Community >> View Post
Post By

Location: Prague, Bohemia
Member Since: Tue Apr 06, 2010
Posts: 1,582
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 17,474
Subj: did you read the BBC article? read the conclusion.
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 07:26:06 pm EDT (Viewed 1110 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Edit: we were referring to different articles that you posted
Posted: Mon Jun 26, 2017 at 07:02:55 pm EDT (Viewed 1065 times)

Previous Post

    I wasnt dismissing the article. I took away that in the later half the fbi was pointing out that they can't actually get reliable data on police killings. which is why it makes it hard to counter mr Elder's point.

I really want you to explain this point to me. He is quoting from unreliable data. Therefore he is right?

Just because he is throwing out various unrelated stats does not mean he is proving that much. Many of the things he is quoting are not entirely related to what the point at hand is. As it assumes there is no racism and throws numbers out.

    Which was my whole damn point of trying to get a point to counter him. You just linked to an article and said "there it is. it's all in there."

I have no idea what your point was at this point. As you seem to want to depend on statistics but have no problem basing thoughts on incomplete data. In a field where that is a problem.

    Ok which point did you want me to take away? That police killings are going down? That whites are shot more than blacks? That it is almost impossible to compile data on police killings?

The later was the point.

Whites are shot more by who? Police? They are a higher number in the population. If you only care about absolute numbers than one misses the point. AA are about 2.5 times more likely to be shot by a police officer.

    Did you actually watch the video? I'm still wondering what you saw as a rant?

Yes, most of his rant of numbers. He is throwing out unrelated numbers. He mentions a city that is about 45% black and entirely under AA control in terms of various things. Therefore, his assumption is there is no racism there.

That is not true at all. Also, the number of blacks killed by blacks, white killed by whites is irrelevant to the point of police shootings.

His arguments are also highly politically charged. As he is blaming one side for the issue at hand.

    So what point would you give to counter Mr. Elders? I won't even ask you to back it up. What is your answer to "Give me an example of systemic racism?"

I did above with an article to the NYT. And I gave you an example of it. You apparently dismissed it and ignored it. I am not sure what more I can do for you.

    If you still want to.

Not really.


    Its pretty clear we are having a breakdown in communication.


    Edit: Looking back, I realise we were talking about different articles. I was referring to the BBC article you posted and I see that you were referring to the by the numbers article. I'll read that one now but it does illustrate my point about your style putting me off. I only speak for myself and maybe your tone works for you in other circles.

We were not, I was referring to the BBC article. I added the next two articles as further support to the point you asked about. How did they know it was racism. You apparently did not read it or did not agree with it. You ask me above for another example.

    Anyway, its kind of funny now that I look at it. I had no fricking idea how you thought an article about the difficulty of gathering reliable data would persuade me.

You are impressed by statistics based on highly questionable data. Meaning the hard numbers are at best questionable. Given the self reporting nature of things with police shootings and all.

But you apparently only put value on convenient stats. Or at least that is my take away.


    Ha, ha.

Yup, I am being the jerk here.


      Did you or did you not read the article I provided and say the following


        "thats fine. But again, without stats in support of it, it really falls apart.

    yes, but it was in reply to the OTHER article. this is hilarious. I see now why we were getting so frustrated with each other.

    I was referring to this info from the BBC article:


    Official data on the number of people killed by the police turns out to be remarkably unreliable.
    "We can't have an informed discussion, because we don't have data," FBI Director James Comey said in the House of Representatives in October.
    "People have data about who went to a movie last weekend, or how many books were sold, or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room. And I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. And that's a very bad place to be."

    Which is why I was referring to a lack of stats.

Holy cow:-) Did you read your own article?:-)

there is a lot in there but,

Here's how it ends.

"However, Fryer doesn't find any racial difference in the cases where police offers actually shoot someone."

So you are cross with me that I didnt find that article a persuasive argument to use against Elder? I don't think that conclusion would help.

The BBC article mostly focuses on the perception that police are being killed more.

Listen, I think you are still angry at me. Im not angry at you because there was a misunderstanding. We both took a few low blows at each other so I really dont have any hard feelings. (You called yourself a jerk. I didnt.) My comments about your style do stand and feel free to give me any advice on my conversational shortcomings.

My "ha,ha" was actually sincere at the situation.

take care.

Posted with Google Chrome 58.0.3029.110 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2020 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2020 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2020 Powermad Software