The difference

[MizMolly]

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

That's kind of a whitewash.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference is you dont see most whites defending white rioters

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Why don't they leave the ghettos then? Do they not want to live in safer places where the local govts actually SERVE their citizens? What's the attraction to living segregated and in fear?

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

Why don't they leave the ghettos then? Do they not want to live in safer places where the local govts actually SERVE their citizens? What's the attraction to living segregated and in fear?

A stupid question. Where are they going to live? Small all white towns where the local government hates them? Why is it that white communities get served in these cities? And I'm talking about republican cities too. Or is that beyond the limited comprehension of you idiot right wingers?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

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

That's kind of a whitewash.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Are you suggesting we suspend the legal process and just summarily fire or punish every cop who shoots a black man?

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

1.) I didn't say they didn't have the right to protest, they have every right to do so. My problem is the reason why they did.
2.) They weren't just protesting, they were trying to stop the speaker from speaking.
3.) If they didn't want to hear the speech, they simply didn't have to go.
4.) The only thing the university is obligated to do with tuition money is to provide the education the student paid for. The speakers that the school chooses to host is none of their damn business.

 

[IM2]

That's kind of a whitewash.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Are you suggesting we suspend the legal process and just summarily fire or punish every cop who shoots a black man?

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

1.) I didn't say they didn't have the right to protest, they have every right to do so. My problem is the reason why they did.
2.) They weren't just protesting, they were trying to stop the speaker from speaking.
3.) If they didn't want to hear the speech, they simply didn't have to go.
4.) The only thing the university is obligated to do with tuition money is to provide the education the student paid for. The speakers that the school chooses to host is none of their damn business.

Why do you think you get to ask such dumb ass questions? Read the posts and think before you ask me another question.

As to your second part, you would be fine with this had the speakers been liberal. If students don't pay tuition there ain't no school.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Need to follow thru on the math then. If the entire US Murder Rate is 1 per 20,000 (e.g.) than that percentage is 0.005% -- a VERY small number of the entire population. That's why comparing ANYTHING about a murder rate to 13% is just garbage. Because blacks are only 13% of the population. That 0.005% is the OVERALL murder rate (I'd need to check that figure).

Every number you pull is suspect and needs to be inspected for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. To defend yourself against number abuse --- you have to be constantly aware of the DETAILS of every number you use.. For instance. If you go the Wiki you find these numbers.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[49][50][51]

--- **** ---- Flacaltenn -- NOTE this is not number of MURDERS -- this is number of OFFENDERS. The number of actual lives TAKEN is NOT part of these numbers.Would have different results. That's what I mean about INTERPRETING every number carefully.. ---- **** -----

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%[52][53]

So the 4,379 is not much different than the number you used and threw at me for another year.. We learn that the TOTAL number of arrested homicide cases was 8536 for ALL offenders in 2013 (4379/0.513) . Since these numbers are just for homicide arrests, NOT MURDERS, the overall US rate in rate in 2013 using 315Mill as the full population was 0.0027%.. So to compare by race, any race having higher percentage of murderers charged is OVER-REPRESENTED. Any race having a lower percentage of murderers charged is UNDER-REPRESENTED.

By glancing at the numbers above we already KNOW that Blacks are WAY over-represented because they are 13% of the population but comprise 51% of the persons charged. So how do the rates work out when you calculate the percentage by population..

Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[52][54]

Remember the rate of homicide arrests for the WHOLE population was a tiny 0.0027% and that any subset with a LARGER number is over-represented. So whites are about 1/2 as likely as the general population to be arrested for homicide (0,0014/0.0027) and blacks are more than 3.5 times MORE likely (0,0102/0.0027) to be arrested for homicide then the average for the WHOLE population and more than 7 times more likely (0.0102/0.0014) to be arrested for homicide than whites.

This is the only way to compare the carnage by racial rates.. And this is not rigorous. Depends on what question you ask and what the numbers actually are. If you used murders instead of arrests, the number would be slightly different. Or even if you used CONVICTIONS rather arrests -- the numbers would be slightly different still. Always ASK what the numbers actually are.

 

[IM2]

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

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

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

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Need to follow thru on the math then. If the entire US Murder Rate is 1 per 20,000 (e.g.) than that percentage is 0.005% -- a VERY small number of the entire population. That's why comparing ANYTHING about a murder rate to 13% is just garbage. Because blacks are only 13% of the population. That 0.005% is the OVERALL murder rate (I'd need to check that figure).

Every number you pull is suspect and needs to be inspected for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. To defend yourself against number abuse --- you have to be constantly aware of the DETAILS of every number you use.. For instance. If you go the Wiki you find these numbers.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[49][50][51]

--- **** ---- Flacaltenn -- NOTE this is not number of MURDERS -- this is number of OFFENDERS. The number of actual lives TAKEN is NOT part of these numbers.Would have different results. That's what I mean about INTERPRETING every number carefully.. ---- **** -----

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%[52][53]

So the 4,379 is not much different than the number you used and threw at me for another year.. We learn that the TOTAL number of arrested homicide cases was 8536 for ALL offenders in 2013 (4379/0.513) . Since these numbers are just for homicide arrests, NOT MURDERS, the overall US rate in rate in 2013 using 315Mill as the full population was 0.0027%.. So to compare by race, any race having higher percentage of murderers charged is OVER-REPRESENTED. Any race having a lower percentage of murderers charged is UNDER-REPRESENTED.

By glancing at the numbers above we already KNOW that Blacks are WAY over-represented because they are 13% of the population but comprise 51% of the persons charged. So how do the rates work out when you calculate the percentage by population..

Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[52][54]

Remember the rate of homicide arrests for the WHOLE population was a tiny 0.0027% and that any subset with a LARGER number is over-represented. So whites are about 1/2 as likely as the general population to be arrested for homicide (0,0014/0.0027) and blacks are more than 3.5 times MORE likely (0,0102/0.0027) to be arrested for homicide then the average for the WHOLE population and more than 7 times more likely (0.0102/0.0014) to be arrested for homicide than whites.

This is the only way to compare the carnage by racial rates.. And this is not rigorous. Depends on what question you ask and what the numbers actually are. If you used murders instead of arrests, the number would be slightly different. Or even if you used CONVICTIONS rather arrests -- the numbers would be slightly different still. Always ASK what the numbers actually are.

I used 2016 stats. Not 2013. Your numbers are wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

.

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Need to follow thru on the math then. If the entire US Murder Rate is 1 per 20,000 (e.g.) than that percentage is 0.005% -- a VERY small number of the entire population. That's why comparing ANYTHING about a murder rate to 13% is just garbage. Because blacks are only 13% of the population. That 0.005% is the OVERALL murder rate (I'd need to check that figure).

Every number you pull is suspect and needs to be inspected for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. To defend yourself against number abuse --- you have to be constantly aware of the DETAILS of every number you use.. For instance. If you go the Wiki you find these numbers.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[49][50][51]

--- **** ---- Flacaltenn -- NOTE this is not number of MURDERS -- this is number of OFFENDERS. The number of actual lives TAKEN is NOT part of these numbers.Would have different results. That's what I mean about INTERPRETING every number carefully.. ---- **** -----

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%[52][53]

So the 4,379 is not much different than the number you used and threw at me for another year.. We learn that the TOTAL number of arrested homicide cases was 8536 for ALL offenders in 2013 (4379/0.513) . Since these numbers are just for homicide arrests, NOT MURDERS, the overall US rate in rate in 2013 using 315Mill as the full population was 0.0027%.. So to compare by race, any race having higher percentage of murderers charged is OVER-REPRESENTED. Any race having a lower percentage of murderers charged is UNDER-REPRESENTED.

By glancing at the numbers above we already KNOW that Blacks are WAY over-represented because they are 13% of the population but comprise 51% of the persons charged. So how do the rates work out when you calculate the percentage by population..

Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[52][54]

Remember the rate of homicide arrests for the WHOLE population was a tiny 0.0027% and that any subset with a LARGER number is over-represented. So whites are about 1/2 as likely as the general population to be arrested for homicide (0,0014/0.0027) and blacks are more than 3.5 times MORE likely (0,0102/0.0027) to be arrested for homicide then the average for the WHOLE population and more than 7 times more likely (0.0102/0.0014) to be arrested for homicide than whites.

This is the only way to compare the carnage by racial rates.. And this is not rigorous. Depends on what question you ask and what the numbers actually are. If you used murders instead of arrests, the number would be slightly different. Or even if you used CONVICTIONS rather arrests -- the numbers would be slightly different still. Always ASK what the numbers actually are.

I used 2016 stats. Not 2013. Your numbers are wrong.

The PROCESS I showed you IS CORRECT for ANY year you want to do it. And the numbers in the Wiki are footnoted. So go find out where they came from and tell me that they are junk. I highly DOUBT they are inaccurate for that year.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Are you suggesting we suspend the legal process and just summarily fire or punish every cop who shoots a black man?

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

1.) I didn't say they didn't have the right to protest, they have every right to do so. My problem is the reason why they did.
2.) They weren't just protesting, they were trying to stop the speaker from speaking.
3.) If they didn't want to hear the speech, they simply didn't have to go.
4.) The only thing the university is obligated to do with tuition money is to provide the education the student paid for. The speakers that the school chooses to host is none of their damn business.

Why do you think you get to ask such dumb ass questions? Read the posts and think before you ask me another question.

As to your second part, you would be fine with this had the speakers been liberal. If students don't pay tuition there ain't no school.

The Award For Idiot Of The Month Goes To...

 

[flacaltenn]

You couldn't even have READ my post that fast. You're not kiddin nobody..

 

[flacaltenn]

Wiki got it's numbers from DOJ documents. You wanna argue with the DOJ.. References 49,50,51

1. "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008" (PDF). p. 3.
2. Jump up^ Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.
3. Jump up^ "Homicides Fall to Lowest Rate in Four Decades".

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry wrong references. STILL DOJ tables.

1. "Table 43". Retrieved 15 January 2017.
2. Jump up^ "Expanded Homicide Data Table 3". Retrieved 15 January 2017.

 

[IM2]

Flacaltenn, it's just this simple:

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

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

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

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

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

Need to follow thru on the math then. If the entire US Murder Rate is 1 per 20,000 (e.g.) than that percentage is 0.005% -- a VERY small number of the entire population. That's why comparing ANYTHING about a murder rate to 13% is just garbage. Because blacks are only 13% of the population. That 0.005% is the OVERALL murder rate (I'd need to check that figure).

Every number you pull is suspect and needs to be inspected for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. To defend yourself against number abuse --- you have to be constantly aware of the DETAILS of every number you use.. For instance. If you go the Wiki you find these numbers.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[49][50][51]

--- **** ---- Flacaltenn -- NOTE this is not number of MURDERS -- this is number of OFFENDERS. The number of actual lives TAKEN is NOT part of these numbers.Would have different results. That's what I mean about INTERPRETING every number carefully.. ---- **** -----

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%[52][53]

So the 4,379 is not much different than the number you used and threw at me for another year.. We learn that the TOTAL number of arrested homicide cases was 8536 for ALL offenders in 2013 (4379/0.513) . Since these numbers are just for homicide arrests, NOT MURDERS, the overall US rate in rate in 2013 using 315Mill as the full population was 0.0027%.. So to compare by race, any race having higher percentage of murderers charged is OVER-REPRESENTED. Any race having a lower percentage of murderers charged is UNDER-REPRESENTED.

By glancing at the numbers above we already KNOW that Blacks are WAY over-represented because they are 13% of the population but comprise 51% of the persons charged. So how do the rates work out when you calculate the percentage by population..

Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[52][54]

Remember the rate of homicide arrests for the WHOLE population was a tiny 0.0027% and that any subset with a LARGER number is over-represented. So whites are about 1/2 as likely as the general population to be arrested for homicide (0,0014/0.0027) and blacks are more than 3.5 times MORE likely (0,0102/0.0027) to be arrested for homicide then the average for the WHOLE population and more than 7 times more likely (0.0102/0.0014) to be arrested for homicide than whites.

This is the only way to compare the carnage by racial rates.. And this is not rigorous. Depends on what question you ask and what the numbers actually are. If you used murders instead of arrests, the number would be slightly different. Or even if you used CONVICTIONS rather arrests -- the numbers would be slightly different still. Always ASK what the numbers actually are.

I used 2016 stats. Not 2013. Your numbers are wrong.

The PROCESS I showed you IS CORRECT for ANY year you want to do it. And the numbers in the Wiki are footnoted. So go find out where they came from and tell me that they are junk. I highly DOUBT they are inaccurate for that year.

The numbers are wrong so is the process. The fact is whites commit more crimes. Your argument doesn't fly unless you want to push white supremacy.

 

[IM2]

You couldn't even have READ my post that fast. You're not kiddin nobody..

I read your post that fast. And I read it more than once.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

Need to follow thru on the math then. If the entire US Murder Rate is 1 per 20,000 (e.g.) than that percentage is 0.005% -- a VERY small number of the entire population. That's why comparing ANYTHING about a murder rate to 13% is just garbage. Because blacks are only 13% of the population. That 0.005% is the OVERALL murder rate (I'd need to check that figure).

Every number you pull is suspect and needs to be inspected for what it ACTUALLY SAYS. To defend yourself against number abuse --- you have to be constantly aware of the DETAILS of every number you use.. For instance. If you go the Wiki you find these numbers.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia


Homicide
According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of African Americans victims were killed by African Americans.[49][50][51]

--- **** ---- Flacaltenn -- NOTE this is not number of MURDERS -- this is number of OFFENDERS. The number of actual lives TAKEN is NOT part of these numbers.Would have different results. That's what I mean about INTERPRETING every number carefully.. ---- **** -----

In 2013, number and percentage of murder arrests by race were:

Black or African Americans 4,379 = 51.3%
White Americans (non-Hispanic Americans) 2,861 = 33.5%
Hispanic Americans 1,096 = 12.8%
American Indians or Alaska Natives 98 = 1.14%
Asian Americans 101 = 1.18%[52][53]

So the 4,379 is not much different than the number you used and threw at me for another year.. We learn that the TOTAL number of arrested homicide cases was 8536 for ALL offenders in 2013 (4379/0.513) . Since these numbers are just for homicide arrests, NOT MURDERS, the overall US rate in rate in 2013 using 315Mill as the full population was 0.0027%.. So to compare by race, any race having higher percentage of murderers charged is OVER-REPRESENTED. Any race having a lower percentage of murderers charged is UNDER-REPRESENTED.

By glancing at the numbers above we already KNOW that Blacks are WAY over-represented because they are 13% of the population but comprise 51% of the persons charged. So how do the rates work out when you calculate the percentage by population..

Inversely, the percentage of individuals in each racial demographic arrested for murder in 2013 (with 2016 population estimates) was:

0.0102% of Black or African American population (4,379/42,975,959)
0.0023% of American Indian or Alaska Native population (98/4,200,658)
0.0019% Hispanic American population (1,096/57,516,697)
0.0014% of White American (3,799/198,077,165)
0.001% of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander population (6/646,255)
0.0005% of Asian American population (101/18,418,268)[52][54]

Remember the rate of homicide arrests for the WHOLE population was a tiny 0.0027% and that any subset with a LARGER number is over-represented. So whites are about 1/2 as likely as the general population to be arrested for homicide (0,0014/0.0027) and blacks are more than 3.5 times MORE likely (0,0102/0.0027) to be arrested for homicide then the average for the WHOLE population and more than 7 times more likely (0.0102/0.0014) to be arrested for homicide than whites.

This is the only way to compare the carnage by racial rates.. And this is not rigorous. Depends on what question you ask and what the numbers actually are. If you used murders instead of arrests, the number would be slightly different. Or even if you used CONVICTIONS rather arrests -- the numbers would be slightly different still. Always ASK what the numbers actually are.

I used 2016 stats. Not 2013. Your numbers are wrong.

The PROCESS I showed you IS CORRECT for ANY year you want to do it. And the numbers in the Wiki are footnoted. So go find out where they came from and tell me that they are junk. I highly DOUBT they are inaccurate for that year.

The numbers are wrong so is the process. The fact is whites commit more crimes. Your argument doesn't fly unless you want to push white supremacy.

You're wrong on EVERY count. The simple numbers above show for that year -- 4380 blacks were arrested for homicide and 2860 whites were arrested for homicide. You LOSE EVEN BEFORE you take into account the numbers normalized for population size. NO math required to see that.

The REST of the math just shows how really bad the probabilities are by race for being arrested for murder. Even worse than the FACT that more blacks were arrested for murder than whites in any of those years.

That's just the beginning of the OVER-representation..

 

[IM2]

Wiki got it's numbers from DOJ documents. You wanna argue with the DOJ.. References 49,50,51

1. "Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008" (PDF). p. 3.
2. Jump up^ Cooper, Alexia (2012). Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008. p. 3. ISBN 1249573246.
3. Jump up^ "Homicides Fall to Lowest Rate in Four Decades".

ALL RISE! Class is in session.

I got my numbers from Crime in the United States, 2016 is a compilation of information reported to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program by more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. Not wiki.

The largest piece if each pie are crimes committed mostly by whites.

Your argument fails and it really is to your own INDIVIDUAL peril to continue believing this lie. You are 5 to 6 times more likely to be murdered by another white person and the numbers rise in relation to other crimes. But you would rather talk about rates of things relative to blacks and not rates of your ass getting beaten, robbed or killed by another white as opposed a black person. You are a fool.

You have trolled enough. I am going to repost the OP and if you cannot discuss that, leave.

 

[IM2]

Tim Wise: ‘White America’ does not understand the racial realities of America



Is this a racist rant?

 

[flacaltenn]

The largest piece if each pie are crimes committed mostly by whites.

The pie charts don't SAY that. Where are the numbers? If you don't accept the Wiki and the process I gave you -- I HIGHLY doubt any racial conclusions you jump to without the numbers.

 

[flacaltenn]

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_assault.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Page 11 Aggravated and Simple Assault arrest rates.. THESE are normalized rates. Blacks higher than whites. So much for your Pie Chart class.

 

[IM2]

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_assault.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Page 11 Aggravated and Simple Assault arrest rates.. THESE are normalized rates. Blacks higher than whites. So much for your Pie Chart class.

We're going back to the OP. Your post has nothing to do with it. The link has nothing to do with the 2016 report. That discussion is done. You want to continue it, start a thread.