As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
You are though. You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home.
In the same way, per exposure being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member. The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home
Yes
being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member.
No, literally the opposite. Your family members are statistically more dangerous than strangers, let alone black people.
The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
I'm not butchering the stat, I'm showing the misuse of it by making an identical argument. It's dubious, because the argument from the statistic is dubious in all of these cases.
As a woman? Your boyfriend, followed by your husband, brother, father, and son.
You're far more likely to be raped and killed by them than almost anyone else. If we are operating on raw statistics alone, you're safer wandering into a crowd of immigrants alone than going on a date with your boyfriend. Don't forget that most relationships are intra-racial, so the most dangerous person a white woman can be around is her white boyfriend. Don't tell me that's ridiculous, this is literally the argument feminists are using right now to downplay Pakistani Muslim rape gangs.
if we are choosing to play this game with statistics.
This is why this pre-meditated manipulation of statistics as a replacement to actually understanding the environment around you never helps. Yes, you can weaponize statistics to prove your bigotry, that's not the fucking point for anyone looking to improve society.
This is not true. The numbers vary, but somewhere between 12%-34% of female murder victims are from family members, meaning as a woman you're overwhelmingly in more danger from strangers. And the numbers explode if your family is white or asian and the strangers are black. The total expected lifetime murder rate for black males in the united states is 4.5%. 1 in 22.
Those weren't the numbers I've seen, but I'm also talking about all violent crime, including all instances of domestic battery and robbery with force.
It's far more likely that violence is coming from your partner than it is from outside your home, which is why cops spend so much time trying to investigate spouses and ex-boyfriends in regards to violent crime.
If youre unironically counting domestic violence in that figure, which is what moves the needle, youre lombotomized
It's as if I'm explicitly using a highly generalized and reductive approach to make a decision.
Actually it's blacks.
Nope, it's still men who are closest to you, and typically the same race as you. Inter-racial violence is wildly low compared to intra-racial violence.
Which is why this abuse of statistics is silly.
Nope. It's blacks. Blacks commit the types of intimate violence you are talking about more often.
Black men to black women, sure. Then white men to white women. Also white women to white women if they are lesbians.
Huh. Even with your bad faith arguing, I never took you to be someone who doesn't understand per capita.
So, why are you choosing not to understand that reductive arguments are reductive?
Pravda and Shareblue would love a shill like you. Not even stalin or fdr could lie to your face like that
No they wouldn't because I'm pointing out their tactics.
No, retard. You are conflating mandatory and non-mandatory interactions. The propagation of the species requires women to interact with their fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, and sons. So whatever violence results from these interactions is essentially inevitable and should not be weighed against the risk profiles of certain races, ethnicities, religions, or sexual orientations.
As they say: we don’t have to live this way. In fact, the entire US housing market famously revolves around avoiding these people.
I'm not conflating them, the difference is irrelevant because I'm pointing out the abuse of statistics you are now complaining about. This is why the M&M's bowl example was always stupid. You want me to add nuance to analysis now because it gives you the answer you want, but you didn't have a problem when removing nuance gave you the answer you preferred.
So your response: go right back to having a low-nuance argument that gives you the argument you prefer. So now, I will give you that low nuance argument back.
You're right. We don't have to live this way. We need to keep men out of public spaces because they're so dangerous. Welcome to 2012 Feminism. Please enjoy the M&M.
You are though. You're basically making the argument that residential streets are the most high risk ones because you usually have an accident near your home.
In the same way, per exposure being around any black male is far far far far more dangerous than being around a family member. The stat you are butchering doesn't support your claim at all, even if it wasn't hugely dubious to begin with.
Yes
No, literally the opposite. Your family members are statistically more dangerous than strangers, let alone black people.
I'm not butchering the stat, I'm showing the misuse of it by making an identical argument. It's dubious, because the argument from the statistic is dubious in all of these cases.