On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
>   based
> on how someone looks like?
> 
>   I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> criminal investigation.

No, but being brown isn't a crime.  What about that do you not understand?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> what I'm writing.

OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore 
other examples?

And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing 
feature, which happens to be probable cause?

That's why I'm confused.

And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just 
using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood 
they'll behave in a certain way.

>> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this 
>> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features 
>> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
> 
>   What the fuck are you talking about?

Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."

>   And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> do with anything?

I quote:  (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)

 > > 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.

Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and 
incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly 
reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?

If you had said "Yes, that's another excellent example", then I'd say "OK, 
he's talking a particular example when he says how they look." But you seem 
to be thinking that targeting how people look is a good idea for efficiency 
and targeting how people worship is a bad idea for efficiency.

Again, if we've miscommunicated, then that's fine.

-- 
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 Sun, 02 May 2010 02:12:55 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:10:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> >   How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in
>> >   prison?
>> > Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
> 
>> NO!  That's the point - if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant, you have
>> to provide on the spot PROOF that you're not, and if you can't, YOU GO
>> TO JAIL.  That's what the law is all about.
> 
>   Well, there are basically two options:
> 
> 1) Demand that all people always carry a form of identification. 2) Stop
> trying to catch illegal immigrants.
> 
>   Which one do you prefer? I assume you understand the consequences of
> choice #2.

There's no point in arguing this with you any more as far as I'm 
concerned.  You deal strictly with absolutes, and this is an area where 
there are no absolutes to deal with.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
>> live in a Nazi state.
> 
>   I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.

I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by 
invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You said
> >   Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> > the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> > of them by how they look.

> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans 
> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to 
> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican, 
> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you 
> investigate all the europeans.

  I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
efficiently.

  But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
formula".

  Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.

> >> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from 
> >> illegal residents than looks.
> > 
> >   That may well be true.

> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?

  Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?

> >> Concentrate on people who look mexican?  Bad idea!
> > 
> >   Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> > people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.

> Yes, really, it does.  You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the 
> best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different 
> distinguishing factor as "outrageous".

  Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
somewhere.

> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common 
> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.

  And who is making such assumptions here?

> >   Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> > "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> > if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> > simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> > them.

> Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of 
> genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?

  You really got infatuate with that odd word, it seems. And now also with
"unthinkable"? Where did that one come from?

> >   One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> > curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> > look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok. 

> We're not talking about that here.

  Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?

> And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about 
> something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on 
> ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.

  Seems like "genetics" has become a third pet word for you. Also of
uknown origin.

> >   Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> > if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.

> Then why did you call it outrageous?

  This is approaching OCD levels.

  Exactly where did I use the word "outrageous"?

> Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my 
> mind about this" is a good thing at this point.  Otherwise, I'm going to be 
> confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not. 
> Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here 
> you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.

  You indeed seem to be very confused. I have not used such a word anywhere.

  When did you last sleep?

> >   You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> > enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".

> No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the 
> most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share 
> and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on 
> that list.

  You talk like I had said "looking mexican is the most distinguishing
feature of American illegal immigrants".

> > I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> > *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> > purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".

> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that 
> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal 
> aliens."

  At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. Except when in
a next post (or even next paragraph) you won't, and keep talking like I had
said something like "mexicans have criminal genetics" or whatever bullshit.

> >>>   Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
> >>> something unheard of.
> > 
> >> Welcome to democracy.
> > 
> >   Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?

> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against 
> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving 
> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)

  Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
on their best interest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> > entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.

> Because that's the way the world works, Warp.  In fact, some people who 
> immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin because 
> their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with them?

  Maybe that's how it works in practice. It still doesn't mean it's fair
in my opinion.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 15:57:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.

No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US 
the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people 
over "just because".  They have to have a reason, and that reason has to 
be related to a specific criminal activity.  In the US, "probable cause" 
is NOT met by having a certain skin colour, period, end of story.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
> >> live in a Nazi state.
> > 
> >   I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.

> I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by 
> invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.

  No. Godwin's law says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

  It's precisely a comparison which was not made to invoke the law, but
came as a result of the discussion. In fact, I think there's someone else's
corollary that says that a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law isn't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:35:56 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In the US, we're supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
>> You're starting with a presumption of guilt, which goes against the
>> ideals under which this law is created.
> 
>   So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
>   something
> and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> you as well as everybody else?
> 
>   If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
>   using
> an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> security measure?
> 
>   If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
>   to
> live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> security measure?

He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to 
pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country.  Being brown isn't 
sufficient.

>   You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
>   for
> some reason.

It is.  You fail to see it or understand it.

>> Based. On. Skin. Colour.
> 
>   Why are people so damn obsessed with skin color? Criminal profiling
>   does
> not have anything to do with racism. Skin color is just one feature
> which can be used for profiling.

Not in the US, not legally.  That's the point.

>   If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> Nobody is crying sexism because of that.

Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.

>   I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> toilet. Sheesh.

You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs, 
ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors.  Just like you can't use 
those to make hiring decisions.

>> Nothing else.  If you *look* like an illegal, you are presumed guilty
>> until you prove otherwise.  This could be a daily occurrence IF YOU
>> HAPPEN TO HAVE THE WRONG COLOUR SKIN.
> 
>> Hell, it could happen HOURLY.
> 
>> Wouldn't that piss YOU off if YOU were constantly having to prove that
>> you were in your country legally?
> 
>   If it significantly increased my own security, I wouldn't. (Of course
> I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm just saying that there are more
> sides to this than an extremist political correctness.)

Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly 
to provide proof that you're here legally.  Including in the middle of 
the night, just for safety's sake.

Jim

Post a reply to this message