Two 12-year-old girls from Indiana were arrested for allegedly torturing another girl at a sleepover

If you were being honest you would admit that there's nothing basic about this conversation. We're all ready far deeper into a statistical debate than 99.9% of people will ever get into or be able to comprehend, there's nothing "basic" to comprehend here.

Except what the title of the table says. It clearly says "below are the percentages of all deaths caused by heart disease in 2015". It lists it by race and ethnicity.

I'm not interpreting it that way, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS! It says 18.2% of heart disease deaths are American Indian or Alaska Native. It literally says that.

There could be a reason why the male and female per race numbers don't add up, but they don't add up for all races so that question doesn't prove your point either.

There is no other way to interpret that table other than it being the percentage of heart disease deaths by race.

^^
Leaving aside the fact that we're not black, we're white and that black means criminal, foreigner while white means indigenous (which is us), I don't know why those numbers don't add up. There may be some funny way they tabulated the data. But I didn't write the chart. Its the CDC's chart. And the other study showed that N.egroes and Cuaucasians have similar heart disease death rates per 100,000 as well.

"During the study period, both indigenous N.egroes and Cuaucasians experienced substantial decreases in heart disease death rates, from 1,071.6 to 396.0 per 100,000 for indigenous N.egroes and from 1,032.3 to 326.3 per 100,000 for Cuaucasians. (Table 2)."

Our rate per 100,000 was 396, and their rate per 100,000 was only 326, A SMALLER RATE. If you're 70% of the population and we only 12%, that is completely unexplainable.

Heart wrenching. We've lost our way. Awful.

It literally says that 18.2% of Native American deaths are by heart disease, not that 18.2% of heart disease deaths were Native Americans. Trying to interpret it your way doesn't make sense sorry insults don't change anything.

If the chart wasn't measuring heart disease death against all deaths as a percentage by race then the man and woman section would be nearly 100%.



Non-Hispanic black male 161,850 deaths in 2015. According to the table, 23.9% of those deaths were heart disease = 38682.15.

Non-Hispanic black female 153,404 deaths in 2015. 23.1% of those deaths were heart disease. = 35436.324

38682.15+35436.324= 74118.474

(male+female) 161,850 + 153,404 = 315254 (total deaths)

74118.474(heart disease deaths)/315,254 (total deaths)= 0.235107164 aka 23.5% which is the percentage of people that will die of heart disease out of all the "black" people that will die(or that did die in 2015), which is exactly what I said and exactly NOT what you said.

This is logical proof that the table is a chart which demonstrates that the percentage is out of total deaths by race and not out of total deaths by heart disease.

Any argument to the contrary is a fallacy.

Boy, quite the escalation from having shaving cream put on your face.

Yep, something is definitely wrong with the young these days.

^^
Ok so the %deaths column is just an average of the male+female%/2. So for asian american (22.9+19.9)/2 = 21.4, so the male and female columns aren't going to add up to 100%, because its referring to a percentage of the whole. Its dividing the racial column in half because there are two genders, Not saying that male deaths are this percentage and female deaths are that percentage so add them up to get 100.

Males and females will always be ~50% each, so its saying, by race, that American Indian men are 19.4% of heart disease deaths * .5 for the male half of American indian deaths, and American Indian women are 17.0% *.5 for the female half of American Indian deaths.

In other words, American Indian males are 9.7% of total deaths while American Indian females are 8.5% of total heart disease deaths. The part that "adds up to 100%" is the racial total in the center. I'm pretty sure.

No it doesn't say that. It says that 18.2% of heart disease deaths are Native American. It clearly says that when it states:

"all deaths caused by heart disease in 2015, listed by ethnicity, race, and sex"

The male and female sections will not add up to one hundred because each race is being divided in two (since there's two genders). The male section is saying 19.4% OF THE MEN (or 19.4%/2 OF THE TOTAL....Because there are men AND WOMEN), so the numbers won't add up to one hundred. I can see why that's confusing to you, but that's how it is. The male and female sections definitely won't add up to 100%, by design.

The numbers that I posted are right, 23.5% of the heart disease deaths will be N.egroes, that IS WHAT I SAID. The chart itself clearly states that it is total deaths caused by heart disease listed by race. You're playing semantics because you can't admit you were wrong.

Mentioning that you aren't actually black is a non-sequitur and doesn't change the data. I'm glad you acknowledged that you don't know why the numbers don't equal 100%. Hopefully I layed out why you are incorrect in your interpretation of the chart. It is understandable why one might interpret it the way you are, but it is easily demonstrated to be the way I'm understanding it.

It's not unexplainable that a group with a larger percentage of people might have a smaller "rate per 100,000" for any given data set.

It actually makes more sense. The larger the data set, the more accurate the interpretation/representation is. With a smaller number of people, outliers from the norm sway the norm more than with a larger data set.

The reason its done this way is because there are differences between the male and female heart disease rates so they're broken out separately. Its actually kind of stupid to think that those two numbers will add up to 100%....

Thanks for the funny question.

I already mathematically demonstrated using the male/female % on the chart and the male/female actual deaths in determining the %of black male deaths that are from heart disease and it coalesces with the chart.

You can't/haven't done that using your interpretation of the chart. Instead of realizing you have a misunderstanding of the chart(One which is understandable) you assume that all the numbers are wrong/deceptive/lies (because it is your understanding that is wrong, that's why the numbers aren't making sense on your end).


I wish you the best.

Its not a nonsequitur, every time you call us black you are disrespecting us and taking our identity. SO STOP FUCKING CALLING US THAT or you'll hear about it.

I had a brain fart, I know why the numbers don't reach to 100%. Its because they're breaking out the percentages based on gender. Males and females have different heart disease rates so they show them by percentages. Since there's only 2 genders those numbers will never add up to 100%, they're each half of the racial rate. I had a brain fart and you're being stupid by asking that question.

Your last statement is completely retarded. It is unexplainable that, all things considered equal, Cuaucasians being 6 times our population (70% vs 12%) but we have similar rates of heart disease deaths per 100,000 or per 100 (percent). If we were equally affected by heart disease but less numerous, our percentage of heart disease deaths would be lower not equal to yours.

You're running away because you see that I've identified the trick you were going to use to try and CON me into believing your lies. The reason the male and female columns don't add to 100 is because they are each two halves of the whole. Men and women have different heart disease rates so each side represents the male half of the total and female half of the total respectively. That means your question was stupid.

Your "proof" shows that you know I'm right and were looking to make any tiny concession so that you could claim it as a victory. But you're wrong and you run from the battle to avoid admitting it. I accept this as your admission of being wrong, thanks for playing and have a good night!

It is stupid to think the chart is saying that 23.5% of heart disease deaths were "black people".

That's why you can't use your numbers to make sense of any other numbers, but when I interpret it my way all the numbers make sense.

If the chart was a comparison of total heart disease deaths by race then the male female would be near 100% discounting trans/nonbinary people. But it's not, the percentage is a comparison of heart disease deaths against all deaths broken down by race. Out of 100% of the deaths of "black people" 23.5% of those deaths were heart disease. Out of 100% of heart disease deaths, ~11.6% of them were "black people."

23.9% of all black male deaths were heart disease, not 23.9% of all heart disease deaths were black males.



23.9% of the black people that died of heart disease were men. 23.1% were women.

I already did the math for you to show that 100% of black people that died of heart disease is 11.6% of total people that died of heart disease, not 23.5% as you claim the table says. Since you can't validate any of your numbers it is clear you are incorrect in what you say.

Two halves of a whole. One whole = 100%. 1/2+1/2=1. .5+.5=1. 1.00=100%

So I guess you weren't leaving then?

Its not stupid to think that. That's what the chart says and there's nothing wrong with it.

The other numbers make sense, you're only referring to your nonsensical question about gender splits, but that question was stupid, not profound and doesn't validate your position. The genders don't add up to 100% because they're trying to show you the male/female breakdown of the total percentage by race. The male and female were NEVER meant to be "near 100%", you just don't understand the data you're seeing.

I don't make any claims. That's the CDC's website and the CDC's table. You can't admit you're wrong because that would be admitting that I'm right and our population numbers are much higher. I validated the male and female breakdown, it is you who refuses to accept the truth. Your question only proves your stupidity.

The reason it isn't 100% is because each row is a percentage of all deaths for that row/race. 100% of black people that died didn't die of heart disease, that's why it's not 100%. That's also why the chart isn't listing the percentages of total heart disease deaths as you claim it is (23.5% of heart disease deaths weren't black people like you are claiming it is), it is listing heart disease percentages of total deaths (23.5% of black people that died died of heart disease. which is ~11.6% of total heart disease deaths which seems really consistent with 12% of total population.

If it was comparing the way you say it is, then the two percentages would be 100%.

Right, but males and females are DIFFERENT. So we have DIFFERENT RATES. Those rates breakdown differently and so they separate them out but they combine to make the racial total %. Your question is nonsense because you're thinking that the male and female rates will add up to 100%. The only numbers that should add up to 100% are the racial breakdowns and because they include ethnicities (which many races can have) there is some overlap.

No it wouldn't be. The reason its not 100% is because the male and female divides the total rate in two because they're trying to show the difference between male and female rates. The "100%" that those numbers add up to is the racial total %, not 100% itself. Because they're not breaking the deaths down by gender, they're breaking the RACIAL BREAKDOWN DOWN BY GENDER. The chart itself says that it represents ALL HEART DISEASE DEATHS IN 2015 BY RACE, ETHNICITY AND GENDER. Ok so when you sort data "BY" something, that means your dividing it by that and categorizing by that datapoint. So I'm not claiming anything, that's what the table says. You can't accept it because you don't want to admit you're wrong.

And you're lying, 11.6% of heart disease deaths is NOT consistent with 12% of the population at all. There is NO REASON why heart disease deaths would be 4 times more prevalent in our population than in Cuaucasian populations. That's what I meant when I said even if you were right about us, that number still proves you wrong. Even if we were 11.6% of heart disease deaths, that would imply our population numbers were at least 30%.

The bottom line is IT DOESN"T MATTER whether heart disease deaths among indigenous N.egroes are 23% of total deaths or just 23% of N.egroes who died (for 11.6% of total heart disease deaths). EITHER NUMBER IS TOO HIGH. There is no scenario where you can defeat me on this, if we are only 12% of the population, 11.6% of the heart disease deaths is TOO FUCKING HIGH.

54% of Murder arrests is TOO FUCKING HIGH. 28% of all arrests IS TOO FUCKING HIGH. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE that we're so dramatically overrepresented for our proportion of the population! Then when you take into account the fact that at 12% of the population, that means murders are done realistically by 50% of that or only 6% of the population!

Most of those committed by those under 30 so another say 2% off for 4% of the population! That's not statistically possible. 100% of young N.egroes are NOT in jail! The vast majority are NOT! More brothers go to college than go to jail so its clear that that cannot be correct!!

1063705+1,059,926=2123631=total white deaths in 2015

.237*2123631=503,300.547 white heart disease deaths.

503,300.547(white heart disease deaths)/633,842(total heart disease deaths)=0.7940 so

79.04% of heart disease deaths were white people.

79.04%/12%= 6.6 times as many white people died of heart disease in 2015 than "black people."

12% of a population representing 12% of a statistic is prefectly spot on you fucking retard.

And I definitely don't think that that chart is saying that "23% of N.egro deaths is heart disease", they're saying that N.egroes are 23.% of heart disease deaths. They wouldn't phrase it that way if they were saying "No this is the proportion of N.egro deaths that were heart disease per capita." That's a different chart. They don't give you stats like that per capita.

The arrest rates aren't per capita. When the FBI tells you that 54% of murder arrests are N.egroes, they're not telling you 54% of N.egro arrests are for murder out of ten 10% of the total murder arrests. They're telling you that literally half the people they arrest for murder are N.egroes (not 11%).

Its the same here. They're not telling you, "Out of all heart disease deaths, N.egroes were 11.6% with 23.5% of their deaths being heart disease.". They're telling you, "Out of all heart disease deaths, N.egroes made up 23.5% of them."

That table doesn't say that. We're not 12% of the population so your numbers are off.

No its NOT you fucking retard! 100% of N.egroes don't die from heart disease dumbass! If it were representative of our population it would be 1/4 or 12*.25 = 3%. 12% is WAY TOO FUCKING HIGH!!!

I already statistically showed you that 23.5% of n.egros die of heart disease(1/4th of your population that dies will die of heart disease) and that number is 11.6% of all heart disease deaths. I clearly never stated that 100% die of heart disease.

The table and these numbers clearly demonstrate my position is the truth and yours is false. [link to www.cdc.gov (secure)]

No you didn't. That table states that 23.5% of N.egroes die of heart disease. If they were saying that 11.6% were dying of heart disease they would've said that. They aren't giving you per capita stats, they're giving you the raw stats. Arrest stats aren't per capita either. They're all raw.

And you're not paying attention. If N.egroes are 12% of heart disease deaths and only 12% of the population that means we're DRAMATICALLY overrepresented for heart disease deaths, to the point where 100% of the population were dying from it. That's clearly not the case. Which as I've shown indicates that the census is inaccurate.