On 5-5-2010 13:15, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> In this conversation, for example, Warp says "If 90% of illegal immigrants 
>> look Mexican, wouldn't it be more efficient to focus on people who look 
>> Mexican?"[1]   I answer "No, the math doesn't work that way, because... for 
>> example..."[2]  And then Warp, instead of saying "Oh, I see, that's a good 
>> point I hadn't considered" before continuing the conversation, instead says 
>> "Stop nit-picking the math."  Or instead doesn't respond at all, giving the 
>> impression they haven't even read the answer.[3]  It would be far better to 
>> respond "Yes, I see what you're saying. However, I disagree because..." Then 
>> it wouldn't turn into a dead-horse-beating-fest.
> 
>   The problem is that you are misinterpreting my response, even *after*
> I explained it more clearly.
> 
>   Originally I was comparing "concentrate the resources on people who fit
> the profile better" vs. "distribute the resources evenly among all people".
> That last part is important.

Part of the problem is that the police is never trying to solve a crime 
by stopping every person. In that sense your comparison is between two 
things that never happen. What has happened is that at various places 
police have stopped almost anyone that matches certain external criteria 
(race, colour, nose, religion, culture, country of origin). That has 
almost invariably led to disasters.
In any decent country that is also forbidden. The Arizona law tries to 
not only make it legal but even mandatory.
You seemed to support that law or at least didn't condemn it. Thereby 
attracting all criticism of that law. That may be a bit unfair, but it 
is understandable. What we wanted to know is to what extend you will 
follow the reasoning behind that law. The first assumption was that you 
didn't really meant what we though you said, because it is so bloody 
obviously wrong (to us). So that resulted in a number of replies 
explaining why you could (or should) not have meant it. Even if the tone 
was sort of accusing, it was still meant to figure out what you really 
meant.

[other points for later, I am spending to much of this day at home on 
this discussion anyway]

Post a reply to this message