Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.

> It's simple math.

  So you are, indeed, nitpicking on my math rather than the overall idea
I was expressing with my example. Somehow you are arguing that since my
simplistic example cannot be applied as-is to more complicated cases, the
whole core idea of "distributing law enforcement resources according to
statistics" is flawed. Sorry, that doesn't follow.

> >   (Sure, my suggestion of devoting x% of resources for x% of illegals is
> > cold, hard, inhuman math, and there are other more humanistic sides to the
> > whole issue. I'm not denying that. I'm just arguing that from a resource
> > distribution point of view it would make sense.)

> A percentage is a ratio between two numbers. You don't have a simple 
> "percentage of illegals."  Percentage of *what population* are illegals?

  Stop nitpicking on the numbers, and start discussing the idea I'm
expressing.

  Although if your argument is "your math does not work on this more
complicated case, hence your idea is wrong", then I suppose there is
nothing to discuss. If you disagree with the idea, then say so rather
than nitpick about some percentages.

> It proves that the percentage of illegal immigrants who look mexican vs 
> percentage of illegal immigrants who don't look mexican tells you *nothing* 
> about the population of people you should be profiling.  If you want to 
> catch more illegal immigrants by interviewing people without cause, you 
> *must* know more information than simply the percentages of illegals from 
> each country. You *also* have to know the percentages of legals from each 
> country.

  You are nitpicking on the details of the example rather than on the idea.

> No. I'm saying that distributing resources according to illegal immigration 
> country of origin distribution *is* the flawed math.  Your basic idea is 
> flawed because it's based on math that's flawed. I'm trying to point out how 
> the math is flawed and hence how the results of applying that math won't 
> have the effect you think it will.

  "Your basic idea is flawed because your math is flawed" is a non-sequitur.

  Fix the math in whatever way you need to suit more complex situations.
That doesn't change the point I'm expressing. You are nitpicking on the
percentages.

> If he's asking you because he just wants to know, and you refuse, then he 
> should say "have a good day."

  So basically you are saying that police officers should not check
people's IDs. (Why check them if it's completely inconsequential whether
they have it or not?)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message