Those "welfare crazy checks"

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a probabilistic argument. Not everybody has the same risk of getting shot. Being a banger increases that risk several orders of magnitude from average.

That response is unconvincing on a couple of grounds. First, if it is a "probabilistic" argument, then one cannot KNOW that it is a lifestyle choice. Second, why would one assume that the gunshot victims are "bangers"?

1) Yeah, you can't know that it's a lifestyle choice. It's simply likely that that's the case.

2) Most shootings that aren't banger-related are one at a time. He said there were a couple of them--increasing the odds that it was banger-related considerably.

 

[arkirk]

Really, I need to have this explained how you know that these people made explicit lifestyle choices that involved the risk of being gunshot.

Most gunshot victims did.

Can you cite your sources for this assertion? I like to have fallen off my chair laughing considering the wealth of knowledge you are privy to. It is true poor people get shot more often than rich people who can afford bodyguards, in most cases, they do NOT CHOOSE TO BE POOR. A person born into poverty has a far different menu of available choices, as you call them than a person born into white affluence. They did NOT CHOOSE TO BE DENIED A GOOD EDUCATION. People do not choose to be discriminated against...anymore than they choose to remain addicted to drugs.

 

[laughing dog]

That response is unconvincing on a couple of grounds. First, if it is a "probabilistic" argument, then one cannot KNOW that it is a lifestyle choice. Second, why would one assume that the gunshot victims are "bangers"?

1) Yeah, you can't know that it's a lifestyle choice. It's simply likely that that's the case.

This is not some experiment with replication where we are choosing colored balls out of urn. It is a specific one time event in a specific place at a specific time with specific people. So is it "likely the case" because the victims were black?

2) Most shootings that aren't banger-related are one at a time. He said there were a couple of them--increasing the odds that it was banger-related considerably.

Assuming that moronic racist was not exaggerating about the number of people, how do you know those shootings were not one at a time? Really, your observation about these people choosing a lifestyle that made them a gunshot victims is based on poor logic and bigoted generalizations.

 

[ronburgundy]

Really, I need to have this explained how you know that these people made explicit lifestyle choices that involved the risk of being gunshot.

It's a probabilistic argument. Not everybody has the same risk of getting shot. Being a banger increases that risk several orders of magnitude from average.

About 15%-20% of gun shooting deaths involve a victim whose "gang-banging" was a contributor to their death. There are about 9000 gun homicides per ye[/URL]r, but only about 2,500 "gang-related" homicides per year, and "gang-related" is a broad and inclusive category that includes innocent people (including kids) being shot by gang members. It also includes people getting shot who happen to be gang members but got shot for the same non-gang reasons that the vast majority of gun deaths occur (IOW, gang bangers are subject to the same factors that other people are). So, 1,500 is closer to a plausible number of gun shooting victims whose own gang-related actions led to their getting shot, which is about 17% of gun homicides.
Even if you assume 70% of those 1500 gang caused deaths had black victims (don't forget other minorities are in gangs too), blacks are about 50% of shooting victims total, so that is about 1050 out of 4500 (23%) of black shooting victims per year whose "banging" led to their death.

That response is unconvincing on a couple of grounds. First, if it is a "probabilistic" argument, then one cannot KNOW that it is a lifestyle choice. Second, why would one assume that the gunshot victims are "bangers"?

1) Yeah, you can't know that it's a lifestyle choice. It's simply likely that that's the case.

And in fact, you cannot "know" what is true about anything using his standard of knowledge, we only ever know what is likely because we only ever infer what is true based upon relevant probabilistic evidence. Even if the person says "I am not a gangbanger" that is just a piece of information you might use to infer whether he is or not. Same goes for directly seeing things that you infer make him a gang-banger. Direct observation is no more "knowledge" than statistics. They are both used to infer probability that a claim is true.

2) Most shootings that aren't banger-related are one at a time. He said there were a couple of them--increasing the odds that it was banger-related considerably.

Even if that "more than one" assumption is valid, it is still the case that only between 23% of blacks who are shot are shot are attributable to the victims own gang activity. Now this is much higher than whites who are shot. However, it still means that a black victim in 4 times more likely to not have been shot due to their own gang activity.

Even if we include non-gang but still crime-related activity, and assume that this doubles the %, that still leaves the majority of black shooting victims having been shot for reasons other than their own gang or crime activities.

Your assumption about multiple victims is dubious, but even if true, wouldn't increase the odds even to exclude a very plausible possibility that the victims in that hospital were completely innocent victims. Thus this guys comment which presumes they were definitely deserving criminals is both objectively wrong and clearly motivated by racism.

 

[ksen]

That response is unconvincing on a couple of grounds. First, if it is a "probabilistic" argument, then one cannot KNOW that it is a lifestyle choice. Second, why would one assume that the gunshot victims are "bangers"?

1) Yeah, you can't know that it's a lifestyle choice. It's simply likely that that's the case.

2) Most shootings that aren't banger-related are one at a time. He said there were a couple of them--increasing the odds that it was banger-related considerably.

What's all that got to do with a hospital deciding that a gunshot wound should be treated before someone whose arm hurts?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I think he is saying White people need to be treated first.

 

[ksen]

oh . . . carry on then

 

[Duke Leto]

Point of order.

The incident described took place in Mississippi, which, rather surprisingly, has a relatively low percentage of its Black population in prison compared other parts of the nation, and one of the highest percentages of its White population in prison. (See here, p. 6)

It's dirt poor, but it isn't very urban, so the gang lifestyle is quite different down there. Specifically, instead of joining gangs on the street, you join them in prison.

Here comes the kicker. One of the biggest gangs in Southern Mississippi is the Simon City Royals, originally formed in Chicago, but with franchises throughout the South. It is a White gang.

So yeah, our resident know-it-all idiot on all things race related has presumed that the Black shooting victim was gang related in one of the few places in America where respectable Blacks are likely to get shot by White gangbangers. But hey, why stop and think when you can just mouth the fuck off without actually knowing anything about the situation? It's the Loren Pechtel way!

 

[Bronzeage]

Point of order.

The incident described took place in Mississippi, which, rather surprisingly, has a relatively low percentage of its Black population in prison compared other parts of the nation, and one of the highest percentages of its White population in prison. (See here, p. 6)

It's dirt poor, but it isn't very urban, so the gang lifestyle is quite different down there. Specifically, instead of joining gangs on the street, you join them in prison.

Here comes the kicker. One of the biggest gangs in Southern Mississippi is the Simon City Royals, originally formed in Chicago, but with franchises throughout the South. It is a White gang.

...!

Let's not forget the Bandidos and the Outlaws, along with whoever is making the meth amphetamine this week.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most gunshot victims did.

Can you cite your sources for this assertion? I like to have fallen off my chair laughing considering the wealth of knowledge you are privy to. It is true poor people get shot more often than rich people who can afford bodyguards, in most cases, they do NOT CHOOSE TO BE POOR. A person born into poverty has a far different menu of available choices, as you call them than a person born into white affluence. They did NOT CHOOSE TO BE DENIED A GOOD EDUCATION. People do not choose to be discriminated against...anymore than they choose to remain addicted to drugs.

It's not the poor that get shot. Most people who get shot (other than due to suicide) are criminals. Most of the rest are hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if that "more than one" assumption is valid, it is still the case that only between 23% of blacks who are shot are shot are attributable to the victims own gang activity. Now this is much higher than whites who are shot. However, it still means that a black victim in 4 times more likely to not have been shot due to their own gang activity.

Even if we include non-gang but still crime-related activity, and assume that this doubles the %, that still leaves the majority of black shooting victims having been shot for reasons other than their own gang or crime activities.

Your assumption about multiple victims is dubious, but even if true, wouldn't increase the odds even to exclude a very plausible possibility that the victims in that hospital were completely innocent victims. Thus this guys comment which presumes they were definitely deserving criminals is both objectively wrong and clearly motivated by racism.

I was using it in the more general sense of career criminals, not specifically gangs. Most murder victims have a decent rap sheet.

 

[bilby]

Can you cite your sources for this assertion? I like to have fallen off my chair laughing considering the wealth of knowledge you are privy to. It is true poor people get shot more often than rich people who can afford bodyguards, in most cases, they do NOT CHOOSE TO BE POOR. A person born into poverty has a far different menu of available choices, as you call them than a person born into white affluence. They did NOT CHOOSE TO BE DENIED A GOOD EDUCATION. People do not choose to be discriminated against...anymore than they choose to remain addicted to drugs.

It's not the poor that get shot. Most people who get shot (other than due to suicide) are criminals. Most of the rest are hunters.

- - - Updated - - -

Even if that "more than one" assumption is valid, it is still the case that only between 23% of blacks who are shot are shot are attributable to the victims own gang activity. Now this is much higher than whites who are shot. However, it still means that a black victim in 4 times more likely to not have been shot due to their own gang activity.

Even if we include non-gang but still crime-related activity, and assume that this doubles the %, that still leaves the majority of black shooting victims having been shot for reasons other than their own gang or crime activities.

Your assumption about multiple victims is dubious, but even if true, wouldn't increase the odds even to exclude a very plausible possibility that the victims in that hospital were completely innocent victims. Thus this guys comment which presumes they were definitely deserving criminals is both objectively wrong and clearly motivated by racism.

I was using it in the more general sense of career criminals, not specifically gangs. Most murder victims have a decent rap sheet.

Having read tens of thousands of posts by you on this board (and its predecessors) I have zero confidence that you comprehend ANY of the meanings of the word 'decent'.