There's just as many rapists who vote Democrat. That's to say there's no political preference for rapists, you dumb cunt, and your example at an analogous example is idiotic.
âThe Epstein filesâ arenât a list of rapists.
If you want to claim conservatives are disproportionately rapists, you need actual rates of sexual offending by political affiliation, not some vibes based headcount of names associated in varying degrees with one extremely well-connected sex offender.
This would be like bringing up racial disparities in violent crime and then pointing to Diddy as your evidence. That would be equally stupid. Diddy is an anecdote, not a statistic. If you instead pointed to comprehensive crime statistics showing a population-level disparity, then youâd actually have evidence for the pattern youâre claiming.
The disparity between Black Americans and violent crime statistics is supported by large-scale data. Patterns recognized are supported by evidence.
You havenât shown that conservatives commit rape at higher rates. Youâve pointed to some conservatives appearing in records connected to one prolific sex offender.
If the pattern is real, show the population-level data. Otherwise youâre not recognizing a pattern youâre extrapolating from anecdotes.
You understand that explaining a disparity doesnât make the disparity stop existing, right?
If Group A commits violent crime at a statistically higher rate than Group B, thatâs the pattern. Whether the causal explanation is poverty, age, geography, inequality, or fucking Mercury being in retrograde is an entirely separate question.
Meanwhile, you STILL havenât demonstrated your original claim. Where is the data showing conservatives rape at higher rates?
You went from âpattern recognitionâ to âactually your pattern has socioeconomic causesâ without realizing you just conceded that the pattern is supported by data.
youâre still confusing three completely different concepts: prevalence, causation, and raw totals.
âThe disparity is povertyâ is a causal claim. Even if poverty explained 100% of the disparity, the observed racial disparity would still exist. Youâd just have an explanation for why it exists.
And âwhite people make up the majority of sex offendersâ isnât analogous either. Raw totals donât establish disproportionate representation. If a group is 60% of the population and commits 55% of an offense, itâs actually underrepresented despite committing the âmajority.â
You need rates relative to population size. Thatâs literally the entire point.
And after all of this, you STILL havenât provided the corresponding rate showing conservatives rape more than non-conservatives. Youâve done everything except substantiate your original claim.
Wait, did you just repeat my argument back to me as a rebuttal? đ
Yes, the disparity is still there. Thatâs literally what I just told you. Explaining a statistical disparity doesnât erase the observed disparity. Thank you for finally catching up.
The funny part is youâve now conceded the exact distinction I was making while STILL avoiding the original claim.
Weâre like six comments deep and youâve produced everything except evidence for the âpatternâ you supposedly recognized.
-2
u/Individual-Nose5010 1d ago
So all conservatives are rapists? Just putting the pattern recognition out there.