On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:10:43 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   I said that if the vast majority of illegal immigrants can be
>> >   distinguished
>> > by how they look, it makes sense to concentrate more on those people
>> > than on people who are much less likely to be illegal immigrants.
> 
>> And yet you don't think that this is racist.  Amazing.
> 
>   I suppose you could technically call it "racism", AS I HAVE SAID MANY
>   TIMES
> ALREADY.

You very specifically asked Darren "what the fuck he was talking about" 
when he made this point; show me where you said it was *technically* 
racism, because I certainly didn't see that.

>   I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people"
>   behave
> and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
> ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
> statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.

I'm not projecting anything here.  You are demonstrating an extreme 
degree of reading comprehension problems and engaging in nit-picking 
(yeah, those things you accuse others of doing) when we try to explain to 
you why it is the way it is, and what is wrong with the law.

You then proceed to throw "examples" out that are entirely different from 
what we're talking about (see my recent post having to do with the 
difference between a *specific* crime and general; you still don't seem 
to understand that investigation of a *specific* crime - like a rape 
(your example) is different than saying "hey, that person is hispanic-
looking, I should check to see if he's here legally or not".  Under US 
law, the former is acceptable, the latter is not.  Why?  Because the 
former is in the investigation of a specific crime; the latter is not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message