|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> You said
> > Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> > the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> > of them by how they look.
> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans
> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to
> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican,
> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you
> investigate all the europeans.
I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
efficiently.
But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
formula".
Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.
> >> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from
> >> illegal residents than looks.
> >
> > That may well be true.
> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?
> >> Concentrate on people who look mexican? Bad idea!
> >
> > Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> > people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.
> Yes, really, it does. You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the
> best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different
> distinguishing factor as "outrageous".
Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
somewhere.
> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common
> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.
And who is making such assumptions here?
> > Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> > "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> > if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> > simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> > them.
> Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of
> genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?
You really got infatuate with that odd word, it seems. And now also with
"unthinkable"? Where did that one come from?
> > One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> > curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> > look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok.
> We're not talking about that here.
Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?
> And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about
> something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on
> ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.
Seems like "genetics" has become a third pet word for you. Also of
uknown origin.
> > Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> > if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.
> Then why did you call it outrageous?
This is approaching OCD levels.
Exactly where did I use the word "outrageous"?
> Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my
> mind about this" is a good thing at this point. Otherwise, I'm going to be
> confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not.
> Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here
> you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.
You indeed seem to be very confused. I have not used such a word anywhere.
When did you last sleep?
> > You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> > enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".
> No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the
> most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share
> and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on
> that list.
You talk like I had said "looking mexican is the most distinguishing
feature of American illegal immigrants".
> > I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> > *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> > purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".
> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that
> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal
> aliens."
At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. Except when in
a next post (or even next paragraph) you won't, and keep talking like I had
said something like "mexicans have criminal genetics" or whatever bullshit.
> >>> Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
> >>> something unheard of.
> >
> >> Welcome to democracy.
> >
> > Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?
> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against
> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving
> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
on their best interest.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |