Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   That doesn't mean that testing random people for citizenship is right.
> > It means that the *argument* that general random testing is wrong is invalid.

> Except we aren't talking about random testing.

  The subject which led to this sobriety test comparison was about the
morality of testing people without probable cause. I simply pointed out
that testing people without probable cause is not *always* immoral, as
there exists at least one legit example where it's not.

  So yes, in *this particular context* we were talking about random testing.
The original post might not have been talking about that, but this comparison
was not directly related to that.

  You are trying to invalidate my example by dragging it back to the
original subject (in other words, that Arizona law) and comparing it
directly to that, rather than what really prompted the comparison.

> You're arguing that based on statistics, racist testing should be applied.

  That's a different context, not related to this sobriety test example.

  Also, I don't appreciate your denigrating terminology on what I may be
arguing for.

> >   (Of course *you* might disagree with random sobriety tests not being wrong,
> > but in Finland nobody is complaining, so I'm not the only one who agrees that
> > they are important.)

> People complained less about random testing than about racists testing here too.

  No, your original argument which prompted this was that testing people
with no probable cause is always wrong. Don't change the context here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message