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.