I'm going to have to clear this up.
PitBull said:
The statistics are facts, not opinions. Get out
a dictionary and figure out what the difference is between the two.
The statistics are obviously facts, I never said otherwise. Different statistics can be used when making specific conclusions. You have all interpreted per capita statistics, and I have admitted, with regards to them, that the black crime rate is very disparate. I admitted that.
I've been using raw percentages with regards to the percentage of perpetrators among white rape victims to back up my point. These are two completely different perspectives with regards to the same issue: if you analyze this from a percapita perspective, then you're correct: blacks are more likely to rape whites.
If you look at it using raw percentages, then whites are more likely to be the perpetrators with regards to other whites. Granted, that would not refute the fact that with regards to the issue of black to white population ratios(whites outnumber blacks 6-1).
The fact that despite this, black rape percentages are only 11% lower than whites proves that black commit crime at a disproportionate level; I have admitted that at least 8 times in this thread already.
However, that fact in itself does not refute the fact that, when looking at it through raw percentiles, white victims are more likely to have a white perpetrator.
When looking at various issues, one can use different statistics to explain them, and from there, one can make interpretations based upon these different statistics and compare them with regard to the issue at hand.
This is an impossibly simplistic concept, and, as evidenced in this thread, disagreement is not only likely when it comes to statistical interpretation, but it is pretty much inevitable.
The fact that you do not understand this rather basic concept(and the fact that your comrades already recognized this concept, and realized that it is what was causing us to go in circles) shows that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
His tactic is to try to wear people down and get the
last word in.
Incorrect yet again. My basic debating strategy calls for simultaneous analyzation of each portion of an opponents post, and the individual dissection and refutation of each portion with regards to the argument.
In other words, I take each post, break it down, and respond to every piece. The point is not to make debates longer. The point is to soundly refute your opponent, and do it completely without many loose ends.
I'm not expecting my opponent to back down because the posts get too long; on the contrary, this rarely happens in my experience(And I have lots of experience, check SF if you disagree, user name "dantexavier", this thread on SF is a very good example:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-blacks-so -afraid-move-350542.html?p=3843218).
As it is, with regards to this argument, I failed to achieve the aforementioned goals using my tactics, and ultimately my actions in this threat could not truly be considered a victory, although I did hold a little ground here and there.
But in any case, my debating tactics are rather basic, and somewhat stubborn as well. Effective in most cases to. The fact that you are unable to latch onto and identify them shows that, yet again, you don't know what you're really talking about.
You will not do that on this site. I won't let you. You are
dead-ass wrong. I couldn't care less what you think about me. Move on.
I don't care if you have the last word either. I am not supposed to post in this thread. I'm posting this right now to clear up your rather false assertions. I am not who you say i am, and i will not allow you or others to perpetuate such a notion.
Salus, quod bonus fortuna. If you wanna talk more about this, we can move to PM.
