Warp wrote:
 >   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different, for
 > some reason.

OK. I'm going to go through the falacies one last time and bow out, because 
you seem not to be listening.

<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_35kDzNt-gTQ/RpmeXjcag9I/AAAAAAAAACE/Bpo04QrGBvc/s320/dead+horse.gif>

It's different in the following ways:

1) If you do not have ID at the store, you simply walk away. If you do not 
have ID for the police, you go to jail until you can find someone to bring 
to the police station your ID.

2) Buying something at the store is a reasonable action that would require 
you to produce ID to complete the purchase.  Walking down the street is not 
an action that one would reasonably have to expect to prove your citizenship 
to perform.  This is closer to saying "before you get a job, you need to 
prove you'll pay taxes." A law we already have.

3) We don't have any form of universal ID in this country that lists whether 
you're allowed to be in the country.

 >   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar,

I already told you that too is a fallacy.

If you have 100,000 mexicans, 12% of which are illegal immigrants, and 
10,000 africans, 99% of which are illegal immigrants, you have more illegal 
immigrants who look mexican than african, but you'd do much better arresting 
the africans.

 > concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.

But you're wasting resources by investigating males for whom you have no 
reason to believe they're rapists.

 >   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
 > profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
 > ok,

No, really, it's not.

 >   If it significantly increased my own security, I wouldn't.

We have sayings about that too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message