Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Jason E. Perkins said:

However, if you want a response to the statistics you last gave I'll give it to you in one shot.

In 2000, after the surge in black population in the 90's and long after the numbers you gave in your response were taken, 211 million people reported themselves as "White alone" which accounted for 75% of the U.S. population. Up to 35 million people--12% of the population-reported themselves as "Black only." That's roughly 6:1.

And again, that means that the numbers you gave were all less than they would have been by blind chance were race not involved at all.




I get the basic drift of your point, although it's not 100% clear.
I really am trying to understand and respect your point of view, despite your personal mischaracterizations of me.

As I understand your point to be above, you're saying that the statistical numbers of black and white aren't quite equal to how they identify themselves in racial census.

But I would still argue that the census is accurate, because it represents how individuals themselves, both black and white, identify themselves in the census.


I'll make this clearer since it's important for everyone to understand, though it's obvious I've been misconstrued.

I'm not saying that the census is inaccurate. In fact, I'm using the numbers to support my point.

Again:

Quote:


In 2000, after the surge in black population in the 90's and long after the numbers you gave in your response were taken, 211 million people reported themselves as "White alone" which accounted for 75% of the U.S. population. Up to 35 million people--12% of the population-reported themselves as "Black only." That's roughly 6:1.


That means that in 2000, after a surge in the black population that brought the ratio closer to even than it had been before and after all the statistics given by Wonder Boy, the ratio was still 6 white people to 1 black person.

Now I'm person A. I'm about to commit a violent crime against someone. That 6:1 ratio means that if I picked a random person in 2000, it was 6 times as likely that I chose a white person than that I chose a black person. Again, that's in 2000, when that ratio was closer to 1:1 than in any year the following statistics were taken in.

Okay, so 6 times as likely. So if I choose a white person more than 6 times as much than I choose a black person, that could possibly be called targeting because it's greater than chance. Any less than that would mean that I am choosing white people less than I would if I closed my eyes and randomly shot a bullet in the air.

This isn't based on any spin. This is based on the census which Wonder Boy just argued is accurate and is again based on numbers that give a better chance than in any year before 2000.

So, let's look at his statistics from the other thread that WB posted in response to my assertion with numbers that the 50:1 ratio was bullcrap.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
[LIST]According to the 1999 Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, by William J. Bennett, African Americans, though only 13% of the U.S. population, are responsible for 42 percent of all violent crimes, and over half the murders in the United States.

The statistics on inter-racial crime show an even more shocking pattern of prejudice.

In 1990, Prof. William Wilbanks of the Department of Criminal Justice at Florida International University was angered by a campaign to reduce black-on-black crime, as it seemed to treat assaults on whites as less worthy of condemnation. After an in-depth study of the 1987 Justice Departmentfigures on victims of crime, Wilbanks discovered and reported the following.

  • In 1987, white criminals chose black victims in 3 percent of violent crimes, while black criminals chose white victims 50 percent of the time.


    • Okay, black criminals chose white victims 50 percent of the time. That means that black criminals chose victimes who weren't white the other 50 percent.

    Well, using the 75% number above (which comes from a census when the white percentage was less), blacks would have chosen whites 25% more often if they were leaving it to blind chance. They would have chosen white more than 75% if there was any targeting involved. But that wasn't the case. Black people chose to victimize someone who WASN'T white more often that we should have if we were ignoring race altogether.

    Have I lost anyone?

    Quote:

    Wonder Boy said:
  • When the crime was rape, white criminals chose black women in 0 percent of their assaults, while black men chose white women in 28 percent of their assaults.
    Of 83,000 cases of rape investigated, Wilbanks could not find any in which the rapist was white and the victim was black.


    • Okay, this is even worse. Black men chose white women only 28 percent of the time. That's 47% less often than random chance and represents a 2.5:1 ratio. That's far below 6:1.

    Quote:

    Wonder Boy said:
    White criminals chose black victims in 2 percent of their robberies. But black criminals chose white victims in 73 percent of their robberies.

    [ This figure alone reflects a money motive to attack whites. Assuming that "Whites have all the money", which I don't really buy. ]


    A little better, but still less than chance would allow. 2% less than by BLIND CHANCE. And this is something that should definitely be the result of targeting, given Wonder Boy's "Whites have all the money" scenario concerning black mentality.

    Quote:

    Wonder Boy said:
    When Professor Wilbanks' startling figures were first reported, there was no refutation, no challenge, no contradiction, simply silence.

    Ten years later, in 1999, the Washington Times published the findings of a study on interracial crime by the New Century Foundation. Which relied on the 1994 Justice Department statistics. The NCF study supported Wilbanks' findings.

  • Blacks had committed 90% of interracial violent crimes in 1994.

  • As blacks were 12% of the population, these figures meant they were 50 times as likely to commit interracial acts of violence than whites.
    .
  • Blacks were 100 to 250 times more likely than whites to commit interracial gang rapes and gang assaults.


    • Well, the problem here should be obvious. Statistics like the first specifically fail to split interracial violent crime between black-on-white and black-on-other than white. Beyond assumption we can't really say whether or not black-on-white itself was more or less than the given 75% for chance. And while I'm sure many will assume, that's all they can do.

    The others provide comparison. They don't really address the issue of targeting itself, especially of black-on-white. The third, for example. If there was only one act of interracial gang rape or gang assault committed by whites, that would mean that only 250 acts were committed by blacks. We have no idea, though, because the number wasn't given. We learned from another of Wonder Boy's statistics, though, that there was a year where there were 0 occasions of white-on-black rape. That number would have had to have grown considerably to make the number of black-on-white rapes considerable. And we still don't know how many black-on-other than white rapes there were, so we can't say it's less than chance, chance, or targeting.

    Quote:

    Wonder Boy said:
  • Even in the "hate crimes" category --less than 1% of interracial crimes-- blacks were twice as likely to be the assailant as the victim.


    • Blacks only comprised 12% of the population, so they should have been the victim only 12% of the time. But we don't know the actual number because this statistic fails to give it. Either way, though, 2:1 is far less than 6:1.

    Tell me if I lost anyone.