Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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