Another black man kills an unarmed disabled white guy. NO CHARGES!!!

[EatTheRich]

I'm not walking you through the class you said you took.

I don’t need anyone to explain to me what a pdf is, I understand that quite well. I need you to explain what specific distribution you claim I am ignoring. If your random variable is number of white people killed by Black people, it will be binomial with parameters 186 million trials and 1/277000 probability; if it’s number of Black people killed by white people, it will be binomial with parameters 42 million trials and 1/100000 probability.

Stop talking in generalities and get down to concrete questions/criticisms if you expect to be taken seriously.

Edit: yes, this is a p.f.for a discrete variable and not a pdf. But that hardly is as important as the fact that you won’t specify what the hell you’re talking about.

 

[resident_evil]

Let’s use the real numbers instead of your made-up ones. I linked to the numbers from 2010 above; if you have more recent data I’m sure the numbers would be similar. Assuming the ratio of offenders where the race is known is the same as the ratio among all offenders, in 2010, of the 87% of murderers who were either Black or White, there were 8384 involving Black murderers (including 704 where the victims were white) and 5953 involving white murderers (including 413 where the victims were Black).

So one of the 196.8 million white person had a (704 over 196.8 million=)0.00036% chance of being murdered by a Black person (about 1/3 the chance a given white person had of dating a supermodel) ... while one of the 42 million Black people had a (413 over 42 million=)0.001% chance of being killed by a white person.

Even with your imaginary numbers, with twice as many whites killed by Blacks as Blacks killed by whites, a given Black person would have been 2.3 times as likely to be killed by a white person as a white person would have to be killed by a Black person. Get it yet?

You can libel the Central Park 5 as much as you want, the fact is that there is no evidence that they were involved in any illegal activity except your assumption that because they were Black/Brown they were criminals. But it is proven by DNA evidence that none of them raped the jogger.

A couple of days ago it came to me how to simplistically prove to you your fallacy given you couldn't follow the lead I gave. And I just remembered to help you out. Here goes.

If you are a white person and you meet a black person you have a 0.00168% (704/42 million) chance of being murdered by that black person.

If you are a black person and you meet a white person you have a 0.00021% (413/196.8 million) chance of being murdered by that white person.

0.00168 DIVIDED BY 0.00021 EQUALS 8.0

SO CLEARLY BY YOUR FLAWED LOGIC A BLACK PERSON IS 8 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL A WHITE PERSON THAN A WHITE PERSON IS TO KILL A BLACK PERSON.


ha ha... pardon my laugh. I'll be expecting my response. TIA.

 

[EatTheRich]

A couple of days ago it came to me how to simplistically prove to you your fallacy given you couldn't follow the lead I gave. And I just remembered to help you out. Here goes.

If you are a white person and you meet a black person you have a 0.00168% (704/42 million) chance of being murdered by that black person.

If you are a black person and you meet a white person you have a 0.00021% (413/196.8 million) chance of being murdered by that white person.

0.00168 DIVIDED BY 0.00021 EQUALS 8.0

SO CLEARLY BY YOUR FLAWED LOGIC A BLACK PERSON IS 8 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL A WHITE PERSON THAN A WHITE PERSON IS TO KILL A BLACK PERSON.


ha ha... pardon my laugh. I'll be expecting my response. TIA.

Where’s the flaw in that logic? A Black person is about 8 times as likely to kill a white person as a white person is to kill a Black person, but that isn’t the inaccurate claim you made in post #14.

 

[resident_evil]

Where’s the flaw in that logic? A Black person is about 8 times as likely to kill a white person as a white person is to kill a Black person, but that isn’t the inaccurate claim you made in post #14.

Look at your own numbers. Almost twice as many whites killed by blacks as blacks killed by whites, right? AND there are far fewer blacks than whites. So fewer blacks are killing more whites. It means blacks are more dangerous to whites than vice versa.

I have said in the past that a white person is twice as likely to have been killed by a black person than a black person having been killed by a white person and that is 100% correct. Now #14 I haven't re-read but if I didn't say that I was in error. But I'm more correct in that than you in your assertion or me in mine trying to help you see. Think about why that is true.

Peace to you commie. :0)

 

[EatTheRich]

Look at your own numbers. Almost twice as many whites killed by blacks as blacks killed by whites, right? AND there are far fewer blacks than whites. So fewer blacks are killing more whites. It means blacks are more dangerous to whites than vice versa.

I have said in the past that a white person is twice as likely to have been killed by a black person than a black person having been killed by a white person and that is 100% correct. Now #14 I haven't re-read but if I didn't say that I was in error. But I'm more correct in that than you in your assertion or me in mine trying to help you see. Think about why that is true.

Peace to you commie. :0)

No, that is not correct. A Black person is both a bigger danger to white people taken as a whole than a white person is to Black people, and a smaller danger to any particular white person than a white person is to any particular Black person, the numbers don’t lie, but you do.

 

[resident_evil]

No, that is not correct. A Black person is both a bigger danger to white people taken as a whole than a white person is to Black people, and a smaller danger to any particular white person than a white person is to any particular Black person, the numbers don’t lie, but you do.

That doesn't make any sense but it apparently does to you.

I just re-read #14 and I basically got it right but shorted the logic by jumping straight to violence rather than just homicide. Sue me. But basically my #14 kicks your ass and my mocking your ass counter assertion in truth telling by a country mile because it speaks only to the violence actually perpetrated by perpetrators on victims and leaves out of the equation ("good" blacks and "good" whites).

Please don't keep up your statistical malpractice on others. :0)

 

[EatTheRich]

That doesn't make any sense but it apparently does to you.

I just re-read #14 and I basically got it right but shorted the logic by jumping straight to violence rather than just homicide. Sue me. But basically my #14 kicks your ass and my mocking your ass counter assertion in truth telling by a country mile because it speaks only to the violence actually perpetrated by perpetrators on victims and leaves out of the equation ("good" blacks and "good" whites).

Please don't keep up your statistical malpractice on others. :0)

So leaving the vast majority out of the picture, you’re convinced, gives us an accurate view of reality?

Suppose there were 2 men and 1000 women, and 1 of the women and 1 of the men were each raped by a member of the opposite sex. Clearly, the men in this scenario would be more likely to be rapists. But who, men or women, would be in greater danger from the opposite sex?

 

[resident_evil]

@EatTheRich

I'd apologize for my mistakes to you on this.

To clear the air in #14 I meant to say that if I was a murdered white person I was twice as likely to have been killed by a black person as a murdered black person was to have been killed by a white person by using the statistics that 90% of black homicides are committed by blacks and that 80% of white homicides are committed whites. Which is true, 10% of black homicides are committed by whites and 20% of white homicides are committed by blacks. I then extrapolated that to violence in general for the reasons I offered.

You claim that 704 white people were killed by a black person and that if you divide that by 196.8 million that gives you your chance of having been murdered by a black person in 2010.

I said that 704 white people were killed by a black person and that divided by 42 million that gives you the per black responsibility of that white murder (or something like whites killed by blacks per 100,000 blacks).

Now how are crime statistics normalized? Isn't it usually to say x assaults per 100,000 people so that you can compare NYC to Paducah, KY more on an apples to apples basis?

I'm at a loss at what your purpose was to jump into this with your statistics as it doesn't measure the amount of violence. More whites are killed by blacks and there are far fewer blacks committing those murders. You are going to have to explain to me how fewer blacks murdered by far more whites makes any kind of case for whites being extremely dastardly towards blacks.

 

[EatTheRich]

@EatTheRich

I'd apologize for my mistakes to you on this.

To clear the air in #14 I meant to say that if I was a murdered white person I was twice as likely to have been killed by a black person as a murdered black person was to have been killed by a white person by using the statistics that 90% of black homicides are committed by blacks and that 80% of white homicides are committed whites. Which is true, 10% of black homicides are committed by whites and 20% of white homicides are committed by blacks. I then extrapolated that to violence in general for the reasons I offered.

You claim that 704 white people were killed by a black person and that if you divide that by 196.8 million that gives you your chance of having been murdered by a black person in 2010.

I said that 704 white people were killed by a black person and that divided by 42 million that gives you the per black responsibility of that white murder (or something like whites killed by blacks per 100,000 blacks).

Now how are crime statistics normalized? Isn't it usually to say x assaults per 100,000 people so that you can compare NYC to Paducah, KY more on an apples to apples basis?

I'm at a loss at what your purpose was to jump into this with your statistics as it doesn't measure the amount of violence. More whites are killed by blacks and there are far fewer blacks committing those murders. You are going to have to explain to me how fewer blacks murdered by far more whites makes any kind of case for whites being extremely dastardly towards blacks.

Iirc, I explained the difference between a given white person who was murdered and a given white person without qualification. I also pointed out that the 90%/80% do not match the DOJ’s numbers (63%/57%), so your 2-to-1 disparity which you have accurately characterized here is closer to a 16% difference.

I have never tried to make the case that whites were “extremely dastardly towards blacks” ... I have said consistently that violence is very rare, and if I did not say so explicitly, I think people’s fear of it is disproportionate to its prevalence.

If you disagree and you think Black violence in particular is a problem, you are going to have to explain why a given white person being safer from violence at the hands of a Black person than a given Black person is from violence at the hands of a white person demonstrates that Black violence is so urgent to address.

 

[resident_evil]

@EatTheRich

You were asking for my source of 80 and 90. Well, that was memory and this is near that. And where you called me a liar.


You can also check this graph with that rough 1 to 2 ratio. That white on black line seems to be below that 10% line... Hmmm?



https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

[resident_evil]

@EatTheRich

These charts too keep that 2 to 1 racial ratio.

 

[resident_evil]

Iirc, I explained the difference between a given white person who was murdered and a given white person without qualification. I also pointed out that the 90%/80% do not match the DOJ’s numbers (63%/57%), so your 2-to-1 disparity which you have accurately characterized here is closer to a 16% difference.

I just posted a source consistent with that 2 to 1 ration.

I have never tried to make the case that whites were “extremely dastardly towards blacks” ... I have said consistently that violence is very rare, and if I did not say so explicitly, I think people’s fear of it is disproportionate to its prevalence.

No, I think you're part of the crowd that tries to make the case that whites oppress blacks through civilian and police violence. That is your agenda I've perceived.. I'm not sure what you mean when you mentioned my agenda earlier?

If you disagree and you think Black violence in particular is a problem, you are going to have to explain why a given white person being safer from violence at the hands of a Black person than a given Black person is from violence at the hands of a white person demonstrates that Black violence is so urgent to address.

It is a problem because the truth is denied by blacks that they are more violent against whites while blacks claim they are the victims at the hands of whites.

And you repeat that here. When your stats are not true. You need to show the violence on a per 100,000 base in order to make an actual comparison. When you do that we see that blacks are 8 times more homicidal towards whites inter-racially.