The fallacy of black unwed births

[IM2]

CDC: 40%+ of U.S. Babies Born to Unmarried Women for 8th Straight Year

Of the 3,977,745 babies born in the United States of America in 2015, 1,600,208 of them—or 40.2 percent--were born to unmarried mothers, according to data released this month by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

"CDC: 40%+ of U.S. Babies Born to Unmarried Women for 8th Straight Year"

In 2015 there were just over 415,000 babies born to unwed black moms. There were 3,977,745 babies born over all. So the percentage of unwed black babies born as a percentage of all babies was approximately 10,4 percent. Blacks had just over 500,000 babies total. Whites had over 1.9 million total and over 600,000 babies born to unwed moms or about 16 percent of all unwed births as a percentage of all births.

Table I–4. Births to unmarried women, by race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, each state and territory, 2015, National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 66, Number 1 ... - CDC

The reality of this information shows that whites actually had more unwed children than blacks had children. In 2015 blacks had just over 500,000 children total. Whites had over 620,000 unwed births. Now I'm sure the mathematical "geniuses" around here will try talking their usual trash, but the facts are as they are. The unwed birth percentage of blacks as opposed to the total number of births was just over 10 percent. By both number and percentage whites had more unwed births. Now you can argue the usual dumb white supremacist argument based only on the number of total black babies born and back babies born out of wedlock, but that paints a false picture and that's the picture whites gave been painting for 400 years.

The math here is SO embarrassing wrong. It can only be meant as propaganda for a "Black Studies" class. No other part of University could stop laughing at

In 2015 there were just over 415,000 babies born to unwed black moms. There were 3,977,745 babies born over all. So the percentage of unwed black babies born as a percentage of all babies was approximately 10,4 percent. Blacks had just over 500,000 babies total. Whites had over 1.9 million total and over 600,000 babies born to unwed moms or about 16 percent of all unwed births as a percentage of all births.

I can't waste time reading thru this thread to see if anyone else has pointed out the DISHONESTY or lack of math/statistic knowledge. Last time I did that -- you accused me of using "White math"

Do you realize how easy and dishonest it is to LIE with statistics? There's a book right on shelf behind me called "how to lie with statistics". It's sometimes assigned as required reading for 200 level college stat courses.

Simple deception. If you're trying to prove that Black unwed mother problem is no greater or less than than any other racial group --- you would NEVER compare the number of black unwed births or yellow or white unwed births to the "TOTAL NUMBER OF BIRTHS. That cancels out the GROUP RATE of unwed births.

You would compare EACH to the TOTAL within that group.. For Blacks -- according to your numbers that RATE within the Black cohort is 415,000/500,000 or a WHOPPING 83%...

You can stop right there. Because I seriously doubt that any other group is that incredibly high. And that's where you KILLED your thread. Right in the old OP...

If you really wanted to HELP your cause, you'd accept that dire warning and figure out to reduce it.. Or otherwise explain it away. Don't be caught promoting lying with statistics.

White people once concluded that the world was flat facaltenn. When the guy said it was not people like you told him he was in error.
.
I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births. I also restated because you lower intelligence whites decided to take the statement of just over 500,000 to mean exactly 500,000 to 593,000 which reflected the percentage of out of black out of wedlock births compared only to all black births.. Since all you white big mouths want to make cultural assessments, we compare he number to all other cultures in America and against the overall total of births.

You see flacaltenn all you racists do is look for anything to try discounting any argument that does not continue to validate your racist beliefs. When blacks had a more white acceptable rate of unwed births our poverty percentage was more than double what it is now so this dire warning you talk about is based on what? Why do we have this supposedly high rate which is supposed to create poverty but 75 percent of all blacks live above poverty? Why was it when we had a lower percentage was poverty over 50 percent? Can you answer that? No.

The people here who don't hold the view that for blacks to do better they must move out of black communities into small all white towns understand what has been presented. Their opinions are all that matter to me. The numbers show the truth. Out of wedlock births by blacks were 10 prcent of all births. Out of wedlock births by blacks were 25 percent of all out of wedlock births. Give me a dire warning when black out of wedlock births are either 70 percent of all births or 70 percent of all out of wedlock births Blacks unwed births have been reduced over the past 30-40 years while whites have gone up. Fewer black married women are having children something those like you can't seem to get would create such a percentage but I am to heed some warnings given by a bunch of white racist idiots...Whites had more unwed births than we had births, concentrate on fixing that. You won't do that, but I'm sure you'll have an excuse.

 

[IM2]

supi

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US, makes me wonder what the point of this thread IS.

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US,

Whites are not less than 50% of the population of the US.

I understand that they are, that's debatable. Either way whites overall birthrates are in decline. Blacks birthrates are on the rise. demographics are changing and that's why there is so much more focus on black culture now than even five years ago. So what IS this point of this thread, anyway?

Black birth rates are not on the rise.

Toddsterpatriot
It's clear to me IM2 means
the RATE that matters is BASED on the TOTAL.
No, that does not mean they are the same.
It means you use the TOTAL in order to calculate the RATE.
So that's why the TOTAL matters.
???
Isn't that clear?

It's clear to me IM2 means
the RATE that matters is BASED on the TOTAL.

But he doesn't.

It means you use the TOTAL in order to calculate the RATE.
So that's why the TOTAL matters.

No one has said the total doesn't matter.
He has said the rate doesn't matter.

​

Toddsterpatriot

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

"Everywhere. The only rate that counts is the total."
[emphasis/underline added]

TP from your response, perhaps you read this as
the only "rate" that counts is the total.

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

That's not a rate, that's a total. You understand the difference?

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

I was being accurate, he was being stupid.​

No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know what rate means

You're lying.

I don't dismiss totals to use rate as an excuse deny and perpetuate a false racist belief.

Racist belief?
White rates of unwed births are a big problem.
They'll lead to higher drop out rates, higher crime rates and higher poverty rates.

Higher black rates of unwed births are an even bigger problem.
They'll lead to higher drop out rates, higher crime rates and higher poverty rates.​

Then why has the national crime rate been plummeting for decades.

Crime has been plummeting because criminals have been incarcerated.
Hard to commit crimes against the public when you're behind bars.

It would be interesting to see the data on criminal households.
How many were raised in 2 parent families versus single parent households.............

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too. Due process is still applicable and adjudication is inevitable and reportable. See how ignorant you are?
Do you know how mantly black households there are? Keep in mind that 75% of blacks live above the poverty line while you are mulling over the data.

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too.

Still fewer chances to commit them behind bars.

How would you know?

Hard to commit burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, larceny, among other things, when you're in jail.

 

[IM2]

Then why has the national crime rate been plummeting for decades.

Crime has been plummeting because criminals have been incarcerated.
Hard to commit crimes against the public when you're behind bars.

It would be interesting to see the data on criminal households.
How many were raised in 2 parent families versus single parent households.............

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too. Due process is still applicable and adjudication is inevitable and reportable. See how ignorant you are?
Do you know how mantly black households there are? Keep in mind that 75% of blacks live above the poverty line while you are mulling over the data.

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too.

Still fewer chances to commit them behind bars.

How would you know?

Hard to commit burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, larceny, among other things, when you're in jail.

White dudes are the kings of excuse.

 

[bgrouse]

Crime has been plummeting because criminals have been incarcerated.
Hard to commit crimes against the public when you're behind bars.

It would be interesting to see the data on criminal households.
How many were raised in 2 parent families versus single parent households.............

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too. Due process is still applicable and adjudication is inevitable and reportable. See how ignorant you are?
Do you know how mantly black households there are? Keep in mind that 75% of blacks live above the poverty line while you are mulling over the data.

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too.

Still fewer chances to commit them behind bars.

How would you know?

Hard to commit burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, larceny, among other things, when you're in jail.

White dudes are the kings of excuse.

Excuse? He's just pointing out the obvious to you.

 

[katsteve2012]

What does thinking it's a good term to use have to do with debating ability? The shitskin IM2 won't "debate" except to say he's right and we're wrong. That's the extend of his debating "abilities."

"Aprefreaka" and "shitskin" puts you on about the same level as "I'm right and you're wrong."

What choice do I have? He makes up his own statistics and refuses to back them up when asked to do so. At this point, I'm pointing and laughing at the monkey at the zoo behind the glass because there's nothing more I can do.

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

 

[IM2]

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too. Due process is still applicable and adjudication is inevitable and reportable. See how ignorant you are?
Do you know how mantly black households there are? Keep in mind that 75% of blacks live above the poverty line while you are mulling over the data.

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too.

Still fewer chances to commit them behind bars.

How would you know?

Hard to commit burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, larceny, among other things, when you're in jail.

White dudes are the kings of excuse.

Excuse? He's just pointing out the obvious to you.

White dudes are the kings of excuse.

 

[bgrouse]

"Aprefreaka" and "shitskin" puts you on about the same level as "I'm right and you're wrong."

What choice do I have? He makes up his own statistics and refuses to back them up when asked to do so. At this point, I'm pointing and laughing at the monkey at the zoo behind the glass because there's nothing more I can do.

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

Stormfront - White Nationalist Community <meta name="sitelock-site-verification" content="3053" />

Doesn't seem "shut down" to me.

 

[IM2]

What choice do I have? He makes up his own statistics and refuses to back them up when asked to do so. At this point, I'm pointing and laughing at the monkey at the zoo behind the glass because there's nothing more I can do.

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

Stormfront - White Nationalist Community <meta name="sitelock-site-verification" content="3053" />

Doesn't seem "shut down" to me.

You would know.

 

[bgrouse]

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

Stormfront - White Nationalist Community <meta name="sitelock-site-verification" content="3053" />

Doesn't seem "shut down" to me.

You would know.

Yeah, I can use the Internet reasonably well and find out. Is that beyond the capabilities of people of your race?

 

[JQPublic1]

Then why has the national crime rate been plummeting for decades.

Crime has been plummeting because criminals have been incarcerated.
Hard to commit crimes against the public when you're behind bars.

It would be interesting to see the data on criminal households.
How many were raised in 2 parent families versus single parent households.............

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too. Due process is still applicable and adjudication is inevitable and reportable. See how ignorant you are?
Do you know how mantly black households there are? Keep in mind that 75% of blacks live above the poverty line while you are mulling over the data.

Serious crimes commited behind bars are part of the data too.

Still fewer chances to commit them behind bars.

How would you know?

Hard to commit burglary, auto theft, bank robbery, larceny, among other things, when you're in jail.

But crimes such as indecent exposure to female guards; rape of any weak person, male or female; aggravated assault; murder and
even robbery happen quite frequently in prison.

 

[katsteve2012]

What choice do I have? He makes up his own statistics and refuses to back them up when asked to do so. At this point, I'm pointing and laughing at the monkey at the zoo behind the glass because there's nothing more I can do.

When someone uses statistics poorly, or does not provide evidence to back up a claim, you are forced to use idiotic racist terminology? Really?

After the hundredth time of asking for supporting evidence and reading utterly retarded crap from them (see my signature), yes!

If you are incapable of posting on a message board without using terms like "Apefreaka" or "shitskin," regardless of how many posts someone has made without supporting evidence, you have a problem.

Those "terms" are typically found on Neo Nazi and Aryan Supremacist websites, which this site is not much different from.

Since Stormfront has been shut down,
it appears that a considerable number of it's members have found their way here.

Stormfront - White Nationalist Community <meta name="sitelock-site-verification" content="3053" />

Doesn't seem "shut down" to me.

It was at one point. But since you are obviously far more informed than I am regarding them, you may be right.

 

[JQPublic1]

Blacks are American citizens. They have tried to assimilate but the larger dominant white society has resisted those efforts. But that doesn't negate the concerns over a national unwed birth rate of 40%. Logically if we think that's a bad thing that leads to crime, those 29.6% of other than black unwed births, should be of more concern than the 10.4% blacks contribute to the 40% on the whole.

The Democrat party and the acquiescence of blacks has caused the post-civil rights segregation, not whites in the name of whiteness.
Just check the countless organizations and events and museums that exist in the name of blackness and not only blacks with an American heritage. Like Obama, the offspring of an African National absentee father raised by whites but still hailed as black by self-segregating blacks.

Last time i checkef most democrats were white. But.segregation never really stopped as far as assimilation is concerned. Yes, black wealth can now be more efficiently drained by white businesses now, but; little else has really changed. Frankly, Blacks were more prosperous during American apartheid.

Does that sound strange? It shouldn't. Just listen to yourself and the answer about self segration booms like a clap of thunder. Your ilk doesn't want social and economic integration between blacks and whites. You don't want your kids going to school with nlack children. You have been socially conditioned to hate black people...and sadly...so have many American blacks too been conditioned to hate themselves. And that social order was constructed by whites from all political parties including democrats and republicans.

That’s a bullshit response. Blacks moved into my locale and I didn’t flee. Don’t lay that on me. Take it up with your segregationist Ilk.

You should flee. Not because blacks moved in but because the white town fathers will likely cut the quality of services in, or to, your neighborhood. And the price of your property will decrease compared to those in all white areas. Thats just the inevitable course of events.

I did better than flee; I circled the wagons.
That is, I moved into a mostly white left wing college town surrounded by fatherless black neighborhoods. The Democrat governor lived here and they closed a main road through town to isolate and to enhance property values and keep blacks out because they so love diversity. None of these Democrats send their kids to the local public high school because it has too much of that diversity they love. But since almost all of the families here are intact, the neighborhood is safe and the local elementary school thrives. The dems who dominate this town are either not aware of this reality or refuse to acknowledge it.

That's a nice anecdote you've constructed there. I'd rather hear or read something more tangible.

 

[Montrovant]

That's enough of this silly thread for me.

 

[emilynghiem]

supi

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US, makes me wonder what the point of this thread IS.

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US,

Whites are not less than 50% of the population of the US.

I understand that they are, that's debatable. Either way whites overall birthrates are in decline. Blacks birthrates are on the rise. demographics are changing and that's why there is so much more focus on black culture now than even five years ago. So what IS this point of this thread, anyway?

Black birth rates are not on the rise.

It's clear to me IM2 means
the RATE that matters is BASED on the TOTAL.

But he doesn't.

It means you use the TOTAL in order to calculate the RATE.
So that's why the TOTAL matters.

No one has said the total doesn't matter.
He has said the rate doesn't matter.

​

Toddsterpatriot

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

"Everywhere. The only rate that counts is the total."
[emphasis/underline added]

TP from your response, perhaps you read this as
the only "rate" that counts is the total.

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

That's not a rate, that's a total. You understand the difference?

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

I was being accurate, he was being stupid.​

No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

Dear IM2 and Toddsterpatriot
My apologies to you both for misunderstanding.
I see we are each saying 3 different things
1. Toddsterpatriot is focused on the rates
so if you compare the percent of blacks to the whole population
and then look at the percent of black unwed births to the whole population
TP is looking at RATES
2. IM2 if you are looking at the total numbers,
then that's different
3. And I'm saying you can look at both approaches,
but don't cross over from one to the other. Stick with
just that one way, either rates or totals.

IM2 let's take another example of why rates tell us something
that totals don't explain: if we only looked at totals not rates, what about the numbers of slave owners who were blacks enslaving blacks and whites enslaving black slaves.

1. by looking at RATES, then the Percent of blacks in the south over the total population of whites and blacks in the south was equivalent to the Percent of blacks who were slave business owners over the total of both whites and blacks who were slave owners. the percent was equivalent.

2. but if we only look at totals, then there were more whites in both the total population in the south and in the number of slave owners.

So that doesn't tell us as much.

The RATES show us that it was proportional.

Now IM2 I think what people are yelling about with the racial stats,
even though the black population is a smaller PERCENT of the total,
people use stats to show the black crime rate is DISPROPORTIONATE.

And that's why people insist on considering the context of
percent of total population along with the percents of either crime,
unwed births, etc etc.

Again for me IM2 I bypass this by looking at what is CAUSING the crime in the first place. the Genocidal damage by race based slavery, rape, and treating people as property instead of exercising equal ownership of property laws and govt is the key factor.

And that factor doesn't rely on how many people were affected, or percents or totals.

That factor affects people as individuals, then as generations, then collectively as an identity of whatever size you see it as.

the number or the percent of the people affected by this factor could be small or could be large, and it still affects THOSE people.

So this is where I take this "individualism" approach and make it work for those people who are affected by generational genocide, where there is NO NEED to justify or discredit either way, no need to try to use stats to explain it.

So that bypasses the need for any of these arguments on population or on totals or percents.

IM2 if people whether individuals or small groups or large are affected by generational genocide and disparity, that causes injury in and of itself.

That injury and those wounds need to be healed in order to end the vicious cycle of abuse, addiction, crime or violence or whatever else those INDIVIDUALS have suffered, either as single people or as mass groups, regardless of numbers.

You can argue totals or percents, back and forth, all day and all night.
And that doesn't heal any wounds or change the internal dynamics
that help empower people to change the symptoms that result.

Arguing about the symptoms isn't the same as healing the root
cause of injustice, oppression and injury.

So I'm okay with looking at it by either totals or rates, but not confusing
the two, and not abusing stats to divide. If people don't agree with one approach or explanation, let's find the approach that incurs change.

If totals don't work for one person, or rates don't work for another,
then duh, let's focus on what does work to change and fix problems!

Thank you Gentlemen
and sorry to you both
Toddsterpatriot and IM2
for not understanding what you were both saying

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

supi

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US,

Whites are not less than 50% of the population of the US.

I understand that they are, that's debatable. Either way whites overall birthrates are in decline. Blacks birthrates are on the rise. demographics are changing and that's why there is so much more focus on black culture now than even five years ago. So what IS this point of this thread, anyway?

Black birth rates are not on the rise.

Toddsterpatriot

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

"Everywhere. The only rate that counts is the total."
[emphasis/underline added]

TP from your response, perhaps you read this as
the only "rate" that counts is the total.

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

That's not a rate, that's a total. You understand the difference?

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

I was being accurate, he was being stupid.​

No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

Dear IM2 and Toddsterpatriot
My apologies to you both for misunderstanding.
I see we are each saying 3 different things
1. Toddsterpatriot is focused on the rates
so if you compare the percent of blacks to the whole population
and then look at the percent of black unwed births to the whole population
TP is looking at RATES
2. IM2 if you are looking at the total numbers,
then that's different
3. And I'm saying you can look at both approaches,
but don't cross over from one to the other. Stick with
just that one way, either rates or totals.

IM2 let's take another example of why rates tell us something
that totals don't explain: if we only looked at totals not rates, what about the numbers of slave owners who were blacks enslaving blacks and whites enslaving black slaves.

1. by looking at RATES, then the Percent of blacks in the south over the total population of whites and blacks in the south was equivalent to the Percent of blacks who were slave business owners over the total of both whites and blacks who were slave owners. the percent was equivalent.

2. but if we only look at totals, then there were more whites in both the total population in the south and in the number of slave owners.

So that doesn't tell us as much.

The RATES show us that it was proportional.

Now IM2 I think what people are yelling about with the racial stats,
even though the black population is a smaller PERCENT of the total,
people use stats to show the black crime rate is DISPROPORTIONATE.

And that's why people insist on considering the context of
percent of total population along with the percents of either crime,
unwed births, etc etc.

Again for me IM2 I bypass this by looking at what is CAUSING the crime in the first place. the Genocidal damage by race based slavery, rape, and treating people as property instead of exercising equal ownership of property laws and govt is the key factor.

And that factor doesn't rely on how many people were affected, or percents or totals.

That factor affects people as individuals, then as generations, then collectively as an identity of whatever size you see it as.

the number or the percent of the people affected by this factor could be small or could be large, and it still affects THOSE people.

So this is where I take this "individualism" approach and make it work for those people who are affected by generational genocide, where there is NO NEED to justify or discredit either way, no need to try to use stats to explain it.

So that bypasses the need for any of these arguments on population or on totals or percents.

IM2 if people whether individuals or small groups or large are affected by generational genocide and disparity, that causes injury in and of itself.

That injury and those wounds need to be healed in order to end the vicious cycle of abuse, addiction, crime or violence or whatever else those INDIVIDUALS have suffered, either as single people or as mass groups, regardless of numbers.

You can argue totals or percents, back and forth, all day and all night.
And that doesn't heal any wounds or change the internal dynamics
that help empower people to change the symptoms that result.

Arguing about the symptoms isn't the same as healing the root
cause of injustice, oppression and injury.

So I'm okay with looking at it by either totals or rates, but not confusing
the two, and not abusing stats to divide. If people don't agree with one approach or explanation, let's find the approach that incurs change.

If totals don't work for one person, or rates don't work for another,
then duh, let's focus on what does work to change and fix problems!

Thank you Gentlemen
and sorry to you both
Toddsterpatriot and IM2
for not understanding what you were both saying

IM2 seems to be saying the very high rate for blacks is being unfairly used to criticize blacks.
He seems to feel the criticism is unfair, because the raw number of white, unwed births is higher.
He feels the same way about crime statistics.

 

[flacaltenn]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

 

[flacaltenn]

White people once concluded that the world was flat facaltenn. When the guy said it was not people like you told him he was in error.

Don't "flat earth" me.. If the world did not use PROPER statistical methods and instead used IM2 math, EVERY scientific discipline would die tomorrow a horrible death. You wouldn't be able to design courses of medical treatment or sort nuts on a conveyor belt.

 

[impuretrash]

I did prove the back unwed birth problem is not greater or less than any other racial group and I did so by comparing the number of back births to the number of total births and total unwed births.

That DOES NOT prove the premise. I'm not wasting time educating you as to the fundamental DISHONEST USE of statistics here. Just call it "white math" and go on your merry way.. But you're SEVERELY DAMAGING your cause everytime you USE deceptive math to make your case.

You want to prove one group is LESS or MORE prone to an effect??? You use the RATIO WITHIN THOSE GROUPS and compare the numbers. Comparing them to tthe TOTAL occurences for ALL GROUPS --- proves

absolutely, positively, fucking NOTHING about the RELATIVE frequency of occurrence within any of the groups....

The only reason the black illegitimacy rate is even brought up in the first place is to try and come up with non-racist explanations for why the black crime rate is so high. IM2 does no favors to his cause by denying fatherlessness as a potential cause.

 

[IM2]

supi

The overall declining white birth rate coupled with the fact whites are now a minority in the US,

Whites are not less than 50% of the population of the US.

I understand that they are, that's debatable. Either way whites overall birthrates are in decline. Blacks birthrates are on the rise. demographics are changing and that's why there is so much more focus on black culture now than even five years ago. So what IS this point of this thread, anyway?

Black birth rates are not on the rise.

Toddsterpatriot

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

"Everywhere. The only rate that counts is the total."
[emphasis/underline added]

TP from your response, perhaps you read this as
the only "rate" that counts is the total.

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

He said "the only rate that counts is the total"
He is saying THAT's the *rate* that matters:

That's not a rate, that's a total. You understand the difference?

But he meant rate LITERALLY.
You were being sarcastic but he was being literal.

I was being accurate, he was being stupid.​

No...you are being stupid. There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country. Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not. And that IS the only one that matters .

There is a total national rate for all unwed births in this country.

There is. That's not what IM2 was talking about.

Thats a total whether you are too dense to see it or not.

He was talking about total births, not total rate.

Totals are all that count.

Dear IM2 and Toddsterpatriot
My apologies to you both for misunderstanding.
I see we are each saying 3 different things
1. Toddsterpatriot is focused on the rates
so if you compare the percent of blacks to the whole population
and then look at the percent of black unwed births to the whole population
TP is looking at RATES
2. IM2 if you are looking at the total numbers,
then that's different
3. And I'm saying you can look at both approaches,
but don't cross over from one to the other. Stick with
just that one way, either rates or totals.

IM2 let's take another example of why rates tell us something
that totals don't explain: if we only looked at totals not rates, what about the numbers of slave owners who were blacks enslaving blacks and whites enslaving black slaves.

1. by looking at RATES, then the Percent of blacks in the south over the total population of whites and blacks in the south was equivalent to the Percent of blacks who were slave business owners over the total of both whites and blacks who were slave owners. the percent was equivalent.

2. but if we only look at totals, then there were more whites in both the total population in the south and in the number of slave owners.

So that doesn't tell us as much.

The RATES show us that it was proportional.

Now IM2 I think what people are yelling about with the racial stats,
even though the black population is a smaller PERCENT of the total,
people use stats to show the black crime rate is DISPROPORTIONATE.

And that's why people insist on considering the context of
percent of total population along with the percents of either crime,
unwed births, etc etc.

Again for me IM2 I bypass this by looking at what is CAUSING the crime in the first place. the Genocidal damage by race based slavery, rape, and treating people as property instead of exercising equal ownership of property laws and govt is the key factor.

And that factor doesn't rely on how many people were affected, or percents or totals.

That factor affects people as individuals, then as generations, then collectively as an identity of whatever size you see it as.

the number or the percent of the people affected by this factor could be small or could be large, and it still affects THOSE people.

So this is where I take this "individualism" approach and make it work for those people who are affected by generational genocide, where there is NO NEED to justify or discredit either way, no need to try to use stats to explain it.

So that bypasses the need for any of these arguments on population or on totals or percents.

IM2 if people whether individuals or small groups or large are affected by generational genocide and disparity, that causes injury in and of itself.

That injury and those wounds need to be healed in order to end the vicious cycle of abuse, addiction, crime or violence or whatever else those INDIVIDUALS have suffered, either as single people or as mass groups, regardless of numbers.

You can argue totals or percents, back and forth, all day and all night.
And that doesn't heal any wounds or change the internal dynamics
that help empower people to change the symptoms that result.

Arguing about the symptoms isn't the same as healing the root
cause of injustice, oppression and injury.

So I'm okay with looking at it by either totals or rates, but not confusing
the two, and not abusing stats to divide. If people don't agree with one approach or explanation, let's find the approach that incurs change.

If totals don't work for one person, or rates don't work for another,
then duh, let's focus on what does work to change and fix problems!

Thank you Gentlemen
and sorry to you both
Toddsterpatriot and IM2
for not understanding what you were both saying

Emily they only use the argument of proportion to suit the need to claim white supremacy. There are a lot of things we face disproportionately these people will call excuses. So please stop trying to explain to me their side. All you do is justify their racism when you do this. You are not helping anyone by doing this.

So let me provide you an example. There are more whites who get shot by police. Yet by rate more blacks do. When we argue about that, rate is not considered. So it's apparent what's going on. You can participate in the white racism here or you can oppose it, there is no middle ground.