 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> So exactly where is the flaw in this math?
The flaw in the math is that you're using the same number of mexicans and
canadians.
The percentage of interest is the percentage of illegals to legals in each
group you want to target, *not* the absolute percentages.
You said
> Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> of them by how they look.
This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans
in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to
catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican,
while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you
investigate all the europeans.
Google for Bayesian math.
>> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from
>> illegal residents than looks.
>
> That may well be true.
Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
>> Concentrate on people who look mexican? Bad idea!
>
> Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.
Yes, really, it does. You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the
best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different
distinguishing factor as "outrageous".
>>> 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?"
That doesn't answer the question. And yes, I wouldn't go around trying to
find out the legal immigration status of dogs and cats.
>> 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.
Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common
(usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.
> Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> them.
Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of
genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?
> One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok.
We're not talking about that here.
And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about
something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on
ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.
> Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.
Then why did you call it outrageous?
Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my
mind about this" is a good thing at this point. Otherwise, I'm going to be
confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not.
Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here
you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.
> You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".
No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the
most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share
and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on
that list.
> I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".
Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that
leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal
aliens."
>>> Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
>>> something unheard of.
>
>> Welcome to democracy.
>
> Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?
It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against
citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving
ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
--
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:
> If the distinguishing
> feature happens to be ethnicity, that doesn't change anything.
Except it's not. The best distinguishing feature is probable cause. That's
why they call it that.
>> 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.
I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this
whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features
is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
Maybe you're not racist. But it sure as heck sounds like you're condoning
racist behavior on the part of the police here, in the name of efficiency.
--
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:
> > If the distinguishing
> > feature happens to be ethnicity, that doesn't change anything.
> Except it's not. The best distinguishing feature is probable cause. That's
> why they call it that.
That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
what I'm writing.
> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this
> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features
> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Do you have a hard time
understanding the difference between an expression like "if the
distinguishing feature is ethnicity" and "the distinguishing feature
is ethnicity"?
And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
do with anything?
> Maybe you're not racist. But it sure as heck sounds like you're condoning
> racist behavior on the part of the police here, in the name of efficiency.
Then maybe you should learn to read.
I don't appreciate you insulting me like that, so I suppose you just can
go fuck yourself.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:45:11 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Isn't there a problem that if somebody does not have papers you won't
>> > know where to send him/her?
>
>> We have that situation already here in the US. Typically people whose
>> country of origin can't be determined are detained indefinitely.
>
> Guess what's the most common tactic of people who want to get inside
> the European Union and not get deported? Make it as hard as possible to
> determine where they come from.
That's not just the most common tactic in the EU, I'd guess it's pretty
common worldwide.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
Because that's the way the world works, Warp. In fact, some people who
immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin because
their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with them?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 03:05:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> So all other types of criminal profiling are ok, but not profiling
> based
> on how someone looks like?
>
> I really think this is political correctness getting in the way of
> criminal investigation.
No, but being brown isn't a crime. What about that do you not understand?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That may be so, but it doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "*if* the
> distinguishing feature happens to be ethnicity". I didn't claim it *is*.
> Try to finally get your thick skull out of the "Arizona law" thing and read
> what I'm writing.
OK. Why would you even use ethnicity as an example, and reject or ignore
other examples?
And why would you argue against the *best* example of distinguishing
feature, which happens to be probable cause?
That's why I'm confused.
And, in this instance, "racism" isn't necessarily a bad word. It's just
using someone's race to target them for presumtions about the likelihood
they'll behave in a certain way.
>> I'm confused. The only distinguishing feature you have mentioned in this
>> whole thread is ethnicity, and my bringing up other distinguishing features
>> is called "outrageous", and we're talking about how to catch criminals.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about?
Sorry. You said "outlandish", not "outrageous."
> And where have I use the word "outrageous", and what does it have to
> do with anything?
I quote: (You posted at 4:58 by my clock, to help you find it.)
> > And you still didn't answer whether you'd agree that it might be more
> > efficient to target people in churches than people who look central
> > american. :-)
> I found it so incoherent and outlandish that I didn't know what to say.
> Maybe that's what you were after.
Why did you say that targeting people in churches is outlandish and
incoherent even if most illegals are christian, while it's perfectly
reasonable to target ethnicities if most illegals are of a particular ethnicity?
If you had said "Yes, that's another excellent example", then I'd say "OK,
he's talking a particular example when he says how they look." But you seem
to be thinking that targeting how people look is a good idea for efficiency
and targeting how people worship is a bad idea for efficiency.
Again, if we've miscommunicated, then that's fine.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:12:55 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:10:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in
>> > prison?
>> > Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
>
>> NO! That's the point - if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant, you have
>> to provide on the spot PROOF that you're not, and if you can't, YOU GO
>> TO JAIL. That's what the law is all about.
>
> Well, there are basically two options:
>
> 1) Demand that all people always carry a form of identification. 2) Stop
> trying to catch illegal immigrants.
>
> Which one do you prefer? I assume you understand the consequences of
> choice #2.
There's no point in arguing this with you any more as far as I'm
concerned. You deal strictly with absolutes, and this is an area where
there are no absolutes to deal with.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
>> live in a Nazi state.
>
> I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.
I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by
invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You said
> > Take 100 illegal immigrants. If 90 of them are of mexican origin and
> > the rest are of European origin, you certainly *can* distinguish the majority
> > of them by how they look.
> This is factually incorrect, *if* you have 10,000 mexicans and 30 europeans
> in the community you're policing. You will spend 10,000 investigations to
> catch 90 illegal immigrants if you investigate the ones who look mexican,
> while you'll spend 30 investigations to catch 10 illegal immigrants if you
> investigate all the europeans.
I find it amusing how you manage to both claim that the math says it's
not possible to use statistics to catch illegals more efficiently *and*
then you present how you can, in fact, use statistics to catch them more
efficiently.
But at least you admitted that my math was not flawed, although a bit
indirectly. "This is factually incorrect if ..." means "that example is
correct, but if you have this another situation, you need a different
formula".
Bottom line is, it's just like I said earlier: You are taking my simple
example, showing that the same formula does not work on a more complex
situation (and even giving a more working replacement), and then somehow
arguing that the math is showing that statistics can *not* be used for
this purpose. Still a non-sequitur.
> >> B) there are dozens of traits more useful for distinguishing legal from
> >> illegal residents than looks.
> >
> > That may well be true.
> Yet acting on that is "outrageous"?
Where did you invent this "outrageous" word from?
> >> Concentrate on people who look mexican? Bad idea!
> >
> > Maybe it's a bad idea, but not because of statistics, but because of
> > people's feelings and sense of privacy. That has nothing to do with math.
> Yes, really, it does. You have absolutely no idea whether genetics is the
> best distinguishing factor, yet you take an example of a different
> distinguishing factor as "outrageous".
Seems like you have a new obsession with a fancy word you conjured up from
somewhere.
> Racism: Assuming people of a particular genetic background share a common
> (usually negative) trait unrelated to their genetic background.
And who is making such assumptions here?
> > Statistical profiling based on ethnicity might be *technically* labelled
> > "racism" in the sense that it segregates people based on ethnicity. However,
> > if it's purely hard neutral statistics, there's no prejudiced intent. It's
> > simply the result of keeping up records and calculating the statistics from
> > them.
> Yet, when I apply exactly the same neutral statistics to religon instead of
> genetics, it becomes outrageous and unthinkable?
You really got infatuate with that odd word, it seems. And now also with
"unthinkable"? Where did that one come from?
> > One could argue that keeping statistics based on ethnicity is wrong, but
> > curiously that happens only if the statistics make *certain* ethnicities
> > look bad, while with other ethnicities it's ok.
> We're not talking about that here.
Making ancillary comments on things is not allowed?
> And certainly keeping statistics on ethnicity when you're talking about
> something genetic is different than when you're keeping statistics on
> ethnicity when you're talking about something entirely unrelated to genetics.
Seems like "genetics" has become a third pet word for you. Also of
uknown origin.
> > Statistically speaking it would be better to check only the christians
> > if we want to maximize the success rate of 100 random samples.
> Then why did you call it outrageous?
This is approaching OCD levels.
Exactly where did I use the word "outrageous"?
> Note that if you're changing your mind about this, saying "I've changed my
> mind about this" is a good thing at this point. Otherwise, I'm going to be
> confused about whether you've reconsidered and changed your mind or not.
> Because it sounds like earlier today you said "that's outrageous" and here
> you seem to be agreeing with me, so now I'm confused.
You indeed seem to be very confused. I have not used such a word anywhere.
When did you last sleep?
> > You are arguing that "there are too many christians and there aren't
> > enough resources to check them all, hence it would be inefficient".
> No, I'm arguing that if you're going to use something like that, then the
> most efficient property to use is one that most illegal immigrants all share
> and that most legal residents don't share. And "looking mexican" isn't on
> that list.
You talk like I had said "looking mexican is the most distinguishing
feature of American illegal immigrants".
> > I didn't ever claim that checking all people of a certain group would be
> > *the most efficient* way. I said that it would be *more efficient* than
> > purely random checks. There's a difference between "more" and "most".
> Sure. But it's still far below "checking people who have done something that
> leads you to believe based on their *behavior* that they might be illegal
> aliens."
At least you somehow admit understanding what I'm writing. Except when in
a next post (or even next paragraph) you won't, and keep talking like I had
said something like "mexicans have criminal genetics" or whatever bullshit.
> >>> Maybe it could be a good idea to change that, then? It's not like it's
> >>> something unheard of.
> >
> >> Welcome to democracy.
> >
> > Democracy implies no citizenship-proving ID?
> It does when the citizens consistently complain and vote against
> citizenship-proving ID. (To be clear: Of course we have citizenship-proving
> ID. We're just not required to produce it on random demand by police.)
Well, I suppose citizens get what they want, even if it wouldn't always be
on their best interest.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 01:43:24 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > If he is an illegal immigrant, why should the country he illegally
> > entered take responsibility? It's his own country's problem.
> Because that's the way the world works, Warp. In fact, some people who
> immigrate legally or illegally no longer have a country of origin because
> their country simply no longer exists....so what do you do with them?
Maybe that's how it works in practice. It still doesn't mean it's fair
in my opinion.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 15:57:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Well, it sounds to me like offending some people.
No, it's not about offending people, it's about the fact that in the US
the constitution specifically prohibits the police from pulling people
over "just because". They have to have a reason, and that reason has to
be related to a specific criminal activity. In the US, "probable cause"
is NOT met by having a certain skin colour, period, end of story.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:46:04 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
> >> live in a Nazi state.
> >
> > I think this is a genuine instance of Godwin's law.
> I think it's actually a genuine instance of *not* Godwinning a thread by
> invoking the Nazis - it's a perfect example.
No. Godwin's law says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
It's precisely a comparison which was not made to invoke the law, but
came as a result of the discussion. In fact, I think there's someone else's
corollary that says that a deliberate invocation of Godwin's law isn't.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 03 May 2010 07:39:47 -0400, Warp wrote:
> I said that if the vast majority of illegal immigrants can be
> distinguished
> by how they look, it makes sense to concentrate more on those people
> than on people who are much less likely to be illegal immigrants.
And yet you don't think that this is racist. Amazing.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 02 May 2010 02:35:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In the US, we're supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
>> You're starting with a presumption of guilt, which goes against the
>> ideals under which this law is created.
>
> So if you go to a grocery store and use your credit card to buy
> something
> and they want to check your ID to make sure you are the real owner of
> the card, are they presuming you guilty until you prove you are not? Or
> is this simply a security measure which, on the grand scale, benefits
> you as well as everybody else?
>
> If you enter the country and at the airport they check your baggage
> using
> an X-ray machine, are they presuming you guilty? Or is this just a
> security measure?
>
> If a police officer asks for your ID to check that you have the right
> to
> live in the country, is he presuming you guilty, or is it just a
> security measure?
He's presuming you're guilty, because he has to have probable cause to
pull you over to ask if you're legally in the country. Being brown isn't
sufficient.
> You make it sound like in that last case the situation is different,
> for
> some reason.
It is. You fail to see it or understand it.
>> Based. On. Skin. Colour.
>
> Why are people so damn obsessed with skin color? Criminal profiling
> does
> not have anything to do with racism. Skin color is just one feature
> which can be used for profiling.
Not in the US, not legally. That's the point.
> If most illegal immigrants happen to look similar, it only makes sense
> to concentrate resources on people who look like that. It's the same as
> the vast majority of rapists being male, hence it it makes sense to
> concentrate resources on investigating males and skipping females.
> Nobody is crying sexism because of that.
Nobody that you're aware of, perhaps.
> I really think people are way too hypersensitive with any kind of
> profiling based precisely on skin color. Any other type of profiling is
> ok, but heaven forbid if you start using skin color as a distinctive
> feature. The second you do that, all human rights are flushed down the
> toilet. Sheesh.
You're not allowed to profile in the US based on religious beliefs,
ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other factors. Just like you can't use
those to make hiring decisions.
>> Nothing else. If you *look* like an illegal, you are presumed guilty
>> until you prove otherwise. This could be a daily occurrence IF YOU
>> HAPPEN TO HAVE THE WRONG COLOUR SKIN.
>
>> Hell, it could happen HOURLY.
>
>> Wouldn't that piss YOU off if YOU were constantly having to prove that
>> you were in your country legally?
>
> If it significantly increased my own security, I wouldn't. (Of course
> I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm just saying that there are more
> sides to this than an extremist political correctness.)
Well, then, come on over here and I'll see to it that you're asked hourly
to provide proof that you're here legally. Including in the middle of
the night, just for safety's sake.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
