 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:39:17 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> 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.
When it comes to the laws of the US, though, your opinion really doesn't
matter much. In Arizona, my opinion doesn't matter either.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I think that you are seeing a difference because you are assuming a racist
> motivation for the ID check in the last case.
No. I'm seeing a difference because in the first two cases, you're doing
something that triggers the ID check, and refusing the ID check simply means
you don't get to do that which requires an ID check.
In the last case, you're doing nothing that would trigger an ID check other
than simply being, and refusing the ID check means you go to jail.
> Do you deem it completely
> implausible for the police to check someone's ID for other reasons than
> racism?
Not at all. We call it "probable cause." Police check ID all the time. They
just don't do it *randomly*, nor do they do it based on your facial
features, your clothing style, etc.
>> No. Features irrelevant to the commission of crimes aren't to be used to
>> stop people.
>
> "Stopping people" and "profiling" aren't the same thing.
If you use profiling to *not* arrest innocent people, nobody complains.
Police do that all the time. "Look, he's of the profile of people who
aren't speeding. Let's not stop him." "Look, he's of the profile of people
who were in a different country when the store was robbed. Let's not
question him."
>> Note that there's a difference between profiling in the "serial killers are
>> more often white males" case than in the "pull over white males and ask if
>> they killed someone" case. The difference is that in the first, you're
>> *reducing* the number of innocent people you bother, and in the second
>> you're *increasing* the number of innocent people you bother.
>
> I don't see how you are increasing the number of innocent people being
> bothered when you are dropping 50% of the population from the suspects list
> outright.
By suggesting that you ask for ID without probable cause, rather than asking
for ID only with probable cause, you are in fact increasing the number of
innocent people you stop, because probable cause is the leading statistical
indicator that you are indeed doing something wrong.
Driving dangerously is the best statistical indicator that you're driving
while you've been drinking enough to make driving dangerous. Not the color
of your car, the style of your hair, the neighborhood you're driving
through, the number of people in your car, your age, or the color of your skin.
And we all support the sort of profiling that says "only stop people who did
something to make you think they, as an individual and not just a member of
a group, did something wrong."
What you're suggesting as possible efficiency improvements is statistics
*not* based on whether the particular *individual* you're stopping is doing
something wrong, but based on features shared in common with other
individuals who commit a particular class of crime. And since there's no way
to look at someone at random and determine whether anything about them other
than ethnicity, that tends to turn into racism.
If you said "go around to companies where they're not paying the amount of
taxes they should be based on how much product they're building and knowing
how many workers it takes to build that product", then that isn't profiling
any more. That's probable cause.
If you say "Go around to random companies and ask to see the paperwork on
people who look mexican" or "go around to random companies and ask to see
the paperwork on people who are christian", then that's not probable cause,
that's profiling innocent people who have done nothing related to the crime
you're checking them on.
--
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 Mon, 03 May 2010 13:43:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Except that in Nazi Germany, this sort of thing is pretty much precisely
what was done - racial profiling to identify those of Jewish (or other
'undesirable') descent.
It's actually relevant to this discussion, not like other instances where
a thread is Godwinned by a comparison that really is not realistic at all.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> No, I'm saying that the math you presented is flawed.
No, you didn't. You said, and I quote: "This is actually incorrect, *if*
you have ... etc."
In other words. The example I gave was correct. You then presented a
*different* example where the same formulation doesn't work in the same
way.
> One more time:
> You can't use the math of proportions of different subgroups of illegals to
> target which unknowns you question. You must use different proportions of
> subgroups of illegals relative to subgroups of legals. Once you do that,
> there's no reason to favor one particular way of splitting the total
> population into subgroups over another way of splitting the total population
> into subgroups.
I don't see the logical line of reasoning there. It's a non-sequitur.
"You must use different proportions of subgroups" -> "there's no reason
to favor one particular way of splitting over another" does not logically
follow.
> > 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".
> Except that the different formula applies to things other than ethnicity.
> There are huge numbers of correlations you can make, and not knowing which
> is accurate will cause you to fail to apply the math right.
I never said you can't use anything else than ethnicity to come up with
the formula. My example was simple for the sake of example.
It intended to demonstrate a *point*. The numbers weren't important,
no matter how much you like to nitpick about them.
> > 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.
> Except I also gave you the *best* formula, which is to *not* check randomly,
> but rather check based on the statistical relationships with the *best*
> power to make policing more efficient. And you equated that with giving up
> completely.
Where? All I said is that your implication "your example doesn't work in
this case" -> "statistics cannot be used at all" does not follow.
> >> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
> > Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?
> Outrageous and outlandish have very similar meanings here. I simply
> misremembered which word you used.
Really? I would say that outrage and strangeness are quite different
things. Not even comparable. The first describes a feeling while the second
describes the understandability of something.
> > Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
> > somewhere.
> Now who is picking nits?
I'm not nitpicking. I'm amused at your curious sudden infatuation with that
word, which seemed strange.
> Had you simply said "police should use statistical models to figure out
> which possible suspect is most likely breaking the law and concentrate on
> those," I would have said "They already do. It's called Probably Cause. And
> the current law in Arizona is targeted at preventing police from doing that."
Yeah, using ethnicity as an example is forbidden because you are immediately
a racist if you do.
> >> 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.
> Given the history of *this* country, I'm pretty sure it's in *our* best
> interests.
Maybe distrust of authorities is a self-feeding process which never ends.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:07:31 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> Well, then it's different here, as I have mentioned with the traffic
> police.
Police patrolling the roads here can pull people over for very minor
infractions (and in some cases, they do in order to 'get a nose in the
door' to see if there's something illegal going on; for example, between
Lincoln and Omaha NE, there's a stretch of road that's often used by
people trafficking drugs. The profile is cars with out of state license
plates driving after a certain time at night.
The cops along that stretch of freeway will pull cars over that have out
of state plates - but only if they have seen a *specific* traffic
violation. I've been stopped two or three times along that stretch for
various things, like not staying in my lane or failure to signal for 50
(or 100) feet before changing lanes. It was late, I was tired; the stops
were perfectly legitimate.
But if I had been a model driver in that section of freeway and they
pulled me over because I drive a car that does not have NE license
plates, *that* would be an illegal traffic stop. Further, under US law,
if they *did* find illegal substances in my car, if the traffic stop was
not legal, they would not be able to prosecute because they would have
lacked probable cause to pull me over in the first place.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:10:43 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I suppose you could technically call it "racism", AS I HAVE SAID MANY
> TIMES
> ALREADY.
You very specifically asked Darren "what the fuck he was talking about"
when he made this point; show me where you said it was *technically*
racism, because I certainly didn't see that.
> I fear that you are projecting your notions of how "racist people"
> behave
> and what they think on me, for the sole reason that I dared to mention
> ethnicity as something which could be used for illegal immigration
> statistics. As ironic as that may sound, I call that prejudice.
I'm not projecting anything here. You are demonstrating an extreme
degree of reading comprehension problems and engaging in nit-picking
(yeah, those things you accuse others of doing) when we try to explain to
you why it is the way it is, and what is wrong with the law.
You then proceed to throw "examples" out that are entirely different from
what we're talking about (see my recent post having to do with the
difference between a *specific* crime and general; you still don't seem
to understand that investigation of a *specific* crime - like a rape
(your example) is different than saying "hey, that person is hispanic-
looking, I should check to see if he's here legally or not". Under US
law, the former is acceptable, the latter is not. Why? Because the
former is in the investigation of a specific crime; the latter is not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 14:40:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I consider myself to be the exact opposite of a racist in the sense
> that
> I *couldn't care less* about "race" or skin color or anything.
When you say "race matters", look out, you're making a distinction based
on race, whether you want to admit it or not.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Why does it matter what was used as an example? What does it matter if it
>>> was ethnicity, weight or show size? Ethnicity happened to be part of the
>>> original discussion.
>
>> All of those examples have nothing to do with whether you're in the country
>> legally.
>
> You just refuse to understand what "example" means, don't you?
>
> "If ethnicity is a distinguishing factor, then..." is an example. It's
> not making a claim about what is and isn't a distinguishing factor.
Yes. And you understand that nobody is arguing against the examples that are
*not* bogus, right? Nobody thinks it's racist to arrest someone who looks
mexican for not paying taxes, anymore than anyone thinks it's racist to
arrest a black man for driving up on the sidewalk.
>
>>> I think your problem is that you are too obsessed with ethnicity. Whenever
>>> someone talks about ethnicity, it must always be "racism".
>
>> Not at all.
>
> Then why do I get the feeling? Ethnicity really seems to be a touchy
> subject.
Because the bad examples you give are all examples of ethnicity, or other
properties irrelevant to the person committing the crime and relevant to the
group of people that person is in.
Your suggestion is you should look at the entire group of people who *do*
commit the crime, then lump in other people that share properties of that
same group to investigate. Except you've offered no examples of properties
that have anything to do with the actual commission of the crime. You
haven't offered the suggestion like "we should go look for the people who
came into the country on a six month visa six months ago." You haven't
offered the suggestion of "we should visit the families of people who
immigrated legally a couple years ago to see if they then snuck their family
into the country." None of those have anything to do with ethnicity.
>> Yet you're suggesting exactly that there are neutral and even beneficial
>> uses of the *act* of racism.
>
> Firstly, I'm not suggesting that (and I'm getting really tired of you
> claiming I do, over and over),
You are. You said "if 90% of the illegal immigrants are of mexican descent,
police should focus their attentions on that 90%." I'm sorry if you don't
recognize that as a racist suggestion, but it is. It's prejudice based on
race. Disclaiming it as a hypothetical/subjunctive assertion doesn't make
it less racist. It just implies that maybe racism is beneficial in this
respect.
> If you keep making that insinuation, I'm going to end this conversation.
> I'm not going to continue this if you keep insulting me.
I'm not insinuating you're a racist. I'm stating that many of the
suggestions you've made here are racist, namely, suggesting that ethnicity
is a reasonable distinguishing factor for catching criminals with no
evidence that any particular crime has been committed.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There is a difference between "we have a specific crime that we are
> looking for suspects for" and "we are doing random checking to see if
> someone might have committed a crime".
There is a difference, but I don't see the random checkings as being all
that abhorrent in all cases (as I have mentioned, here the police does
random checkings on drivers even without any reason to suspect them of
being drunk, and I think that's completely ok).
Of course if the police abuse their rights to perform random checking
in order to harass people they don't like, that's going over the line.
> To use your rape example, suppose instead of "we're looking for a white
> male because of this specific case we're looking into" the police started
> by collecting DNA samples from all white males just *in case* a crime
> were committed.
As a side note: Why are people so afraid of DNA databanks? Why is it
such an abhorrent idea? What kind of "invasion of privacy" is having
your DNA in a databank? Exactly how does that invade one's privacy?
Imagine that if every single citizen had to have their DNA registered,
and thanks to that the apprehension rate of rapists grows near 100%,
wouldn't that be a good thing? Not only would the rapists be all caught,
but it would also act as an effective deterrent.
How could DNA information be misused by authorities?
> That's the difference. What the Arizona law does is not tie the act of
> "being an illegal immigrant" to a specific instance of a crime.
> Does that make sense?
I suppose that that kind of law could perhaps have good intentions
behind it, but in practice it's too radical to have any chance of actually
working, even if the intentions were good. (Of course I have no way of
knowing what the actual intentions were behind that law proposal. Maybe
it *was* made by purely racist reasons.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 13:43:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> Except that in Nazi Germany, this sort of thing is pretty much precisely
> what was done - racial profiling to identify those of Jewish (or other
> 'undesirable') descent.
> It's actually relevant to this discussion, not like other instances where
> a thread is Godwinned by a comparison that really is not realistic at all.
Well, that's more or less what I said above. A deliberate invocation of
Godwin's law isn't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
