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 frustrate 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
Gout
Is predictive texting getting worse?"gourimoko, post: 2236549, member: 2835"]JSS said that "Black people commit more crimes than any other race."
I actually didn't respond to him, I responded to your quote of his post in a conversation you were having with @kosis.
If you're saying I'm being unfair to JSS, then I'd say you're tripping. The guy is an outright racist and has said we should kill Muslims en masse. He's been called out by nearly a dozen posters so far... I have absolutely no reason to be civil towards an outright racist.
It's not.
No; I explained it in numerous ways including but not limited to explaining the lack of causation. I doubt many have even read what I wrote; because I keep going back over it, but it is not statistically sound to say "Blacks commit more crimes" than anyone without demonstrating how this prediction was made, as "commit" is means they are predisposed to act criminally in a present/future tense.
In your first post you quoted the argument and agreed with it.
That argument was:
"Blacks commit more crimes than any other race."
To which I responded...
You then replied just a moment ago by saying the original argument was:
"Black people commit more violent crimes" ...(than blank)...
..
Is predictive texting getting worse?
Posting here is a straight up battle
I don't follow jss, sounds like he says extreme stuff, but stats show, year after year, blacks commit more crimes.
Take out"violent"if you want, I want looking at the direct quote at the time.
I wish it went without saying that I don't think either race is superior etc, but stats show what they show.
ate you saying statistics haven't been taken from next year so all the data we've collected isn't predictive?
Ok, but it's likely next year will be the same as the rest that HAVE e'en accounted for, and that show that per capita, regardless of causation, blacks commit more crimes than whites
If I'm missing stuff, I apologize, I'm working on a bunch of stuff while reading and responding and haven't taken appropriater time to read everything
It is.. I accidentally made a sexual reference to a client... that went, better than expected...
Glad you said this.. it's why I'm really being rather insistent that if we're going to make claims about racial criminality that we use a certain precision in our language.
Did "blacks commit more crimes?"
No. That's actually never been true.
In 2011, "Whites," whatever that means, committed 9.5M crimes reported to the FBI; while "Blacks" committed 2.7M. There is a disproportionate ratio per capita here, as Blacks are over-represented by a coefficient of ~2.0; however, Blacks did not commit more crimes... than Whites.
Now, did Blacks commit more crimes than any other race per capita? That depends...
If you frame the question nationally, then again, we're only talking about 3 relevant ethnicities - White, Black, and Latino. Understand that Latino is not a race, but an ethnic group of many distinct races that do not self-identify with one another, and where more than 50% consider themselves "White" even though most Whites would not agree, and you begin to understand the problem with measuring the Latino community.
We don't have sound data with respect to many Latino races, those races are not widespread throughout the United States, but concentrated on specific regions based on various factors.
So from a national perspective, the question loses meaning. You're really only comparing two "races" of people, "Blacks" and "Whites;" and even in that comparison, someone like me wouldn't be in either group.
You can roughly compare Whites and Blacks because both races exist throughout all 50 states to some statistically significant degree, and because the FBI data records these races to some modicum of accuracy.
So the question "Do Blacks commit more crimes than any other race" can't be answer scientifically on a national scope without predictive metrics and extrapolating local, regional data about various other minority groups.
When doing so, we find that Native Americans, Samoans, Micronesians, several and several Latino racial groups, have been recorded as committing more crimes in the past 10 years than Blacks. You also find that the largest correlation here is with respect to socioeconomic disparity and lack of opportunity, rather than race; which supports the causative argument I've made earlier.
Cool.
And what do the stats show in your view?
No, I'm saying the data has not undergone any form of regression to tease out independent data, or at a minimum has anyone used a scientific approach to conclude the general consensus in this thread thus far; therefore, arguments which are predictive are nonsensical.
I've demonstrated this by going over 25% of the States in the Union and the strength of correlation between their history of racial composition with respect to their respective racial disparity in incarceration rates. The fact that a state like Mississippi is three times less likely to over-incarcerate Blacks when compared to Connecticut should not be lost on the conversation, as it speaks to the exact data we're discussing.
The claim "regardless of causation, blacks commit more crimes than whites" makes no sense because you've not stated how or why you know this to be true.
You're not saying "the poor commit more crime than the affluent because xyz," you're pointing to a trend, finding causation through race, and then making a predictive claim without actually determining what are the input variables to any function describing criminality.
Simply put, if race is not a component to criminality, then it is fallacious to assert that any race commits more crimes than any other race. It is more apt to say that a definable group with causative relationship and association to criminality commits more crime than another group with a weaker relationship and association. The problem is with defining said group along superficial and arbitrary racial boundaries. It seems senseless and irrational.
No worries.. It's all good.
I think you can sum up my argument (kind of) with the following:
1) You can't compare Blacks and Whites with other races as those races are not predominantly found throughout the United States.
2) Latino is not a race of people; it's an ethnicity, they do not self-identify as a single group.
3) There is a fundamental difference between saying "data shows that group x committed more crimes per capita than group y;" which can be considered observational, and saying "group x commits more crimes than group y" (per capita or not). The first statement is observational; the second statement is an argument which makes a testable prediction. In this instance it's a non sequitur because there is no scientific data which suggests Blacks (the group cited) or any other race has a genetic (or any other) predisposition to crime.
I wasn't making any predictions and wasn't leaving anything open ended.
I was simply stating that blacks commit crime against blacks at a higher rate than any other races commit crime against one another.
II'm not sure what the technicality is that I need to change my phrasing to in order to reflect that I mean "all current data reflective of the DOJ and FBI stats," but that's what I'm saying.
II'm not getting the island with a small sample size argument either. The sample size of blacks in the United States is smaller than whites, but it's a massive amount of people.
ISo...whatever phrasing it takes to reflect as of the time these tables were created...that's what I'm saying.
I"Have committed",?
Perhaps the most batshit crazy political agenda'd post in site history.
Racism in 2015 looks like this.
You look absolutely delusional right now and, although sad to see, not surprising in the least.
I have that distrust. I don't think they are bungling everything at every chance, but I wouldn't see the harm in testing other private systems on smaller scales, or some hybrid solutions. The only problem would be shit might get too big brother in a hurry e.g. Some passenger video messages the cops me looking at the stock market while driving then gets a photo of my tags. Dude made $30, I am out $300, but wtf I would be so annoyed.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Explained, numerous times.
Explained.
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.
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.
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'm not sure why folks are thinking that I'm "fired up." I'm literally chilling at my desk.
I've explained this enough times already.
I think you've just skipped over it and jumped to a conclusion.
I wouldn't ever say this about anyone.
You're essentially arguing with yourself; I've not said any of this to you, nor would I.
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.
Which.. is really what this boils down to, isn't it?
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.
Because you have no idea what to retort with.. Dude, you might be able to fool some of these folks, but you're not fooling me.
Yep, I must be a racist... racist against whom, I dunno..
This is what you always say when you've run out of shit to post.
We're done here.. back on ignore with you.
I've already stated that several races have committed crimes, historically, at a higher rate, including Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and certain Pacific Islanders like Samoans and Micronesians.
The problem comes when you smooth the data out to a population of nearly 400M, those races no longer exist; so what you've done is compared Black people to ... Whites ... and that's it.
Have Blacks, historically over the past 10 years, been recorded as committing crimes at a higher per capita rate than Whites or say Japanese-Americans? Yes. But the all other races predicate is demonstrably false.
Furthermore, the assertion that per capita rates speak to general predisposition is fallacious..
Because you've inserted this idea of "sample size," where none exists. We're not sampling the Reds and Blues on the island, we're directly measuring the total population; so there is no issue with sample size.
The issue is a rudimentary statistics mistake wherein the person trying to evaluate a set of data assumes linearity throughout the data, and thus, mistakenly assumes variables are independent and misses and ignores the relationship between those variables; thus rendering his final resulting data likely useless.
I've also demonstrated that there are numerous larger correlating and causative factors other than race; therefore, the arbitrary grouping of "Blacks" into a question pertaining to the predisposition to commit crime seems ridiculous at this point.
One has to ask, why continue with "Blacks commit more crime," if scientific consensus is that there is no causative link between race and criminality?
If your conclusion is predictive then it doesn't follow, if it's observational, then you're comparing Whites and Blacks; so your predicate "any other race" doesn't follow the observations.
Interesting how you just completely ignored the second part of his post.
Calling someone a racist ist a strong claim and not something you just throw out in a discussion like this.