Should white feminists join black street gangs to increase their diversity and control their guns? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14974220
Victoribus Spolia wrote:This was shown to be patently false. Several times.


I'm defending proper application of statistical analysis, correct.

Blacks and whites have no real difference in killing their spouses if we DO NOT take into account each racial groups rates of participation in crime, unemployment, substance-abuse, and lack-of-education.

When we do take into account those factors (as they exist in REAL LIFE) then black males are 33% more likely to kill their white partners. This is true, that was the only claim made.

To excuse this FACT because black men have suffered discrimination in their collective history, is not only irrelevant, but it doesn't justify or excuse violence against women, which is a wicked and savage act.

To defend such violence against women on the basis of political-correctness and double-speak is itself abhorrent and shameful.


Once again, you attack me personally and ignore the fact that the study contradicts the claims made by the racist propaganda.
#14974225
Pants-of-dog wrote:Once again, you attack me personally and ignore the fact that the study contradicts the claims made by the racist propaganda.


The facts are the facts, no racism or propaganda involved in my arguments. NONE.

I am not attacking you personally, I am saying that anyone who ignores or dismisses violence against women on the basis of political correctness is acting in a shameful manner.

Do you believe this applies to you?
#14974337
It is not so much a dispute about facts, but instead is more about how the facts were portrayed.

It is a fact that spousal homicide is correlated with a series of factors.

These factors, by coincidence, are also more likely to be seen in certain groups.

So, it is true that these factors, and therefore spousal homicide, will be higher among these groups.

It is also a true fact that race itself is not one of these factors.

It is a true fact that the higher rate for that group is a coincidence.

It is a true fact that people who have a prejudice against the group can omit the fact that this is a coincidence in order to create an incorrect impression about the group.

Finally, it is also a true fact that the piece you cited chose to omit certain facts in order to make it seem that race is a factor. They also chose to omit the fact that the study itself disproves the claim that race is a factor.

Do you disagree?
#14974434
You would need to prove they are a coincidence. You are just assuming they are, so you can dismiss them. You can argue almost anything is a coincidence, but that does not invalidate the importance of the coincidence.
#14974454
So what is the leftie argument here, that its OK for Black men to rape women, if they've got a criminal record, if they are a drug user, if they are a welfare recipient?

Are they arguing that White women are asking for it if they consort with a Black man in a high risk group? Are they saying for example that White women should check if a Black man has a criminal record, before going on a date with him? Because I've got an awful feeling that lefties would start whining rather loudly if White women started asking Black men for a criminal record check.

I don't doubt that the American police force is on average more aggressive, more prone to use force, even lethal force than the typical European police force. But it never seems to occur to the leftie to ask why this might be the case. It never occurs to the leftie that America's aggressive policing is a response to the incredibly high violence and criminality of some of America's minority communities. Even the Rodney King beating. To the average resident of Sweden, Finland or even a middle class resident of up-state Vermont, such behaviour may seem incomprehensible. What they fail to understand is that the Rodney King beating came out of despair at America's broken inner city justice system, that those officers. by taking the law into their own hands were actually trying to help the majority of the Black community that are not career criminals.
#14974459
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not so much a dispute about facts, but instead is more about how the facts were portrayed.

It is a fact that spousal homicide is correlated with a series of factors.

These factors, by coincidence, are also more likely to be seen in certain groups.

So, it is true that these factors, and therefore spousal homicide, will be higher among these groups.

It is also a true fact that race itself is not one of these factors.


Agreed with all of this except the "coincidence" language as that is an express claim to know the cause or lack-thereof for that statistical correlation, which is outside the scope of the analysis.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is a true fact that the higher rate for that group is a coincidence.


It is true fact that this group has a higher rate. Whether its a coincidence or not cannot be inferred directly as the underlying cause of WHY this groups has these relevant factors more is not in the scope of the analysis in question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, it is also a true fact that the piece you cited chose to omit certain facts in order to make it seem that race is a factor. They also chose to omit the fact that the study itself disproves the claim that race is a factor.


No, even if it can be "taken" in that way, the general fact was not untrue, that blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses than in any other pairing, this is true in real life and so stating that fact is not incorrect even if we dropped this rate by discounting the contributing factors (controlling factors). The truth of the matter is plain and its not the responsibility of anyone to qualify a practically irrelevant point anyway. Factors controlled for in statistic hypotheticals aren't controlled for in real life after all.

There is nothing about skin color that makes you more likely to kill your spouse and I don't even know anyone on the far-right that would believe something so simplistic, let alone me or you.

I really don't see why you got your panties in such a bunch over this, what I was saying was quite plain from the start and it was all factual.
#14974474
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Agreed with all of this except the "coincidence" language as that is an express claim to know the cause or lack-thereof for that statistical correlation, which is outside the scope of the analysis.

It is true fact that this group has a higher rate. Whether its a coincidence or not cannot be inferred directly as the underlying cause of WHY this groups has these relevant factors more is not in the scope of the analysis in question.


I am using the term coincidence to mean a relationship that is, for the purposes of our debate, arbitrary.

It is not actually a coincidence, since it is a predictable outocme of centuries of racism and marginalisation.

No, even if it can be "taken" in that way, the general fact was not untrue, that blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses than in any other pairing, this is true in real life and so stating that fact is not incorrect even if we dropped this rate by discounting the contributing factors (controlling factors). The truth of the matter is plain and its not the responsibility of anyone to qualify a practically irrelevant point anyway. Factors controlled for in statistic hypotheticals aren't controlled for in real life after all.


This has nothing to do with the fact that I discuss: how the piece you cited deliberately omitted facts in order to make it seem like black men are dangerous for white women.

There is nothing about skin color that makes you more likely to kill your spouse and I don't even know anyone on the far-right that would believe something so simplistic, let alone me or you.


I have never been disappointed when assuming that the idiocy of racists is deep and broad.

Regardless, you do not seem to disagree with any of the facts preesented.
#14976926
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am using the term coincidence to mean a relationship that is, for the purposes of our debate, arbitrary.


Correlations are not arbitrary, even if other correlative factors may be more informative as to certain stats; which is not denied and what the whole controlling-for-factors qualification made in the study was about. However, race is a real-life correlation and only ceases to be so when the correlation of race to other correlations of certain crimes are controlled-for. So if you are saying that you mean by coincidence that race is arbitrary, well that is simply untrue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not actually a coincidence, since it is a predictable outocme of centuries of racism and marginalisation.


If its not a coincidence then why says it a coincidence? :eh:

Please provide evidence that centuries of marginalization and racism causes certain racial groups to become violent and kill their women and please explain how this is even relevant to the claims I made based on the study.

Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Regardless, you do not seem to disagree with any of the facts preesented.


Obviously, I am the one who presented them. :lol:
#14976958
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Correlations are not arbitrary, even if other correlative factors may be more informative as to certain stats; which is not denied and what the whole controlling-for-factors qualification made in the study was about. However, race is a real-life correlation and only ceases to be so when the correlation of race to other correlations of certain crimes are controlled-for. So if you are saying that you mean by coincidence that race is arbitrary, well that is simply untrue.


I have already pointed out why this is not a correlation.

Again, a correlation is a direct association between two things.

“Mary got the plague while she was surrounded b rats” is a correlation.

“Mary got the plague while wearing red” is a coincidence.

In this case, it is more like the latter.

If its not a coincidence then why says it a coincidence? :eh:

Please provide evidence that centuries of marginalization and racism causes certain racial groups to become violent and kill their women and please explain how this is even relevant to the claims I made based on the study.

Thanks.


This is not relevant and does not move the discussion forward.

Obviously, I am the one who presented them. :lol:


I was obviously referring to the list of facts I presented.

And you seem to agree that the piece you cited deliberately confused and withheld facts in order to make racist and incorrect claims.
#14976962
Pants-of-dog wrote:“Mary got the plague while she was surrounded b rats” is a correlation.

“Mary got the plague while wearing red” is a coincidence.


Not quite, its more like saying that Mary got the plague while wearing red, and we found out that people wearing red are 33% more likely to get the plague.

That latter bit of information makes it more than a mere coincidence, there is a correlation going on there of a statistically significant nature, but I would agree that it is technically incorrect to say that wearing red is the cause of the plague, just like it is wrong to say that being black is the cause of women-being-killed by blacks being 33% higher than other male-female couple combinations.

Its not a mere coincidence though, even if the relevant factors paint a complicated picture, hypothetically speaking.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not relevant and does not move the discussion forward.


You made the claim that marginialization and racism are responsible for blacks being 33% more likely to kill their white spouses. Thats a bold claim requiring evidence.

If you don't have evidence for this claim, thats fine. That just means there is no reason to take your claims seriously.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I was obviously referring to the list of facts I presented.


I don't remember you stating facts, I remember you calling the facts I presented racist. Thats about it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you seem to agree that the piece you cited deliberately confused and withheld facts in order to make racist and incorrect claims.


Is that what I said?

Nope.

The claim is that blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses, and this is factually true unless we control for relevant factors like blacks being more likely to be substance abusing jobless criminal drop-outs, etc. :lol:
#14976973
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Not quite, its more like saying that Mary got the plague while wearing red, and we found out that people wearing red are 33% more likely to get the plague.

That latter bit of information makes it more than a mere coincidence, there is a correlation going on there of a statistically significant nature, but I would agree that it is technically incorrect to say that wearing red is the cause of the plague, just like it is wrong to say that being black is the cause of women-being-killed by blacks being 33% higher than other male-female couple combinations.

Its not a mere coincidence though, even if the relevant factors paint a complicated picture, hypothetically speaking.


It seems like you want to stretch the definition of correlation here.

Sure.

It does not matter.

Race is still not a factor for spousal abuse and homicide. The study cited by the racist propaganda supports this.

You made the claim that marginialization and racism are responsible for blacks being 33% more likely to kill their white spouses. Thats a bold claim requiring evidence.

If you don't have evidence for this claim, thats fine. That just means there is no reason to take your claims seriously.


I think you will take my claims seriously enough to reply even if I do not bother with this irrelevancy.

I don't remember you stating facts, I remember you calling the facts I presented racist. Thats about it.


Your memory issues are not my problem.

Is that what I said?

Nope.

The claim is that blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses, and this is factually true unless we control for relevant factors like blacks being more likely to be substance abusing jobless criminal drop-outs, etc. :lol:


According to the actual study, blacks are not more likely than whites to hurt their spouses.

Would you like me to repeat the text from the actual study?
#14976977
Pants-of-dog wrote:Race is still not a factor for spousal abuse and homicide. The study cited by the racist propaganda supports this.


Race is not an independent factor.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think you will take my claims seriously enough to reply even if I do not bother with this irrelevancy.


So no evidence then?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your memory issues are not my problem.


Not an argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:According to the actual study, blacks are not more likely than whites to hurt their spouses.


Statistically, yes they are.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Would you like me to repeat the text from the actual study?


You mean the part where they qualified that race is not a factor only if we control (ignore) the fact that blacks are disproporitionately more like to contribute to the factors that more directly correlate to spousal homicide, like being substance-abusing jobless drop-out criminals?

By all means please do, it only supports my point, it does not contradict it in the least.

Blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses BECAUSE they are also more likely to be drug-abusing jobless drop-out criminals, if we control for this factor, then and only then is race not a factor. :lol:
#14976993
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not sure why you are defending your racist propaganda so vociferously.

The study on which it was based has already contradicted the racist claim.


So no argument then?

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
#14977020
I already presented the facts.

You agreed with them.

If you want to claim the actual study madw claims about race, please quote the text. As I did.

Then everyone can read the actual study and make up their own minds.

As far as I recall, it was only the racist propaganda you cited that discussed race as a factor.
#14977246
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already presented the facts.You agreed with them.If you want to claim the actual study madw claims about race, please quote the text. As I did.Then everyone can read the actual study and make up their own minds.As far as I recall, it was only the racist propaganda you cited that discussed race as a factor.


So no argument then?


The only facts that were presented, were presented by me.


All that you did was bring up a qualification made in the study I presented that not only did not contradict my argument, but made it even stronger.


Thanks!
#14977252
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So no argument then?


The only facts that were presented, were presented by me.


All that you did was bring up a qualification made in the study I presented that not only did not contradict my argument, but made it even stronger.


Thanks!


@Victoribus Spolia ,

We live in a West that is remarkably committed to being ''fact free''. But the thing is that facts don't care what people think about them or feel about them, they still exist.

And the times they are a changing, because facts are falling upon the liberals and their allies like a ton of bricks, over and over again. You and I will survive them, but the liberals will not.
#14977272
Victoribus Spolia wrote:So no argument then?


The only facts that were presented, were presented by me.


All that you did was bring up a qualification made in the study I presented that not only did not contradict my argument, but made it even stronger.


Thanks!


So, you were unable to quote any text from the study that supports your point.

I did support my point with text from the study.

The discussion is now moot.

The evidence supports my claim and does not support yours.
#14977451
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, you were unable to quote any text from the study that supports your point.I did support my point with text from the study.The discussion is now moot.The evidence supports my claim and does not support yours.



False. My claim was supported by the source material verbatim; you only quoted the study's qualification which has no bearing on actual reality.


The only thing the qualification says is that race is not a statistically verifiable independent factor in isolation. Which doesn't really change the fact that blacks are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses, it only rebuts the claim that they are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses because of their skin color. :lol:

The actual reason they are 33% more likely to kill their white spouses, per the study, is because they are also more likely to be uneducated, jobless, drug-abusing, criminals.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course, the reason they are this way is not in the purview of the study, but I think @Suntzu has summarized your position accurately:

Suntzu wrote:Blacks are around 9 times more likely to commit murder in the U.S. than Whites but is it just because the Black's ancestors were slaves.



:D

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]