Originally Posted by Fool

You didn't make what claim?

That the hypothesis I put forward is in fact true. It might be, but I'm not claiming it is.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

That the hypothesis I put forward is in fact true. It might be, but I'm not claiming it is.

How might it be true if the sentencing for blacks is only 19% longer than whites? What else can we factor that would explain the 8x homicide arrest and incarceration rate? You've explained away 1.19, there's 6.81 to go. Keep going. Let's play it out. Show us the hypothesis, Mr Science.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

That the hypothesis I put forward is in fact true. It might be, but I'm not claiming it is.

Good. Thank you for admitting that you're making weak hypothetical claims completely unsupported by any evidence as a counter argument to stronger corroborative data.

Originally Posted by Fool

Good. Thank you for admitting that you're making weak hypothetical claims completely unsupported by any evidence as a counter argument to stronger corroborative data.

Except both hypotheses explain the same data. That's the whole point.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Except both hypotheses explain the same data. That's the whole point.

yeah, and one hypotheses is not supported by any type of evidence and it's completely unrealistic.

yours.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

Except both hypotheses explain the same data. That's the whole point.

No, they don't. Not even a little. You haven't even rationalized how, let alone done anything to justify it mathematically, or even provided a single citation for the incarceration rate of african americans (which is easily found). You've provided nothing, justified nothing, cited nothing, and yet you claim it explains the same data? What data is it explaining? The arrest rate? The conviction rate? The violence rate? Your entire argument is asinine and now literally bordering on the insane.

amadeus nuttn mo den a WYTE TRASH fukn *****ass ***** fukn l0s3r dat betta off ded 4sho d00 no it 2 smdh lol

Originally Posted by Fool

No, they don't. Not even a little. You haven't even rationalized how, let alone done anything to justify it mathematically, or even provided a single citation for the incarceration rate of african americans (which is easily found). You've provided nothing, justified nothing, cited nothing, and yet you claim it explains the same data? What data is it explaining? The arrest rate? The conviction rate? The violence rate? Your entire argument is asinine and now literally bordering on the insane.

What, are you going to argue basic arithmetic now?

If every year, the same percentage of whites and blacks get sentenced, but the blacks get longer sentences each year, then prisons will have a higher black:white ratio than the general population.

Do you actually disagree with the above statement? Do I need to break down the math for you?

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What, are you going to argue basic arithmetic now?



If every year, the same percentage of whites and blacks get sentenced, but the blacks get longer sentences each year, then prisons will have a higher black:white ratio than the general population.



Do you actually disagree with the above statement? Do I need to break down the math for you?

1.19x longer sentences

Keep going. You need to come up to at LEAST 4x. Or 8x for homicide specifically.

Go.

Waiting for you to break down the math. Yes please.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What, are you going to argue basic arithmetic now?

If every year, the same percentage of whites and blacks get sentenced, but the blacks get longer sentences each year, then prisons will have a higher black:white ratio than the general population.

Do you actually disagree with the above statement? Do I need to break down the math for you?

Why would I disagree with correct math being done using completely invented data? If you want to go full retard knock yourself out. It does nothing to prove your case.

At this point you sound like a lunatic saying "Hey guys if blacks actually commit less violent crimes then you have to admit that they commit less violent crimes. Do you disagree? It's a valid hypothesis!"

Originally Posted by Fool

Why would I disagree with correct math being done using completely invented data?

What makes you say it's completely invented data? amRam for one certainly doesn't seem to think so.


Which brings me to:

Originally Posted by amRam

Blacks - 19% longer sentences, 800% higher arrest rate, 500% higher incarceration rate

Sorry, I can't recall: has the source of these been posted in this thread yet? (If not, could you do me a solid and post it?)

Multiple times. FBI and DOJ. Waiting for your math which you offered. Let's go.

Originally Posted by Amadeus

What makes you say it's completely invented data?

Your inclusion of an if/then followed by literally inventing the numbers you would use.

ITT: Amadeus proves he never lived in the ghetto.


Like Seriously bro.

Originally Posted by Fool

Your inclusion of an if/then followed by literally inventing the numbers you would use.

Hate to break it to you, but that is how the scientific process works.

You look at the data you have.
You come up with various hypotheses to explain the data.
You compute the consequences. "If hypothesis A is true, then I should be able to conduct experiment X and get a certain result. If hypothesis B is true, I should be able to conduct experiment Y and get some other result."
You then conduct your experiments and see which hypothesis they confirm and which ones they disprove.


Instead, you just took the first hypothesis you liked and accepted it without exploring the alternatives.

You didn't look at any data. You've ignored what's been presented, and invented what you needed. Everything you've said has been fallacious or flawed.

That's why he's avoiding the math he so graciously offered up.

1.19x sentence length
8x homicide arrest rate
5x incarceration rate


*crickets*

Originally Posted by Fool

You didn't look at any data. You've ignored what's been presented, and invented what you needed. Everything you've said has been fallacious or flawed.

Oh, I looked at the data. I just didn't jump to the same hasty conclusion as you.

But you've clearly demonstrated here that you have either no understanding of, or interest in, the scientific process, so you'll excuse me if I stop wasting my time on you.

Kind of a shame, I would have loved to have this discussion with intellectually honest people.

It's not hasty, it's a reasonable conclusion based on all currently available data and far preferable than entertaining unproven hypotheticals unsupported by any data or reasoning. Your attempts at transparent trap questions, employment of logical fallacies, invention of data, and a complete lack of understanding about both the scientific process and basic argumentation is laughable. Next time try making an actual point and backing it up with evidence and reason instead of weasel words and false dilemmas.

lol ok