- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Church burnings in france
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:55 am to jnethe1
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:55 am to jnethe1
quote:Not at all in line with my thinking. It’s ridiculous that you aren’t getting this, sorry.
The testing of the medicines reveals the following:
Medicine “a” had 16 people out of 100 display negative side effects.
Medicine “b” had 20 people out of 1000 display negative side effects.
Based on your method of thinking, medicine “a” would become commercially available simply because it had a lesser number of negative side effects.
If the white and brown population in France are the exact same, and if brown people commit say, twice the number of violent racist acts, then it is more dangerous to be white than brown.
Since the white population in France outnumbers the brown population by somewhere between 7:1 and 11:1, the rate of violent racist acts committed by the brown population would have to be somewhere between 49x and 121x the rate of violent racist acts committed by the white population for one to conclude that whites are more threatened by browns than vice versa. There are no crime statistics in France that reflect such a disparity.
Sorry man. Easy math. Sorry to insult you, but this should be easy.
2
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Got a link for this info?
Acts targeting French JudeoChristians outstripped anti-Muslim acts 16-to-1 last year.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 1:59 am to xiv
You math doesn't have any set parameters though, so it's essentially worthless. It is true based solely on numbers in terms of a random person committing an act of violence you could have a case it neglects the rates at which it is known these populations commit violent crime and who the most common class of victims are.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:03 am to xiv
Your math does not account for all white people not being Christian so there is no way for your supposedly easy math to be acurate.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:05 am to xiv
I honestly think you’re purposefully being dumb to mess with me.
So regardless of how disproportionate the percentage of violent crimes committed by brown people are in comparison to their percentage of the population, in your opinion they will always be the victims?
What’s your background if you don’t mind me asking?
Are you white, black, Muslim?
I feel as though you’re a white heterosexual male who has been taught that no matter what statistics say, white men are the evil of this world.
Am I close?
So regardless of how disproportionate the percentage of violent crimes committed by brown people are in comparison to their percentage of the population, in your opinion they will always be the victims?
What’s your background if you don’t mind me asking?
Are you white, black, Muslim?
I feel as though you’re a white heterosexual male who has been taught that no matter what statistics say, white men are the evil of this world.
Am I close?
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:05 am to blackrose890
quote:Au contraire, it specifically challenges those who think that it is more dangerous to be the majority than the minority to provide evidence that (a/b)/(c/d) > (c/a)^2, given that
it neglects the rates at which it is known these populations commit violent crime and who the most common class of victims are.
a = number of crimes committed by minority
b = minority population
c = number of crimes committed by majority
d = majority population
The rates you say I ignore are specifically what I’d like to know.
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 2:07 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:07 am to xiv
Are these crimes or violent crimes?
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:09 am to xiv
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:10 am to tigersmanager
quote:About 66% of France is white and Christian. Slightly over 20% of France is white and areligious.
Your math does not account for all white people not being Christian so there is no way for your supposedly easy math to be acurate.
If we go with just Christian and Muslim, Christians outnumber Muslims in France by at least 6:1. In order to conclude that it is more dangerous to be Christian in France than Muslim in France, Muslims would have to commit anti-Christian acts at a rate that is more than 36x as high as the rate of anti-Muslim acts committed by Christians.
If anyone has sourced info confirming that this is the case, I’d love to see it.
This post was edited on 3/21/19 at 2:11 am
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:11 am to blackrose890
quote:I’m taking about violent crimes, but they are represented by variables in the equation, so they can mean whatever you want.
Are these crimes or violent crimes?
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:16 am to NC_Tigah
Boom goodnight gentlemen
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:17 am to NC_Tigah
Thank you. Do we know how many of these anti-Christian acts were committed by Muslims and how many of those anti-Muslim acts were committed by Christians?
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:29 am to xiv
Wat
Please cite stats, not open ended unverifiable gibberish
Please cite stats, not open ended unverifiable gibberish
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:29 am to xiv
Basically what you’re saying is that regardless of the percentage at which minorities commit violent crimes (higher than whites), they can not be the aggressors simply because they don’t have the higher numbers.
Well this makes perfect sense now...
Well this makes perfect sense now...
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:30 am to NC_Tigah
Uh oh... there goes the boom..
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:31 am to xiv
I’m certain that the white Christians and the Jews committed the anti Christian attacks, and they also committed the anti Muslim attacks. Because you know, that makes sense.
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:34 am to xiv
quote:
s just how numbers work. 66% of the people in France are Christian (an additional 20ish% are secular white); ~8% are Muslim. In a vacuum, the average Muslim is, therefore, more than 100x as likely to be attacked by a Christian/white person than a Christian/white person is to be attacked by a Muslim. It’s impossible to analyze all other factors in good faith and come up with a result indicating that Muslims are a bigger problem for the rest of France than vice versa.
Holy shite. what classic liberal oversimplification!!
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:37 am to jnethe1
quote:Not at all. No reason you shouldn’t understand what I’m saying.
Basically what you’re saying is that regardless of the percentage at which minorities commit violent crimes (higher than whites), they can not be the aggressors simply because they don’t have the higher numbers.
Well this makes perfect sense now...
Posted on 3/21/19 at 2:40 am to jnethe1
quote:25% of the population in France is neither Christian not Muslim. Assuming that the numbers given by NCT are accurate, if even 5% of the anti-Christian attacks are executed by non-Muslims, then an average Christian is less likely to be attacked by a Muslim than vice versa.
I’m certain that the white Christians and the Jews committed the anti Christian attacks, and they also committed the anti Muslim attacks. Because you know, that makes sense.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News