I'm not framing anything as worse. You said "the stats say otherwise." Then you provided a second statistic, which is true, but does not say otherwise.
That's it. That's all I'm correcting. You're fighting an imaginary enemy in this thread.
No it does say otherwise. The main implication of the post (pro-abortion) is based on its misrepresentation of stats via excluding the supermajority. While you could say its technically true that "groups more likely... ", the main point (being pro-abortion) and the main implication (abortion benefits whites) are contradicted and voided upon context (the supermajority) being revealed.
The context is selective to make the stats fit the desired narrative. This is obvious because the narrative falls apart upon knowing the full data of those same stats.
I'm not framing anything as worse. You said "the stats say otherwise." Then you provided a second statistic, which is true, but does not say otherwise.
That's it. That's all I'm correcting. You're fighting an imaginary enemy in this thread.
No it does say otherwise. The main implication of the post (pro-abortion) is based on its misrepresentation of stats via excluding the supermajority. While you could say its technically true that "groups more likely... ", the main point (being pro-abortion) and the main implication (abortion benefits whites) are contradicted and voided upon context (the supermajority) being revealed.
The context is selective to make the stats fit the desired narrative. This is obvious because the narrative falls apart upon knowing the full data of those same stats.