Reply With Quote
o Avante's number 1 fan.
i see ever since i called you about about your dedication to "owning Avante" you took that gay down. scram.
fam did you cite check your references?stats from 1991 are still relevant today. you realize how stupid you sound there, right? not to mention that those numbers you think help your case just prove that whites are still less likely to molest children than blacks. There's 70% more white molesters, but that's because whites are the majority, even moreso back in 1991.
Let me put it in a way you might understand better: Jamal sends his 10 kids out to hustle crack for him, they get him $600 in a day. Roscoe sends his 5 kids out to hustle crack for him, they get him $400 in a day. Jamal made more money, but Roscoe made more money per kid. If Roscoe had 10 kids like Jamal, he'd make more than Jamal. But since he doesn't, he'll have to maximize his profits by getting on welfare and food stamps.
Just like how there's more total white child molesters, but there's a higher percentage of black child molesters based on total population. Meaning per person, there's a higher percentage of black child molesters than white ones.
Get it?
well i did and robert lindsay is full of lol.
that state on "% of child molesters" is actually % of child abuse:
Rate of child abuse by race:
White = 51%
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Offenders
Also from the article YOU presented:
The figure is from the Bureau of Prisons, 1991.
And you left this off(also from your robert lindsay site of bull ):
Blacks are 85% more likely to molest children than Whites.
Where did the myth come from? It’s not certain, but for most crimes, especially violent crimes, Blacks have rates that are up to 6-9 times higher than Whites. For child molestation, these wildly elevated rates for Blacks are not seen. Instead, Whites much more approach parity with Black crime rates in terms of child molestation. This greatly increased White rate vis a vis Blacks compared to other crimes may have given rise to the illusion that Whites are more likely than Blacks to commit this crime.
He just called that 85% number a Myth and doesn't even know where it came fromInstead he uses the rationale that since "blacks have rates 6-9 times higher than white" that it makes sense that 85% of the child molestations are happening by them
Trill- 1
white boy- 0
Ya arms too short to box with the gawd.
o Avante's number 1 fan.
i see ever since i called you about about your dedication to "owning Avante" you took that gay down. scram.
THAT'S the myth he's referring too, you in re . AND DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED FROM THAT ARTICLE?????There is a long-standing myth perpetrated by Blacks...that Whites are more likely to molest children than any other race.
ILLUSION, do you know what the illusion means?
THAT'S the myth he's referring too, you in re . AND DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT YOU JUST POSTED FROM THAT ARTICLE?????
ILLUSION, do you know what the illusion means?
fam you just scoffed at stats from 1991, yet robert lindsay has stats from the same year and even older. i didn't feel like copying them. some of the links to "sources" he used don't even work anymore
he can't even justify using that 85% number. he just shrugged his shoulders and said it sounds right.
there is no illusion. the FACT is childe molestation and pedophilia is a white crime. swallow that pill.
Who is likely to report molestation to the cops? A white victim or a "minority" victim?
lol because you know you're full of . thanks for playing, son.
Lol tril doesnt understand math. Homie, yo said whites account for 51% of molestations in one of your posts yes but at the time they represented 74% of the population. Id explain better but I'm on my fancy white person phone.
I'll wait until they come out with White Ops.
lolHispanics are 2.3 X (135%) more likely to molest children than Whites.
Blacks are 85% more likely to molest children than Whites.
I think the problem is in the definition of children. In the wild, monkeys are sexually mature as young as 4 or 5. So it's not uncommon for a 20 year old monkey to have sex with a 4 year old monkey. It's the transition form the jungle to civilization and the different sets of standards that's causing the confusion.
This is a stupid thread all the way around but that blog post you're quoting is laughable. There is so much wrong with the stats he cobbled together ... here are some highlights:
-In his first group of stats, he somehow manages to flip numbers that are clearly labeled as "child abuse" stats into "child molesters". Unless you consider someone who neglects a child a "child molester", you can basically throw away the first half of his blog post. I'm not even sure how he made that mistake, tbh.
-That 135% for Hispanics and 85% for blacks considers statutory rape as molesting children, whereas previously in that blog post he had separated statutory rape and actual child rape.
-The above point is especially important because the stats in the links he provided point to blacks being charged with statutory rape at a much higher rate than the other races. Comparing statutory rape to child rape, blacks see a 20% decrease in child rape, while whites see a ~4% increase in child rape and Hispanics show a ~45% jump in child rape.
-Nowhere in his link does it state the percentage of non-Hispanic whites. It lists whites in one category and in another category lists whether there is Hispanic origin. He took the white stats and subtracted the overall Hispanic origin number but that's flawed logic. Doing it that way ignores the fact that blacks can also claim "Hispanic origin". Plus, "Hispanic origin" itself is too broad to draw the lines he tried to draw. If someone has a grandparent from Spain, they'd be classified as "Hispanic" by his reasoning. He's also assuming the numbers mean 23% of the total are Hispanic and not 23% of the whites are Hispanic. Any way you slice it, his flawed logic leads to the lowest mathematically possible percentage of whites -- which he obviously did to fit the agenda of his blog post.
-The already small sample size says it didn't have "Hispanic origin" info for 12% of the sample. That's a rather large omission, IMO. (And it's odd he didn't realize that since he could have used that to further his agenda, tbh.)
-@ anyone who bought anything that blogger was trying to sell. It seems like both sides of the arguments were relying on his weak sauce analysis, tbh.
-
it's ok lj we all know you don't molest your kids
Statutory rape can be sex with a 12 year old... , whenever they hit puberty it's no longer technically child molestation. But I think most normal people would call that child rape. As soon as it bleeds, the brothers are all over itThis is a stupid thread all the way around but that blog post you're quoting is laughable. There is so much wrong with the stats he cobbled together ... here are some highlights:
-In his first group of stats, he somehow manages to flip numbers that are clearly labeled as "child abuse" stats into "child molesters". Unless you consider someone who neglects a child a "child molester", you can basically throw away the first half of his blog post. I'm not even sure how he made that mistake, tbh.
-That 135% for Hispanics and 85% for blacks considers statutory rape as molesting children, whereas previously in that blog post he had separated statutory rape and actual child rape.
-The above point is especially important because the stats in the links he provided point to blacks being charged with statutory rape at a much higher rate than the other races. Comparing statutory rape to child rape, blacks see a 20% decrease in child rape, while whites see a ~4% increase in child rape and Hispanics show a ~45% jump in child rape.
-Nowhere in his link does it state the percentage of non-Hispanic whites. It lists whites in one category and in another category lists whether there is Hispanic origin. He took the white stats and subtracted the overall Hispanic origin number but that's flawed logic. Doing it that way ignores the fact that blacks can also claim "Hispanic origin". Plus, "Hispanic origin" itself is too broad to draw the lines he tried to draw. If someone has a grandparent from Spain, they'd be classified as "Hispanic" by his reasoning. He's also assuming the numbers mean 23% of the total are Hispanic and not 23% of the whites are Hispanic. Any way you slice it, his flawed logic leads to the lowest mathematically possible percentage of whites -- which he obviously did to fit the agenda of his blog post.
-The already small sample size says it didn't have "Hispanic origin" info for 12% of the sample. That's a rather large omission, IMO. (And it's odd he didn't realize that since he could have used that to further his agenda, tbh.)
-
-
That's quite a postThis is a stupid thread all the way around but that blog post you're quoting is laughable. There is so much wrong with the stats he cobbled together ... here are some highlights:
-In his first group of stats, he somehow manages to flip numbers that are clearly labeled as "child abuse" stats into "child molesters". Unless you consider someone who neglects a child a "child molester", you can basically throw away the first half of his blog post. I'm not even sure how he made that mistake, tbh.
-That 135% for Hispanics and 85% for blacks considers statutory rape as molesting children, whereas previously in that blog post he had separated statutory rape and actual child rape.
-The above point is especially important because the stats in the links he provided point to blacks being charged with statutory rape at a much higher rate than the other races. Comparing statutory rape to child rape, blacks see a 20% decrease in child rape, while whites see a ~4% increase in child rape and Hispanics show a ~45% jump in child rape.
-Nowhere in his link does it state the percentage of non-Hispanic whites. It lists whites in one category and in another category lists whether there is Hispanic origin. He took the white stats and subtracted the overall Hispanic origin number but that's flawed logic. Doing it that way ignores the fact that blacks can also claim "Hispanic origin". Plus, "Hispanic origin" itself is too broad to draw the lines he tried to draw. If someone has a grandparent from Spain, they'd be classified as "Hispanic" by his reasoning. He's also assuming the numbers mean 23% of the total are Hispanic and not 23% of the whites are Hispanic. Any way you slice it, his flawed logic leads to the lowest mathematically possible percentage of whites -- which he obviously did to fit the agenda of his blog post.
-The already small sample size says it didn't have "Hispanic origin" info for 12% of the sample. That's a rather large omission, IMO. (And it's odd he didn't realize that since he could have used that to further his agenda, tbh.)
-
-
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions