And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.AussieReaper wrote:
"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
Ok lets assume that, you may be right, I haven't looked it up, but isn't profiling itself a possible deterent, making it harder for attacked to be planned and carried out, and if so, isn't it worth it?ghettoperson wrote:
My point is that the fact that they've arrested no one because of it, suggests that it's completely irrelevant to thwarting global terrorism and only pisses off passengers.lowing wrote:
lets see, if there were more attacks you would then claim it does not work, and now that there isn't anymore attacks you are claiming it does not work..
So what argument are you leaving me with?
Problem is, I said you could only pick one, so this leaves you to playing your best odds. I do understand that white people and black people have eaten curry before. You know the point to my post so stop denying it.ghettoperson wrote:
And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.AussieReaper wrote:
"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
ghettoperson wrote:
And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.AussieReaper wrote:
"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
But there's no harm in that sort of profiling anyway, so nobody would really care"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
It's when racial profiling causes harm and distress to people should it start to be discussed and talked about
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-07-28 07:23:57)
^ i agree mek.
Hence why racial profiling as a tool or however else lowing wants to call it doesn't work.ghettoperson wrote:
And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.AussieReaper wrote:
"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
I agree, however, I do not list inconvenienced as part of distressed or harmed.Mekstizzle wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.But there's no harm in that sort of profiling anyway, so nobody would really care"All Indians eat curry", is a racial profile statement.
It's when racial profiling causes harm and distress to people should it start to be discussed and talked about
No one ever said it was an absolute. and in this analogy, I said you had to pick ONE, you would bet the odds. and the odds are the correct answer would be the Indian, like it or not.AussieReaper wrote:
^ i agree mek.Hence why racial profiling as a tool or however else lowing wants to call it doesn't work.ghettoperson wrote:
And in the UK, you could pick any of the three and be right.lowing wrote:
yup, and the tool comes into play when you have a white guy a black guy and an Indian guy, and you are told to pick the guy that probably eats curry, I am sure you will pick the Indian guy, worst of all, oddsare you would probably be right.. I am still waiting to hear what the problem with that logic is.
It apparently didn't bother those Kosovonians in NJ that just got arrested. The thing is, if you're willing to die for your cause, you're willing to try to make it thought airport security.lowing wrote:
Ok lets assume that, you may be right, I haven't looked it up, but isn't profiling itself a possible deterent, making it harder for attacked to be planned and carried out, and if so, isn't it worth it?ghettoperson wrote:
My point is that the fact that they've arrested no one because of it, suggests that it's completely irrelevant to thwarting global terrorism and only pisses off passengers.lowing wrote:
lets see, if there were more attacks you would then claim it does not work, and now that there isn't anymore attacks you are claiming it does not work..
So what argument are you leaving me with?
does anyone here even know anything about the effectiveness of racial profiling?
scientific american
scientific american
american 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.
and to such an occurance, extreme actions do call for extreme measures, if you want ot call racial profiling extreme. I however do not.ghettoperson wrote:
It apparently didn't bother those Kosovonians in NJ that just got arrested. The thing is, if you're willing to die for your cause, you're willing to try to make it thought airport security.lowing wrote:
Ok lets assume that, you may be right, I haven't looked it up, but isn't profiling itself a possible deterent, making it harder for attacked to be planned and carried out, and if so, isn't it worth it?ghettoperson wrote:
My point is that the fact that they've arrested no one because of it, suggests that it's completely irrelevant to thwarting global terrorism and only pisses off passengers.
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.
Not all muslims are darkies, in fact most asians think i am white.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Interesting. But, it was "darkie" muslims on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Kobar, Africa emabssies, Cole, 1993 WTC......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.
So you're happy to ignore the threat from extremist indigenous white Muslims? IMO Muslims from whatever country are too diverse to be effectively profiled not that i think it profiling works in the first instance anyway.Red Forman wrote:
Interesting. But, it was "darkie" muslims on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Kobar, Africa emabssies, Cole, 1993 WTC......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.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
No, I am not happy to ignore anything. And I don't think or at least I hope the CIA and such doesn't ignore all things also.m3thod wrote:
So you're happy to ignore the threat from extremist indigenous white Muslims? IMO Muslims from whatever country are too diverse to be effectively profiled not that i think it profiling works in the first instance anyway.Red Forman wrote:
Interesting. But, it was "darkie" muslims on 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Kobar, Africa emabssies, Cole, 1993 WTC......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.
Last edited by Red Forman (2009-07-28 08:07:57)
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 have evidence, you don't. refute my points or don't bother posting.
this thread is filled with useless posts.
this thread is filled with useless posts.
When VT happened, everyone thought it was a Muslim.
I figured it was another white kidCybargs wrote:
When VT happened, everyone thought it was a Muslim.
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.
but it was a Christian
(RE: Virginia Tech)
(RE: Virginia Tech)
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-07-28 08:36:26)
Same. In all honesty, I thought it was some emo rich white kid.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
I figured it was another white kidCybargs wrote:
When VT happened, everyone thought it was a Muslim.
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
I would say it might work some cases and not others.
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
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