Scientifc American is a highly credible source. If anything it's you who looks foolish for knocking it.Swan wrote:
you have no evidence, just opinionated papers made to look scientific. cry moar.Krappyappy wrote:
i have evidence, you don't. refute my points or don't bother posting.
this thread is filled with useless posts.
You're honestly such a douchenozzle. Scientific American is a highly credible magazine, and to quote Wikipedia (how do you like that source?) is "one of the oldest and most prestigious" scientific magazines around. Find a alternatively reputable source that disputes their claim, or STFU.Swan wrote:
the term "science" in the url does not make it science. I'm sure you could find hundreds of pages that support your point of view if you go looking for them.Krappyappy wrote:
does anyone here even know anything about the effectiveness of racial profiling?
scientific americanamerican economic associationAccording to new research, it is no more effective to profile strongly—that is, subject individuals to increased scrutiny in proportion to their presumed likelihood of malfeasance—than it is to randomly flag individuals in the general population when it comes to rooting out terrorism. The reason, says study author William Press, a computer scientist and computational biologist at the University of Texas at Austin: terrorists are vastly outnumbered by innocents, and it's a waste of time and money to screen and rescreen the same benign people.the only thing it does is make the ignorant [e.g. anyone who supports racial profiling] feel slightly more secure. effective tool for stopping crime and terrorism, it is not.In the profiling context, the Fairness Presumption leads to the conclusion that profiling is not justified since there is no affirmative case to be made in terms of efficiency whereas there is an unambiguous fairness violation, i.e. differential treatment of innocent blacks and whites. The crime minimization benefits are not identified by available data and potential costs exist that cannot be assumed to be small.
I don't do anything with them, why are white Muslims from the Balkins a problem?m3thod wrote:
what do you do about white muslims? You know the one's from the balkans.
Not all muslims are darkies, in fact most asians think i am white.
from your links,Krappyappy wrote:
does anyone here even know anything about the effectiveness of racial profiling?
scientific americanamerican economic associationAccording to new research, it is no more effective to profile strongly—that is, subject individuals to increased scrutiny in proportion to their presumed likelihood of malfeasance—than it is to randomly flag individuals in the general population when it comes to rooting out terrorism. The reason, says study author William Press, a computer scientist and computational biologist at the University of Texas at Austin: terrorists are vastly outnumbered by innocents, and it's a waste of time and money to screen and rescreen the same benign people.the only thing it does is make the ignorant [e.g. anyone who supports racial profiling] feel slightly more secure. effective tool for stopping crime and terrorism, it is not.In the profiling context, the Fairness Presumption leads to the conclusion that profiling is not justified since there is no affirmative case to be made in terms of efficiency whereas there is an unambiguous fairness violation, i.e. differential treatment of innocent blacks and whites. The crime minimization benefits are not identified by available data and potential costs exist that cannot be assumed to be small.
bullshit, enough saidCybargs wrote:
When VT happened, everyone thought it was a Muslim.
I also hear Harvard professors are above reproach and are highly credible as well.m3thod wrote:
Scientifc American is a highly credible source. If anything it's you who looks foolish for knocking it.Swan wrote:
you have no evidence, just opinionated papers made to look scientific. cry moar.Krappyappy wrote:
i have evidence, you don't. refute my points or don't bother posting.
this thread is filled with useless posts.
Last edited by lowing (2009-07-28 11:44:09)
Depends on your view on what's just fine, two kids getting less than half than that one guy got in VT is crapSwan wrote:
pwntRed Forman wrote:
Really? Two emo rich white kids did just fine in Colorado in 1999.Mekstizzle wrote:
An emo rich white kid wouldn't be able to take down 30+ people, more like 1 or two, and his dog, and then himself
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-07-28 11:42:26)
Culture still has ties to race. I say go ahead and profile, but it still has to be innocent until proven guilty.AussieReaper wrote:
Same race = same traits.Swan wrote:
I don't see how you can even compare the two. You are just throwing about punchy comments without making any point.AussieReaper wrote:
I suppose you believe Phrenology is logical, also?
Same skull = same traits.
That's how I can compare the two. Both are archaic and totally flawed in the real world.
They're muslim.lowing wrote:
I don't do anything with them, why are white Muslims from the Balkins a problem?m3thod wrote:
what do you do about white muslims? You know the one's from the balkans.
Not all muslims are darkies, in fact most asians think i am white.
only you would try to compare a magazine with the case of a jobsworth cop vs an irate prof.lowing wrote:
I also hear Harvard professors are above reproach and are highly credible as well.m3thod wrote:
Scientifc American is a highly credible source. If anything it's you who looks foolish for knocking it.Swan wrote:
you have no evidence, just opinionated papers made to look scientific. cry moar.
so?m3thod wrote:
They're muslim.lowing wrote:
I don't do anything with them, why are white Muslims from the Balkins a problem?m3thod wrote:
what do you do about white muslims? You know the one's from the balkans.
Not all muslims are darkies, in fact most asians think i am white.
get back with me when science and science data of such things like global warming and race and cultures are NOT political issues with specifica agendas.m3thod wrote:
only you would try to compare a magazine with the case of a jobsworth cop vs an irate prof.lowing wrote:
I also hear Harvard professors are above reproach and are highly credible as well.m3thod wrote:
Scientifc American is a highly credible source. If anything it's you who looks foolish for knocking it.
Stopping random white men in the hope you might catch a serial killer in the act is practically pointless too.imortal wrote:
Stopping the random black man and checking to see if he has a prostitute's head in his trunk is not going to help much in that circumstance.
Profiling based on race is essentially pointless, unless you're prepared for the cost of alienating millions of people in return for the improbable benefit of possibly catching one terrorist.Scientific American wrote:
terrorists are vastly outnumbered by innocents, and it's a waste of time and money to screen and rescreen the same benign people.
Nobody stops a random black man to see if he has a prostitutes head in his trunk.Dilbert_X wrote:
Stopping random white men in the hope you might catch a serial killer in the act is practically pointless too.imortal wrote:
Stopping the random black man and checking to see if he has a prostitute's head in his trunk is not going to help much in that circumstance.Profiling based on race is essentially pointless, unless you're prepared for the cost of alienating millions of people in return for the improbable benefit of possibly catching one terrorist.Scientific American wrote:
terrorists are vastly outnumbered by innocents, and it's a waste of time and money to screen and rescreen the same benign people.
Which isn't racial profiling either.lowing wrote:
but you are nuts if you think cops in LA ( or anywhere) dealing with gang violence should not watch for people that fit that gangs description.
Exactly.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which isn't racial profiling either.lowing wrote:
but you are nuts if you think cops in LA ( or anywhere) dealing with gang violence should not watch for people that fit that gangs description.
Hate to break it to ya, but RACE is part of a description, so if you don't think it is profiling, and since NO one is stopping BLACK men for just being black, then you really have no argument.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which isn't racial profiling either.lowing wrote:
but you are nuts if you think cops in LA ( or anywhere) dealing with gang violence should not watch for people that fit that gangs description.
Precisely, of which race is one of many factors.Aussiereaper wrote:
Exactly.
That's a gang profile they are watching.
But people have been stopping those of middle eastern appearance just because they are of middle eastern appearance.lowing wrote:
since NO one is stopping BLACK men for just being black, then you really have no argument.
Nope, they have been screened closer at airports, nothing more get over it.Dilbert_X wrote:
Precisely, of which race is one of many factors.Aussiereaper wrote:
Exactly.
That's a gang profile they are watching.But people have been stopping those of middle eastern appearance just because they are of middle eastern appearance.lowing wrote:
since NO one is stopping BLACK men for just being black, then you really have no argument.
Nothing wrong with looking at people from countries that frequent places you are at war with.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Its one thing to say look out there is a suspect and race is given as a part of that description, that's just common sense. This isn't racial profiling.
Its completely different to say terrorists are middle eastern and therefore we must screen all middle eastern people more closely. or cops pulling over low riders or blacks in Cadillacs etc etc... that's racial profiling and its wrong to permit cops to make assumptions from visual inspections from afar.... "hey that's a black guy, I bet he's got pot or crack or something" or "this is a "white" neighborhood what's this black guy doing here. That type of racial profiling is never good enough to justify stopping a person. You need more, perhaps gang activity, terrorist activity or like "gasp" actual criminal activity.
Its obvious that the US has a racism problem. Its obvious that racist attitudes are engrained. Its good that the old generation with their backward racist views and anti-American attitudes are dieing off. But when people post things about minorities getting upset about cops stopping them, like the Harvard professor case, and say crap like well they just should have cooperated and said nothing to the cop... well if nothing is said then nothing is going to change until.... The people need to speak up.
People questioning cops when they are stopped due to racial profiling is the same as Rosa Parks refusing to give her seat up on the bus. In the eyes of some people these agitators are considered criminals.... I'd call these agitators true Americans.
