(05-03-2022 09:59 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:55 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:49 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  LOL to the bolded!!!! As if anybody here thinks that disproportionate = racist.

Well, I guess anybody here means just you, so maybe your statement is correct for N=1, BUT...

Disproportionality is the defining benchmark for all sorts of practices or outcomes deemed to be racist or to show racial bias. Traffic stops, incarceration lengths, hiring of policemen, whatever.

Right... and that benchmark has been railed against endlessly here... and rightly so most of the time IMO. It was therefore funny in that light to see you type "Well, the results are disproportionate..."

Eh? The results are disproportionate. That's statistically verifiable. I think you're missing the point that disproportionate results don't prove racism.

GoodOwl's medical claims regarding the protective nature of pregnancy were iffy.

I wasn't commenting on his statistics on abortion among the black population. I assume they are accurate (but given his posting history perhaps that is a mistake).

But assuming in arguendo his stats are accurate --- got to say that stating 'racism' based on: a) an intentional choice to do something with one's own body; and b) that the result is more likely to be intra-racial rather than an inter-racial result --- I am joining 93 in giving a 'stretch too far' in the 'racism' comment.

For example, I dont think anyone would ever deign -- as a hypothetical --- a high suicide rate among blacks to be 'racist' in design. Same intentionality, same intra-racial type result.