Houston Deputy Murdered while pumping gas

[Cavatt]

I am curious about something. For those of you with a distrust of government and their ability to perform basic tasks. Does this logically extend to the police force? Aren't they getting fat off the gov teat and bungling their jobs at every chance? Wouldn't a performance-based for profit system be more efficient? Surely a force such as that wouldn't be paying millions in wrongful deaths and other payouts for bad police work, correct?

 

[Cavatt]

I hope the shooter is proven innocent, this is obviously the white cops fault. The fact that the shooter was black and has a criminal history has to mean its not his fault but the cop or the white person involved.

C'mon now, you don't get shot for "doing nothing". The cop must have mouthed off or been doing a drug deal.

 

[Otsego Mar]

I am curious about something. For those of you with a distrust of government and their ability to perform basic tasks. Does this logically extend to the police force? Aren't they getting fat off the gov teat and bungling their jobs at every chance? Wouldn't a performance-based for profit system be more efficient? Surely a force such as that wouldn't be paying millions in wrongful deaths and other payouts for bad police work, correct?

The bolded is already in place. Ever hear of quotas?

 

[gourimoko]

I am scratching my head here. You are offended that I have attacked you and your motivations, yet you get off on calling me naive and proceed to tell me I have missed the nuance? That's awesome.

I'm saying you're taking a naive approach to the argument, that's not an insult. I'm not saying you, yourself, are a naive person. I do think it's obvious that the nuance was lost because it wasn't addressed.

I also don't understand why you're so interested in proving or at least claiming what my motivations are to an argument, rather than discussing the argument on the merits.

If someone makes a claim that Jennings scoreD more than Love on a PPM basis in the previous season, is that a logical argument or simply an operation performed on the data?

Nate... bro, slow up a bit... you're changing the argument (again).

The argument wasn't "Jennings scored (past tense) more than Love on a PPM basis in the previous season." That wouldn't be an argument, but a statement of fact (true or otherwise).

The argument was "Jennings scores (present/future tense) more than Love per minute." That is an argument as it's predictive. It's saying that because in some given framework, A > B was true, and since A > B was true in that framework then it will continue to be true.

This is flawed for numerous reasons.

Primarily, because you haven't actually evaluated Jennings > Love, but more descriptively the function Pistons15(Jennings15)=y > Cavs15(Love15)=z.

Again, you've not evaluated either Love or Jennings because you've not teased out an independent, normalized, representation of their numbers. So you have no predictive power in your claim; and thus, you cannot say that "Jennings scores more than Love per minute," as it's a non sequitur.

The problem is that you are conflating a past observation with a future prediction, when the two are completely different and not derived using the same methodology.

Not WHY it is so, but just that claim. Can we agree that it's an observation/operation/data?

Nate, by definition, performing non-reversible operations on data results in loss of data; so you can't claim observational data is equivalent to that which you derive through performing some operation or non-reversible transformation.

Saying "Blacks" committed approximately x number of crimes in 2015 within the United States, would be a statement of fact (true, or otherwise) that can be challenged by challenging the observation itself - but no argument is being made.

Saying Blacks commit (tense) more crimes than any other race of people is an argument based on some set of opaque data that's not readily transformed into any metrics that would logically support the claim being made. An argument is here, rooted in the predictive nature of the claim. This is what you're missing.

In fact, observations are what leads us to the "why?" which leads us to things like FGA, health, role, etc.

I'm not really going to argue the difference between observed data and data derived by performing transformations/operations; I think we've covered this.

I am not assuming you are being intellectually disingenuous, just that you are crusading here against nothing.

But again, you're saying that my argument is a "crusade," so it makes it clear that you're discounting it.

I'm explaining, in detail, why the original statement is invalid. I've already done so 5 times.

I see it as:
-Some study somewhere said blacks commit crimes at hire rates, on a crimes/blacks basis, which is some sort of data point. I don't understand how a data point gets you up in arms.

1) I'm not "up in arms," that's your own personal opinion but I don't know what it has to do with what I'm saying.

2) AGAIN, you've stated that the conclusions of a study would be considered an inarguable "data point," which is frankly a bit absurd, but more to the point it simply is not mathematically sound. Empirical observation (the data used in the study, if accurate) is what we would consider as data points, and we only use data that we firmly believe to be accurate.

I'm explaining why (a) the data is not as accurate as you might think, and (2) does not provide enough information to make a predictive claim.

You've not really refuted anything I've said, but instead, gone after me for some reason.

-Now, what is more interesting & important are these critical things, among others:
-who made the study?

There's no study that's been cited, it was a claim made by a known racist on the forum. He's using National FBI / BJS crime data reporting to make a common claim. I've explained this I think.

-what data did they use and where did they get it?

Explained, numerous times.

-other research methods and why they were chosen?

Explained.

-what conclusions, if any, were drawn from this study?

The conclusion isn't in the report, it's being made here on the forum. That conclusion is the argument you keep referring to as a data point.

-what other studies have to say? Where to look next for more answers and new studies.

Sociologists generally disagree with the assertion that race and criminality share any link whatsoever. I've already said this though, which is again, why I think you should re-read my posts.

I just don't think you can argue the validity of a data point or an operation on it.

Arguing against observational data, in general, dismisses the argument on it's face as you're rejecting the premise. There's nothing wrong with this. Much observational data is not accurately measured to begin with, or not representative of what was intended to be measured.

Saying you can't argue against performing specific operations on a data set to derive a supposed conclusion is ridiculous; of course you can.

I've already given you an example; to which you ignored. Think back to your physics class; recall the formula f=ma, a simple arithmetic problem. Also, keep in mind that it's one of the most fundamental laws of motion, and that 95% of college graduates would assume it is wholly accurate. Now understand that it doesn't work, and hopefully now you can understand how we can challenge the validity of both observational data and the operations you perform on it.

But before you reply, think about what is being said here.

I thought someone was saying as much, and then you got fired up about it.

I'm not sure why folks are thinking that I'm "fired up." I'm literally chilling at my desk.

I don't know where anyone was drawing any conclusions or making any arguments on the data.

I've explained this enough times already.

If you are arguing something and feel that I haven't read it,

I think you've just skipped over it and jumped to a conclusion.

or can't "comprehend" it,

I wouldn't ever say this about anyone.

or maybe I am just too naive to get it, then now you are just being condescending.

You're essentially arguing with yourself; I've not said any of this to you, nor would I.

You twisted someone's assertion and fought against the implications that someone somewhere had made, and now I don't understand? Well I guess I'm not on your level.

You've not argued against the claim that was made, instead you jumped into an argument that you've not actually read into and for what reason I've no idea.

A claim was made that "Black people commit more crimes than any other race of people," and you're saying you don't understand how that is an argument and not a fact? If that's honestly your position, then your position is as ridiculous as the claim.

You are being annoying,

Which.. is really what this boils down to, isn't it?

yet you will somehow conclude that you aren't being annoying and are annoyed. Nobody has time for this shit. I can't believe I got sucked in. Fuck.

If you don't have time for it, why respond? I went out of my way to try and have a thoughtful conversation, yet you've decided that you're annoyed, I'm being condescending, etc etc...

I tried...

Again, I think I'm wasting my time.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This discussion demonstrates perfectly why this problem isn't going to go away at anytime soon. Even if people are aware of the exact same facts, they still draw different conclusions.

We saw it with the Ferguson shooting. Even after the details about the struggle at the car came out, and the autopsy results, and where the shots were fired, you still had differences of opinion on whether or not the officer was justified that largely broke down along racial and political lines. Progressives still were more likely to see it as unjustified, conservatives the opposite. Just fundamentally different ways of seeing the world.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When children are abandoned and don't have a father figure, it impacts their self worth and makes them susceptible to the influence of other males who may already have gone down the wrong path.

Bigot.

 

[The Oi]

Bigot.

You're the bigot.

Women can be fathers too!!

 

[gourimoko]

Gour makes a living on this board making assertions that are not backed up by data

And you get off pushing a racist agenda, but here we are...

Anyway, I've cited nothing but hard data. I've made no unsubstantiated statistical claims whatsoever.

but when he's shown actual statistical data that doesn't meet his agenda he brushes it off and calls it incomplete.

I've not brushed it off, in fact, I've embraced it and used it as a springboard for this conversation. I'm trying to explain, rationally, why it doesn't support the conclusion you and many others are making. But "gut feel" seems to be more important here.

According to FBI statistics from 2013, white males committed 189 murders on black males while black males committed 409 murders on white males.

Wait... What does this have to do with the conversation? We're getting into Black-on-White crime now? Is this how you pivot into your racial-awareness , fear the Blacks diatribe?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Right, and look at that data visually to get a sense of how ridiculous this pivot you're making is:

If these rates were to hold, and the roles were reversed—i.e., if blacks represented 64 percent of the population while whites comprised only 13 percent

Stop... Re-read what you've just said..

Now, go back to my early posts where I addressed this very issue (which only 2 people probably even read)..

Now.. continue..

—black-on-white murder would have exceeded 2,000 killings in 2013, while white-on-black murder would have resulted in only 39 deaths.

Or, more accurately, Blacks would not commit as much crime and Whites would commit more crime since there would be a socioeconomic and positional role reversal.

Essentially, nothing would change.

The only reason to believe anything would change, is if you assert there is a fundamental predisposition to murder that is greater in Blacks than Whites; and there is no scientific, sociological basis for making such an assertion.

Again, you've provided data, twisted it to fit your racist agenda, then presented it here as a nonsensical argument.

So I'm suppose to believe racism is alive and well by "racists white cops" (as gour put it)

Yet you've left out my mention of racist "Black cops" again to further your racist agenda.

when in fact empirical evidence indicates that white people don't kill nearly as many black people as black people kill white people?

Inter-racial crime is not at issue here... White people as a group are not representative of law enforcement as a group; ...smfh...

Am I missing something here?

Yes...

 

[The Oi]

@gourimoko

What would you want everyone to take away from your argument?

 

[David.]

Taking causation into account does not affect the statement"black people commit more violent crimes".

Yes there's a story behind the numbers, and reasons, but doesn't change the accuracy of the statement.

Yes, if white people were effected by the same socioeconomic factors as blacks, you could say white people commit more crime, just as you said. those are basically your words.

Why can't we make the argument saying blacks commit more crime given the statistics and factors literally are what they are? that seems like a strong double standard.

 

[Otsego Mar]

@gourimoko

What would you want everyone to take away from your argument?

My guess is that he's right.



I ain't sayin' he ain't.

 

[gourimoko]

@gourimoko

What would you want everyone to take away from your argument?

People are misusing the data to jump to incorrect conclusions.

They are confusing the concept of measuring past data and making future predictions.

They are making a very serious blunder, invalidating the argument for the most part, by smoothing the data; assuming that there is an actual national representation to be had from such opaque statistical metrics. One would be better off comparing regional data, and exploring causality, rather than making off-hand blanket statements that carry little to no meaning or relevance.

I've been over it, and over it, and over it... But rationality and critical thinking is something that one has to learn first, before one can engage in it.

As I've said, I've tried.. but I don't think I'll get anywhere in this discussion.

 

[gourimoko]

Taking causation into account does not affect the statement"black people commit more violent crimes".

Yes there's a story behind the numbers, and reasons, but doesn't change the accuracy of the statement.

Dave, you changed the argument.

Note that this is probably the 6th or 7th time the original argument was changed.

The original argument in question was:
"Black people commit more crimes than any other race."

To say "Black people commit more violent crimes" isn't even a complete statement. Commit more violent crimes than who? Where? When? Is this universally true, or only over some given period?

Yes, if white people were effected by the same socioeconomic factors as blacks, you could say white people commit more crime, just as you said. those are basically your words.

Right.. on first approximation I am making a prediction; which is an argument; which may or may not be true.

The point is that, the causative effect here isn't White (or Black) people; the terms are interchangeable. Thus, saying Race X commits more crimes, without demonstrating it is indeed Race X and not instead Socioeconomic_Condition Y is a non sequitur. That's the point.

Why can't we make the argument saying blacks commit more crime given the statistics and factors literally are what they are? that seems like a strong double standard.

It's not a double-standard, it's a misunderstanding of what the statistics represent.

Dave, check it out... If you said:

"In 2015, Blacks were recorded as committing more crimes than Whites, per capita, and on average, nationally." I would say that is not only true, but a statement of fact.

However if you said:

"Blacks commit more crimes than any other race." I would say that has not been demonstrated by any data that I am aware of; therefore, since (1) the conclusion that Blacks have a predisposition to commit crime hasn't been demonstrated, and (2) since "any other race" was never measured in the data, and (3) the data points are really only measuring Blacks and Whites, the argument is thus invalid.

The difference here is tense; observation vs. prediction. It's not subtle if you think about what is being said.

Another point here is that race is not the causative case, not remotely, so application in the predicate of the argument makes no sense unless one wants to make a claim that Blacks are predisposed to crime - to which - there is no evidence.

 

[David.]

Unless I'm mistaken, jss made the argument"black ppl commit more crimes" and was net with some pretty vicious shit for it.



I quoted his simple statement, said it was statistically true, and then you changed the argument into "if all races were put into separate vacuums, the rate would be similar" and that the data was flawed.

Lol I didn't change the argument, I quoted the original agreement and agreed with it

"gourimoko, post: 2236530, member: 2835"]Dave, you changed the argument.

Note that this is probably the 6th or 7th time the original argument was changed.

The original argument in question was:
"Black people commit more crimes than any other race."

To say "Black people commit more violent crimes" isn't even a complete statement. Commit more violent crimes than who? Where? When? Is this universally true, or only over some given period?



Right.. on first approximation I am making a prediction; which is an argument; which may or may not be true.

The point is that, the causative effect here isn't White (or Black) people; the terms are interchangeable. Thus, saying Race X commits more crimes, without demonstrating it is indeed Race X and not instead Socioeconomic_Condition Y is a non sequitur. That's the point.



It's not a double-standard, it's a misunderstanding of what the statistics represent.

Dave, check it out... If you said:

"In 2015, Blacks were recorded as committing more crimes than Whites, per capita, and on average, nationally." I would say that is not only true, but a statement of fact.

However if you said:

"Blacks commit more crimes than any other race." I would say that has not been demonstrated by any data that I am aware of; therefore, since (1) the conclusion that Blacks have a predisposition to commit crime hasn't been demonstrated, and (2) since "any other race" was never measured in the data, and (3) the data points are really only measuring Blacks and Whites, the argument is thus invalid.

The difference here is tense; observation vs. prediction. It's not subtle if you think about what is being said.

Another point here is that race is not the causative case, not remotely, so application in the predicate of the argument makes no sense unless one wants to make a claim that Blacks are predisposed to crime - to which - there is no evidence.

Gout

 

[gourimoko]

@David.

Think about it for a second..

We have a group of people on an island.. Reds and Blues.

We have 45 Reds and 303 Blues.

3 Reds and 8 Blues were charged with committed crimes in 2014.

A Blue makes the claim that: Reds commit more crimes than any other color of people: see the crime rates.

Crime rates show 1:15 for Reds and ~1:38 for Blues...

Is he right? Well, think about it...

What if only 1 Red and only 1 Blue commit crimes in 2015?

Furthermore, can we say anything about the future with these statistics, are the predictive in anyway? What if conditions change? Can we say with confidence that Reds commit more crimes than Blues, and to what degree can we be confident in such a conclusion?

To answer the question, the problem with this type of approach is the assumption of linearity where none exists. It's a basic statistics 101 problem that people trip over all the time. These two populations are not distinct, so separating them with simple arithmetic, while being unequal and interdependent, yet making a conclusive argument on the basis that they are equal, independent, and distinct, is flawed and non-scientific.

This is why sociology papers on the subject generally use regression analysis, normalization, and various adjustments to tease out the correctly representative data.

The conclusions being made here are not scientific.