War on white people?

[Othelos]

Obviously if you were a minority, you would have typed it without the umlauts due to laziness. *nods*

Not so much laziness as a hatred of White German culture, and a desire to implement my own in its place.

how about no.

[Mavorpen]

Not so much laziness as a hatred of White German culture, and a desire to implement my own in its place.

how about no.

It was a joke.

[The Land of Truth]

Yes, I know, they came from Hispania.

and before that they came from Germany and before Germany they came from Ukraine and before Ukraine they came from the area that is now northwest China, Mongolia, and southeast Siberia.

And before that they from the area that is now Ethiopia (skipping all the steps in between).

[Othelos]

.

[Othelos]

how about no.

It was a joke.

ok sorry lol

[The Land of Truth]

how about no.

It was a joke.

Poe's Law, it seems.

[Mavorpen]

It was a joke.

Poe's Law, it seems.

Well, the fact that he was responding to my own joke should have been a hint that he was joking as well.

Though, we ARE in a thread with people who hold very silly beliefs, so I can understand the mistake.

[Othelos]

Poe's Law, it seems.

Well, the fact that he was responding to my own joke should have been a hint that he was joking as well.

Though, we ARE in a thread with people who hold very silly beliefs, so I can understand the mistake.

I didn't read that many posts back, so I kept assuming people were serious. haha

[Zelitopia]

and before that they came from Germany and before Germany they came from Ukraine and before Ukraine they came from the area that is now northwest China, Mongolia, and southeast Siberia.

And before that they from the area that is now Ethiopia (skipping all the steps in between).

In million year hindsight, it is a good thing they left other wise they would be starving like the people who are there now.

[Javinia]

Made me think of this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RZFwPtN8Vg

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It was a joke.

ok sorry lol

No worries. Out of context, it does look pretty bad.

[UNITED AMERICAN FEDERATI0N]

Made me think of this song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RZFwPtN8Vg

I'm sorry but that was funny. Lol

[Distruzio]

A higher conviction rate? Doesn't that suggest that blacks are convicted of crime more than other races rather than showing that blacks "do more crime"?

The most plausible reason for the higher rate of convictions is a higher rate of crime.

Bruddah.... that's a bit of a... umm... non sequitur. You know? Kinda like saying that because public school buildings tend to be large classrooms held within must also be large. Or, if that's a bit too much to consider because it's too far removed from the topic of this thread, it'd be more like saying that because Barack Obama is not white Barack Obama does not like mayonnaise. Also.... he likes da bitches with da big ole asses.

What I'm saying is that a higher conviction rate does not denote higher rates of criminal activity. It, in reality, describes a higher conviction rate. Kind of like how Barack Obama is not white. End of sentence. At no point can we make a sensible determination about the black race nor the president based upon his race. It simply does not follow from your assertion. You might as well say that because there are fewer white convictions white people tend to be better athletes. You know, because they're better at running away from the police.

[Blakk Metal]

Oh shit, I think we've officially won. He's gone back to ignoring inconvenient posts that prove him wrong.

You never disproved me at all. All you did was report me to the mods on some stupid bullshit. The reason I cited that study despite it making excuses for the favored races was because it had useful data.

[Mavorpen]

Oh shit, I think we've officially won. He's gone back to ignoring inconvenient posts that prove him wrong.

You never disproved me at all. All you did was report me to the mods on some stupid bullshit.

Great, so then you should be able to address the posts addressed to you instead of ignoring them, like this one.

[Mavorpen]

The reason I cited that study despite it making excuses for the favored races was because it had useful data.

Of, of course it did. It's useful if I ever claimed that all self-reporting essays are accurate. And since not only did I not do that, but I also demonstrated my source is accurate while you've refused to provide a source that directly contradicts and refutes it, your source isn't all that useful for doing anything applicable to the debate.

[Arkinesia]

I am a disgusting pig dog cisrace individual. Is that the word? Cisrace? Or is “cis” only okay re: gender?

[Getrektistan]

I am a disgusting pig dog cisrace individual. Is that the word? Cisrace? Or is “cis” only okay re: gender?

Only with respect to gender.

[Blakk Metal]

1. Am I supposed to assume that black people are too stupid to understand questions? The more plausible answer is that they were lying.

No, you're supposed to assume that your own source is reliable. Are you saying it ISN'T reliable?

In which case, that brings me back to square one: where's your fucking source?

2. If black people are too stupid to understand questions like that in one survey, then why should I assume the blacks in the surveys you cite were smart enough to understand the questions they were given.

Psst. Hi, um, you could, you know read the rest of my post that demonstrates that the survey had accurate results when the methodology was tested. It LITERALLY answers your question for you

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

Oh, and you still didn't source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

'Discrimination' is not a legitimate complaint, it is pure rationalization, something which people do in order to make themselves feel better when they commit something immoral, like lying.

[Mavorpen]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

It would appear you didn't read a single thing in that post. Here, I'll post it again for you, so you can actually do that:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3455900/pdf/11524_2006_Article_433.pdf
(Image)

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:

Note that this latter perspective suggests that underreporting is inadvertent,
not intentional.

But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:

No, it does not. Your source studies the concordance rate to show how accurate self reported studies are. And if you read the results, it's actually very high.



It does not, ANYWHERE, say "self reported studies on race and drug use are wrong." It does not, ANYWHERE, report any specific statistics measuring marijuana use by race that shows a difference level such as this:

(Image)

Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.

Unfortunately, a drug test provides no data regarding the frequency or chronicity of drug use or the extent to which treatment resources are needed or have been previously used. Thus, because drug use and abuse history can only be
obtained from “good” questions, surveys are indispensable tools for informing
public policy.

In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases

The discrimination
scale showed a significant association with cocaine concordance, with discordant respondents reporting higher levels of discrimination than concordant respondents (t440 = 2.11, P< .05). Privacy ratings were associated with marijuana
concordance, with discordant respondents reporting lower levels of perceived privacy
than concordant respondents (t422 = 2.60, P < .01). There were no other theory-based mediators significantly associated with the combined concordance measure.

In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this

The data collection method used in NSDUH involves in-person interviews with sample persons, incorporating procedures that would be likely to increase respondents' cooperation and willingness to report honestly about their illicit drug use behavior. Confidentiality is stressed in all written and oral communications with potential respondents. Respondents' names are not collected with the data, and computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) methods are used to provide a private and confidential setting to complete the interview.

Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.

B.3.4 Validity of Self-Reported Substance Use

Most substance use prevalence estimates, including those produced for NSDUH, are based on self-reports of use. Although studies generally have supported the validity of self-report data, it is well documented that these data may be biased (underreported or overreported). The bias varies by several factors, including the mode of administration, the setting, the population under investigation, and the type of drug (Aquilino, 1994; Brener et al., 2006; Harrison & Hughes, 1997; Tourangeau & Smith, 1996; Turner, Lessler, & Gfroerer, 1992). NSDUH utilizes widely accepted methodological practices for increasing the accuracy of self-reports, such as encouraging privacy through audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) and providing assurances that individual responses will remain confidential. Comparisons using these methods within NSDUH have shown that they reduce reporting bias (Gfroerer, Eyerman, & Chromy, 2002). Various procedures have been used to validate self-report data, such as biological specimens (e.g., urine, hair, saliva), proxy reports (e.g., family member, peer), and repeated measures (e.g., recanting) (Fendrich, Johnson, Sudman, Wislar, & Spiehler, 1999). However, these procedures often are impractical or too costly for general population epidemiological studies (SRNT Subcommittee on Biochemical Verification, 2002).

A study cosponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) examined the validity of NSDUH self-report data on drug use among persons aged 12 to 25. The study found that it is possible to collect urine and hair specimens with a relatively high response rate in a general population survey, and that most youths and young adults reported their recent drug use accurately in self-reports (Harrison, Martin, Enev, & Harrington, 2007). However, there were some reporting differences in either direction, with some respondents not reporting use but testing positive, and some reporting use but testing negative. Technical and statistical problems related to the hair tests precluded presenting comparisons of self-reports and hair test results, while small sample sizes for self-reports and positive urine test results for opiates and stimulants precluded drawing conclusions about the validity of self-reports of these drugs. Further, inexactness in the window of detection for drugs in biological specimens and biological factors affecting the window of detection could account for some inconsistency between self-reports and urine test results.

So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

I've already demonstrated that the data from these graphs are reliable:





Show me data contradicting this that shows that blacks use marijuana more than whites at the level shown in the third graph.

Come on, I know you aren't blind. I know you can read. And I know you can do better than lazily shouting "OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!" as though that absolves you from doing ANYTHING.

[Blakk Metal]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

It would appear you didn't read a single thing in that post. Here, I'll post it again for you, so you can actually do that:

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

I've already demonstrated that the data from these graphs are reliable:





Show me data contradicting this that shows that blacks use marijuana more than whites at the level shown in the third graph.

Come on, I know you aren't blind. I know you can read. And I know you can do better than lazily shouting "OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!" as though that absolves you from doing ANYTHING.

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

[Mavorpen]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is?

Yes. Now are you going to address my actual post, or continue to dodge it?

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

It would appear you didn't read a single thing in that post. Here, I'll post it again for you, so you can actually do that:

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.



It's YOUR fucking move.

I've already demonstrated that the data from these graphs are reliable:





Show me data contradicting this that shows that blacks use marijuana more than whites at the level shown in the third graph.

Come on, I know you aren't blind. I know you can read. And I know you can do better than lazily shouting "OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!" as though that absolves you from doing ANYTHING.

[MERIZoC]

Your hypothesis adds a factor to issue, 'racial disparities', therefore, unless you can find convincing evidence I am wrong, Occam's Razor gives me victory.

It would appear you didn't read a single thing in that post. Here, I'll post it again for you, so you can actually do that:

So you CAN'T quote the source saying that they lie. Because, you know, lying implies it was a CONSCIOUS decision, and as your source explicitly states:



But this isn't the biggest issue with your failure to understand your own fucking source. And once AGAIN, you chose to IGNORE the very post that brings the biggest issue up:



Your source does NOT state that "black people lie, therefore all self-report surveys are bullshit." In fact, your source states that self-report surveys are the ONLY way to gather this data reliably and accurately.



In fact, your entire source is CENTERED around IMPROVING the self-reporting surveys in general, not get rid of them and replace them with any other method. Not only this, but your source also explains WHY concordance decreases



In other words, perception of privacy and confidentiality is what decreases concordance. Guess what? The source that my source pulled the data from addresses this



Not only this, but the source has actually had its methodology tested. And guess what? The source not only recognizes the reports questioning the accuracy of self-report survey, it goes one step further and cites research concluding that this SPECIFIC self-report survey that I'm citing, is accurate.



So, what have we learned today?

1) You don't understand your own source and it doesn't claim what you think it claims; it does not state that all self-report surveys are wrong and that black people intentionally give false answers and therefore "lie."
2) Your source demonstrates that perceived privacy and confidentiality is what lowers concordance.
3) My source IS accurate enough to draw conclusions and DOES address the problem of perceived confidentiality and privacy.

So, with all that said, it's your turn. It's up to YOU to demonstrate that MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the methodology of MY specific source is unreliable. It's up to YOU to provide a source that the difference in marijuana usage you CLAIM exists accounts for the difference in conviction rate.

(Image)

It's YOUR fucking move.

I've already demonstrated that the data from these graphs are reliable:





Show me data contradicting this that shows that blacks use marijuana more than whites at the level shown in the third graph.

Come on, I know you aren't blind. I know you can read. And I know you can do better than lazily shouting "OCCAM'S RAZOR!!!" as though that absolves you from doing ANYTHING.

Obviously black people are inferior due to their failure to dodge arrest.
*nods*

[Getrektistan]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false. Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

[Mavorpen]

Do you know what Occam's Razor is? Are you one of those guys who believes the Middle Ages never happened?

Occam's razor isn't an excuse to take the easy way out. If somebody asked you how babies are made, it's simpler to think that one human can create a child than it is to think that two humans are needed, but that's obviously false. Occam's razor is a methodology to arrive at an avenue to explore, not a definitive end-all-be-all that the truth is always simple. So you need to answer Mavorpen's data or concede.

It's like a creationist saying, "Science makes all these silly assumptions. Obviously God creating the Earth is the truth because it's the simplest answer."

Occam's Razor is not something you shout while shoving your fingers into your ear shouting "LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

But I will admit that he almost had me there with that red herring.