Every liberal when discussing niggers and multiculturalism: "CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION".
Yet they pull out 1000 statistics of crime rates and police brutality then claim that there's a racist conspiracy against subhuman chimps.
Hypocrisy, yet again.
Ok, but you can make this claim about nearly anything. There is a correlation between ibuprofen consumption and headaches. I can easily make the case that ibuprofen causes headaches, cause if you look at the data, it's clearly there. You don't take ibuprofen unless you have a headache, so you can't possibly prove me wrong.
But some things do have actual causes, you know? Unless you want to be that guy that screams out CORRELATION ISNT CAUSATION at literally everything then you're just defeatist and admit that we have no solid understanding of cause and effect then that delves into metaphysics, Artistotle etc..
Tl;dr you have a retarded stance.
Blacks commit more crime because they vote for democrats and liberal policies have shattered the black family by undermining marriage, awarding single motherhood, and creating a culture hyper-dependent on government handouts for their sustenance. There isn't anything about blacks that innately predisposes them to committing crime and implying such a thing is the epitome of racist thought.
It's a stats class scapegoat they use in order to come off as smart.
Correlation does not equal causation but it definitely suggests something worth looking at.
>>73225050
Prove that niggers being gunned down is racist.
Remember that racism implies racist intent.
Good luck.
>>73225066
Except for the warrior gene and higher testosterone
>>73225233
lol the warrior gene
They are among the least war like people on earth.
>>73225381
Africans have been commiting tribal warfare on each other since their inception
>>73225381
>least war like
Not because of intentions, but because of lack of funds and available tools you stupid retard.
It's not that they won't wage war, it's that they can't. They'd be the most destructive people on the face of the earth if they could.
>>73225225
It's dependent on culture. The media jew propagates rappers to encourage crime, drugs and ganghood. Rappers have the shortest lifespan out of any other career because the majority of them get shot and involved in ridiculous affairs.The fact that black people are overly incarcerated in the US compared to say incarceration rates in the UK is clear enough proof of intent to target black/impoverished people. I'd post links to source all of this, but you're doing very little to post legitimate evidence to defend your point anyways so I'll keep playing at your level.
>>73225225
Are women punished less harshly by our justice system?
>>73225225
It separates them from whites based on race because they are barbaic, that's why it's so illegal here
>>73224432
>not using icecream sales to predict when summer is coming
>CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
I'm pretty much convinced this term was created and forced meme'd by jews. It's the same thing as "PURE COINCIDENCE".
>>73225889
Yes. And are also less likely to be punished.
>>73225233
The MAOA-L gene variant, the so-called warrior gene, causes its carriers to be more willing to take risks while simultaneously enabling them to better assess their chances of success in critical situations.
So what does this have to do with being violent?
>>73226068
>tfw already had your two days of summer
;_;
>>73226243
>while simultaneously enabling them to better assess their chances of success in critical situations.
Citation needed
>>73226391
https://www.igenea.com/en/warrior-gene
>>73225050
Correlation tends to mean causation but causation only occurs one way. In your example this would be that headaches cause ibuprofen consumption rather than ibuprofen consumption causes headaches.
>>73226697
That website is commercial and bereft of support for that proposition. Regardless, high testosterone, as I originally stated, contributes to violence.
>>73225050
The trend has to be 100% in all cases, and even then that only establishes grounds to start a hypothesis, not prove it.
>>73225050
I think the saying is more appropriately "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation," because as you stated, there are causes to events.
Take the reverse: Causation does equal correlation. I would argue that this one is going to be true. That is an a implies b argument. If you remember rudimentary logic, a implies b does not mean that b implies a in every instance. That's what is going on here.
>>73226920
Maybe so, but I'm not about to research the claims of others. You post a damn source saying the warrior gene makes you violent and black people have it more than others, then I'll take your claim seriously. Marginal differences in testoserone isn't enough to justify a 1:10 incarceration ratio between white and black people in the US. You surely aren't stupid enough to believe that the differences between the dindus and the rest of civilized society are solely genetic, are you?
>>73224432
This terrible logic is stupid to the max.
In OP's pic, you can use ice cream and shark attacks to predict or guess the other. The "warm weather" is just another class of phenomenon that correlates heavily with both.
"Causation" when dealing with realities is nothing more than consistent correlation. Only when dealing with formal ideas and people's motivations do you have something like a "cause" that is not correlation. You can jerk off thinking only correlation implying friction and collision of particles or the typical short list of phenomenon from physics 101 are "true causes" while the rest is rejected as mere correlation as long as it is not linked by a mechanical interpretation which is purely correlation).
>>73227365
I only disagreed with the original post that I replied to on the basis that there are also genetic factors at play. I agree with the rest. Hence the "except for"
>>73224432
>"CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION".
When someone says this, they are really just saying that they disagree with you while you have data to back up your claim.
There are only a few scenarios for observing that A is correlated with B:
1) A causes B
2) B causes A
3) C causes both A and B
4) The observation is a statistical fluke, more data will show there is no correlation
When there are screams of "correlation does not.." they are really trying to put it into that fourth category.
The screamer really doesn't want it in bins 1 or 2 because then their beliefs are undermined by observation.
They might be ok with bin 3 at first, but will likely regret admitting it because they are now saying C is correlated with A and B. And you can keep doing that down in a recursive loop until we get to a bin 4 stopping point of their disbelief. And there is always that bin 4 because no set of data is perfect.
>>73227765
Can't blame you for thinking otherwise since this is /pol/ afterall
>>73224432
your pic is a perfect example of mental gymnastics. why would people buy more ice cream and get into the ocean?!?!!? its hot its the fucking summer
there is a connection. and likewise when you see patterns in crime related to race it makes you think. why is a black man 5 times more likely to kill another person than a white man?
maybe hes subhuman shit . maybe he is suffering from a malformed lobe in the brain. maybe he produces more female hormone and is prone to mood swings like hes oin the rag
>>73226195
Then why does /pol/ find it so difficult to believe the same could apply to black males in reverse?
>>73228250
Because Black males are punished more lightly than White males.
>>73228087
The worst part about it is the fact that the OP picture is category 3).
>>73224432
It actually isn't.
Using statistics to demonstrate trends is reasonable.
>Be black
>More-likely to get shot by police
Using it to claim genetic inferiority isn't
>Be black
>Therefore an underlying genetic failure on the part of your ethnicity demonstrates that you are inherently less intelligent than other people
False analogy is false. Trends actually are demonstrated by statistics. The difference is that you aren't talking about trends. You're drawing conclusions well-beyond them. If your argument was:
>be black
>prolly has a lower iq
That'd be accurate. But it isn't. It's:
>be black
>genetically predisposed to having a lower iq
And that's a buncha bullshit.
>>73228250
Because blacks, on average, commit more crimes, have more prior convictions, resist arrest, and possess unlicensed firearms and drugs when arrested. All contribute to higher incarceration rates and longer sentences. Women are viewed as weak and have children.
>>73228727
>blacks, on average, commit more crimes, have more prior convictions, resist arrest, and possess unlicensed firearms and drugs when arrested.
All accurate
>because they are black
Not accurate
Just helping to explain the difference between describing a trend and conflating correlation with causation.
>>73228820
>because they are black
Where did i say that
>>73228615
This. Summer is basically evil and should be banned.
>>73229195
You didn't. I was going beyond what you said to describe something to OP. Sorry--wasn't putting words in your mouth. Was trying to describe to OP the difference between your description of a trend, and what OP is talking about, which is drawing conclusions not found within the data based on the trend and conforming to OPs assumptions.
>>73225729
Black incarceration rates are also high in Australia.
Abos are <3% of the population but make up more than 10% of prisoners.
On a regional level they make up more than 50%of prisoners in some areas.
>>73229538
Which is a perfectly reasonable stat from which to draw the conclusion that abos are more-likely to go to jail than white people.
What it is not a justification of is a claim that, therefore, abos are more-likely criminal than white people.
Do you get what the difference is? One is a simple recitation of facts. That can't possibly be denied. But the other is an explanation of those facts that wholly lacks a factual basis.
For all that the statistics tell us: it is equally reasonable to assume that the cause is that abos are predisposed to criminality as it is to assume that criminality is cause by fluffy, pink unicorns that invade your brain and make you act out in your sleep, and that they are more likely to invade the brains of abos because they think that abos might actually just be chocolate bars.
>>73227365
Research the 2R variant.
>>73229874
One might argue that abos unique admixture of denisovan dna could be causation. No evidence for that imo. Just proves that we are biologically different.
>>73229195
>>73228820
>>73230350
That is what's known as a "red herring."
>Abos are statistically more likely to end up in prison than white people
True.
>I think it's a genetic difference!
You lack any facts to support that claim
>But there are genetic differences!
See how that isn't related to the first thing? It's just related to the second thing that you made up, that also wasn't related to the first thing.
It's a red-herring, but it's actually a better example of confirmation bias than a red herring. Not only did you draw a conclusion not found within the data, but you then constructed an argument to confirm your conclusion. You're spiraling down a hole you dug, that started out with an entirely-unrelated premise. And all that you did was hope that no one would notice.
>>73230569
Wasn't expressing an opinion on causation. I just didn't say what he implied I did.
>>73226168
>I'm pretty much convinced this term was created and forced meme'd by jews.
Holyshit /pol/ is retarded. You are supposed to learn this in your highschool science classes when they explain why things need to tested from multiple angles.
/pol/ once again proves it is the least educate board.
>>73227365
Well, since they all live in the same society, the only explanation for different outcomes would be different genetics. See ya later, DWL. Your pro - nigger stance might play well in your third grade class, but it don't fly here. You're out of your league, nigger loving punk. We use logic here.
>>73230696
I said one might argue. Not me. In fact I said there was no evidence imo. This time I do blame you.
Any time Liberals bring up the HURR MUH POVERTY argument it's so fucking easy to blow their assholes out. During the Great Depression where people were literally starving in the streets crime went down.
>>73230795
Which I agreed with. Was not claiming you did. I was using a strawman, built off what you said, to demonstrate to OP what OP is doing. I was trying to create an analogy to help out OP. Wasn't about arguing with you.
>>73230929
Ok no. Look, I really was using your comment as a spring-board to explain something to OP. And it wasn't an attack on anything you said. But you don't fucking get to hide behind "one might <this is my opinion>" statements.
>>73230677
Then by what feature would you look toward to gain incite?
>>73230696
>>73224432
So you're both wrong?
>>73225050
You'd take ibuprofen after a headache
>>73231052
Except for the part where you said
>You're spiraling down a hole you dug, that started out with an entirely-unrelated premise. And all that you did was hope that no one would notice.
Clearly that was an attack on me. And their denisovan admixture is a possible explanation but there is no evidence, which I stated. And I can use a one might argue to contribute to a discussion especially when I explicitly disagreed with that argument.
>>73226168
No, it's a very well known statistical fact. Causations are a subset of correlations. All causations are correlations but not all correlations are causations.
>>73227379
Causation is proved by demonstrating all other correlations are false.
>>73231380
Do you realize you just posted a super-long rationalization of exactly what you've just received an education on why those rationalizations are nonsense?
>>73231401
>Clearly that was an attack on me
You are correct. Come on, bud. I'm not being some faggy, cagey bitch. Don't be an eight year-old girl with "But I said Bass Turd, not bastard" logic, trying to tell mommy that she didn't say a swear. We both read your implications just fine. Don't do that faggy thing where you pretend that you're suddenly retarded and didn't mean the thing that you definitely meant, the second someone calls you on it.
>>73231943
What? You continue to reply to my posts with irrelevant ramblings when I've my position has been closer to yours than not. You attacked me. Claimed you didn't attack me. And then agreed that I attacked you.
>>73230898
>Well, since they all live in the same society
Blacks have made their own society in america.
This is the problem, black need to learn in school and get decent jobs like the rest of us
>>73224432
There is no proof those aren't correlated though, just an educated guess.
Correlation is the starting point of any statistical model that aims to predict something.
Causation by itself is an artificial construct. You can model a variable as being caused by another one and as long as the model holds and has neat/good statistical properties, so be it, it doesn't necessarily have to make sense even though in practice it often will.
You could indeed try to predict the expected number of shark attacks in a certain period by using ice cream sales as an explanatory variable for which you perhaps have an easier access to.
"Causation" is by itself a very strong philosphical issue if you will.
Correlation isn't causation but it is a strong indicator. If we didn't allow for correlation to warrant an ersatz proof of a hypothesis we basically couldn't have science of any type. There's very little you can prove causally from an objective perspective.
Correlation isn't causation but in many cases it's as good as.
