade math and do not even have the smarts to point out there are more whites then blacks in the argument.

 

[IM2]

The raw numbers show that whites are the ones who are hired the most.

Not relevant since they are discriminated against by having the highest number of unemployed.

Relevant because they are the most hired so they are not discriminated against.

You lost sarge.

WRONG the demographic of the most ( raw numbers) not HIRED is white, this means according to you, that businesses are discriminating against whites because they are NOT HIRED THE MOST ( raw Numbers) There are tons more whites without work then blacks.

Except whites are hired the most. Wow you are stupid.

LOL you calling me stupid is a hoot, you can not even do 3rd grade math and do not even have the smarts to point out there are more whites then blacks in the argument.

You are stupid. You only have one excuse for every argument you make, there are more whites than blacks. So because here are more whites than bacs whites get to murder 25,000 people to 5,000 for blacks and that's even. That is stupid. Whites get to commit 10,000 robberies if blacks commit 2 and that makes it even. That is stupid. For every crime black crime whites get to commit 5 because there are 5 times more of them. The fact whites commit almost 3 times the crime we do is not a problem because it hasn't gotten to 5 times the crime. That's stupid. You're a dumb ass sarge.

So now whites are hired the most so they are discriminated against because there are more unemployed whites.. That's stupid.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL keep proving you never passed 3rd grade math. It is hilarious.