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.
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.
Oh my god