Yeah after observing how large groups of low-income African Americans behave, I'm sure I'd wise up too and choose to live as far away from them as possible. Nice try though.
Oblig.
Funny, Strange, Random Pics
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Oblig.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,545
- 24,164
That's a misreading of the statistics by subtracting the wrong numbers from the totals and reading the statistics incorrectly. That misreading is then propagated via racist websites.
GIS for Lying with Numbers.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
Here's the document in question. Every single table, regardless of what it's about, has the same asterisk for some part of the data:
*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
See purse snatchings. 30,000, but estimates based on 10 or fewer sample cases.
That doesn't mean there were 10 or fewer rapes. That's not how statistics work.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=464
Black women are easy as fuck. You literally just walk up and ask for their number. I've been rejected maybe 10% of the time hitting on black women. White women on the other hand... jesus fucking christ.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,545
- 24,164
Wrong. See table 42. It means out of ALL 44,520 cases of rapes where black women were the victims, they took a total of 10 random sample cases and based their ratios for ALL 44,520 off of that. Not that there were less than 10 white on black rapes total. The same asterisk appears for the 70.3% of black on black rapes, and 70% of 44,520 is a LOT more than 10.
"When the national estimate is based on 10 or fewer actual sample cases, we make note of this and encourage caution in interpreting results."
From the second link. It is impossible to draw any statistical conclusion from the small number of sample cases used. It is an example of the government being retarded and lazy when compiling statistics, not evidence of anything to do with race or crime.
This is how you can tell if you're a racist and/or bad at math. If you look at that chart and say "there were less than 10 cases of white on black rape" rather than "out of less than 10 sample cases from 44,520 cases, 0 were white on black" then either you are a racist or you need to go take Statistics for Social Sciences I at your local community college.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,912
- 51,010
So you're thinking they just said fuck it and put 0 there randomly when every other entry on that table has numbers? Just a coincidence eh? And the other numbers in the table are like 43, 32.3, etc...
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,545
- 24,164
Jesus fucking christ, read the god damn chart, and read their own fucking notes. It's not "randomly" aside from the random sampling. They took 44,520 cases, picked LESS THAN 10, presumably at random, and extrapolated from there. And they say exactly that.
All that it means is that they DIDN'T use quota sampling when selecting the sample cases.
Here, fuck it, learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samplin...mpling_methods
rape statistics are always fucked up and changes with definition. I don't give a fuck about those statistics anymore. i mean shit rape is pretty rampant in Sweden. IN SWEDEN. fuck rape bullshit everywhere. tired of fucking rape cries. those VICTIMS can go fuck themselves. i don't give a shit. THANKS, FEMINISTS, I LITERALLY DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT RAPISTS AND RAPE VICTIMS THANKS TO YOU.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 56,069
- 138,987
pii199
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 94
- 126
