Originally posted by Surtur
I'm a bit stunned reading some of the comments on that youtube video. "These statistics are racist" was one actual comment made. How can a stat be racist?
Statistics can be compiled from flawed data, or be compiled asking biased questions, as such they do have the potential to be racist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Statistics can be compiled from flawed data, or be compiled asking biased questions, as such they do have the potential to be racist.
Yeah, but a guy quite literally says "these might be accurate, but are racist". In that context it is impossible for an accurate statistic to be racist. Though I probably should of mentioned the entire comment.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but a guy quite literally says "these might be accurate, but are racist". In that context it is impossible for an accurate statistic to be racist. Though I probably should of mentioned the entire comment.
Even accurate statistics may not relate to the truth of a situation and can be biased.
Originally posted by StoicI don't give a rat ass about Mindset Troll comments, but it also coming from you? 🙁
I know right.
Originally posted by SurturRather go with some numbers, then nothing at all.
I'm a bit stunned reading some of the comments on that youtube video. "These statistics are racist" was one actual comment made. How can a stat be racist?
The suspect has been caught in N. Carolina 250 miles away from incident. One of his relatives identified him to police:
"This story does not support my narrow world view narrative that all whites are evil racist bastards who always look out for other whites only and would never do right thing and turn them in to authorities if they murdered a black person, so I'll ignore it."- Every true racist poster on kmc, probably. 🙂
No, taking away our guns is not the answer. Anybody who knows their history would realize that would not end well. I've posted several links in the past that showed what has happened frequently throughout history to citizens of countries who had their guns taken away. Also, anyone who thinks the criminals would turn in their guns just like law-abiding citizens would needs a reality check. If the church would've had better security or at least a guard with a gun then it could've been prevented.
Judging by the comments below the article I posted in the link I'm glad to see that most Americans aren't so blind as most of people on this board who are claiming our guns should be banned.
Originally posted by Astner
Yes, and you're free to analyze the statistics and its sources and criticize it accordingly. But to simply call it racist does not discredit it.
Just as stating they are not racist or biased does not make it though. Really the burden of proof would be on the one asserting that the statistics they use show what they claim they show though.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just as stating they are not racist or biased does not make it though. Really the burden of proof would be on the one asserting that the statistics they use show what they claim they show though.
Originally posted by Astner
No one is going to assert that their statistics are valid unless their validity is questioned. Moreover, that is not the case in this situation. In this situation the statistics are dismissed by the assertion that the statistics are invalid, and so the burden of proof is on the one claiming that the statistics are invalid.
That would implicitly state that all statistics asserted are valid until questioned. Obviously ludicrous.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Even accurate statistics may not relate to the truth of a situation and can be biased.
Yes especially if the research done to create those statistics were incomplete for whichever reason. People often see, hear, and believe whatever is shoveled down their throats without bothering to take the time to critically read and analyze the source from which the nourishment comes from. In other words if shit tastes, and smells good, why not eat it. I mean how bad could it be? There are literally people that thrive on creating a mistrust between people of different ethnic backgrounds. Hate mongering is often escalated by people too dumb to realize that they are being played by idiots.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That would implicitly state that all statistics asserted are valid until questioned.
If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.
If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.
Now, you are free to ask the one providing the statistics to elaborate on their validity. But if you're going to take a side and argue, you better have evidence to back it up.
Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.
If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.
however the person who presents the statistic is obligated to provide a source.
Originally posted by Astner
No it doesn't. You don't seem to understand how the burden of proof works.If you argue that the statistics are valid, the burden of proof is on you.
If you argue that the statistics are invalid, the burden of proof is still on you.
Now, you are free to ask the one providing the statistics to elaborate on their validity. But if you're going to take a side and argue, you better have evidence to back it up.
I agree with this post, your initial statement just put some undue burden on the one claiming the statistics are not valid, over the one claiming they are. In this case one person used statistics to make a claim, and a commentary on it said "I don't believe these statistics, I think they are racist", the commentator would have to prove they are racist perhaps, but implicitly in the assertion is the questioning of the initial claim.