Quoted: I (really dont give a shit, I trust nobody) would rather know that 3 out of 5 chances of me being bit are from a Pit Bull, than to know more often than not a German Shepard will bite. Which dog actually commits the most bites, not which one has the greater propensity to bite.

To each his own - I'd MUCH rather want to know which dog has the greater propensity to bite rather than which one is simply most numerous in the general population.

Quoted: Quoted: I (really dont give a shit, I trust nobody) would rather know that 3 out of 5 chances of me being bit are from a Pit Bull, than to know more often than not a German Shepard will bite. Which dog actually commits the most bites, not which one has the greater propensity to bite. To each his own - I'd MUCH rather want to know which dog has the greater propensity to bite rather than which one is simply most numerous in the general population actually bites more.

i answered yes to give an HONEST answer.

hate crimes against white people happen everyday. your odds of being a white person attacked by a minority are astonomically higher than a minority being attacked by a white person. BUT. the government and media refuse to admit this fact, because it would be "ignorant" or "racist" to portray a black man attacking a white person as a hate crime. black people were slaves up to 150 years ago, so for some reason we still owe them something.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I (really dont give a shit, I trust nobody) would rather know that 3 out of 5 chances of me being bit are from a Pit Bull, than to know more often than not a German Shepard will bite. Which dog actually commits the most bites, not which one has the greater propensity to bite. To each his own - I'd MUCH rather want to know which dog has the greater propensity to bite rather than which one is simply most numerous in the general population actually bites more.

I don't understand your use of the winky-face.  Are you now recognizing that blacks commit much more violent crime?

ETA:

Here.  Here's something (again) with sources and stuff instead of just numbers we made up or 'remember from some report' to make us feel better or to artificially fulfill some weird, liberal dystopia where whites are "evil" or whatever they are trying to peddle.

To lie abouty crime stats and pretend whites commit more crime than they actually do is racist.


linkeroo

* “… between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

* Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year.

* “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”

But there are five-and-one-half as many whites as blacks. If anything, the numbers should be reversed. After all, as leftists always tell us, all groups are supposed to be equally represented in all categories, for good or ill. (Well, not really. Leftists never call on the NBA and NFL to institute racial parity for white players.)

* Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

* The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling.

* “Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.”

But how can that be, when for years commentators of all political persuasions have insisted that the majority of the victims of black crime are themselves black? But it has been true for some time, because blacks increasingly target whites based on the color of the latter’s skin. The commentators have been guilty variously of lying or laziness.

* Far from being guilty of “racially profiling” innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: “… blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes.”

* “… police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals.” (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.)

* “[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.”

Well, as everyone knows, innocent blacks get rounded up by the police all the time, so we can safely ignore such statistics. After all, isn’t that what the NAACP, Village Voice, New York Times, and countless black “activists” and prominent academics have been saying for years? And although the folks insisting on the reality of racial profiling have no facts to back up their claims, they enjoy political prestige and moral authority. The Color of Crime, meanwhile, is based merely on lowly facts. As we shall see, prominent people are already saying that we should ignore The Color of Crime, because it wasn’t produced by the right sort of people. (And of course, the “right sort of people” never tells the truth about race and crime.)

* Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland’s Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, “blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites” in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range.

* “… the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct.”

* Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives.

* Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit “white collar” offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate.

* The single greatest indicator of an area’s crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

Things are actually much worse than the above notes suggest. As The Color of Crime notes, the feds inflate white crime statistics by counting Hispanic offenders as white; at the same time, “Hispanics are a [hate crime] victim category but not a perpetrator category.” If someone attacks a Mexican for racial reasons, he becomes a Hispanic victim of a hate crime. However, if the same Mexican commits a hate crime against a black, he is classified as a ‘white’ perpetrator. Even more absurdly, if a Mexican commits a hate crime against a white, both victim and perpetrator are reported as white.” Thus, the number of white perpetrators is exaggerated, while the number of white victims is constricted by the federal double-standard.

And as the study fails to note, with black-on-white male prison rape an institutionalized sport among black inmates, hundreds of thousands of white men have thus been victimized but never counted by the government. Meanwhile, white-on-black male prison rape is virtually non-existent.

Some of the study’s many sources were the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCRs); the feds’ National Crime Victimization Study (NCVS), in which 149,000 people across the country, in statistical proportion to all demographic groups, were called; the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS); and Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHRs); State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS); National Youth Gang Survey; the Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP); and National Corrections Reporting Program (NCRP). The succinct report slays dragons in the course of mere footnotes, such as its nailing of tenured California State University criminology professor Phyllis B. Gerstenfeld, who in her book Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls and Controversies, the reality of interracial violence be damned, depicted whites only as perpetrators, and not as the victims of hate crimes.

Color me sickitated.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I (really dont give a shit, I trust nobody) would rather know that 3 out of 5 chances of me being bit are from a Pit Bull, than to know more often than not a German Shepard will bite. Which dog actually commits the most bites, not which one has the greater propensity to bite. To each his own - I'd MUCH rather want to know which dog has the greater propensity to bite rather than which one is simply most numerous in the general population actually bites more.

It's the same thing mon!

"bites more" is not adequate.

"bites more" WHAT!?

Bites more OFTEN or bites more LIKELY?

"More often" does not necessarily reflect which is "more dangerous", in this case it only represents which one is more numerous in the population.

Suppose there's a dog breed "XYZ" that is extremely rare so there's only 200 in the country - but ALL 200 of them have attacked humans . According to your logic, it would be "safer" to be around one of those dogs rather than a German Shepherd of which there are tens of thousands in the country and maybe 4-500 of them attacked humans. Because XYZ has "only" 200 (out of 200) human attacks recorded while German Shepherds have 500 (out of 20,000) human attacks recorded  - you still saying based on numbers alone - XYZ is a less dangerous dog!???


Edited to keep from switching analogies.

Damn, I sure am glad I'm not white...

You guys sound like you have such horrible lives.

Quoted: Damn, I sure am glad I'm not white... You guys sound like you have such horrible lives.

I think we've done well for ourselves...despite everything.  

Quoted: Edited to keep from switching analogies.

In keeping with the line of analogies.... Again, I have no clue where the numbers came from, didnt read them, you quoted them, I will take them as good. I know they didnt come from the double repeat post from some columnist Zumbo.


There were a hundred bites.


One species did 60 of them.

Another did 20 of them.

Yet another (unnamed) did the last 20.


6 out of ten of the bites were from the German Shephards. While XYZ may be more predisposed to bite, the odds say if you get bit, you will more than likely have been bit by a GS.

Quoted: Quoted: Edited to keep from switching analogies. In keeping with the line of analogies.... Again, I have no clue where the numbers came from, didnt read them, you quoted them, I will take them as good. I know they didnt come from the double repeat post from some columnist Zumbo. There were a hundred bites. One species did 60 of them. Another did 20 of them. Yet another (unnamed) did the last 20. 6 out of ten of the bites were from the German Shephards. While XYZ may be more predisposed to bite, the odds say if you get bit, you will more than likely have been bit by a GS.

Why don't you address the numbers I posted then?
We all know where they came from.  There is a link and they are referenced.  The truth seems like a good basis for this discussion.  Well...for some people anyway.

Quoted: Quoted: Edited to keep from switching analogies. In keeping with the line of analogies.... Again, I have no clue where the numbers came from, didnt read them, you quoted them, I will take them as good. I know they didnt come from the double repeat post from some columnist Zumbo. There were a hundred bites. One species did 60 of them. Another did 20 of them. Yet another (unnamed) did the last 20. 6 out of ten of the bites were from the German Shephards. While XYZ may be more predisposed to bite, the odds say if you get bit, you will more than likely have been bit by a GS.

Well we appear to agree on what the data states - it's just that we choose to value different aspects of that data.

The former is more meaningful to me, the latter seems to be more meaningful for you.

And that's where we part.

Cheers!