 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm being dense here, but I still don't get it.
>
>> Most illegal immigrants are also Christian. So what we *really* should do is
>> be stopping lots of people, asking if they're Christian, and if they are,
>> ask them to prove they're allowed to be in the country, and lock them up
>> until until they can.
>
>> Does this make sense to you? If not, why not? If so, should we be targeting
>> people coming out of churches, or people who look Mexican?
>
> Please take into account the *context* in which I wrote that sentence
> you quoted.
I understand. The question remains. Does this make sense to you? If not,
why is checking for facial features a better indication of likelihood of
being here illegally than checking for religion?
--
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 2-5-2010 20:41, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2-5-2010 9:07, Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>> If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
>>>>> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
>>>> I think it's more a matter of "what are you going to do?" If the country
>>>> won't take him back, it's not like you can leave him in a cardboard box on
>>>> the front step.
>>> You send him to his own country's airport and let them decide what to do
>>> with him. Give him the phone number of Amnesty International.
>>>
>> Just never, ever go into politics, please.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand.
I know. It is a pity but you seem unable to step over anything you have
though of and see a little further.
Why I think you should not go into politics based on this case is that
there are things as laws, constitutions, international laws, human
rights and simple common decency and you are prepared to give them all
up just because you think illegal immigration is a big problem.
I know it is a problem, but not of a magnitude that even remotely could
warrant such drastic action.
That is what also in the other thread of the discussion seems to be the
problem, you want to kill a mosquito using a canon (or whatever the
English expression is). A couple of us have again and again tried to
point to the fact that using canons gives collateral damage. All you do
is reiterate that you want to kill the mosquito and asking why we want
to let it live. Well we don't, we just don't want to use that canon.
> I'm sorry, but if your politics consist of ideas like "the country who
> the illegal immigrant succeeded in entering becomes responsible for feeding
> him", then I honestly wouldn't want that kind of politics. Please never,
> ever go into politics, thank you very much.
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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That didn't answer the question I asked. I didn't ask "how/why would it
> violate the rights of legal citizens?"
And I answered. Profiling people based on their race is illegal.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
> What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
> laws more leniently to avoid offending people.
Nobody is suggesting that. People are objecting to your assertion that
stopping and questioning people who look Mexican is better than stopping and
questioning everyone.
>> Nobody is against catching the criminals.
>
> Of course they aren't against that. But at the same time they oppose
> stricter measures which could rise the conviction rates of the criminals,
> if doing so would offend some people.
It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
It's like passing a law where you are that only fair-skinned people have to
prove before going out on a sunny day that they have permission from a
doctor. As rational as it is, that's unlikely to be a popular law.
You're *assuming* that profiling will make it easier to catch illegal
immigrants. There's no evidence of this, and there's no evidence of what
kind of profiling will aid in that.
>> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>
> Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
Apparently not.
>> Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you
>> have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of
>> traffic tickets go to people in red cars.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if the police was more likely to stop SUV's than
> eg. trucks for random sobriety tests, purely because of statistical reasons.
> (No, I don't know if they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if the did.)
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.
> If truck drivers are statistically significantly less likely to drive
> while drunk, that kind of selectiveness makes sense. Don't tell me it
> doesn't.
It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
>> No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he
>> stops you, yes?
>
> Cops don't need probable cause to stop cars for a sobriety test, and
> personally I really don't mind.
But they don't get to profile during those stops either. They don't get to
set up a stop where they can stop you without probable cause, but stop you
based on something irrelevant to the behavior they're trying to prevent.
>> You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a
>> particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing, right?
>
> If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
> I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
> SUVs than on trucks.
Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did something
wrong.
Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
knows a crime has been committed at all.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Warp 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.
> >
> >> But if 90% of the local population *also* looks mexican, then there's no
> >> reason to favor checking mexicans over non-mexicans, is there?
> >
> > Wait, what? If 90% of the local population looks mexican, all the more
> > reason for 90% of checking to be done on mexican-looking people. A completely
> > random blind-testing would get you that.
> Right. At which point you're not favoring the checking of mexicans. There's
> no reason at all to use profiling to decide who to check, right?
> Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check the
> mexicans" is a flawed argument.
I'm sorry, but I just don't follow your logic here.
Your argument against "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's
check the mexicans" is, basically "assume that somewhere 90% of citizens
are of mexican descent". That somehow invalidates the claim? I don't get it.
Maybe we are talking about different things here or something.
> >> The problem with this sort of profiling is that you have to look at the
> >> ratio of legal to illegal immigrants, not just the ratio of illegal immigrants.
> >
> > Exactly what are you proposing here? I don't quite get it.
> I'm not proposing anything. I'm simply pointing out that the argument that
> says "Most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's focus our checking on
> mexican-lookign people" is flawed.
"Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.
> > If 90% of the population of a place is of mexican origin, wouldn't it only
> > make sense that 90% of the resources are devoted to checking mexicans?
> Yes. But that's not what you suggested. You suggested checking in the ratios
> of illegal immigrants of different backgrounds, not legal immigrants or
> total residents of different backgounds.
I was assuming a completely hypothetical ratio of 90% of illegal immigrants
being mexican. Hence it makes sense to devote about 90% of resources to
catching them. I really don't understand how the coincidence of 90% of the
legal population of some place being of mexican descent refutes that idea.
(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.)
> If someone said "The town is 70% brown and 30% white, so that's the ratio
> we'll check in" then nobody would complain. But you're saying the "the
> illegals are 70% brown and 30% white, so let's check in that ratio", which
> is a different statement.
Yes, I suppose I am saying that. You confused me with having the 90% of
population being of mexican descent immediately after I gave an example of
90% of illegal immigrants looking like mexicans. I still don't understand
what is it that your argument "proves".
> >> If 10% of 10,000 mexicans are illegal immigrants, and 90% of 200 africans
> >> are illegal immigrants, it makes much more sense to ask random africans if
> >> they're citizens than random mexicans.
> >
> > Well, I suppose it does.
> >
> > But I thought you were *against* such "profiling"?
> I'm simply showing the flaw in your logic. You're suggested profiling
> *fails* to improve the efficiency, unless you use more information to tune it.
Am I understanding correctly that you are arguing against my math rather
than against the basic idea I was expressing (in other words, to distribute
resources according to illegal immigration country of origin distribution,
regardless of whether that's seen as "racism" by some people)?
> > If a store clerk asks for your ID in order to corroborate that you are
> > indeed the owner of the credit card, is he suspecting you of a crime and
> > thus making an illegal demand?
> No. For one thing, if you don't have ID, he's not allowed to detain you. He
> may chose not to complete the transaction, but he's not arresting you.
> There's a difference there.
Out of curiosity: What *should* a police officer do, in your opinion, if
he asks someone for their ID (or whatever proof of citizenship) and he has
nothing to show?
> >>> So what do you suggest?
> >
> >> I suggest that before you question anyone, you be required to do enough
> >> police work to at least have a reason to question them.
> >
> > And what would that reason be, exactly?
> I don't know. The employer not paying taxes on you, for example. Or you
> riding across the border in the back of a truck that doesn't stop at the
> immigration gates. Having no USA address last year when trying to get
> something that requires you to list where you lived in the previous years.
> Or you try to get a job, the boss asks for proof that you're allowed to be
> in the country, and you can't provide that proof, and the employer tells the
> police.
I suppose I can't deny that sounds reasonable. Basically it means that
illegal immigrants are not actively "hunted down", but if they try to
actually *do* something they won't be able to if they can't prove they
have the right to (as legal citizens or immigrants).
Of course this assumes that nobody employs them without asking for their
papers and without informing the authorities... I'm assuming that's one of
the biggest problems in the US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Stopping the police from utilizing their resources effectively sounds to
> me a lot like stopping even trying to catch illegal immigrants in practice.
BTW, profiling won't make the stopping of illegal immigrants more efficient.
Actually involving the police only when there's a reason to suspect someone
is an illegal immigrant will make the process more efficient.
What's more efficient? Having 100 police cars driving around looking for
SUVs to stop, to give a breath test to those drivers? Or having 10 police
cars driving around, looking for *anyone* who is drifting lane to lane or
not maintaining a reasonable speed, then stopping just the people doing
something wrong and seeing if it's because they're drunk?
--
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 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what
>> whole argument is about.
>
> Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american
> decent to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're legal,
> so the police would know not to bother them. ;-)
Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling based
> > on how someone looks like?
> No. It's not legal to profile anyone before a crime has been committed.
I don't think that's the case. There are all kinds of typical profiles
of several types of criminals. For example "a serial killer is typically
a white middle-aged male".
> Nobody minds being asked to show proof of citizenship if a crime has been
> committed, or even if a crime *might* have been committed. This law isn't
> that. This law is stopping people just in case maybe a crime has been committed.
Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see a difference between "might
have been" and "maybe has been"... You probably used poor wording for that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 20:43, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It is *NOT* about stopping trying to catch illegal immigrants. It is
>> about the methods allowed to do so.
>
> Stopping the police from utilizing their resources effectively sounds to
> me a lot like stopping even trying to catch illegal immigrants in practice.
> Sure, a few of them will still be caught, just a lot less. It's effectively
> the same thing as giving up.
As I said elsewhere random race based does not happen so your implicit
premise is false. ATM the police is using many other methods to find
illegal immigrants.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> 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. Then you accused me of deliberately misunderstanding what he
wrote, or something.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> You don't want him stopping you just because you drive a
>>> particular color car, or you're wearing a particular kind of clothing,
>>> right?
>>
>> If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
>> I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
>> SUVs than on trucks.
>
> Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
> because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
> because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did
> something wrong.
>
> Basically, people here are generally against getting arrested before a cop
> knows a crime has been committed at all.
Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
"concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what
>>> whole argument is about.
>>
>> Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american
>> decent to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're legal,
>> so the police would know not to bother them. ;-)
>
> Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
Concealed?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
> "concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
If the cop asks you for your ID, and you say "I decline to show you my ID,"
do they let you go?
Guess what? If not, you've been arrested!
That's pretty much the definition of the word: If you're not allowed to
leave, you've been at least detained if not arrested.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > What I *am* opposing is the idea that countries should enforce their
> > laws more leniently to avoid offending people.
> Nobody is suggesting that. People are objecting to your assertion that
> stopping and questioning people who look Mexican is better than stopping and
> questioning everyone.
Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness. (I'm
not saying that my math is correct, mind you. I'm just saying that *if*
the math does indeed say so, then to me it would make sense to prioritize
according to the probabilities. Of course I also understand that this will
offend some people. You can't win.)
> >> Nobody is against catching the criminals.
> >
> > Of course they aren't against that. But at the same time they oppose
> > stricter measures which could rise the conviction rates of the criminals,
> > if doing so would offend some people.
> It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
> offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.
> It's like passing a law where you are that only fair-skinned people have to
> prove before going out on a sunny day that they have permission from a
> doctor. As rational as it is, that's unlikely to be a popular law.
People often take their rights to privacy and freedom very seriously.
Sometimes even when it does them more harm than good... It's not like
I don't understand that.
> >> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
> >
> > Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
> Apparently not.
What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
> >> Consider driving. Do you want police randomly pulling you over because you
> >> have long hair, or you're driving a red car? After all, a majority of
> >> traffic tickets go to people in red cars.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if the police was more likely to stop SUV's than
> > eg. trucks for random sobriety tests, purely because of statistical reasons.
> > (No, I don't know if they do, but I wouldn't be surprised if the did.)
> 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 truck drivers are statistically significantly less likely to drive
> > while drunk, that kind of selectiveness makes sense. Don't tell me it
> > doesn't.
> It doesn't, and I explained why a couple of times.
Then we'll have to disagree on this particular example.
> >> No. You want the cop to wait until he sees you do something wrong before he
> >> stops you, yes?
> >
> > Cops don't need probable cause to stop cars for a sobriety test, and
> > personally I really don't mind.
> But they don't get to profile during those stops either.
I don't know if the police is allowed to make any kind of "profiling"
here, but regardless, to me it would make sense if they would.
Instead of trucks, think about buses: I'm pretty sure it *is* quite
less likely for a bus driver to be drunk than a SUV driver. Additionally,
stopping a bus is a lot more inconvenient and can potentially disturb the
traffic a lot more than stopping a SUV. Hence it only makes sense that the
police skips stopping bus drivers for sobriety tests. It reduces the amount
of resources spent on statistically improbable crimes, as well as reducing
the disturbance to traffic.
> > If SUV drivers were statistically more likely to drive while drunk,
> > I really wouldn't mind if the police concentrated their efforts more on
> > SUVs than on trucks.
> Well, it's illegal here, you see. And that's what has people annoyed. See,
> because people don't like being arrested when no crime has been committed
> because someone who shares some of the same properties they do did something
> wrong.
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Where did Warp say SUV drivers should be arrested? Why do you keep mixing
> "concentrate efforts" or "check ID" with "get arrested" in this discussion?
I think he is always talking in the context of that Arizona law that
allows police officers to physically arrest people.
I would like to repeat that I'm not defending that Arizona law. I'm not
advocating arresting people like that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 8:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 2-5-2010 20:20, Darren New wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> It is not the enforcing but the method of enforcement. That is what
>>>> whole argument is about.
>>>
>>> Hey, I know. We could get all the legal americans of central american
>>> decent to wear something sewn to their clothing to show they're
>>> legal, so the police would know not to bother them. ;-)
>>
>> Ah, a concealed Godwin. Well done.
>
> Concealed?
>
A yellow star, David. Oops sorry, Darren. ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Your argument against "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's
> check the mexicans" is, basically "assume that somewhere 90% of citizens
> are of mexican descent". That somehow invalidates the claim? I don't get it.
There's no reason to check mexicans *unless* the ratio of illegal immigrants
that look mexican to legal residents that look mexican is especially high,
*and* the number of residents that look mexican is especially low.
> "Pointing out"? Maybe you are, but I just can't follow your logic.
It's simple math.
It's not more efficient to check 100,000 brown people, 1% of whom are
illegal, than it is to check 10,000 brown people who are actually suspected
of being illegal.
It's not more efficient to check the race with the highest absolute number
of illegal immigrants without regard to the number of legal immigrants.
It's simple math. Your claim that disallowing profiling makes the process
less efficient is factually incorrect.
>> Yes. But that's not what you suggested. You suggested checking in the ratios
>> of illegal immigrants of different backgrounds, not legal immigrants or
>> total residents of different backgounds.
>
> I was assuming a completely hypothetical ratio of 90% of illegal immigrants
> being mexican. Hence it makes sense to devote about 90% of resources to
> catching them. I really don't understand how the coincidence of 90% of the
> legal population of some place being of mexican descent refutes that idea.
Then you're missing the basic math.
> (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?
>> If someone said "The town is 70% brown and 30% white, so that's the ratio
>> we'll check in" then nobody would complain. But you're saying the "the
>> illegals are 70% brown and 30% white, so let's check in that ratio", which
>> is a different statement.
>
> Yes, I suppose I am saying that. You confused me with having the 90% of
> population being of mexican descent immediately after I gave an example of
> 90% of illegal immigrants looking like mexicans. I still don't understand
> what is it that your argument "proves".
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.
>> I'm simply showing the flaw in your logic. You're suggested profiling
>> *fails* to improve the efficiency, unless you use more information to tune it.
>
> Am I understanding correctly that you are arguing against my math rather
> than against the basic idea I was expressing (in other words, to distribute
> resources according to illegal immigration country of origin distribution,
> regardless of whether that's seen as "racism" by some people)?
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.
> Out of curiosity: What *should* a police officer do, in your opinion, if
> he asks someone for their ID (or whatever proof of citizenship) and he has
> nothing to show?
It depends why he's asking you. If he stops you while you're driving and you
have no ID, he could do a number of things. He would normally take you to
the police station, book you (i.e., record your identifying information and
issue you a summons to appear in court to prove you have a driver's
license), and then call someone to come get you.
If he's asking you because he just wants to know, and you refuse, then he
should say "have a good day."
In some states, they've decided that you're required to tell the policeman
your name, but you don't have to prove it.
Same as if he comes to your door. If he says "May I come in?" and you say
"No," then he should stand outside and talk to you. If he has to *ask*, then
you get to say no. Makes perfect sense.
> I suppose I can't deny that sounds reasonable. Basically it means that
> illegal immigrants are not actively "hunted down", but if they try to
> actually *do* something they won't be able to if they can't prove they
> have the right to (as legal citizens or immigrants).
Exactly.
> Of course this assumes that nobody employs them without asking for their
> papers and without informing the authorities... I'm assuming that's one of
> the biggest problems in the US.
Yes. And it's already illegal to employ them without asking for their papers
and informing the authorities you've done so. (I.e., paying taxes on their
salaries, etc.) But police don't enforce *that* law, because it's the
*white* people who are making money by employing them. Actually, that law
*does* get enforced, which is how we know how many illegal immigrants are
here. But not everyone gets caught, because not every employer reports them,
and the fines for not reporting them are lower than the profit you make by
exploiting illegal immigrants.
--
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:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling based
>>> on how someone looks like?
>
>> No. It's not legal to profile anyone before a crime has been committed.
>
> I don't think that's the case. There are all kinds of typical profiles
> of several types of criminals. For example "a serial killer is typically
> a white middle-aged male".
Having a statistical profile isn't the same as profiling someone. That sort
of profiling is used to reduce the number of people to consider *before* you
talk to people, not to *increase* the number of people you talk to about the
crime.
You wouldn't be allowed to go around and question every white middle-aged
male simply because there's a serial killer going around whacking people.
I don't know. What do you have against police having to have a reason to
think maybe you're doing something wrong before they stop and force you to
prove you're not? It really is more efficient that way.
>> Nobody minds being asked to show proof of citizenship if a crime has been
>> committed, or even if a crime *might* have been committed. This law isn't
>> that. This law is stopping people just in case maybe a crime has been committed.
>
> Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see a difference between "might
> have been" and "maybe has been"... You probably used poor wording for that.
By "might have been", I mean that if there's a reason to suspect you're
illegal and you prove you aren't, then a crime "might have been committed."
It wasn't, but there was some indication it might have been.
The second sentence is stopping people before you have any indication there
was a crime at all.
It's the difference between going door to door and questioning males if they
know anything about Mary being raped, after Mary reports being raped; vs
going door to door to ask each male to prove they haven't raped anyone. If
you want to go with your "profiling" comment.
--
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 would like to repeat that I'm not defending that Arizona law. I'm not
> advocating arresting people like that.
Then what do you advocate, when police randomly stop someone with no reason
to believe they're illegal other than the color of their skin, and they ask
for proof of citizenship, and the person declines to show it?
--
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:
> Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
> if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness.
I showed you the math. It's actually pretty well known.
>> It's not a matter of "offend some people." The people you're at risk of
>> offending are the majority of the people living where the law would be enforced.
>
> Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.
Except in a democracy, when you offend the majority of the people, often the
laws get changed.
> People often take their rights to privacy and freedom very seriously.
Rabidly so, here.
>>>> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>>> Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
>
>> Apparently not.
>
> What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
I'm not familiar with all the laws, but yes, if you don't check everyone,
then don't check anyone.
>> 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?
>> 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.
>> 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.
--
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 02/05/2010 8:57 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> > >> Randomly stopping people and asking them to prove their innocence.
>>> > >
>>> > > Apparently Britain is not one of those countries?
>> > Apparently not.
> What I meant was if you oppose that law in Britain, and why.
>
Our SUS laws are still on the statute books but they are restricted to a
declared area for up to six hours. The police normally cannot stop
someone just because they don’t ;ile the look of them.
Remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp1tyQ5s1A
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/05/2010 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check
> the mexicans" is a flawed argument.
How do you know that they are Mexican? They could be American born in
the USA whose parents were born in the USA.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Well, I suppose people have the right to think that. I'm just wondering
> if that opinion comes from hard math or from political correctness.
Oh, also, if you predominantly check mexican-looking people, you will
predominantly arrest mexican-looking people. Which means it will seem like
the predominant illegal immigrant is mexican. Which is another way you screw
up the math. You do not, by definition, know how many actual illegal
immigrants there are of which types.
You can argue that it *logically* makes sense that most illegal immigrants
on the mexican border will be mexican. But this turns into a positive
feedback loop.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Hence, the whole "most illegal immigrants look mexican, so let's check
>> the mexicans" is a flawed argument.
>
> How do you know that they are Mexican? They could be American born in
> the USA whose parents were born in the USA.
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.
--
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 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] gmailcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
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 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 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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 you're ignoring the fact that
A) they can't be, because they live where the majority of people look like
them, and
B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from
illegal residents than looks.
>> 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.
Not at all. I'm showing you (A) it's more complicated than you think, and
(B) not related to "looks". I'm offering you examples of other
distinguishing features (besides genetics) that will get you a much better
chance of efficiently catching the criminal, and showing how if you base it
on something irrelevant to immigration status (like looks or religion) you
wind up with prejudiced yet ineffective enforcement.
> 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.
That too.
> 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.
I did. You ignore when I discuss the general idea.
> The opposite of concentrating resources on likely suspects is to spread
> the resources equally to all people.
Now you're back-pedaling more. You were talking about "likely suspects"
before. Even in this very post, you're using "looks mexican" as "likely
suspects." I'm using the math to show you how "looks mexican" isn't the same
as "likely suspects." Yet you're ignoring that fact.
Concentrate on likely suspects? No problem!
Concentrate on people who look mexican? Bad idea!
> 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".
Yet you haven't mentioned any "statistics" other than "looks mexican."
> 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 find it outlandish? If 90% of illegal immigrants look mexican,
and 90% of illegal immigrants are christian, why is it better to focus on
people who look mexican than to focus on people who look christian?
The very fact that you're calling it outlandish is *exactly* the point I'm
making. *That* is why focusing on people who look mexican is racist and not
just statistics.
*This*, right here, is the crux of where you are wrong. You're asking me to
adjust my nit-pick of your math so that you turn out right. OK, if 80% of
illegals look mexican, and 90% are christian, would you still feel it's
outrageous to stop people going into churches and ask them for proof of
citizenship? If not, then your proposal hasn't anything to do with
statistics of efficient policing.
If you agree with that, then maybe you'll agree that when we find most
illegals shop at Wal-mart, buy groceries from food stores specializing in
mexican food, and have jobs paying minimum wage, then we should find people
who engage in all three of those behaviors and go around banging on their
doors, asking for proof of citizenship?
Why is that a bad idea?
> Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
> something unheard of.
Welcome to democracy.
> country, you are pretty much safe because nobody will ask you if you
> really have the right to be there".
No. Random people walking down the street won't have the right to ask you if
you're doing nothing wrong. Everyone whose behavior is affected by them
being illegal already has to prove their legality.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
The subject which led to this sobriety test comparison was about the
morality of testing people without probable cause. I simply pointed out
that testing people without probable cause is not *always* immoral, as
there exists at least one legit example where it's not.
So yes, in *this particular context* we were talking about random testing.
The original post might not have been talking about that, but this comparison
was not directly related to that.
You are trying to invalidate my example by dragging it back to the
original subject (in other words, that Arizona law) and comparing it
directly to that, rather than what really prompted the comparison.
> You're arguing that based on statistics, racist testing should be applied.
That's a different context, not related to this sobriety test example.
Also, I don't appreciate your denigrating terminology on what I may be
arguing for.
> > (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.
No, your original argument which prompted this was that testing people
with no probable cause is always wrong. Don't change the context here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> You're arguing that based on statistics, racist testing should be applied.
> That's a different context, not related to this sobriety test example.
Fair enough.
> Also, I don't appreciate your denigrating terminology on what I may be
> arguing for.
Well, when you say "we should test people who look like illegal immigrants
look", then that's pretty much the textbook definition of racist. You're
saying "we should act as if those with the same genetics as criminals are
more likely to also be criminals" is racist. I don't know any other word
for it, especially when you're claiming that genetics is a factor, but not
religion or shopping habits or anything like 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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 you're ignoring the fact that
> A) they can't be, because they live where the majority of people look like
> them, and
You are using a different meaning of the word "distinguish" than I am.
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.
That's different from what you are arguing, which is: Take 100 mexicans.
You know that 10 of them are illegals. Try to distinguish them by how they
look.
What I am saying is:
Take 100 mexicans and 100 canadians. You know that there are approximately
9 illegals of mexican origin and 1 of canadian origin (hence "90% of illegals
are of mexican origin", as in the example). Hence if you check all the 100
mexicans you will most probably get the 9 illegal mexicans even if you miss
that 1 illegal canadian.
However, if you checked the 100 people completely at random, you will
only catch about 4 or 5 illegals in average.
So exactly where is the flaw in this math?
> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from
> illegal residents than looks.
That may well be true.
> 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.
> > 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 find it outlandish? If 90% of illegal immigrants look mexican,
> and 90% of illegal immigrants are christian, why is it better to focus on
> people who look mexican than to focus on people who look christian?
You might as well argue "100% of illegals look like people, so why not
concentrate on people?"
> The very fact that you're calling it outlandish is *exactly* the point I'm
> making. *That* is why focusing on people who look mexican is racist and not
> just statistics.
What do you even mean by "racism"? Usually "racism" implies prejudice and
forming preconceptions about people based on their ethnicity. A policeman
thinking "most mexicans are criminals and deserve to be beaten" is racism
because it's a prejudiced opinion based on ethnicity.
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.
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. (For example, if a statistical
study showed that, let's say, Japanese people are in average more intelligent
than Finnish people, it wouldn't cause any commotion. However, heaven forbid
if such a statistic said that, for example, Finnish people are in average
more intelligent than, let's say, Nigerians. The outrage! That kind of
statistic would immediately be labelled "racist". Of course if it happened
to be the other way around, nobody would complain.)
> *This*, right here, is the crux of where you are wrong. You're asking me to
> adjust my nit-pick of your math so that you turn out right. OK, if 80% of
> illegals look mexican, and 90% are christian, would you still feel it's
> outrageous to stop people going into churches and ask them for proof of
> citizenship? If not, then your proposal hasn't anything to do with
> statistics of efficient policing.
Well, if we have 100 christians and 100 non-christians, and we know that
approximately 9 of the christians are illegal immigrants and about 1 of the
non-christians is, then checking 100 christians would produce a higher
success rate than checking 100 randomly chosen people. It works the same.
Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.
You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".
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".
> > 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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, when you say "we should test people who look like illegal immigrants
> look", then that's pretty much the textbook definition of racist.
Except that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that concentrating resources
on statistically more probable people is going to give a better success rate
than spreading the resources evenly on everybody. If the distinguishing
feature happens to be ethnicity, that doesn't change anything. You can call
it "racism" if you want. I am not prejudiced against any group of people
based on their ethnicity, nor am I claiming that some ethnicities are more
likely to be criminals than others, so I don't really appreciate the
insinuation.
> You're
> saying "we should act as if those with the same genetics as criminals are
> more likely to also be criminals" is racist. I don't know any other word
> for it, especially when you're claiming that genetics is a factor, but not
> religion or shopping habits or anything like that.
Now you are outright insulting me. Nowhere have I said that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
