 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
> if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness.
I showed you the math. It's actually pretty well known.
>> It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
>> offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
>
> Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.
Except in a democracy, when you offend the majority of the people, often the
laws get changed.
> People often take their rights to privacy and freedom very seriously.
Rabidly so, here.
>>>> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>>> Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
>
>> Apparently not.
>
> What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
I'm not familiar with all the laws, but yes, if you don't check everyone,
then don't check anyone.
>> Not here. It's illegal. Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to
>> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be
>> intoxicated.
>
> Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
> this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
> drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.
If it did, that would be a different story. But it doesn't.
If you stop people for driving drunk even when you can't tell they're drunk,
how does that reduce accidents?
>> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
> Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.
You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.
>> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
>> knows a crime has been committed at all.
>
> I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
> the alcohol levels of drivers.
That's being detained, at the least. We have this whole "innocent until
proven guilty" thing going on here. If there's *no* evidence you've done
anything wrong, why would you need to prove your innocence more than that?
Plus, you act like false positives are unheard of.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 8:57 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> > >> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>>> > >
>>> > > Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
>> > Apparently not.
> What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
>
Our SUS laws are still on the statute books but they are restricted to a
declared area for up to six hours. The police normally cannot stop
Remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp1tyQ5s1A
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check
> the mexicans" is a flawed argument.
How do you know that they are Mexican? They could be American born in
the USA whose parents were born in the USA.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
> if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness.
Oh, also, if you predominantly check mexican-looking people, you will
predominantly arrest mexican-looking people. Which means it will seem like
the predominant illegal immigrant is mexican. Which is another way you screw
up the math. You do not, by definition, know how many actual illegal
immigrants there are of which types.
You can argue that it *logically* makes sense that most illegal immigrants
on the mexican border will be mexican. But this turns into a positive
feedback loop.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check
>> the mexicans" is a flawed argument.
>
> How do you know that they are Mexican? They could be American born in
> the USA whose parents were born in the USA.
Well, yes. I was using "mexicans" to mean "people who look mexican" in that
sentence. Since I already pointed out that your immigration status can
change based on factors completely irrelevant to your appearance, I figured
that was already understood.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 8:22 PM, andrel wrote:
> you want to kill a mosquito using a canon (or whatever the English
> expression is).
FWI: Taking a sledgehammer to crack a walnut or making a mountain out of
a molehill.
* No mosquitoes were harmed in this explanation
** May contain nuts.
:-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 21:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>> On 2-5-2010 20:47, Warp wrote:
>
>>> Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.
>>>
>>> He said, effectively, that trying to stop illegal immigration by doing
>>> racial profiling is wrong. Did I understand this incorrectly? If yes, then
>>> exactly what did he say?
>
>> No that is what he said. Racial profiling is not allowed for illegal
>> immigration, because the profiling is not specific enough. Use of this
>> blunt instrument would also likely destabilize the society. The use of
>> it is therefore not only discouraged but in most places even forbidden.
>
> And I commented to that by expressing my opinion that people (not the
> writer, but people in general) are really too oversensitive on things like
> skin color.
Not sure here if you mean skin color here literally or as a pars pro
toto. Does not really matter much. People are sensitive to being stopped
and questioned in an accusing tone by the police for no good reason. If
it happens too often they get irritated. Fact of life I am afraid. You
might think you can stand it but that merely proves that it has not
happened to you yet. If it not only happens to you but also to your
friends and relatives, but not to a another group, the irritation within
your will combine into aggression towards the people that harass you.
> Then you accused me of deliberately misunderstanding what he
> wrote, or something.
Something. I didn't say you did it deliberately. It is just that you
tend to take a word or expression that you would have used differently
and derail the discussion by focussing on that rather than the message
of the poster.
Your repeated attacks on people that use color and racism in a wider
than the literal sense have annoyed me over the years, so that is where
that remark came from.
Again, I don't know if you do it deliberately, I am pretty sure you
don't. But it is annoying anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 21:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Always one of the highlights of a discussion: the returning an argument.
>> Anyway, your premise is false hence nothing follows.
>
>> BTW: I know you are familiar with the technical term for wrongly
>> paraphrasing an opponents point of view and attacking that paraphrase. I
>> also know you rather frequently accuse others of it, so why do you do it
>> yourself? IMWTK
>
> Your meta-argumentation and condescending attitude is quite effetively
> irritating, so I suppose the best thing for me to do is to simply ignore it.
Possibly because I was irritated ;) It is going better now, thanks.
Anyway, the IMWTK was there on purpose. I assume you read what you
write, that you think before you do, and that you think about how you
are going to make a point, using what rhetorical techniques.
If you do all that, how did it slip through? Or was it deliberate?
Or to put it shorter: a simple sorry would have sufficed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Not here. It's illegal. Why? Because people who drive SUVs didn't want to
> >> get randomly stopped just because 0.1% of the people driving SUVs might be
> >> intoxicated.
> >
> > Is that so? Well, then that's something I don't agree with. I'm glad if
> > this kind of police work reduces the risk of car accidents caused by drunken
> > drivers. It increases my safety alongside everybody else's.
> If it did, that would be a different story. But it doesn't.
> If you stop people for driving drunk even when you can't tell they're drunk,
> how does that reduce accidents?
Now you are not arguing only against me, but against the law of Finland.
Random sobriety tests are a common practice here, and nobody is complaining.
> >> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
> > Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.
> You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.
Then I suppose our law is stupid for doing that...
> >> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
> >> knows a crime has been committed at all.
> >
> > I'm not talking about arresting someone. I'm just talking about *checking*
> > the alcohol levels of drivers.
> That's being detained, at the least. We have this whole "innocent until
> proven guilty" thing going on here. If there's *no* evidence you've done
> anything wrong, why would you need to prove your innocence more than that?
> Plus, you act like false positives are unheard of.
You still write as if this random driver sobriety testing was my idea.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.
> It's simple math.
So you are, indeed, nitpicking on my math rather than the overall idea
I was expressing with my example. Somehow you are arguing that since my
simplistic example cannot be applied as-is to more complicated cases, the
whole core idea of "distributing law enforcement resources according to
statistics" is flawed. Sorry, that doesn't follow.
> > (Sure, my suggestion of devoting x% of resources for x% of illegals is
> > cold, hard, inhuman math, and there are other more humanistic sides to the
> > whole issue. I'm not denying that. I'm just arguing that from a resource
> > distribution point of view it would make sense.)
> A percentage is a ratio between two numbers. You don't have a simple
> "percentage of illegals." Percentage of *what population* are illegals?
Stop nitpicking on the numbers, and start discussing the idea I'm
expressing.
Although if your argument is "your math does not work on this more
complicated case, hence your idea is wrong", then I suppose there is
nothing to discuss. If you disagree with the idea, then say so rather
than nitpick about some percentages.
> It proves that the percentage of illegal immigrants who look mexican vs
> percentage of illegal immigrants who don't look mexican tells you *nothing*
> about the population of people you should be profiling. If you want to
> catch more illegal immigrants by interviewing people without cause, you
> *must* know more information than simply the percentages of illegals from
> each country. You *also* have to know the percentages of legals from each
> country.
You are nitpicking on the details of the example rather than on the idea.
> No. I'm saying that distributing resources according to illegal immigration
> country of origin distribution *is* the flawed math. Your basic idea is
> flawed because it's based on math that's flawed. I'm trying to point out how
> the math is flawed and hence how the results of applying that math won't
> have the effect you think it will.
"Your basic idea is flawed because your math is flawed" is a non-sequitur.
Fix the math in whatever way you need to suit more complex situations.
That doesn't change the point I'm expressing. You are nitpicking on the
percentages.
> If he's asking you because he just wants to know, and you refuse, then he
> should say "have a good day."
So basically you are saying that police officers should not check
people's IDs. (Why check them if it's completely inconsequential whether
they have it or not?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
