@hooksnhoopz It makes no sense. They started jacking up ill advised threes in the third quarter (that they weren’t rebounding) that allowed the Nicks to play back into the game. They pulled up threes (that they missed) on about 4 or 5 straight possessions at the start of the third quarter.
@SpursReporter Were you referring to his games against the Nix? Why is he camped out at the perimeter? Why tf is the coach letting him do it or fking coaching him to do it?
@reelTruthTeller@Sauce_MacKenzie It’s weird that after he’s turned down hundreds of white women (where the numbers and averages would suggest many were attractive)—and being black and 6’5”—it had nothing to do with his money…and a lot to do with his dick. But you couldn’t ignore it..
There’s going to be a Grave Protection Fund to pay for security to guard his grave from be shit and pissed on (for the next five hundred years) that MAGA is going to pay and hand down to their MAGA descendants to keep paying security to guard his grave from being turned into a septic dump.
No, that’s not the same argument you started with.
Originally, you claimed that higher conviction rates prove arrest statistics literally reflect crime rates. Now you’re saying convictions from arrests are simply the “best way to gauge where crime is stemming from.”
Those are two different claims. Make up your mind.
One is “this proves it.”
The other is “this is the best proxy we have.”
Those aren’t the same thing.
I conceded that, despite the stats being flawed (as the FBI itself acknowledges), they are the stats we have. And, being the asshole that you are, you have to make me “wrong” because you were hurt by something I said. Maybe you’ll get over it someday—maybe not. There’s no indication that you will.
What I’ve been pointing out from the beginning is that arrests measure police activity and convictions measure court outcomes. Neither of those datasets, by themselves, directly measures underlying crime rates.
But now your argument has shifted to “it’s the best indicator we have,” which is a different and much weaker claim than the one you started with.
In other words, you didn’t prove the original argument—you replaced it with a different one.
And the white suicide rates are accurate. Feel free to check at your leisure. My point is that you wouldn’t be nearly as concerned, passionate, or dogmatic about those statistics—where, by your own admission, you didn’t even bother checking them.
In other words: I proved my point.
Your experience of what I’m experiencing in this exchange is totally unrelated to anything about me. And, being the dedicated criminal and behavioral statistician that you are, let’s see how consistent and strict you are when relying on behavioral and criminal statistics applied in other areas:
Can we rely on the statistics showing that whites are about two to two-and-a-half times more likely to die by suicide than Blacks? Or are there “many varying reporting methods and factors” that make that ratio untrue?
@Darren12555@semitic_jew It’s flawed and not absolutely accurate. It’s not science and *close to* science doesn’t equal science. “Relevant”inaccuracy.. It is what it is. We’re not going to change each other’s minds. ✌🏽
@Darren12555@semitic_jew What I “have” is the thesis that the way that the data is collected and represented is inherently flawed. You don’t have to assume whether I don’t.