Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In this instance, you've said over and over 
> that you don't see why race shouldn't be used to identify illegals (at 
> least that's what you seem to be saying).

  That's the problem. You only read *part* of what I write, not the whole
thing.

  Maybe if I emphasize it would help: *IF* race could be used as a trait
to catch criminals more efficiently, *THEN* it would make sense to use it.

  When I write that sentence over and over, it seems that you only read
"it makes sense to use race to catch criminals more efficiently".

  There is a difference. If you can't understand the difference, then
I really don't know what else I can do.

  (Well, I have been emphasizing like that many times already, and it isn't
helping, so I'm not very hopeful it will help this time either.)

>  I and others have tried to 
> explain, both in a cultural context and in the context of how US 
> jurisprudence is supposed to work

  Yes, and I have many, many times written sentences along the lines of
"(but I understand why this wouldn't work in practice because eg. people
would get angry)", but once again it doesn't seem to register. Do the
parentheses confuse the meaning or something?

> and you've pretty flatly rejected 
> those explanations instead of saying something like "that's not how it 
> works here, but I can understand why people in the US might feel this way 
> given the history".

  And now you are once again putting words in my mouth. I'm sorry I have
to say that, but it's just true.

  I have never said anything even remotely resembling "that's not how it
works here" when talking about racial profiling.

  What you are doing there is to mix two completely different contexts.
The issue of "can a policeman check someone without probable cause?" was
a completely different line of discussion which had nothing to do with
racial profiling or anything. I did not discuss that in response to the
Arizona law nor to racial profiling, nor anything relating to race.
I discussed it purely on the context of "checking without probable cause"
because that separate issue came up in a post.

  Now you are confusing my "in Finland the police can make sobriety tests
on drivers without the need for probable cause, which is an example where
it's sensible" with a completely different line of discussion of "is racial
profiling to catch criminals acceptable?" They are completely different
contexts.

  And yes, you are not talking about the driver sobriety test here because
you started the paragraph with "you don't see why race shouldn't be used
to identify illegals" and then immediately proceeded in the same paragraph
to say ''I and others have tried to explain, both in a cultural context and
in the context of how US jurisprudence is supposed to work, and you've pretty
flatly rejected those explanations instead of saying something like "that's
not how it works here"...''. So you are mixing up two completely different
things here.

> When you do that, you come across as having an air of superiority - not 
> you personally, but culturally certainly - and it is interpreted as 
> "we're better than you".

  I don't think that "I'm surprised that the police is not allowed to do
random sobriety tests on drivers there" shows an air of superiority.

> You need to understand and acknowledge that there is more than one way to 
> do things in the world, and the way it's done in Finland isn't the way 
> it's done in the US or other countries, and that perhaps there's 
> something you can learn from us.

  What makes you assume that racial profiling is acceptable in Finland?
I have never said such a thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message