Statistics Don't (and Can't) Lie

[Sapper Woody]

Recently, in another thread, another poster and I went back and forth on the perceptions of the BLM movement. I decided to start a thread in which we can discuss statistics (cold, hard facts instead of perceptions) on crime, police killings, etc. It is my intention that everything in this thread be backed up with cited sources, so if you participate please adhere to this.

My intention is NOT for someone to say, "The way I see it", but to show proof of statements.

To start with, I am going to post several pictures of crime statistics and police shootings, then I am going to analyze them to show how they support my stance.






So, to compare blacks and whites, we see in the first image, blacks account for 30% of deaths at the hands of police officers, while only being 13% of the population. Using only those numbers, there would appear to be a problem. And this is why I believe that so many people are upset; because they stop there.

However, let's look at the next picture. This shows that out of 565 officer deaths, 243 of the killers were black. That's 43%, regardless of the fact that blacks only comprise 13% of the population. If we used only that statistic in the vein of the BLM movement, we could very, very easily conclude that there is a deep seated hatred of police officers among black people.

But, as we (hopefully) know, you can't stop at just one statistic. You have to take every variable into account. So, to put these two together, we see that police officers kill black people at a much lesser rate than black people kill police officers. This alone should silence any cries of systemic racism. If you do more to harm me than I do to harm you, how can the fault lie with me?

Lastly, we look at violent crime statistics. Blacks account for 36.9% of violent crime arrests (note, this is arrests, not convictions; so there can be no claim of white people getting easier sentences, etc. This is purely arrests), despite being only 13% of the population. Again, looking at only that statistic, it's not looking too good.

Let's put the first and last together, then we'll worry about all three. if you look at the rate police kill black people (30%), and then the rate at which black people account for violent crime (36.9%), then black people are actually killed less often than the rate at which they commit violent crimes. They are actually killed at a lower rate than whites, and a MUCH lower rate than Hispanics/Latinos.

When we take all three together, we see that black people kill much more than their share of police officers than police officers kill black people. Together with the rate of violent crime, if a police officer responds to a violent crime, he is much more likely to be shot if the offender is a black person.

Taking all these statistics together, we should be applauding the police for their restraint in dealing with the black population. There is obviously no systemic racism among the force, or there would be a much higher percentage of blacks killed by police officers. In fact, with these statistics, it is impossible to make an accurate claim of racism.

Now, I will readily concede that these are national statistics, and the number likely varies by city and state. In fact, I'll even grant that there is a possibility of whole police departments being corrupted and racist. But to claim a national epidemic is beyond ignorant. It is literally an impossibility given the actual facts.

In fact, taking these actual, undebatable statistics, the claim that white people are more likely to get arrested instead of killed is actually backwards. A black offender is actually less likely to get killed than a white person. It's easy to see clearly when you allow facts instead of perceptions to speak.

One thing of great importance to notice is that I did not manipulate the numbers in any way to arrive at this conclusion. The way I presented the numbers, I could not have contaminated them to fit my perspective. This is why I wanted to show the actual statistics via picture, rather than citing a source. If you want to check out the source material, then each one of the pictures cites its own source. But I wanted to ensure everyone reading that I haven't cooked the numbers at all. These are facts.

In light of all of this, it is clear to an objective person that the claims of the BLM movement are false. I won't get into whether they are purposely lying or if they are simply mistaken. That's not my goal. My only goal is to show the facts, and how they don't line up with the claims being made.

 

[Zaac]

Recently, in another thread, another poster and I went back and forth on the perceptions of the BLM movement. I decided to start a thread in which we can discuss statistics (cold, hard facts instead of perceptions) on crime, police killings, etc. It is my intention that everything in this thread be backed up with cited sources, so if you participate please adhere to this.

My intention is NOT for someone to say, "The way I see it", but to show proof of statements.

To start with, I am going to post several pictures of crime statistics and police shootings, then I am going to analyze them to show how they support my stance.


View attachment 852

View attachment 853 View attachment 854

So, to compare blacks and whites, we see in the first image, blacks account for 30% of deaths at the hands of police officers, while only being 13% of the population. Using only those numbers, there would appear to be a problem. And this is why I believe that so many people are upset; because they stop there.

However, let's look at the next picture. This shows that out of 565 officer deaths, 243 of the killers were black. That's 43%, regardless of the fact that blacks only comprise 13% of the population. If we used only that statistic in the vein of the BLM movement, we could very, very easily conclude that there is a deep seated hatred of police officers among black people.

Maybe you need to spend a little bit more time in that Statistics class? The only thing you should be able to conclude from those numbers is that of the set that was MEASURED, folks may have felt a certain way.

You shouldn't be able to CONCLUDE anything at all about the black population at large from a specific measured set who did a certain thing that the population at large HAS NOT done.

But, as we (hopefully) know, you can't stop at just one statistic. You have to take every variable into account. So, to put these two together, we see that police officers kill black people at a much lesser rate than black people kill police officers. This alone should silence any cries of systemic racism. If you do more to harm me than I do to harm you, how can the fault lie with me?

Why because police officers are honest in their reports? After all, we've got to all know that these folks who keep ending up dead in police cars and said to have shot themselves don't get counted in that statistic. How many more things have the police done that don't get "counted"?

You're trying to make a point based upon one-sided reports made by the folks Blacks say are murdering them. That's a wee bit silly.

Lastly, we look at violent crime statistics. Blacks account for 36.9% of violent crime arrests (note, this is arrests, not convictions; so there can be no claim of white people getting easier sentences, etc. This is purely arrests), despite being only 13% of the population. Again, looking at only that statistic, it's not looking too good.

Again look at that statistic and it perhaps highlights what Blacks have said about how they are policed differently than their white counterparts committing the same crimes.

So if systemically the police are looking for black people doing a certain thing and ignoring the white people doing the same thing, why on earth would you expect the "statistics" to show anything else? And again, your statistics are coming from the reports and the policing of the folks Blacks are saying are policing them differently and abusing their authority.

Your "proof" is failing the test of being proof.

Let's put the first and last together, then we'll worry about all three. if you look at the rate police kill black people (30%), and then the rate at which black people account for violent crime (36.9%), then black people are actually killed less often than the rate at which they commit violent crimes. They are actually killed at a lower rate than whites, and a MUCH lower rate than Hispanics/Latinos.

When we take all three together, we see that black people kill much more than their share of police officers than police officers kill black people. Together with the rate of violent crime, if a police officer responds to a violent crime, he is much more likely to be shot if the offender is a black person.

In lieu of what I said prior, this is moot.

Taking all these statistics together, we should be applauding the police for their restraint in dealing with the black population. There is obviously no systemic racism among the force, or there would be a much higher percentage of blacks killed by police officers. In fact, with these statistics, it is impossible to make an accurate claim of racism.

Now, I will readily concede that these are national statistics, and the number likely varies by city and state. In fact, I'll even grant that there is a possibility of whole police departments being corrupted and racist. But to claim a national epidemic is beyond ignorant. It is literally an impossibility given the actual facts.

In fact, taking these actual, undebatable statistics, the claim that white people are more likely to get arrested instead of killed is actually backwards. A black offender is actually less likely to get killed than a white person. It's easy to see clearly when you allow facts instead of perceptions to speak.

One thing of great importance to notice is that I did not manipulate the numbers in any way to arrive at this conclusion. The way I presented the numbers, I could not have contaminated them to fit my perspective. This is why I wanted to show the actual statistics via picture, rather than citing a source. If you want to check out the source material, then each one of the pictures cites its own source. But I wanted to ensure everyone reading that I haven't cooked the numbers at all. These are facts.

In light of all of this, it is clear to an objective person that the claims of the BLM movement are false. I won't get into whether they are purposely lying or if they are simply mistaken. That's not my goal. My only goal is to show the facts, and how they don't line up with the claims being made.

And this is the type of rationalization that some white folks do. Your statistics and thus your findings are influenced by the folks( the POLICE) that Blacks say are the problem. Yet you think you've proven something by combining statistics taken from the police?

That's like saying the Nazis reported that the Jews accounted for 30% of the deaths of Nazis even though Jews only represent 1% of the German population. And that the Nazis only killed a 1000 Jews while killing 10000 white men.

You're speaking pure foolishness if you think using the information from the reports of the folks accused of the wrongdoing statistically or otherwise helps to make your point.

Your attempt is flawed from the start.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The title of the OP is completely in error. I have viewed statistics with a large grain of salt since I read the book, "How to Lie with Statistics" back in the 1960's when I was in college. You can take a set of statistics and prove just about anything you want.


From Wikipedia.com

How to Lie with Statistics is a book written by Darrell Huff in 1954 presenting an introduction to statistics for the general reader. Huff was a journalist who wrote many "how to" articles as a freelancer, but was not a statistician.

The book is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining errors when it comes to the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors may create incorrect conclusions. In the 1960s and 1970s, it became a standard textbook introduction to the subject of statistics for many college students. It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition.[1] It has also been widely translated.

Themes of the book include "Correlation does not imply causation" and "Using random sampling". It also shows how statistical graphs can be used to distort reality, for example by truncating the bottom of a line or bar chart, so that differences seem larger than they are, or by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes, so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do.

The original edition contained humorous illustrations by artist Irving Geis. In a UK edition these were replaced with cartoons by Mel Calman.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

The title of the OP is completely in error. I have viewed statistics with a large grain of salt since I read the book, "How to Lie with Statistics" back in the 1960's when I was in college. You can take a set of statistics and prove just about anything you want.


From Wikipedia.com

How to Lie with Statistics is a book written by Darrell Huff in 1954 presenting an introduction to statistics for the general reader. Huff was a journalist who wrote many "how to" articles as a freelancer, but was not a statistician.

The book is a brief, breezy, illustrated volume outlining errors when it comes to the interpretation of statistics, and how these errors may create incorrect conclusions. In the 1960s and 1970s, it became a standard textbook introduction to the subject of statistics for many college students. It has become one of the best-selling statistics books in history, with over one and a half million copies sold in the English-language edition.[1] It has also been widely translated.

Themes of the book include "Correlation does not imply causation" and "Using random sampling". It also shows how statistical graphs can be used to distort reality, for example by truncating the bottom of a line or bar chart, so that differences seem larger than they are, or by representing one-dimensional quantities on a pictogram by two- or three-dimensional objects to compare their sizes, so that the reader forgets that the images do not scale the same way the quantities do.

The original edition contained humorous illustrations by artist Irving Geis. In a UK edition these were replaced with cartoons by Mel Calman.

And yet you constantly post stats about global warming....

 

[JonC]

Statistics don't lie, but they also do not conclude anything (they are facts upon which people draw conclusions). In the military we were great at presenting statistics to tell the tell we wanted told (seriously, it didn't matter how the stats turned out...we could make them support our agenda).

For example, more white people than black people are killed by police each year. But a greater percentage of people killed by police each year are black men.

 

[Lewis]

That's like saying the Nazis reported that the Jews accounted for 30% of the deaths of Nazis even though Jews only represent 1% of the German population. And that the Nazis only killed a 1000 Jews while killing 10000 white men.

You're speaking pure foolishness if you think using the information from the reports of the folks accused of the wrongdoing statistically or otherwise helps to make your point.

Your attempt is flawed from the start.

A couple of problems with your analysis.

One, you compare police officers in the US with "Nazis", and imply that both groups would intentionally falsify the statistics.

But the Nazis were sticklers for statistics, and kept excellent records of those they murdered, so that comparison is moot. In fact Jews who research their genealogy often refer to Nazi records of the era.

Also, it was the declared intention of Nazis to wipe out the Jewish people in Europe, and they nearly accomplished it.

US police have no such intent regardin African-Americans, and it would be impossible to hide such an agenda if they did. Also many of the police officers involved in the high profile shootings were black themselves.

 

[Zaac]

A couple of problems with your analysis.

One, you compare police officers in the US with "Nazis", and imply that both groups would intentionally falsify the statistics.

I implied no such thing. The point was that attempting to use statistics gathered from the reporting of the ones accused of the wrongdoing will always present a bias that is not an accurate display of the truth. Because as we've seen again and again, the police are not above protecting themselves and altering situations to make it look like they followed protocol.

But the Nazis were sticklers for statistics, and kept excellent records of those they murdered, so that comparison is moot. In fact Jews who research their genealogy often refer to Nazi records of the era.

This is moot based on my prior answer.

Also, it was the declared intention of Nazis to wipe out the Jewish people in Europe, and they nearly accomplished it.

I've heard Blacks say the same is being done to them.

US police have no such intent regardin African-Americans, and it would be impossible to hide such an agenda if they did. Also many of the police officers involved in the high profile shootings were black themselves.

Gosh, the police get their marching orders from higher up. The prison industrial complex didn't develop out of the police force. They are just being used to carry out the plan.

 

[Sapper Woody]

The title of the OP is completely in error.

I'll have to stop you right there. Statistics do not, and cannot lie. Your book says "How to lie with statistics". That's how to take a fact and spin it. Actual statistics are facts. They can't be messed with. Only the conclusions that can be drawn can be messed with.

In light of that, the rest of your post need not be answered.

 

[Crabtownboy]

And yet you constantly post stats about global warming....

And there is so much evidence in addition to statistics to show there is global warming. But the blind cannot see .... and many who can see refuse to do so.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I'll have to stop you right there. Statistics do not, and cannot lie. Your book says "How to lie with statistics". That's how to take a fact and spin it. Actual statistics are facts. They can't be messed with. Only the conclusions that can be drawn can be messed with.

In light of that, the rest of your post need not be answered.

And another person could take your same set of statistics and show a different result. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics."

 

[Lewis]

Gosh, the police get their marching orders from higher up. The prison industrial complex.

Gosh. great theory.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Maybe you need to spend a little bit more time in that Statistics class? The only thing you should be able to conclude from those numbers is that of the set that was MEASURED, folks may have felt a certain way.

You shouldn't be able to CONCLUDE anything at all about the black population at large from a specific measured set who did a certain thing that the population at large HAS NOT done.

maybe you should take a statistics class? Personally, I've taken a few, as my major is Physics/Math.

This measures the entire population, not a set. Because the "set" is comprised of those who did something, and those who didn't. So, the conclusion is obvious, and unless you disagree with the statistics (which you did later in your post) you cannot disagree with my findings. It is literally like reading a book. There's no actual interpretation; it's just looking at findings.

Let me take a second to explain something here. I do not believe that a person of a different skin color is more likely to commit a crime. However, I do believe that certain environments lend themselves more to a life of crime. The sad fact is, that with a majority of the black population living in the inner city, black children are much more likely to be exposed to crime as a norm and then follow through by living a life of crime.

So, when we look at a statistic that says that black commit much more crime than whites per person, we shouldn't automatically assume that it has anything to do with skin color. If there is a problem, this is it. With people not understanding that it's not the skin color, but the environment in which they are nurtured (obviously, each person is ultimately accountable for their choices, but that's another thread sometime). When a child of any skin color is exposed to crime, has to know which neighborhoods to stay out of, and has to fear for their lives often, they are going to grow up with a criminal "it's you or me" mindset.

So, when I look at the statistics, I don't automatically think, "Oh, this black man that I know is more likely to commit crime than I am, because I'm white". I think that it is sad that so many children of any color are not given a chance. And it just so happens that black people predominantly live in areas that foster that kind of mindset.

Why because police officers are honest in their reports? After all, we've got to all know that these folks who keep ending up dead in police cars and said to have shot themselves don't get counted in that statistic. How many more things have the police done that don't get "counted"?

You're trying to make a point based upon one-sided reports made by the folks Blacks say are murdering them. That's a wee bit silly.

In a case of "he said / she said", the only thing we can go off of is past history in order to credit or discredit each person's story. As a good example, when Brown was shot, a lot of people took Brown's friend at his word when he said that Brown was shot with his hands in the air. However, even before forensic evidence came out showing the contrary, it was made known that this friend had a warrant for his arrest for perjury. His word instantly became suspect.

Again look at that statistic and it perhaps highlights what Blacks have said about how they are policed differently than their white counterparts committing the same crimes.

So if systemically the police are looking for black people doing a certain thing and ignoring the white people doing the same thing, why on earth would you expect the "statistics" to show anything else? And again, your statistics are coming from the reports and the policing of the folks Blacks are saying are policing them differently and abusing their authority.

Your "proof" is failing the test of being proof.

I believe the statistics. I believe in the statistics. However, as I stated earlier, I don't believe it to be because of skin color. However, many more black people live in areas and conditions that foster criminal behavior. So, (and I'll admit that this is just an educated guess) the statistics look like they pan out. If we took skin color completely out of the equation, and somehow had statistics on the locations and home lives of men and women killed by police officers, and crime rates, and those that killed police officers, I guarantee they would come back almost the exact same as they do in my first post. If you then took a hotspot map of the US, and overlaid a hotspot map by skin color, it would coincide with the previous hotspot.

Obviously, this is just speculation and opinion. But before you reply to this part, I'd ask you to carefully consider what I'm actually saying.

The rest of your post I basically responded to with answers above. Now, let me tell you what I think is a good solution. (These may not be perfect or financially feasible, but I'm going with perfect world scenarios)

First, complete accountability and transparency of police forces. Second, if an officer comes under accusation, an investigation should be done by outside, unbiased sources. Third, and I guarantee you'll agree with me here, there needs to be outreach programs to inner city youth. There are actually hundreds of these programs already. I used to work in one in Peoria, IL. We picked up inner city youth after school and had activities with them, like going to the library or going to a park, etc. And there are other programs, free of charge. There are tutoring programs, there are resume writing helpers, there are college preparation helpers, etc.

The big difference between me and some others here is that I don't believe this falls on the government. These outreach programs should be privatized by charities, churches, etc.

As I'm sure we've all heard before, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." And I try to live my life by that standard.

So now the question comes down to "What can I do?" Well, personally I'm volunteering my time as a tutor in an inner city school in Little Rock. Granted, this also will help me get my teaching licensure later, but I'm doing it. I'm also volunteering in schools to help set up projects to get kids excited about the sciences. And when I become a teacher, I plan on pushing for education reform.

That's what I'm doing. We can all do something.

 

[Sapper Woody]

And another person could take your same set of statistics and show a different result. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics."

Mark Twain, while a brilliant writer, also said, "I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confines himself to facts", as well as "I never could do anything with figures, never had any talent for mathematics, never accomplished anything in my efforts at that rugged study, and to-day the only mathematics I know is multiplication". So, when it comes to statistics, I don't think he's someone to rely on.

 

[Lewis]

And there is so much evidence in addition to statistics to show there is global warming. But the blind cannot see .... and many who can see refuse to do so.

Ottmar Edenhofer, professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

 

[Zaac]

maybe you should take a statistics class? Personally, I've taken a few, as my major is Physics/Math.

I believe I mentioned a long time ago that one of my hand-full of degrees includes one in Advanced Mathematics from Georgia Tech.

This measures the entire population, not a set. Because the "set" is comprised of those who did something, and those who didn't. So, the conclusion is obvious, and unless you disagree with the statistics (which you did later in your post) you cannot disagree with my findings. It is literally like reading a book. There's no actual interpretation; it's just looking at findings.

Your error is the same as it was the last time we went through this. You're attempting to take a closed set and apply the findings on that set to the general population. It's staistically INCORRECT.

Let me take a second to explain something here. I do not believe that a person of a different skin color is more likely to commit a crime. However, I do believe that certain environments lend themselves more to a life of crime. The sad fact is, that with a majority of the black population living in the inner city, black children are much more likely to be exposed to crime as a norm and then follow through by living a life of crime.

What's sad is your racial prejudice that is coming out. The above statement is just categorically stupid. Much more likely to be exposed to crime as a norm? That's beyond stupid. And then to further stereotype by saying that because they've seen a crime, they are gonna become criminals.

Just WOW! Now you see why I said before the folks who needed to hear what Kaepernick said did. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about and now you're dangerously and incorrectly using statistics to speak on what you don't know.

So, when we look at a statistic that says that black commit much more crime than whites per person, we shouldn't automatically assume that it has anything to do with skin color.

Ain't too many statistics that say Blacks commit more crime than whites. Because of the sheer number of white people, it simply isn't the truth.

If there is a problem, this is it. With people not understanding that it's not the skin color, but the environment in which they are nurtured (obviously, each person is ultimately accountable for their choices, but that's another thread sometime). When a child of any skin color is exposed to crime, has to know which neighborhoods to stay out of, and has to fear for their lives often, they are going to grow up with a criminal "it's you or me" mindset.

NOPE.

So, when I look at the statistics, I don't automatically think, "Oh, this black man that I know is more likely to commit crime than I am, because I'm white". I think that it is sad that so many children of any color are not given a chance.

Stop the sob story. Many children of color are given a chance because they aren't exposed to crime any more than white suburban kids. And contrary to what you think, viewing crime doesn't lead everybody to a life of crime.

And it just so happens that black people predominantly live in areas that foster that kind of mindset.

It just so happens that's YOUR racial stereotype.

In a case of "he said / she said", the only thing we can go off of is past history in order to credit or discredit each person's story. As a good example, when Brown was shot, a lot of people took Brown's friend at his word when he said that Brown was shot with his hands in the air. However, even before forensic evidence came out showing the contrary, it was made known that this friend had a warrant for his arrest for perjury. His word instantly became suspect.

Again something that gets done with Blacks much more often than Whites. All you hear from the media about a lot of the white suspects is how sweet they were and no one would ever had suspected this from them. While with the black suspects, "he's got a warrant, and has been in trouble with the law before"

White America tends to perpetuate these stereotypes. Ryan Lochte destroys public property and creates an international maelstrom and he gets rewarded with a tv contract.

Kaepernick doesn't stand for the anthem, and he suddenly needs to find another country.

I believe the statistics. I believe in the statistics.

as you said the problem ain't the statistics. The problem is you not knowing how to read the statistics in a statistically valid manner.

However, as I stated earlier, I don't believe it to be because of skin color. However, many more black people live in areas and conditions that foster criminal behavior.

Man save that. It's like disparate impact. You don't have to say that's who you intended to discriminate against. But when 95% of the folks you're discriminating against look alike,then that's what your intent was.

Now you might be afraid to admit that you think it's skin color. But that's essentially what you've said while trying to excuse it as something else.

So, (and I'll admit that this is just an educated guess) the statistics look like they pan out. If we took skin color completely out of the equation, and somehow had statistics on the locations and home lives of men and women killed by police officers, and crime rates, and those that killed police officers, I guarantee they would come back almost the exact same as they do in my first post. If you then took a hotspot map of the US, and overlaid a hotspot map by skin color, it would coincide with the previous hotspot.

Obviously, this is just speculation and opinion. But before you reply to this part, I'd ask you to carefully consider what I'm actually saying.

Moot again based upon previous response.

The rest of your post I basically responded to with answers above. Now, let me tell you what I think is a good solution. (These may not be perfect or financially feasible, but I'm going with perfect world scenarios)

First, complete accountability and transparency of police forces. Second, if an officer comes under accusation, an investigation should be done by outside, unbiased sources. Third, and I guarantee you'll agree with me here, there needs to be outreach programs to inner city youth.

I don't think anyone would see a problem with any of those. But I think the outreach needs to be to the entire community.

There are actually hundreds of these programs already. I used to work in one in Peoria, IL. We picked up inner city youth after school and had activities with them, like going to the library or going to a park, etc. And there are other programs, free of charge. There are tutoring programs, there are resume writing helpers, there are college preparation helpers, etc.

The big difference between me and some others here is that I don't believe this falls on the government. These outreach programs should be privatized by charities, churches, etc.

As I'm sure we've all heard before, "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." And I try to live my life by that standard.

The outreach needs to come from the folks doing the murdering and the bad policing.

So now the question comes down to "What can I do?" Well, personally I'm volunteering my time as a tutor in an inner city school in Little Rock. Granted, this also will help me get my teaching licensure later, but I'm doing it. I'm also volunteering in schools to help set up projects to get kids excited about the sciences. And when I become a teacher, I plan on pushing for education reform.

That's what I'm doing. We can all do something.

Based on the stereotypes I've heard from you, I don't believe many inner city or outer city parents would want you reaching out to their kids if you said the things to them that you've said here.

 

[Sapper Woody]

I believe I mentioned a long time ago that one of my hand-full of degrees includes one in Advanced Mathematics from Georgia Tech.

Your error is the same as it was the last time we went through this. You're attempting to take a closed set and apply the findings on that set to the general population. It's staistically INCORRECT.

Based on your last response of 50/50 chance being the answer, I'd assumed you knew absolutely nothing about statistics and probability. But, since one of your degrees is in mathematics, you should understand that this "closed set" is a "closed set" that contains the entire population of the US. It is a population set of those who have committed crime versus those that haven't, separated into categories by skin color.

What's sad is your racial prejudice that is coming out. The above statement is just categorically stupid. Much more likely to be exposed to crime as a norm? That's beyond stupid. And then to further stereotype by saying that because they've seen a crime, they are gonna become criminals.

And now you're doing what you often accuse other people of doing. If you want to say what I said, say what I said and not what you wanted me to say. Where does most crime happen? In the inner city. Where do most black people live? In the inner city. So it naturally follows that many black children will be exposed to "crime as a norm". In other words, they will see it becoming a normal thing. When something is a normal lifestyle, it naturally follows that the child will be more likely to follow that path. This is a basic principle.

Ain't too many statistics that say Blacks commit more crime than whites. Because of the sheer number of white people, it simply isn't the truth.

You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you? I said "per person". And EVERY statistic says that. Even though black people account for only 13% of the population, they account for over 36% of the violent crimes. This is irrefutable. This is fact.

NOPE.

You say "nope". But that's illogical. When a child is constantly shown that the only person who will take care of you is you, and that no one else matters, then they will grow up that way. And that is what is plaguing our inner city youth of any color.

Stop the sob story. Many children of color are given a chance because they aren't exposed to crime any more than white suburban kids. And contrary to what you think, viewing crime doesn't lead everybody to a life of crime.

I didn't say "children of color", I said "children of any color". And if you think that a suburban child of any color is exposed to the same crime that an inner city child of any color is, that's delusional.

It just so happens that's YOUR racial stereotype.

No, that's a fact. Ask anyone where the toughest, most crime laden places to live are, and they'll tell you the inner city. And where do black people often live? The inner city.

Again something that gets done with Blacks much more often than Whites. All you hear from the media about a lot of the white suspects is how sweet they were and no one would ever had suspected this from them. While with the black suspects, "he's got a warrant, and has been in trouble with the law before"

Most white criminals you see on TV are seemingly good kids that went psychopath suddenly and did something terrible, like shooting up a school or something equally terrible. Most black criminals you see on TV don't do something nearly that bad, but have a history of misdemeanors.

White America tends to perpetuate these stereotypes. Ryan Lochte destroys public property and creates an international maelstrom and he gets rewarded with a tv contract.

I can't comment on that as I don't know who that is.

Kaepernick doesn't stand for the anthem, and he suddenly needs to find another country.

You may not be referring to me directly, but I've never said that. I simply said he shouldn't have done that and it was disrespectful.

as you said the problem ain't the statistics. The problem is you not knowing how to read the statistics in a statistically valid manner.

Or, it could be your comprehension of statistics isn't as high as you thought. Because it's pretty plain on paper.

Man save that. It's like disparate impact. You don't have to say that's who you intended to discriminate against. But when 95% of the folks you're discriminating against look alike,then that's what your intent was.

And suddenly, Zaac, the person who is always correcting people on this point, is a mind reader; telling me what my intention was when evidently I don't even know! Turn about is fair play.

Now you might be afraid to admit that you think it's skin color. But that's essentially what you've said while trying to excuse it as something else.

Is it essentially what I've said, or is it actually what I've said? You've told people to make the distinction before in regards to your words, so maybe you should extend me the same courtesy.

I don't think anyone would see a problem with any of those. But I think the outreach needs to be to the entire community.

I can agree with that, though I think it's important to focus on the children. Children are not as set in their ways as an adult would be. Besides, I'm starting to think that there's too much of a gap to see any reconciliation in this generation. But if we can foster kids (both white and black) to realize that there's no difference, we just might be able to make a change for the better for future generations.

Side note: We were eating at Taco Bell one day, and they had a PBS show on aimed at kids, and it was talking about how we could all get along despite our differences. I asked the manager to turn the channel, because I didn't want my daughters to get it into their heads that there was any difference. I want them to grow up "colorblind".

The outreach needs to come from the folks doing the murdering and the bad policing.

Ignoring your use of the word "murdering", if the police were doing the outreach then that would foster more trust both ways.

Based on the stereotypes I've heard from you, I don't believe many inner city or outer city parents would want you reaching out to their kids if you said the things to them that you've said here.

And I could resort to Tu Quoque, but instead I'll ask you to look back and show where I've shown any stereotypes. All I've done is present the facts and look for solutions.

If you look at any of my postings, nothing I've said has put a bad light on black people. Rather, it's exposed the plight of inner city youth. The unfortunate fact is that most of the inner city youth happen to have black skin.

 

[carpro]

Sapper, your facts mean nothing to the radical leftist race mongers.

 

[Zaac]

Based on your last response of 50/50 chance being the answer, I'd assumed you knew absolutely nothing about statistics and probability.

Umm, you were wrong about the 50/50 discussion and you're STILL wrong.

But, since one of your degrees is in mathematics, you should understand that this "closed set" is a "closed set" that contains the entire population of the US. It is a population set of those who have committed crime versus those that haven't, separated into categories by skin color.

What are you talking about? You said

If we used only that statistic in the vein of the BLM movement, we could very, very easily conclude that there is a deep seated hatred of police officers among black people.

Let me put this where the goats can get it. You have a set of people who killed police officers. What that closed set of people did or feel tells you NOTHING about how the rest of the black people who didn't commit that crime feel about police officers.

If what you say is the case, then based upon the numbers in your graphic of Whites committing 60% of those crimes, we should be able to deduce that there is a violent streak in Whites.

And now you're doing what you often accuse other people of doing. If you want to say what I said, say what I said and not what you wanted me to say. Where does most crime happen? In the inner city. Where do most black people live? In the inner city. So it naturally follows that many black children will be exposed to "crime as a norm".

Again this is stupid and it statistically makes no good sense. Is all this crime in the inner city affecting the white kids who live in the inner city the same way? There are by far more white folks living in the inner city than Black in just about every major city in the United States. So what are you talking about? Are all of them becoming criminals too? I mean they are in the same inner city.

In other words, they will see it becoming a normal thing. When something is a normal lifestyle, it naturally follows that the child will be more likely to follow that path. This is a basic principle.

That's your stereotype. There aren't any more black parents normalizing crime than there are white parents doing the same.

You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you? I said "per person".

I know you said per person. But you didn't give any PER PERSON statistics. You gave group statistics

And EVERY statistic says that. Even though black people account for only 13% of the population, they account for over 36% of the violent crimes. This is irrefutable. This is fact.

And again, police folks the same and the numbers change. But that's neither here nor there. What you incorrectly done is taken a number like that 36% and used it to say that all Blacks are violent. YES, that's exactly what you did.

You say "nope". But that's illogical. When a child is constantly shown that the only person who will take care of you is you, and that no one else matters, then they will grow up that way. And that is what is plaguing our inner city youth of any color.

NOPE. You're generalizing again because you think that's the outcome.

I didn't say "children of color", I said "children of any color". And if you think that a suburban child of any color is exposed to the same crime that an inner city child of any color is, that's delusional.

Umm you said with most Blacks living in the inner cities, they are exposed to more crime. I addressed what you said about the black kids, not the any.

No, that's a fact. Ask anyone where the toughest, most crime laden places to live are, and they'll tell you the inner city. And where do black people often live? The inner city.

Stereotyping because that's what you want to believe.

Most white criminals you see on TV are seemingly good kids that went psychopath suddenly and did something terrible, like shooting up a school or something equally terrible. Most black criminals you see on TV don't do something nearly that bad, but have a history of misdemeanors.

Yep this is how white privileged people think.

I can't comment on that as I don't know who that is.

White Olympic swimmer.

You may not be referring to me directly, but I've never said that. I simply said he shouldn't have done that and it was disrespectful.

No less disrespectful than what Lochte did then.

Or, it could be your comprehension of statistics isn't as high as you thought. Because it's pretty plain on paper.

Oh my comprehension is fine. And I've got an MS in Mathematics from one of the premier engineering schools in the world. I've taken and taught a lot of Statistics classes. Have you gotten yours yet?

What's pretty plain on paper is you don't know how to read statistics.

And suddenly, Zaac, the person who is always correcting people on this point, is a mind reader; telling me what my intention was when evidently I don't even know! Turn about is fair play.

You're too old to start acting like a child here.

Is it essentially what I've said, or is it actually what I've said? You've told people to make the distinction before in regards to your words, so maybe you should extend me the same courtesy.

I said essentially and it doesn't change what you're tap dancing around saying.

I can agree with that, though I think it's important to focus on the children. Children are not as set in their ways as an adult would be. Besides, I'm starting to think that there's too much of a gap to see any reconciliation in this generation.

You're not getting to the kids without the adults. The gap exists because angry white men don't feel a need to reconcile with the generation that includes those folks.

And this again is why I said that Blacks don't want to hear any more what white folks are saying. You want to provide your answer with addressing that you are part of the problem.

But if we can foster kids (both white and black) to realize that there's no difference, we just might be able to make a change for the better for future generations.

But there IS a difference. There is a cultural difference and there's nothing wrong with that.

Side note: We were eating at Taco Bell one day, and they had a PBS show on aimed at kids, and it was talking about how we could all get along despite our differences. I asked the manager to turn the channel, because I didn't want my daughters to get it into their heads that there was any difference. I want them to grow up "colorblind".

That's something else that the black folks I've spoken to cannot stand. White people like to say that they are colorblind. The skin color IS different. It's okay to acknowledge that.

Black people have experienced a lot because of that skin color and it has in many ways shaped their lives just as white skin has doe the same with white people.

To say that you are colorblind when they are standing on the shoulders of the atrocities endured by previous generations of Blacks is viewed as very insulting.

Ignoring your use of the word "murdering", if the police were doing the outreach then that would foster more trust both ways.

And I could resort to Tu Quoque, but instead I'll ask you to look back and show where I've shown any stereotypes. All I've done is present the facts and look for solutions.

Gosh, where haven't you? It's your misuse of those statistics that's got you generalizing conclusiveness.

If you look at any of my postings, nothing I've said has put a bad light on black people.

That's funny.

Rather, it's exposed the plight of inner city youth. The unfortunate fact is that most of the inner city youth happen to have black skin.

Ummm, no they do not.

 

[Revmitchell]

You guys are arguing the wrong points. BLM is a fabricated movement created by george Soros for the purpose of nationalizing our local police forces.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Ok, I was in a hurry earlier, as I was on lunch. You aren't comprehending what I'm trying to say for one reason or another, maybe because I was in that hurry. Because in your last post you talked past a lot of points I was trying to make, and even somewhat strengthened mine. So, I'm going to respond, and take my time doing so, in an attempt to articulate more clearly what I'm trying to say.

Umm, you were wrong about the 50/50 discussion and you're STILL wrong.

I'm going to gloss over this, as I don't want to get sidetracked from the main discussion.

What are you talking about? You said

If we used only that statistic in the vein of the BLM movement, we could very, very easily conclude that there is a deep seated hatred of police officers among black people

Let me put this where the goats can get it. You have a set of people who killed police officers. What that closed set of people did or feel tells you NOTHING about how the rest of the black people who didn't commit that crime feel about police officers.

In my quote, I was showing the folly of presenting the evidence that way. I was showing how the BLM movement (from here on, I will use BLM to generically mean the entire movement) uses a single statistic in order to justify their claims. How many police officers did NOT kill a black man? The vast majority. Just like the vast majority of black people have not killed an officer.

If what you say is the case, then based upon the numbers in your graphic of Whites committing 60% of those crimes, we should be able to deduce that there is a violent streak in Whites.

Exactly.

Again this is stupid and it statistically makes no good sense. Is all this crime in the inner city affecting the white kids who live in the inner city the same way?

Yes. Like I said, it's not a color issue.

There are by far more white folks living in the inner city than Black in just about every major city in the United States. So what are you talking about? Are all of them becoming criminals too? I mean they are in the same inner city.

Most kids of any color do not become criminals. If you were to look at white inner city kids versus black inner city kids, I would wager that the percentage of kids becoming criminals would be equal.

The difference is, when an inner city white person becomes a criminal, there are so many more white people who aren't inner city (and so generally not as subject to inner city problems and crime) so that the number gets diluted, and the percentage goes down. On the other hand, a majority of black people live in the inner city, and so when a black person becomes a criminal, there aren't as many black people to help water down the statistic.

That's your stereotype. There aren't any more black parents normalizing crime than there are white parents doing the same.

And here you put words in my mouth. I wasn't talking about black parents. I was talking about inner city. I am fully aware that whites also dominate the inner city. So, in raw numbers (not percentages) there are far more white people being exposed to crime as normal than black people. Again, the difference comes from a majority of black people living where crime is normalized, where the sheer number of white people elsewhere dilutes the percentages.

I know you said per person. But you didn't give any PER PERSON statistics. You gave group statistics

And again, police folks the same and the numbers change. But that's neither here nor there. What you incorrectly done is taken a number like that 36% and used it to say that all Blacks are violent. YES, that's exactly what you did.

I have not, and will not, ever said that all black people are anything. Other than black, of course. See, here's the thing; judging a person by their skin color is wrong. It is a wicked, wicked practice.

But it goes both ways.

Umm you said with most Blacks living in the inner cities, they are exposed to more crime. I addressed what you said about the black kids, not the any.

And here I'm going to reiterate what I said above, because my meaning was lost earlier. Later in my post, I misspoke. I said, "Most of the inner city youth have black skin", when what I meant was "Most of the youth with black skin are inner city". Obviously, only representing 13% of the population, black children will be in the minority in most (if not all) cities of any size (Adding: actually, I just googled it. I can't find a city where black people are more than 46% of the population. They might be the majority there, but they aren't more than 46%). But, if you look at where black people predominantly live (couldn't find an exact percentage) an overwhelming majority of them live in a big city (10% of the black population lives in New York city, with over 50% of the black population living in the ten most "black" cities).

This means, that while a greater number of white children will be exposed to the inner city lifestyle, a greater percentage of black children will be.

Oh my comprehension is fine. And I've got an MS in Mathematics from one of the premier engineering schools in the world. I've taken and taught a lot of Statistics classes. Have you gotten yours yet?

What's pretty plain on paper is you don't know how to read statistics.

Firstly, I apologize for my statement earlier. I allowed myself to stoop to ad hominem. I'm resolving to not do that in this thread from here forward.

Sidenote: I am loving my math classes. While Physics is going to be my primary area of focus, I am also getting the Math degree to make myself more marketable, and because I really didn't need that many more hours to get a major in it. (12, I think).

You're too old to start acting like a child here.

I said essentially and it doesn't change what you're tap dancing around saying.

On this point, I'm not backing down. You are constantly telling people to address what you said rather than what they say you said. If you can do it, so can I.

You're not getting to the kids without the adults.

Possibly.

The gap exists because angry white men don't feel a need to reconcile with the generation that includes those folks.

Now, I'm saying this without any malice whatsoever. But don't you realize that this sentence here is doing exactly what you're talking about? It is placing the blame on one side, and using inflammatory language. It would be akin to me saying, "The gap exists because lazy black men want a handout". Neither one is productive, neither one shows a willingness to compromise, and both use an adjective designed to anger.

And this again is why I said that Blacks don't want to hear any more what white folks are saying. You want to provide your answer with addressing that you are part of the problem.

Zaac, you show me how I am part of the problem, and I'll change. But just because I'm white does not mean I'm part of the problem. Just because I think differently does not mean I'm a part of the problem.

But there IS a difference. There is a cultural difference and there's nothing wrong with that.

That's something else that the black folks I've spoken to cannot stand. White people like to say that they are colorblind. The skin color IS different. It's okay to acknowledge that.

Black people have experienced a lot because of that skin color and it has in many ways shaped their lives just as white skin has doe the same with white people

To say that you are colorblind when they are standing on the shoulders of the atrocities endured by previous generations of Blacks is viewed as very insulting..

I think you get what I was saying, but I'll elaborate anyway. When I say there's no difference, I mean that people shouldn't be treated any differently. That everyone is a person with feelings and emotions, just like me. To try and not see color literally is impossible, and sometimes hysterical. In my old unit we had two guys working in OPS by the name of davis. One was white, and one was black. They were the same height and build, and had the same hair color. When someone (usually a white guy) came into our TOC from a different unit and asked for "Davis", it was hilarious to see him try to tell us which one without mentioning skin color.

That's funny.

Now, maybe that I've explained my meaning, you'll understand when I say that I haven't said anything that puts a bad light on black people.

Ummm, no they do not.

I agree with you. I mis-spoke.