If you use words such as "trivial" when referring to hate crimes, you should expect to be criticised for it.
Perhaps you meant "minimal" or "fewer" or "less", but trivial sends the wrong ideas about hate crime.
First Harlow, now Bletchley
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Perhaps you meant "minimal" or "fewer" or "less", but trivial sends the wrong ideas about hate crime.
Sponsored Links
That deserves the ridiculous prize of the day.
B
blightymam
Makes a change from you getting it.
I see no harm is saying that the decline in hate crime is a good thing. JohnD seems to think so.
Which is why this is not a speech to the Victims of Abuse Society.
This is an internet forum, on a DIY website, and the conversation was dealing not with hate crimes themselves but with the statistics of reporting of hate crimes.. 'Feelings' have no relevance here.
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Let me test your position
In 2010 there are 100 cases of chocolate being stolen from supermarkets. 90 of them are performed by plumbers and 10 of them are performed by plasterers.
In 2011 there are 200 cases of chocolate being stolen from supermarkets.
John comments that chocolate crime has increased by 100%. John thinks that it may be relevant that the "Plumbing News" has been running front-page articles every week saying that chocolate is delicious and supermarkets have poor security and are easy to rob. He comments that this campaign is unhelpful and may be increasing chocolate thefts.
Gerry claims that the number stolen by plumbers might have only increased by a trivial amount because you have to subtract the plasterers' crimes. He says there is no reason to suppose Plumbing crime has increased by 100%. He asserts that in his opinion the percentage is trivial.
Gerry has no evidence that plasterers have suddenly become more criminal that in the past.
Does Gerry have a leg to stand on?
Last edited:
Actually in post #16 he posted a link to the tabulated records for the last several years, which support his position.
Last edited:
No, you're going to have to spell it out.
I'll guess that when you quote "race" you include "nationality"
Do you mean that you have figures that show the 58% increase was caused by crimes that have "nothing to do with race or nationality?"
Show me.
I'll guess that when you quote "race" you include "nationality"
Do you mean that you have figures that show the 58% increase was caused by crimes that have "nothing to do with race or nationality?"
Show me.
No categorical breakdown is provided in the table of the 9 weeks, but statistical probability tells that not all of the 3215 extra reports were race/nationality related.
So returning to the Chocolate stealing analogy:
If, say, 90% of the crimes last year were racist assaults/plumbers shoplifting
And if the total of crimes has increased in a particular week by 58%
What evidence do you have to suggest that the proportion has changed?
You can only claim that the rise in racist/chocolate crimes is less than 58% if you have some reason to suppose that the proportion of disabled attacks/plasterer crimes has increased disproportionally.
Which you haven't.
If, say, 90% of the crimes last year were racist assaults/plumbers shoplifting
And if the total of crimes has increased in a particular week by 58%
What evidence do you have to suggest that the proportion has changed?
You can only claim that the rise in racist/chocolate crimes is less than 58% if you have some reason to suppose that the proportion of disabled attacks/plasterer crimes has increased disproportionally.
Which you haven't.
You analogy is nonsensical, as usual.
If 0.2% of hate crimes per year are not racially/nationally motivated, and the total number of hate crimes increases in the following year, then it is reasonable to assume the increase is itself composed of 0.2% non-racially/non-nationally motivated incidents.
If 0.2% of hate crimes per year are not racially/nationally motivated, and the total number of hate crimes increases in the following year, then it is reasonable to assume the increase is itself composed of 0.2% non-racially/non-nationally motivated incidents.
Last edited:
B
blightymam
I can see why JohnD is upset with the rise of hate crime. It is upsetting and has no place in civilised society.. I am pleased that the levels of hate crime are going back down back to pre-Brexit levels, as well as there being more awareness and reporting of the crimes compared to what there was.
But I wonder why, as JohnD always seems to say that it's wrong to focus on just one part of a story or a group, why JohnD isn't also upset with the rise of other crimes? Like honour crime or FGM? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33424644
Awful crimes that go on, these are shocking too and have no place in society in this day and age, exactly the same as hate crimes.
I wonder if it's because FGM and honour killings/harm have little to do with Brexit as to why JohnD doesn't mention them here in this thread.
But I wonder why, as JohnD always seems to say that it's wrong to focus on just one part of a story or a group, why JohnD isn't also upset with the rise of other crimes? Like honour crime or FGM? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33424644
Awful crimes that go on, these are shocking too and have no place in society in this day and age, exactly the same as hate crimes.
I wonder if it's because FGM and honour killings/harm have little to do with Brexit as to why JohnD doesn't mention them here in this thread.
I fear your imagination is leading you astray and you are saying things that are not true. Please show us a few examples where you claim I have always said that.
You have no reason to claim that. It is a fiction you have made up.
I suggest you look up "Whataboutery" or "Whataboutism"
It's a very common trick used by internet arguers.
Sponsored Links
