 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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.
You wrote:
> Let me rephrase: If 90% of illegal immigrants are Mexicans, then 90% of
> illegal immigrants will look like Mexicans. Hence it only makes sense to
> devote 90% of the law enforcement resources to check Mexicans.
That's *wrong*. Incorrect. Please rephrase what you were actually trying to
say, rather than telling me I'm nit-picking your math. I can only argue for
or against what you're actually saying. You're saying "Darren, please read
my mind and come up with something we'd both agree with so I'm not wrong."
Instead, you should say "Gee, I didn't realize I had the math wrong. Let me
try again." instead of complaining that I pointed out a flaw in your
thinking caused by a flaw in your math.
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. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Mad Cap'n Tom Independent
>
> and we need go no further in our considerations of who to vote for.
Oh, is that this guy?
http://www.tomscott.com/
I didn't connect the two.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2010 9:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
>> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
>> earth.
>
> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
> enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
> neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
> about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
> (so I understand).
>
> Jim
Yeah. One person put it like this: "Damned if you do, damned if you
don't, so you are just damned 'period'."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2010 10:51 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
>>>> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
>>>> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>>>
>>> Why does it have to be racism?
>>>
>> ...
>>> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
>>> don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
>>> resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
>>> locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
>>> is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
>>> less crimes to be stopped.
>>>
>
>> Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
>> excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
>
> 3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
> doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
> different from natives. Especially illegal ones (because it's rare for
> someone who could pass for a Finn to want to immigrate illegally here).
>
> I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in
> the US can be distinguished by their looks. If you saw a Finnish person
> there I don't think it would be highest in the list of suspects of illegal
> immigration.
>
> You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
>
This is actually not accurate in many cases. Something like 90% of some
areas of Southern California **do** all look just like the illegals, and
not because they are all illegals. The same argument was made for going
after Middle Easterners, instead of whites, and the last, and only two,
idiots captured trying to blow up planes in the US have been
***white***. Ok, you could argue its not *quite* the same thing, but
seriously, ethically, and rationally, you need to at least *try* to be
neutral about this BS, because some not too bright twit might just let
through the one, "He don't look like no illegal", that turns out to be a
serial killer, or something, instead of a guy that takes a menial job
washing pots at the local restaurant.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/1/2010 11:10 PM, Warp wrote:
> I'm not saying that's a right thing to do, but I would still be interested
> in knowing whether that behavior is based more on prejudice or on statistics.
>
Given that the place it happened most obviously was LA, and the police
there are nearly *all* the same ones that nearly got 100% of the force
fired for **obviously** racist actions, during a huge scandal..
Sure, in a vague sense it may be "statistically" likely, but the problem
that makes it racist isn't that. What makes it racist is that the white
guys that **do** get caught doing it often don't get similar harassment,
even when caught *in* the vehicle, get less jail time, or even get off
entirely free, with warnings. Some places, it wasn't uncommon, very
recently, to get beat nearly to death for being the wrong color, and
just "looking" like you might plan to steal a car. There are whole court
cases on the issue, complete with film of the beatings. And, again, as I
said before, if you spend 90% of your time looking for the 80% that
happen to be the right color, you miss the 10% that ***are not***
completely, and harass another 10% that don't deserve it besides. And,
if you pull that in places where there are no grounds to assume they
"are" the major cause, statistically or otherwise, you miss 100% of the
real criminals, chasing innocent people.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> 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.
The answer to the question is that it reduces accidents caused by drunk
drivers by both catching them before they have an accident and as a deterrent.
> >> 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.
I said that I wouldn't be surprised if the police stopped more vehicles
of certain types (such as SUV's) and less of other types (such as buses and
trucks). However, that wasn't really the point.
> 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?
I brought up the random sobriety testing as a counter-example to the idea
that testing people even when the police has no reason to suspect any crime
is wrong. Random driver sobriety testing is an example where testing people
even without justifiable cause makes sense.
More specifically, "random testing is wrong" as an argument against testing
random people for citizenship is not a valid argument because "random testing
is wrong" is an invalid argument. There's a counter-example: Random sobriety
tests are not wrong.
That doesn't mean that testing random people for citizenship is right.
It means that the *argument* that general random testing is wrong is invalid.
That was the point of the example.
(Of course *you* might disagree with random sobriety tests not being wrong,
but in Finland nobody is complaining, so I'm not the only one who agrees that
they are important.)
> 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?
Taking into account the *context* where I make the assertions might help
understanding what I'm talking about.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?
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.
> >>> (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.
No, you aren't. You are simply taking my simplified example and directly
applying it to a more complex situation and showing how it doesn't work
there. Then rather than readjusting the formula to account for that more
complex situation you simply claim that the whole idea of using statistics
is flawed. It's still a non-sequitur.
If you argued that the idea doesn't work for practical reasons (eg. because
it causes unrest and riots), then that could be more valid of an argument.
Arguing about the math isn't the way to do it.
> 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.
No. I'm saying that stop nitpicking on the specific example I gave
(using the 90% example, etc, because that's what you are doing), and start
discussing the idea this example is trying to convey.
> > 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.
The opposite of concentrating resources on likely suspects is to spread
the resources equally to all people. This means that more resources will
be spent on people who are more unlikely to be illegal immigrants. Exactly
how do you get from this that it's actually more efficient to do it like
this? If more resources are spent on people who are more unlikely to be
illegals, then those resources are away from catching those people who are
more likely.
What I think is happening here is that we are talking about different
things. I think you are talking about "use resources to check random
people" vs. "use resources to check only those who are very suspicious
because of eg. having been reported by someone", while what I am talking
about is "distribute random checks according to statistics" vs. "distribute
random checks equally".
> And you keep saying "ID" as if that's the same as "Proof of legal
> residence." It isn't.
Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
something unheard of.
> > (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.
As I have commented much earlier in this thread: Because it gives the
wrong message to people thinking about moving illegally to the country,
as well as the human traffickers who are getting big money for getting
them there. It gives the message "once you are inside the borders of the
country, you are pretty much safe because nobody will ask you if you
really have the right to be there".
(But as I have also commented many times, aggressively imposing the
immigration laws by using strict measures may anger some people, which
might not be politically wise. So it's a lose-lose situation.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Please rephrase what you were actually trying to say
Again? I have already said it many times.
> Instead, you should say "Gee, I didn't realize I had the math wrong. Let me
> try again." instead of complaining that I pointed out a flaw in your
> thinking caused by a flaw in your math.
You are still nitpicking about the "90%-90%" math example.
Fine, nitpick all you like. If you don't want to discuss then you can
think whatever you want.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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?
In practice (in the UK at least) the police can always find some evidence
that allows them to pull you over and breathalyse you if they want to. No
driver is perfect, and they probably only need to follow you for half a mile
until you drive a few inches too far to one side, signal 1 second too early,
go 1 mph too fast or too slow, then according to them they have "reasonable
belief that you are under the influence"...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That doesn't mean that testing random people for citizenship is right.
> It means that the *argument* that general random testing is wrong is invalid.
Except we aren't talking about random testing. You're arguing that based on
statistics, racist testing should be applied.
> (Of course *you* might disagree with random sobriety tests not being wrong,
> but in Finland nobody is complaining, so I'm not the only one who agrees that
> they are important.)
People complained less about random testing than about racists testing here too.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
