Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   In fact, what I have done is to oppose the idea that law enforcement asking
> > random people for their ID 

> Even that wouldn't raise the outcry we have here. But police aren't being 
> told to check *random* people. They're not stopping every tenth person 
> driving past, like they do with the sobriety checkpoints. They're stopping 
> people who *look* like an illegal immigrant.

> They are using a profile. They aren't using "random". Stopping "random" 
> people isn't anything to do with "If 90% of the lawbreakers are X, then you 
> should check people who are X", regardless of what X is.

  This conversation is going in circles. If I dared to repeat my original
point once again, it would go on and on forever.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> That provides the police with incentive to follow the rules.
> 
>   But at what cost? They know that the person is a criminal who has harmed
> or will harm other people (or both), 

At this point, so are the policemen.

And no, they don't know that. It hasn't been investigated. It's that whole 
annoying innocent-until-proven-guilty thing we have going here. :-)

-- 
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:
>   People are oversensitive whenever "race" comes into question. All I said
> is that if "race" *could* be used to catch criminals more efficiently, it
> would make sense to use it. 

And where race can be used to catch criminals more efficiently, it is, and 
it's legal. You gave similar examples yourself, where gender is used to 
catch criminals more efficiently.  However, that's not what the rest of us 
are talking about.

> However, even making such a suggestion seems to be a huge no no.

Because in the scenarios you're giving as examples, race can't be used that way.

>   But it really doesn't surprise me. When people see "race" and "statistics"
> and "criminals" in the same paragraph, they immediately see "racism, racism,
> racism, racism" and nothing else, and they start forming all kinds of
> preconceptions of what was *really* being said.

And that's because race is not a useful indicator of criminality before you 
know about a specific crime and have some *evidence* that some specific 
person of a specific race has committed that crime. Then you do a DNA test.

-- 
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:
>   I honestly fail to see how random sobriety testing is a trust issue.

It's not. It's the non-random non-probable-cause sobriety testing that's a 
trust issue.

-- 
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 Tue, 04 May 2010 07:57:49 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   I am becoming really tired of these "you have said", "you claimed",
> "you argued" lies.

You're the one who's making assertions, Warp - if you don't want to back 
them up, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people challenge your 
assumptions.  I think Andrel has you pegged right, that you do a very 
poor job of translating what you're thinking into words on the screen, 
and then you get pissed at everyone because we're *trying* to understand 
something YOU think is obvious - and then you start lashing out at people 
saying that they're intentionally misundersanding you just to piss you 
off.

Maybe it's time for me to filter your posts again, because you take such 
an irrational approach to discussion.  But of course, you'll see that as 
some sort of insult, no doubt.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:06:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Well, maybe I am stupid for assuming that people can have a rational
> conversation even if the subject happens to contain the term "race".

No, but you assume that what you're writing and what people are reading 
are the same thing, and when people try to get you to clarify what you're 
saying because it isn't making sense, you assume that the READER is 
either stupid or trying to twist your words, and then you launch an 
attack on them.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple.  You 
simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this failure to 
communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 07:42:19 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 May 2010 22:54:20 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> > I guess Warp's problem is that not only the police is 'punished' but
>> > the society as a whole even more.
> 
>> That provides the police with incentive to follow the rules.
> 
>   But at what cost? They know that the person is a criminal who has
>   harmed
> or will harm other people (or both), yet they let him go because of a
> technicality. It's the policeman who should be punished for breaking the
> law, not innocent bystanders who may be harmed by the criminal who was
> let go on purpose...

The cost is the greater good ultimately.  If police are required to 
follow the rules or else someone guilty gets let off, then they're 
incented to play by the rules.

But you'd probably rather see innocent people locked up because of a 
police procedure error, wouldn't you?  At least then the cops will have 
locked *someone* up for the crime.  If there even was one.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:08:39 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   As I said, the police checks random drivers here, and I don't see
>> >   it as a
>> > bad thing. Hence it's not *always* a bad thing.
> 
>> And over here that's not the way law enforcement generally works.  You
>> seem to trust your government; over here, we tend not to.
> 
>   I honestly fail to see how random sobriety testing is a trust issue.

What Darren said.  Again we have a failure to communicate.  You want to 
admit to your part in it, or continue to assert that everyone who doesn't 
agree with you is stupid?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You're the one who's making assertions, Warp - if you don't want to back 
> them up, that's fine, but don't be surprised when people challenge your 
> assumptions.  I think Andrel has you pegged right, that you do a very 
> poor job of translating what you're thinking into words on the screen, 
> and then you get pissed at everyone because we're *trying* to understand 
> something YOU think is obvious - and then you start lashing out at people 
> saying that they're intentionally misundersanding you just to piss you 
> off.

  Incorrect. I get pissed off when people keep telling the lies even after
I have explained what I mean many, many times. Even after I have told ten
times "I didn't say that", people still keep at it again and again.

> Maybe it's time for me to filter your posts again, because you take such 
> an irrational approach to discussion.  But of course, you'll see that as 
> some sort of insult, no doubt.

  If that makes you feel better, who am I to stop you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 08:06:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Well, maybe I am stupid for assuming that people can have a rational
> > conversation even if the subject happens to contain the term "race".

> No, but you assume that what you're writing and what people are reading 
> are the same thing, and when people try to get you to clarify what you're 
> saying because it isn't making sense, you assume that the READER is 
> either stupid or trying to twist your words, and then you launch an 
> attack on them.

  I have said several times what I mean, but you keep going on and on with
the same "you defend putting people in jail because of being brown" bullshit.
It's like you read only what you want to read. Then you accuse me of
"launching an attack" or whatever.

> What we have here is a failure to communicate.  Plain and simple.  You 
> simply refuse to acknowledge that you play a role in this failure to 
> communicate, and that everyone ELSE must be stupid.

  See, here we go again. You are putting words in my mouth. Words I have
never said. This is your idea of "communication"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message