Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

No, I don't believe so. I can't find the graph, but this article cites the following data:

http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/the-truth-about-interracial-rape/

Year 2008 – Rape/Sexual Assault

White on Black: 0
Black on White: 19,292
Black on Black: 34,841

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf

 

The data you cited does not substantiate your claim of 10,000 white women being raped by blacks. In your source there is a note next to the black offender/white victim that states the following:

*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

This table also notes that threats of rape and threats of sexual assault are included in the counts.

 

I said raped and sexually assaulted, and it was based on memory.

The big point is the FBI data show Black sexual assaults on White females are extremely high compared to White sexual assaults on Black females.

 

This is the original chart I had in mind:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

Table 42 shows 16.7% of Whites (out of a total of 194,270 offenses) were raped/sexually assaulted by Blacks while 0.0% of Blacks were raped/sexually assaulted by Whites (out of a total of 17,920 offenses).

That's 32,443 Whites raped/sexually assaulted by Blacks for the year 2006.

 

These retorts are pretty flawed. Here's why:

• The source you gave is statistics from the bureau of justice, not the FBI (not really a big deal).
• The bjs source is actually a good source, but it is being read improperly. It defined what rape vs sexual assault was for those reading their report because the terms aren't synonymous:

• You missed the superscripts and corresponding notes in Table 42. That table has all sorts of disclaimers on it, especially for black people. It notes that fewer than 10 samples are counted for black on white rape/sexual assault. The table is obviously letting the reader know that there are gaps in the data feeding the table.
• Also, I'm not overly concerned with harassment as I am with rape and threats of rape. People who believe the mantra find themselves having to add in things like grab-ass and other types of harassment to gas up the numbers and then claim it's all rape. I wouldn't care about the claim if it was accompanied with the appropriate disclaimers. But it never is.

All in all, the table is a weak source to support the black on white rape mantra. Using this shows that one doesn't believe people can read annotations.


[HR][/HR]

 

If you notice, total black victims of rape and sexual harassment are based on 10 or fewer sample cases. Are you willing to argue that large and precise number is based on collation of data in the way you are arguing?


Your argument splitting hairs between rape and sexual harassment ignores the obvious underlying fact that statistically no blacks are raped or sexually harassed by whites, while plenty of whites are raped and/or sexually harassed by blacks.

 

I said that the black offenders are based on 10 or fewer sample cases a few times already. That disclaimer is all over that section. It's simply not enough to solidly make a claim based on the numbers. I don't need to argue that, bjs is letting the readers know that.

I'm not splitting hairs on the definition, they provide the definition so that people know what they are reading when they go through the report. If people are going to claim that blacks are raping all these white women while citing the bjs, they need to add in all the disclaimers/notes the bjs has against those numbers. They could either do that or find another source with solid enough data. Tis all.

 

You originally claimed Whites rape Blacks in equal numbers as Blacks rape Whites.

You have not supported this claim with actual data showing a breakdown by victim/attacker by race, unlike myself.

Now you're arguing something I never said and always made clear: the 30,000 rape and sexual assaults on Whites by Blacks annually includes rape *and* sexual assault.

While, on the other hand, Whites do not rape or sexually assault Blacks in significant numbers.

So, your counter-argument is a moot point.

There's no doubt some percentage of the annual 30,000 Black-on-White rapes and sexual assaults involve rape, while we know virtually no Blacks are raped by Whites.

If only 1% of the 30,000 Black-on-White rapes and sexual assaults are rapes, that means 300 Black-on-White rapes occur annually compared to less than 10 (statistically 0%) White-on-Black rapes occur.

Your claim has been debunked.

 

I never said the number was equal.

There simply isn't enough sample data from the table you referenced to make a solid determination of how much raping and sexual assaults are occurring interracially. The notes on the table itself are telling the reader that there simply wasn't enough sample data when they produced the numbers. How confident (statistically speaking) can the reader be when using those particular numbers (rq)?

Also, you keep using the rape *and* sexual assault case against my argument, which was to attack the *rape* mantra. I was calling out your attempt to use inflated numbers by adding in a factor that I wasn't even addressing. A factor that the bjs themselves see as seperate from rape, therefore separate from my original point.

My point still stands.

 

Your point still stands when whites do not rape or sexually assaulted blacks, but plenty of whites are raped or sexually assaulted by blacks?

 

Yes my point stands.


Remember, the numbers in the table are unreliable per the report's own admission.

 

Most stereotypes are correct.

 

Please show where in the report the author claims the numbers are unreliable?

 

It's noted with the tiny sample sizes indicated by the asterisk symbol. The notes are below the table.


The report is using survey samples to predict the results seen in table 42. They have a methodology to get their percentage, but even it cannot overcome the inconclusive results of tiny sample sizes of many of the sets.


If you want, you can compare the table 42 results with previous reports. You'll see major differences. This is what they are saying with the notes at the bottom of the table.

 

Indeed. The article I linked shows inter-racial sex attacks for six years.

For every year, Black sex attacks on Whites are greater than 10,000 and White sex attacks on Blacks are zero.

That would show Blacks are attacking Whites in numbers exceeding 10,000 while Whites are not sexually attacking Blacks.

 

I hate to break it to you, but this is a predictions table and not an actual crimes table.

 

I'm not sure where this claim began, but it is usually pulled as a talking point against black people living in the U.S. This claim however is false per FBI declarations:



Arrests, by Race, 2014

• In 2014, 69.4 percent of all individuals arrested were white, 27.8 percent were black, and 2.8 percent were of other races.
• Of all juveniles (persons under the age of 18 ) arrested in 2014, 63.0 percent were white, 34.5 percent were black, and 2.5 percent were of other races.
• Of all adults arrested in 2014, 70.0 percent were white, 27.1 percent were black, and 2.8 percent were of other races.
• White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 59.4 percent of those arrests.
• Of adults arrested for murder, 50.9 percent were black, 46.7 percent were white, and 2.5 percent were of other races.
• Black juveniles comprised 52.4 percent of all juveniles arrested for violent crimes. White juveniles accounted for 59.6 percent of all juveniles arrested for property crimes.
• Of juveniles arrested for drug abuse violations, 74.4 percent were white.
• White juveniles comprised 55.3 percent of juveniles arrested for aggravated assaults.

Reference: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43

Not only that, but less than 1% of all Black people account for arrests for violence, so the 12% is simply a means to attribute violence to every member of the race.

No matter the motive and reason for spreading misinformation, but hopefully, this talking point dies upon receiving this information.

 

Most of the racist conservatives/white nationalists have vanished from this thread like a fart in the wind. I love when facts debunk right wing racist talking points.

 

These sources, once again, are conflating Hispanic and White.

The FBI have only recently - in the last few years, I believe - begun distinguishing White and Hispanic.

White, most likely, were not even a majority of arrests for your 'statistic' you chose to magnify in your quote.

Per capita crime shows Blacks are committing crime - especially violent crime - well beyond their population, unlike Whites.

Btw, what are the crime stats in towns, cities, counties and/or states with approximately equal numbers of Blacks and Whites, again?

LoL.

 

[MENTION=61754]rayznack[/MENTION]

1. These sources, once again, are conflating Hispanic and White.

This is a fair point. However, there are also black Hispanics counted under black. Mixed-race persons with black are counted under black. Lastly, all groups appear to be merged with another group.

2. The FBI have only recently - in the last few years, I believe - begun distinguishing White and Hispanic.

We shall see the difference. Some of the victims counted under white will naturally be counted under Hispanic with the new distinctions. I believe many talking points will lose teeth with this change. The FBI decided to make up any difference, I suppose, with an upcoming animal cruelty line item.

3. White, most likely, were not even a majority of arrests for your 'statistic' you chose to magnify in your quote.

They were.

4. Per capita crime shows Blacks are committing crime - especially violent crime - well beyond their population, unlike Whites.

Unfortunately for those who run with the 12-60% talking point, the per capita argument does not in any way, shape, or form support the idea that "12%" are responsible for 60% of violent crime.

5. Btw, what are the crime stats in towns, cities, counties and/or states with approximately equal numbers of Blacks and Whites, again?

LoL.

The crime stats would read the same. While blacks may contribute about 28-30%, whites would still contribute 70-72%. A per capita argument won't magically make the smaller number greater than a larger number especially when dealing in the actual number of crimes and victims a race contributes to .

 

1) Black Hispanics, as in Hispanics who are of majority Black heritage, would correctly be classified as Black; Mexicans, who are majority Amerindian descent, should not be classified as White, but are.

2) The number of Hispanics erroneously classified as White far outweigh the number of Hispanics erroneously classified as Black.

3) Hispanics have higher crime rates than Whites but lower crime rates than Blacks. Categorizing Hispanics as White increases the per capita White crime statistics, but lowers the per capita Black crime statistics.

They were? How do you know Whites were a majority of arrests for violent crimes - at 59.4% of total arrests - when the statistic lumps Hispanics as White and account for another 1/4-1/3 of the population and are more criminal than Whites?

I'm sorry, but that was your argument after you decided to ignore per capita crime.

And sorry, are you trying to claim a city with an equal population of Blacks and Whites would have Whites committing 70% of crime?

Are you not aware that in London, for instance, Blacks make up 12% of the population and commit 55% of certain crimes?

 

[MENTION=61754]rayznack[/MENTION]

Hispanics in the US are majority european descent, not Amerindian.

 

**Data does not support this idea.

1. For now, I’ll reserve my comments on this.

2. No dispute from me here.

3. This claim is partially true. Hispanic criminals actually have lower crime rates than both Black and White criminals. Their violent crime rate is a little higher than whites though.

Because even if we adjusted the Hispanic’s stats out from the Whites, White criminals would still hold the majority for violent crimes. Based on what the data provides, Hispanic criminals only account for 18.9% of violent crimes.

Yes and I maintain that. Much black crime is concentrated in severely troubled cities. The likelihood of a high white population to the tune of 50% living in such an area is not likely. Most black populations outside these areas experience far less violence and crime.

No. You share London’s version of our FBI arrest? I can’t seem to find it.

* * * * * * * *
​

**Using FBI arrest data

 

Racists are well-known to manipulate statistics to suit their racist agenda. I applaud DarkSkies and others for putting up with Rayznack and his nonsense but his real goal is to argue that Blacks are disproportionately prone to violent crime due to a greater innate tendency towards aggression than other races. This is an unfounded, unscientific and racist claim that true Egalitarians should reject and I hope that this position isn't being overlooked in all of the hoopla over crime statistics.

 

The Hispanics in the US who are majority Amerindian descent must make up a significant number of Hispanics.

Most US Hispanics are Mexican and I would argue most Mexicans in the US or Mexico are majority Amerindian descent.