Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Not here.  It's illegal.  Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to 
>>>> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be 
>>>> intoxicated.
>>>   Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
>>> this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
>>> drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.
> 
>> If it did, that would be a different story. But it doesn't.
> 
>> If you stop people for driving drunk even when you can't tell they're drunk, 
>> how does that reduce accidents?
> 
>   Now you are not arguing only against me, but against the law of Finland.
> Random sobriety tests are a common practice here, and nobody is complaining.

That doesn't answer the question, tho. It doesn't matter whether it's the 
law or not.

And sobriety tests aren't immigration tests, either.  Random checkpoints of 
sober people can reduce the number of people driving drunk, because that's a 
choice you make on a day by day basis.

Randomly stopping people to ask if they are citizens isn't going to make a 
citizen more likely to stay that way, nor make an illegal immigrant more 
likely to go back to where they came from.

>> You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.
>   Then I suppose our law is stupid for doing that...

For one, it's a different circumstance, as I explain above. For another, do 
you actually know if they profile the type of car you drive or anything like 
that in pulling you over?  If not, you're begging the question.

>>>> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop 
>>>> knows a crime has been committed at all.
>>>   I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
>>> the alcohol levels of drivers.
> 
>> That's being detained, at the least. We have this whole "innocent until 
>> proven guilty" thing going on here. If there's *no* evidence you've done 
>> anything wrong, why would you need to prove your innocence more than that?
> 
>> Plus, you act like false positives are unheard of.
> 
>   You still write as if this random driver sobriety testing was my idea.

No, I'm writing as if you brought it up as a good example of why your ideas 
work. Why did you bring it up if you don't think it's a good idea? Why even 
mention drunk driving in a discussion on immigration if you don't think 
there are parallels that support your assertions?

See, this is where I get annoyed with these sorts of discussions with you. 
You make assertions, you're argued against, and rather than seeing "Yes, I 
see where that might be valid," you try to act like you weren't saying what 
you did, or something.  It makes you sound dishonest, as well as unwilling 
to admit you may be mistaken, at which point why continue the conversation?

-- 
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