Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> > distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> > Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> > what I'm writing.

> OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore 
> other examples?

  Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
original discussion.

  I'm not rejecting nor ignoring other examples. I have *given* other
examples, such as profiling based on gender or vehicle type. Of course
you dismissed those examples as invalid, and are now claiming that I'm
"rejecting or ignoring other examples".

  I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".

> And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
> feature, which happens to be probable cause?

  And why would you invent arguments I have neved presented?

> That's why I'm confused.

  It certainly seems so.

> And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
> using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
> they'll behave in a certain way.

  "Racism" is exclusively used as a negative and derogatory term. There are
no neutral uses in practice.

> >> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
> >> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
> >> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
> > 
> >   What the fuck are you talking about?

> Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."

  Yes, "outlandish" as in "strange", something which confuses because it
seems so out-of-place. In this case referring to an argument which seems
so detached that it's hard to understand how it's connected to anything.

> >   And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> > do with anything?

> I quote:  (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)

>  > > And you still didn't answer whether you'd agree that it might be more
>  > > efficient to target people in churches than people who look central
>  > > american. :-)

>  >  I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
>  > Maybe that's what you were after.

  Sorry, I fail to see any outrage there.

> Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
> incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
> reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?

  I didn't say that "targeting people in churches is outlandish and
incoherent". I said that your question was so strange that I had hard
time understanding its connection to anything.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message