>>2848016>That entire statement on population adjusted makes no sense "Population adjustment" refers to what you referred to earlier. There are less blacks than whites, so an adjustment is made to compensate.
>Depends, how much does it account for all crime?Expressed in dollars? It's nearly all the crime in the US. We're thinking trillions versus billions in economic damage, an order of magnitude higher. Petty theft is hardly pennies on a dollar.
>So attempting to use statistics as a method of objectively gauging bigotry is irrelevant? Sounds to me like you're just conveniently ignoring reality. No. Statistics are entirely irrelevant in defining what bigotry is or isn't. Pick up a dictionary. The concepts are encapsulated without referring to statistics, as it is simply a matter of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. These aren't vague terms.
Also, regardless of your political opinion, this belongs in /pol/ and not on /c/. I don't know what you're talking about here either. I have to say that you're far worse to deal with than some of the tumblrinas and asukafags that some times stroll in here. Not unexpected for IMG_Anon.
But again, for reference, should I discrminate against white people for being pedophiles because they top that statistics? Should I discriminate against white people for partaking in high-order economic crime?
I don't, and neither should anyone else.
