 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 9:34 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
I know, I thought that I was supporting your argument by playing Devil’s
Advocate.
I’ll tell you something. This Friday I get Dr John so drunk that he will
regret starting this thread.
Or die trying.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 23:01, Warp wrote:
[ignoring darren's possible slip]
> 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.
I assume random here means at a random place and then checking everybody.
Actually also one of the tools the police here use for finding illegal
immigrants: Going into a workplace and asking everybody their papers
(and there should be a copy at the employer).
Border control might even be a better counterexample, because racial
profiling is definitely used there*. Then again, you could argue that it
is more effective this way. I haven't done the math for this case.
*) I have some colleagues that you should not be in line behind when
going to the states. They will be picked out of the line for
questioning** and you too because they want to hide the fact that they
only pick out Arab looking people.
**) One of the better openings to ensure a long stay with the border
control guys: After the general opening: 'what do you do for work?'
answering 'I research drugs that cause sudden death'. From an Iranian
that was born in Afghanistan.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 22:38, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
Thanks.
> * No mosquitoes were harmed in this explanation
> ** May contain nuts.
> :-)
:)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
That doesn't answer the question, tho. It doesn't matter whether it's the
law or not.
And sobriety tests aren't immigration tests, either. Random checkpoints of
sober people can reduce the number of people driving drunk, because that's a
choice you make on a day by day basis.
Randomly stopping people to ask if they are citizens isn't going to make a
citizen more likely to stay that way, nor make an illegal immigrant more
likely to go back to where they came from.
>> You can disagree with simple baysian inference math, but you'd be wrong.
> Then I suppose our law is stupid for doing that...
For one, it's a different circumstance, as I explain above. For another, do
you actually know if they profile the type of car you drive or anything like
that in pulling you over? If not, you're begging the question.
>>>> 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.
No, I'm writing as if you brought it up as a good example of why your ideas
work. Why did you bring it up if you don't think it's a good idea? Why even
mention drunk driving in a discussion on immigration if you don't think
there are parallels that support your assertions?
See, this is where I get annoyed with these sorts of discussions with you.
You make assertions, you're argued against, and rather than seeing "Yes, I
see where that might be valid," you try to act like you weren't saying what
you did, or something. It makes you sound dishonest, as well as unwilling
to admit you may be mistaken, at which point why continue the conversation?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
What was your overall idea? I thought it was that if you use racial
profiling to target people of races who make up the majority of illegal
immigrants, then you'll have a more efficient way of finding illegal
immigrants, right?
> whole core idea of "distributing law enforcement resources according to
> statistics" is flawed. Sorry, that doesn't follow.
But it *doesn't* follow, for most crimes. That's the point. The number of
people who are breaking the law is slim compared to the amount of work you
have to go through to find those people, if you're no more discriminating
than checking what their skin looks like.
If you *are* more discriminating, it's no longer racial profiling.
>>> (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.
I'm trying to. You're arguing that using statistics would make the process
more efficient. I'm showing you that mathematically, no, it wouldn't. Then
you say "Stop arguing the details of the math. Discuss how the math can make
things more efficient, instead." You're not making sense.
> 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.
I disagree with the idea that using statistics to stop people who have given
no indication of wrongdoing makes the process any more efficient. I disagree
*because* your math is wrong. When you use the actual math, it turns out
that it's less efficient.
> You are nitpicking on the details of the example rather than on the idea.
No, I'm really not.
> 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.
But don't you understand that the point I'm making is that the math does not
support the point you're expressing? You can't "fix the math" to make it
support your assertion.
>> 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.
No. I'm saying that police officers shouldn't check IDs unless checking IDs
will actually help them do their job of catching criminals.
And you keep saying "ID" as if that's the same as "Proof of legal
residence." It isn't.
> (Why check them if it's completely inconsequential whether
> they have it or not?)
Why indeed? That's exactly why we have laws saying the police don't get to
do that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
