When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Jacksonville's population is skewed by the fact that the entire County including the rural areas is within the city limits. Please choose one more representative of urban vs rural. I am quite curious.
We can examine that. Here is a searchable database of registered sex offenders which lets you drill down to the city / neighborhood level: http://www.city-data.com/so/sexoffenders.html
Let's pick Florida, because I like to make fun of Florida.
Florida's largest city is Jacksonville (pop 892,062), which has 2,200 registered sex offenders, for a resident : sex offender ratio of around 400:1. Now, that's a lot of sex offenders, but it absolutely pales in comparison to the town of Okeechobee, which is nowhere near any major city. There are 127 sex offenders in Okeechobee, out of a population of 5,553, which means that one out of every 44 people you meet in Okeechobee is a registered sex offender.
One out of every 44!
Here in Chicago (pop 2.7 million) it's one out of every 926. LA (pop 4 million) is about the same. Jacksonville has less than 1/3 the population, but more the double the ratio of sex offenders.
I can find no strong correlation between city size and ratio of sex offenders.
I think what he means is that you probably want to break it down by counties. I think he's angling such that many of the larger cities are bluer and to run the data again.
I think what he means is that you probably want to break it down by counties. I think he's angling such that many of the larger cities are bluer and to run the data again.
Ok, so I really did screw up the dataset from the 2016 election. Now I've fixed the graphic:
It pushes the balance in the Top 20 (more likely to be a sex offender) further into Red territory, and still leaves a lot more Blue than Red in the non-rapey section at the bottom of the chart.
So, the TL;DR is that any assertion that liberals are overwhelmingly more likely than conservatives to be child-sex-abusers (see post 15113 in this thread) is clearly false. If anything, it seems that the reverse is slightly more likely.
Jacksonville's population is skewed by the fact that the entire County including the rural areas is within the city limits. Please choose one more representative of urban vs rural. I am quite curious.
This can be said of pretty much all of the larger cities in red states. But I think I have a solution for your "Please choose one more representative of urban vs rural" request. See below.
Originally Posted by wherestheboost
I think what he means is that you probably want to break it down by counties. I think he's angling such that many of the larger cities are bluer and to run the data again.
My overall point in this is that liberals tend to be sex offenders at slightly lower rates than conservatives, which contradicts Brainack's earlier assertion that liberals tend to be child-rapists.
Your above "larger cities are bluer" supports my assertion, given that I'm proving larger cities have lower rates of sex offenders than small rural towns.
But...
Good question, Black Hat. Let's do that.
New York City is the most populous and densest city in the US, by far. Its DMA does not contain any suburban areas. In fact, the city itself occupies five separate (and geographically quite small) counties, mostly in their entirety.
It is also quite liberal.
NYC clocks in at 2,067 citizens per sex offender. The percentage of sex offenders in NYC is less than half the state average, which is 981 citizens per offender.
A few hours north by train (it really is a very soothing ride on the Amtrak Empire Line, and one which I've made many times), and you start to get into the Hudson valley, which is a blend of suburban (around Poughkeepsie) and downright rural. Like, actual family farms. Apple orchards are popular.
One area that I'm especially familiar with is the Catskill / Hudson neighborhood, as Nichole used to live there and I spent quite a lot of time there. Catskill and Hudson are two small towns on either side of the Hudson river, and are on the edge of what might be considered a suburb of Albany. It's about a 40 minute drive.
It's actually a very picturesque part of the state. Lots of hiking trails and waterfalls and old barns and deer and covered wooden bridges and whatnot.
Also lots of pedophiles.
Specifically, the citizen/sex-offender ratio in Catskill is 207:1, and just across the Rip Van Winkle Bridge in Hudson, it's nearly the same at 212:1. Roughly 5x higher than the state-wide average.
So, is this good enough? If we posit that big cities in red states tend to be bluer, and I can demonstrate that those big cities have lower rates of sex offense than out in poorer rural areas, and we've already seen that blue states, as a broad generalization, tend to skew towards lower levels of sex crime than red states, is that enough to debunk Braineack's assertion vis-a-vis:
Originally Posted by Braineack
OR maybe you have to repress your sexual urges your whole life, cause the liberal uncle who repeatedly raped you at age 5 told you he'd kill you if you tell on him...
Because, whether you agree with someone's political views or not (and, for the most part, I don't agree with the political views of most self-described liberals), trying to frame liberals as being unusually prone to pedophilia does not in any way help the political discourse, mostly because it's just so demonstrably and embarrassingly false. And it makes you seem as desperate for some criticism to latch onto as the "Orange Man Bad" crowd.
And that does a major disservice to all of us who consider ourselves to be in the right-thinking camp.
07-25-2019, 02:48 PM
0
