Houston Deputy Murdered while pumping gas

[Otsego Mar]

Yeah, I've tried all manner of strains of both sativa and indica and they have no effect. I probably don't have cannaboid receptors due to genetic mutation. It is known to happen.

Is that for real?

 

[Sebastian]

Is that for real?

Yeah, I read somewhere that some people don't have CB1 or CB2 receptors or that they are greatly depressed in functionality for genetic reasons. Can't find the study at the moment but I know it is the case in a very small number of people.

 

[Chardon]

What the fuck are you guys talking about.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What cases are Alllivesmatter speaking up for? I am really curious?

Is there actually a formal organization called "All Lives Matter"? Because i've heard folks say it without (apparently) being part of an organization at all. O'Malley, for one.

 

[Otsego Mar]

What the fuck are you guys talking about.

Grown-up stuff C-Hardy....grown-up stuff.

 

[kosis]

Poor argument. If Mike Brown is an example of an unarmed African American who gets shot by the police then there should be more police shootings. The officer claimed he was going for his gun and the physical evidence showed Mike Brown's blood INSIDE the vehicle so how can we sit here and say he's lying? Nowhere did the physical evidence point to any wrongdoing by the police officer in that situation. Mike Brown's actions got himself shot. You don't have to be armed to be shot and that's a fucking fact. It's always been that way for any person of any creed.

I could easily argue that the crime rate in the African American community is disproportionate to that of any other race which is verifiable fact. Is it possible that higher crime rates are going to have disproportionate amount arrests, tickets, shootings, ect? Of course.

Ridiculous argument.

Jesus.

This guy's a post or two away from "What about BLACK slave owners?" ...and a few beers from "Let's not pretend that all Africans sold into slavery were upstanding citizens, OK?"

That's some cape, sir.

 

[David.]

Jesus.

This guy's a post or two away from "What about BLACK slave owners?" ...and a few beers from "Let's not pretend that all Africans sold into slavery were upstanding citizens, OK?"

That's some cape, sir.

i dont know if youre responding to this specific post or other things he's said, but the second paragraph is just factual and the first is generally accepted as what happened.

if you'd like to argue WHY the second paragraph's statistics are what they are, go for it.. But that is literally just reading statistics.

 

[kosis]

i dont know if youre responding to this specific post or other things he's said, but the second paragraph is just factual and the first is generally accepted as what happened.

if you'd like to argue WHY the second paragraph's statistics are what they are, go for it.. But that is literally just reading statistics.

Watching him getting himself fired up in general. He does this across all threads that threaten the infallibility of that cocaine white.

 

[RonG]

http://news.yahoo.com/police-illinois-hunt-3-suspects-officer-killed-180024234.html#

 

[The Oi]

i dont know if youre responding to this specific post or other things he's said, but the second paragraph is just factual and the first is generally accepted as what happened.

if you'd like to argue WHY the second paragraph's statistics are what they are, go for it.. But that is literally just reading statistics.

The black on black crime statistics are true.

Children born to unmarried black women are extremely high too.

I think it's safe to say that there is a correlation between children born out of wedlock and crime, just as there's a correlation between children born out of wedlock and socioeconomic standing.

Either way, crime and children out of wedlock statistics are inordinately high amongst African-Americans compared to other groups. It's not racist to say that. It's just true.

I'm not 100% certain what the solution is but I think it's safe to say that better parenting is a key component, if not the key component. And if dad isn't sticking around after unplanned pregnancies due to unprotected sex, society is dealing with angry, neglected kids. I think common sense (and probably statistics) would tell you that angry, neglected kids turn into angry adults that neglect their own kids and see no value to authority...more often than they turn into upstanding citizens. These are the individuals that most crime comes from, particularly violent crime. That goes for any color of skin.

I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what...but irresponsible sex and irresponsible parenting is where it all starts.

 

[gourimoko]

i dont know if youre responding to this specific post or other things he's said, but the second paragraph is just factual and the first is generally accepted as what happened.

Dave, I know you're a smart guy, so I'll say this to you: those statistics aren't "factual" as in, they are easily disputable.

I can explain in detail if you like, but I did this in another thread where the post got deleted because of the back and forth with another poster.

It's complex and deals with concepts of statistics, but, in the most brief way I can put it, it's a ridiculous notion to think that simply by dividing the number of crimes committed by "Blacks" into the total est. population of African-Americans in the U.S., that you would arrive at a statistically representative and accurate value describing the rate of at which African-Americans commit crime. One of the most glaring issues is that for every one African-American that commits crime, the per capita total rate (due to smaller representation) increases by a coefficient of 6.73 when compared to whenever one White individual commits crime.

In a vacuum of discrete populations, and discrete societies, this could be ignored; but since these values are interdependent and not independent, you cannot simply extract simple per capita rates and present them as representative; thus, they are not factual. You cannot mathematically make the claim "Blacks commit crimes at higher rates than x" without accounting for other factors.

To give an example of how this might work in say, basketball, it's no different than saying the following:

Brandon Jennings scores at a higher rate per minute (i.e. per quantum) than Kevin Love.

It's a near meaningless statement. While the raw data, without any analysis whatsoever other than a simple division of points into minutes might suggest this is the case; it's an entirely false conclusion using flawed maths and making an unsupportable conclusion.

Again, in short, and I can explain in much greater detail if you like:

(1) it is not true to say African-Americans commit more crime than any other race;
(2) it is not sound science to use this methodology to derive such a conclusion;
(3) sociological studies have made great strides in the field, studying criminal behavior and causative effects and the most common consensus is that there is minimal correlation between race or ethnicity and criminality, but instead large correlation with opportunity, wealth, and standards of living;
(4) without accounting for trends and the causes of movement, there is too much room for error in the conclusion. The War on Drugs, for example, resulted in the mass incarceration of African-Americans at disproportionately higher rates than Whites charged with similar crimes.

The list goes on and on and on... and we can go over all of this, but I don't know how receptive many would even be to such a conversation.

if you'd like to argue WHY the second paragraph's statistics are what they are, go for it.. But that is literally just reading statistics.

It's reading of raw data.

It's as if you arrived from Mars as a complete alien with your landing spot smack dab at the MGM Grand in downtown Detroit and you had to walk through the city to find fuel. You would the a space-faring bunch of aliens would understand not to evaluate an entire race based on what happens in slums.

Here's the concise (tl;dr) point: it is not scientifically sound to say African-Americans commit crime at higher rates based on the minimal data we have. If this were true, then it would mean that if I took one black person and one white person and put them into a separate and distinct vacuums with equal conditions, the black person would have a higher predisposition to commit crime - and we have no evidence to support that conclusion.

You can't just look at raw data without understanding some modicum of statistics and logic and make these kinds of claims. Again, it's like entirely like saying Brandon Jennings is scores at a higher per minute rate than Kevin Love - it's a nonsensical argument.

 

[gourimoko]

The black on black crime statistics are true.

Children born to unmarried black women are extremely high too.

I think it's safe to say that there is a correlation between children born out of wedlock and crime, just as there's a correlation between children born out of wedlock and socioeconomic standing.

Either way, crime and children out of wedlock statistics are inordinately high amongst African-Americans compared to other groups. It's not racist to say that. It's just true.

I'm not 100% certain what the solution is but I think it's safe to say that better parenting is a key component, if not the key component. And if dad isn't sticking around after unplanned pregnancies due to unprotected sex, society is dealing with angry, neglected kids. I think common sense (and probably statistics) would tell you that angry, neglected kids turn into angry adults that neglect their own kids and see no value to authority...more often than they turn into upstanding citizens. These are the individuals that most crime comes from, particularly violent crime. That goes for any color of skin.

I don't know if it's a cultural thing or what...but irresponsible sex and irresponsible parenting is where it all starts.

Again, without taking into consideration any of the other factors in the data, it's easy to come to these flawed conclusions.

When you consider the fact that the deck is stacked against African-American men in this country; it becomes more apparent why families are more easily formed.

If you actually research the data, or simply read the research done on said data, you'll find that the strongest correlations for marriage (and divorce) are: age, poverty, and education level; respectively.

When adjusting for these disparities, you find that socioeconomic factors account for more than 2/3rds of the difference between White and Black marriage/divorce rate.

So no, it isn't a parenting or cultural issue. Some sociologists claim that African-American cultural, which has greater familial ties with matriarchal family members like mothers, aunts, and grandmothers - this has less to do with marriage/divorce and more to do with female roles in the household. African-American women, culturally, are more likely to be assertive and career driven. Black women are three times more likely than White women to state career advancement in similar professional positions as their number one goal (over family, stability, etc).

And btw, getting a woman pregnant is no cause to marry her. That isn't a cultural flaw. I didn't marry the mother of my children, nor would that have been a good idea.

tl;dr, guys, there's a great deal of sociological work done in these areas. Instead of folks saying shit off the cuff, it might be a good idea to read some literature on the topic at hand.

 

[natedagg]

Dave, I know you're a smart guy, so I'll say this to you: those statistics aren't "factual" as in, they are easily disputable.

I can explain in detail if you like, but I did this in another thread where the post got deleted because of the back and forth with another poster.

It's complex and deals with concepts of statistics, but, in the most brief way I can put it, it's a ridiculous notion to think that simply by dividing the number of crimes committed by "Blacks" into the total est. population of African-Americans in the U.S., that you would arrive at a statistically representative and accurate value describing the rate of at which African-Americans commit crime. One of the most glaring issues is that for every one African-American that commits crime, the per capita total rate (due to smaller representation) increases by a coefficient of 6.73 when compared to whenever one White individual commits crime.

In a vacuum of discrete populations, and discrete societies, this could be ignored; but since these values are interdependent and not independent, you cannot simply extract simple per capita rates and present them as representative; thus, they are not factual. You cannot mathematically make the claim "Blacks commit crimes at higher rates than x" without accounting for other factors.

To give an example of how this might work in say, basketball, it's no different than saying the following:

Brandon Jennings scores at a higher rate per minute (i.e. per quantum) than Kevin Love.

It's a near meaningless statement. While the raw data, without any analysis whatsoever other than a simple division of points into minutes might suggest this is the case; it's an entirely false conclusion using flawed maths and making an unsupportable conclusion.

Again, in short, and I can explain in much greater detail if you like:

(1) it is not true to say African-Americans commit more crime than any other race;
(2) it is not sound science to use this methodology to derive such a conclusion;
(3) sociological studies have made great strides in the field, studying criminal behavior and causative effects and the most common consensus is that there is minimal correlation between race or ethnicity and criminality, but instead large correlation with opportunity, wealth, and standards of living;
(4) without accounting for trends and the causes of movement, there is too much room for error in the conclusion. The War on Drugs, for example, resulted in the mass incarceration of African-Americans at disproportionately higher rates than Whites charged with similar crimes.

The list goes on and on and on... and we can go over all of this, but I don't know how receptive many would even be to such a conversation.



It's reading of raw data.

It's as if you arrived from Mars as a complete alien with your landing spot smack dab at the MGM Grand in downtown Detroit and you had to walk through the city to find fuel. You would the a space-faring bunch of aliens would understand not to evaluate an entire race based on what happens in slums.

Here's the concise (tl;dr) point: it is not scientifically sound to say African-Americans commit crime at higher rates based on the minimal data we have. If this were true, then it would mean that if I took one black person and one white person and put them into a separate and distinct vacuums with equal conditions, the black person would have a higher predisposition to commit crime - and we have no evidence to support that conclusion.

You can't just look at raw data without understanding some modicum of statistics and logic and make these kinds of claims. Again, it's like entirely like saying Brandon Jennings is scores at a higher per minute rate than Kevin Love - it's a nonsensical argument.

wait a sec. If Jennings scores more than Love on a PPM basis, there's no argument to that fact, nor was anyone drawing causation.

I don't know what argument is nonsensical from the quote that dave had. I mean really, I think we all know statistical correlations and numbers can't usually be used to draw conclusions based on causation. I don't think Dave said that.

I don't think he was saying that if you put a white/black person in a vacuum, one is more predisposed to crime. I think he was saying that "the crime rate is higher for blacks", not it's because they are black that it is so. I don't even know why I am jumping into this shit storm.

If you are saying that the rate of crime (adjusted for how often caught, searched unlawfully, charged unlawfully, racist cops, Socio-Economic Status, etc.) is not higher, then cool. I guess we thought he was indicating 2 different things.

 

[The Oi]

Again, without taking into consideration any of the other factors in the data, it's easy to come to these flawed conclusions.

When you consider the fact that the deck is stacked against African-American men in this country; it becomes more apparent why families are more easily formed.



If you actually research the data, or simply read the research done on said data, you'll find that the strongest correlations for marriage (and divorce) are: age, poverty, and education level; respectively.

When adjusting for these disparities, you find that socioeconomic factors account for more than 2/3rds of the difference between White and Black marriage/divorce rate.

So no, it isn't a parenting or cultural issue. Some sociologists claim that African-American cultural, which has greater familial ties with matriarchal family members like mothers, aunts, and grandmothers - this has less to do with marriage/divorce and more to do with female roles in the household. African-American women, culturally, are more likely to be assertive and career driven. Black women are three times more likely than White women to state career advancement in similar professional positions as their number one goal (over family, stability, etc).

And btw, getting a woman pregnant is no cause to marry her. That isn't a cultural flaw. I didn't marry the mother of my children, nor would that have been a good idea.

tl;dr, guys, there's a great deal of sociological work done in these areas. Instead of folks saying shit off the cuff, it might be a good idea to read some literature on the topic at hand.

Do you agree that there is a higher rate of black on black crime vs any other intra-racial crime? And disregarding your personal beliefs on whether one should be married when they have children or not, do you agree that there is a higher incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies among African-Americans?

Do you disagree that children raised without a father present are more likely to struggle psychologically than those that are raised with a strong father figure present? Do you believe that fathers abandoning their children affect the children psychologically as they grow up? Do you believe that a father's decision to abandon their children affects the mindset and opportunities of the children and the mother of those children?

Do you believe that on the whole, people's personalities and decision-making are reflective of the way they are raised?

 

[gourimoko]

wait a sec. If Jennings scores more than Love on a PPM basis, there's no argument to that fact, nor was anyone drawing causation.

Sure you are...

You're saying that Jennings scores more than Love on a per minute basis; your methodology for doing this is absurd if you're simply dividing points into minutes played without taking anything else into account.

It's easy to understand why this is a flawed argument and not a "fact."

1) the use of the present / future tense "scores" indicates that Jennings has and will score at a higher rate than Love, but doesn't account for opportunity (fga).

2) the discounting of interdependent inputs, like what scoring option this person is in a 5-man rotation. Since you're not arguing that Jennings' team has him score more per minute, but that Jennings himself does this; you need to account for this data.

3) false conclusion; if Love and Jennings are put in a gym against an average defender, who is more likely to score if given equal opportunity?

I don't know what argument is nonsensical from the quote that dave had. I mean really, I think we all know statistical correlations and numbers can't usually be used to draw conclusions based on causation. I don't think Dave said that.

Dave didn't say anything, he was citing a different poster.

I don't think we all know how to correctly account for statistical data; so as someone with a MS in mathematics, I thought it might be useful to provide some insight.

I don't think he was saying that if you put a white/black person in a vacuum, one is more predisposed to crime. I think he was saying that "the crime rate is higher for blacks", not it's because they are black that it is so. I don't even know why I am jumping into this shit storm.

What was said was "Blacks commit crime at a higher rate than any other race."

That statement is logically flawed as there is no data to support it.

If you are saying that the rate of crime (adjusted for how often caught, searched unlawfully, charged unlawfully, racist cops, Socio-Economic Status, etc.) is not higher, then cool. I guess we thought he was indicating 2 different things.

That's part of the argument, yes; but in itself it is not scientifically accurate to state that "Blacks commit crime at a higher rate than any other race," and the methodology used to come to this conclusion here and elsewhere is nonsensical.

You cannot take two interdependent sub-populations of a total population, separate them arbitrarily, and then draw such conclusions with simple division - it is something you'd learn in Stat 101. You need much more complex analysis to draw any real, meaningful, conclusion.

p.s.
If you were to say "In 2014-15, Brandon Jennings playing on the Pistons scored more points per minute than Kevin Love did in the same year on the Cavaliers," that would be factual. But to say "Brandon Jennings (no qualifier or condition) scores (note the tense) at a higher rate per minute than Kevin Love," is totally farcical and a non sequitur.