Funny, Strange, Random Pics

Cad_sl said:

You want some comedy... go look at the rape stats. Rapists primarily rape within their race, but blacks do rape whites at a decent clip. White on black rape... zero. Go look. Its actually zero. From the FBI crime stats.

Click to expand...

That's a misreading of the statistics by subtracting the wrong numbers from the totals and reading the statistics incorrectly. That misreading is then propagated via racist websites.



GIS for Lying with Numbers.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf

Here's the document in question. Every single table, regardless of what it's about, has the same asterisk for some part of the data:

*Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

See purse snatchings. 30,000, but estimates based on 10 or fewer sample cases.

That doesn't mean there were 10 or fewer rapes. That's not how statistics work.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=464

Cad_sl said:

Guess they couldnt find 10 black women raped by whites to make sample cases...

Conclusion is....

Click to expand...

Wrong. See table 42. It means out of ALL 44,520 cases of rapes where black women were the victims, they took a total of 10 random sample cases and based their ratios for ALL 44,520 off of that. Not that there were less than 10 white on black rapes total. The same asterisk appears for the 70.3% of black on black rapes, and 70% of 44,520 is a LOT more than 10.

"When the national estimate is based on 10 or fewer actual sample cases, we make note of this and encourage caution in interpreting results."
From the second link. It is impossible to draw any statistical conclusion from the small number of sample cases used. It is an example of the government being retarded and lazy when compiling statistics, not evidence of anything to do with race or crime.

This is how you can tell if you're a racist and/or bad at math. If you look at that chart and say "there were less than 10 cases of white on black rape" rather than "out of less than 10 sample cases from 44,520 cases, 0 were white on black" then either you are a racist or you need to go take Statistics for Social Sciences I at your local community college.

Cad_sl said:

So you're thinking they just said fuck it and put 0 there randomly when every other entry on that table has numbers? Just a coincidence eh? And the other numbers in the table are like 43, 32.3, etc...

Click to expand...

Jesus fucking christ, read the god damn chart, and read their own fucking notes. It's not "randomly" aside from the random sampling. They took 44,520 cases, picked LESS THAN 10, presumably at random, and extrapolated from there. And they say exactly that.

All that it means is that they DIDN'T use quota sampling when selecting the sample cases.

Here, fuck it, learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samplin...mpling_methods