View Single Post
Old 06-12-2009, 07:46 AM   #43
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
You do realize my stance on this issue is that both gender & race have less to do with crime than social issues (like wealth or education, as Flaco brought up), don't you? My debate is that the numbers and intent of the original post are bunk, but you can't seem to process what I'm saying because you're still busy looking at the finger instead of what it's pointing at...

Circles... Circles... Circles... (and other "voodoo incantations")
But they don't (have less to do with crime. . . ). Sex of a person is more related to criminality than anything else. If your understanding of motivation does not explain that, then you are missing the biggest part of the picture.

And stop it with these "small numbers" comments, unless you think the sample above is not representative of a population of interest. And if you don't think it is, explain why and cite some better stats. As is, these are the data we are talking about.

And what do you mean with your finger and pointing metaphor???? Are you saying that you are using the disparate male/female ratio to point to SES as a factor? 'cause that makes no sense, especially when you can't say anything about the male/female ratio. It sounds more like you are trying to get us to ignore the broken finger and look elsewhere.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote