Warp wrote:
> 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.

What was your overall idea?  I thought it was that if you use racial 
profiling to target people of races who make up the majority of illegal 
immigrants, then you'll have a more efficient way of finding illegal 
immigrants, right?

> whole core idea of "distributing law enforcement resources according to
> statistics" is flawed. Sorry, that doesn't follow.

But it *doesn't* follow, for most crimes. That's the point. The number of 
people who are breaking the law is slim compared to the amount of work you 
have to go through to find those people, if you're no more discriminating 
than checking what their skin looks like.

If you *are* more discriminating, it's no longer racial profiling.

>>>   (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.

I'm trying to. You're arguing that using statistics would make the process 
more efficient. I'm showing you that mathematically, no, it wouldn't. Then 
you say "Stop arguing the details of the math. Discuss how the math can make 
things more efficient, instead."  You're not making sense.

>   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.

I disagree with the idea that using statistics to stop people who have given 
no indication of wrongdoing makes the process any more efficient. I disagree 
*because* your math is wrong. When you use the actual math, it turns out 
that it's less efficient.

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

No, I'm really not.

>   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.

But don't you understand that the point I'm making is that the math does not 
support the point you're expressing?  You can't "fix the math" to make it 
support your assertion.

>> 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. 

No. I'm saying that police officers shouldn't check IDs unless checking IDs 
will actually help them do their job of catching criminals.

And you keep saying "ID" as if that's the same as "Proof of legal 
residence."  It isn't.

> (Why check them if it's completely inconsequential whether
> they have it or not?)

Why indeed? That's exactly why we have laws saying the police don't get to 
do that.

-- 
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