The problem with racial profiling, especially with publicizing it, is that it will show people that don't fit the terrorist stereotype that they might be able to get away with crimes.

 

For instance, if some wackjob white elderly lady knows that only middle-eastern looking people will be searched[/b], then that will make her take her chances going through a search point with a bomb in her purse. Now I realize that example is VERY unlikely, but you get the idea...

888244[/snapback]

 

 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.

887407[/snapback]

What an ignorant statement. Of course all terrorists AREN'T Muslims. Who was responsible for the Oklahoma City?

 

Racial profiling isn't the answer. Giving up our civil liberties isn't the answer.

 

Profiling based on race is stupid...profiling based on suspicous behavior is smart.

888418[/snapback]

 

Exactly what I think.

 

I really have a fear that domestic terrorism will rise in the next 5-10 years, especially if we pay less attention to the home-grown whackos, and guys like McVeigh.888436[/snapback]

 

This is not all or nothing, people.

 

racial profiling

 

Racial profiling is the use of race as one consideration in suspect profiling or other law enforcement practices.

 

Advocates are divided on the degree to which race should be considered a factor.

http://www.answers.com/topic/racial-profiling-2

 

Since we've now established that "racial profiling" simply denotes using race as one consideration among many (e.g. "suspicious" behavior, gender, age, location, etc.--all of which are acceptable and consistently used profiling criteria), we can now move on to a hypothetical scenario:

 

In a suburb of Kansas City, a screener notices 150 suspicious-looking people during a given one-hour shift. He only has time to grab 15.

 

Again, since this is a KC suburb, let's say this is the breakdown of those 150 hypothetical, suspicious-looking people:

 

10 old, demented senior citizens

40 miscellaneous middle-aged people

20 miscellaneous young women

15 young black men

40 young white men

15 young latino men

3 young asian men

1 young arab man

5 wild little boys with ADD

1 partridge in a pear tree

 

Do you honestly think the probability of picking that one young arab man should be no higher than the probability of picking one particular young white man? Is simply considering the subject's race when making a decision really that stupid and counterproductive?

889934[/snapback]

 

Shaqman, youre Indian right?

 

I respect your opinion, but your use of hyperbole does not lend much to your argument. Your little hypothetical shows me that youre not experiencing a more real atmosphere. First off, KC has as much a chance of being bombed as Gainesville. You need to alter your numbers for a city that has a larger chance of being bombed like DC or NY and not a frikkin Suburb of KC. And if youre actually from one of these cities, you would not make such a silly statistical claim. Let me emphasis this to people outside of these cities because its obviously not clear. THERE IS NOT ONE YOUNG ARAB/BROWN NON BLACK PERSON PER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY, THERE ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE.

 

(let me tell you this right now, to think there are 5 times as many wild little boys during rush hour as there are brown non blacks is flat out f***IN NAIVE.)

 

Secondly, your statistical viewpoint is really really flawed and for a person in med school, you should know better. You badly overlap numbers to bolster the argument. A person with a turban could easily fall into you alternative numbers. Its not a young arab they want to alienate, its an arab...regardless. Hence the racial conotation your hyperbole diliberatley avoids.

 

And if your point is isolated to airport screening, then its not a relevant point.

Again, prove me wrong by giving examples from the last four years. And I'm not talking about blowing up SUVs either. That is completely different. I'm talking about deliberate planned killings of American citizens.

 

If in the near future during this age of the war on terror a white male is believed to have killed countless innocent human beings, then by all means search me. Until then search those proven to be responsible for such acts.

And why limit history to just the last 4 years? Surely you're familiar with other terrorist attacks in recent history. The fact is, suspicious behavior is suspicious behavior. Being Arab, Black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other ethnicity should not be grounds for suspicion.

 

 

The left in this country takes political correctness way too far.

Political correctness? It's not politically correct, it's just correct. Of course you totally overlook how the right wing has come to embrace the curtailing of civil rights.

 

Your comparison to Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

889686[/snapback]

No more ridiculous than your views. My comparison is apt - your "solution" is no better than Hitlers'. Don't be mad because I called you out and exposed your initial fraudulent statement for what it was.

 

 

In a suburb of Kansas City, a screener notices 150 suspicious-looking people during a given one-hour shift. He only has time to grab 15.

 

Again, since this is a KC suburb, let's say this is the breakdown of those 150 hypothetical, suspicious-looking people:

 

10 old, demented senior citizens

40 miscellaneous middle-aged people

20 miscellaneous young women

15 young black men

40 young white men

15 young latino men

3 young asian men

1 young arab man

5 wild little boys with ADD

1 partridge in a pear tree

 

Do you honestly think the probability of picking that one young arab man should be no higher than the probability of picking one particular young white man? Is simply considering the subject's race when making a decision really that stupid and counterproductive?

889934[/snapback]

I think if the screener saw 150 suspicious looking people, there should be a search of 150 people. The rest is simply a smokescreen to engage in racist behavior.

Again suspicious behavior will not be neglected since this is about profiling over random searching.

And profiling based on race offers little to no advantage. You've yet to demonstrate any sound reasoning in favor of racial profiling.

 

 

Society and history go through trends. Right now the greatest threat appears to be Muslim extremists. Ever since the embassy and USS Cole bombings there has been an evident crusade against the United States. And they won't stop.

I disagree. The greatest threat comes from fearful conservatives such as yourself who are so quick to disregard the civil rights that so many brave men and women have fought and died for. Your ready willingness to barter (presumably others) civil rights in the name of safety (even though such measures have yet to be proven effective or reasonable) is right in line with allowing the very terrorists you mention to win in affecting how we live our lives. By eroding civil rights and resorting to racially motivated attacks (and let's be honest here, treating one person worse than another based on their race is an attack) the concept of Democracy is weakened.

 

The other joke is, you believe that the crusade against the United States began with the USS Cole attack. It may have been the first attack in which YOU felt threatened, but such crusades have been active for decades - they've just been committed by the KKK, Eric Rudolphs, and Timothy McVeighs of the world.

 

 

When the United States engages in genocide of Muslims, then maybe your comparison to Nazi Germany could begin to make some sense.

Ah, I see you have failed to employ reading comprehension skills. I have made no comparisons to Nazi Germany. If you bothered to read closely, my comment was that racial profiling is no solution. I could have chosen any "hailed" solution that was a complete failure - I simply chose the first that came to mind.

 

Searching people in order to save lives of American citizens from those that have a history of violence is not the same thing.

890778[/snapback]

And here's the true sign of your true ignorance - repeated once again. Racial profiling isn't "searching people who have a history of violence". It's searching people who look like someone you think will hurt us. Your comment is not based on fact - it is simply grounded on bigotry.

 

You see, we can't identify those that truly wish to harm us by sight. You may think you do, but you'd be wrong.

I'll admit that I anticipated that someone would inevitably get tripped up with the irrelevant numbers ("like omg those r so inacurate!!") and the location ("liek omg they would never bomb the boonies!), which were *obviously* chosen to illustrate, in exaggerated fashion, to a person who never stopped to think about probability, that:

1) there are far more non-brown people than there are brown-looking people

2) profiling of any kind is a play on probability. you consider odds.

3) given that that brown folks are more likely to be the would-be terrorists, would it really make sense that these hypothetical screeners, who would be free to consider things like suspicious behavior, age, and gender, be prohibited from considering ethnicity when picking whom to screen with their limited time?

 

Your little hypothetical shows me that youre not experiencing a more real atmosphere.

I dig the inferential skills.

 

First off, KC has as much a chance of being bombed as Gainesville.

ha, you don't say?

 

You need to alter your numbers for a city that has a larger chance of being bombed like DC or NY and not a frikkin Suburb of KC. And if youre actually from one of these cities, you would not make such a silly statistical claim. Let me emphasis this to people outside of these cities because its obviously not clear. THERE IS NOT ONE YOUNG ARAB/BROWN NON BLACK PERSON PER ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY, THERE ARE MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE.

Really? No way....I should give you a sticker for that one.

 

(let me tell you this right now, to think there are 5 times as many wild little boys during rush hour as there are brown non blacks is flat out f***IN NAIVE.)

Lies!

 

A person with a turban could easily fall into you alternative numbers. Its not a young arab they want to alienate, its an arab...regardless. Hence the racial conotation your hyperbole diliberatley avoids.

ha...pardon me for not complicating the irrelevant numbers more for you.

 

Let me make it really simple for ya, step-by-step, since you apparently failed to pick up on the point that the little hypothetical was trying to convey and instead got needlessly fired up and surprisingly ugly over a few irrelevant figures that even Marlins could find flaws in.

 

Step 1:

Let's say there's a 75% chance that the hypothetical terrorists who would carry out a hypothetical large-scale attack on a hypothetical big city's train system are brown.

...

No, scratch that. Let's just say there's a 50% chance that they would be brown.

 

Step 2:

Now let's say 6% of the folks in the hypothetical big city (e.g. DC) are brown.

...

Nah, scratch that, too. Let's say 16.67% of the folks riding this hypothetical train system are brown. Put another way, that means for every one brown rider, there are five non-brown riders.

 

Step 3:

We can now reasonably conclude that a randomly-selected brown rider would be five times more likely to be our would-be terrorist than a random non-brown rider.

 

With more realistic numbers, we'd get a figure several times higher than that, but I'm in a generous, underestimating kind of mood right now.

 

Step 4:

5 screeners

1 minute--time to pick just 5 people

1 big city

30 people behaving suspiciously,

5 of which are brown (or if it really bothers you, )

 

For maximum efficiency in catching the potential terrorist, should the probability of picking a brown person really be no higher than the probability of picking a non-brown person?

 

Step 5:

Now, completely forget everything in steps 1 through 4, since you'll undoubtedly find reason to address minute, irrelevant details in there. For that matter, forget everything in this post prior to this line of text. I'm sure a person could find something relatively inane to fixate on up there.

 

Tell me, do you think a screening procedure that considers race as one factor among many would be less effective at catching potential terrorists than an identical screening procedure that does not consider race?

 

Yes? No? Feel free answer...if you have an opinion on it, that is. As far as substance goes, we might actually be in agreement here. :thumbup

And profiling based on race offers little to no advantage.

890848[/snapback]

Would stopping a greater proportion of people exhibiting suspicious behaviors offer a screener some advantage? (yes)

 

What about a screener who stops a smaller proportion of all children but a greater proportion of all adults with his limited time? Does he get some statistical advantage in using this method? Why or why not?

Ok, Sherlock Holmes, if we are operating in stupid little hypos, look at it in another scenario.

 

You're hiring a male babysitter for your kids. You interview 100 guys who are a little too friendly during the interview. 70 of the guys are white men. 10 are black men. 10 are Latino men. 5 are asian and 5 are brown non black. Would you automatically be willing to hire the asian or brown non black person despite them still acting a little too friendly with your kids? (remember, the key to your silly little hypos is to be a huge dick, so you have to understand that most child molestors are white males but very few white males are child molestors. :thumbup )

 

Or lets do another one just to emphasis why your point is silly. Youre a cop investigating a serial killer. Youve arrested a 100 random men. They are all sweating and shaking nervously. The break down is the same. Do you let all the non whites leave since most serial killers are white? Because you should know before you answer than the cops in Louisiana followed your brilliant amazing strategy and a black male was able to go on killing for nearly a year.

 

Same with the DC snipers. Must be a white male!

I'll admit that I anticipated that someone would inevitably get tripped up with the irrelevant numbers

An interesting preface since the rest of your post is built on irrelevant numbers.

 

Tell me, do you think a screening procedure that considers race as one factor among many would be less effective at catching potential terrorists than an identical screening procedure that does not consider race?

 

Yes? No? Feel free answer...if you have an opinion on it, that is. As far as substance goes, we might actually be in agreement here. :thumbup

890886[/snapback]

Yes, because your entire case is built on the preface that brown men are more likely to be terrorists. An assumption neither proven or factual.

 

 

And profiling based on race offers little to no advantage.

890848[/snapback]

Would stopping a greater proportion of people exhibiting suspicious behaviors offer a screener some advantage? (yes)

 

What about a screener who stops a smaller proportion of all children but a greater proportion of all adults with his limited time? Does he get some statistical advantage in using this method? Why or why not?

890889[/snapback]

And just out of curiosity, what proportion of those screened are children? Further, what proportion of those children are not accompanied by suspicious adults?

 

You see, many people like to throw out these specific cases of a child being searched without context. Too many people become fixated on the few random articles (inevitably referenced ad nauseum by right wing organizations in favor of racial profiling) without realizing how few children are actually searched.

 

So perhaps the better question involving numbers of relevance for you is: how often are these hypothetical scenarios you present reflective of the real world?

The other joke is, you believe that the crusade against the United States began with the USS Cole attack. It may have been the first attack in which YOU felt threatened, but such crusades have been active for decades - they've just been committed by the KKK, Eric Rudolphs, and Timothy McVeighs of the world.

You don't think that ideologies rise and fall? Is violence toward blacks in the South the same now as it was 50 years ago or more?

 

So would you say Muslim terrorism in the United States right now is no more imminent than it was 50 years ago?

 

Just yesterday a guy up the street from me was arrested with ties to Al Qaeda.I don't believe ideologies necessarily rise and fall. The attention span of the media and the American people however do. As to violence towards blacks in the South, I can't answer the question not having experienced it personally nor any other evidence. I can say with some certainty that there have been more violence towards blacks in the South in recent years than terrorist attacks by Muslims.

 

As for your other unrelated comment - It's funny, lots of people have been arrested "with ties to AQ" yet few are actually convicted.

 

And here's the true sign of your true ignorance - repeated once again. Racial profiling isn't "searching people who have a history of violence". It's searching people who look like someone you think will hurt us.

And why do we think they will hurt us? Because they have and they say they will again.They? Again, you miss the point. Look past your own rhetoric and you'll notice that not all Arabs or even the majority of Arabs have threatened to hurt us. You however advocate treating all Arabs as if they had. That's why I've repeatedly called your comment bigoted, because it is.

 

You see, we can't identify those that truly wish to harm us by sight. You may think you do, but you'd be wrong.

And random searching works?

891161[/snapback]

Is racial profiling better than random profiling? You say yes, yet you bear no proof. Again, my point stands that random checks combined with profiling of suspicious behavior bears the best results.

el penguino, its called reversal of logic. Would you be afraid if a muslim family moved next door to you? Do you think a black family is bad because they could mug you? Sharing common beliefs does not indict anyone. Youve tained a larger population by the activity of a few. Dont you think you share beliefs with people who have done terrible things?

 

Listen, answer this hypo. Lets say your neighbors child gets molested and killed. Lets say this neighbor is Arab. Lets say they knock on your door, say they suspect you because you are white and the mass majority of child molestors are white. Would you be appreciative of their immediate suspicion?

because your entire case is built on the preface that brown men are more likely to be terrorists. An assumption neither proven or factual.

 

Exactly! They are absolutley misinterpreting the logical connection. The probability that a Arab person in America is a terroist is extremely low and the statistical percentage is only slightly higher than any other racial group. They cant actually present any numbers that back up the argument that brown men are more likely to be terrorists. Theyll only repeate the illogical converse that most terrorists are brown men. Just like most child molestors are white men doesnt mean white men are more likely to be child molestors to a statistical significance.

They cant actually present any numbers that back up the argument that brown men are more likely to be terrorists. Theyll only repeate the illogical converse that most terrorists are brown men. Just like most child molestors are white men doesnt mean white men are more likely to be child molestors to a statistical significance.

891289[/snapback]

No offense, but I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Seriously, my friend on the phone was wondering why, all of a sudden, I found her dinner plans so hilarious. I'll explain the extremely easy, piece of cake logic one final time.

 

If someone told you that roughly half of all people infected with HIV were homosexual men and you accepted this fact, would you then agree that a randomly-selected homosexual man would be far (many, many times) more likely to have HIV than a non-homosexual individual?

 

If you didn't quite make the logical jump there, I'll throw out a second fact. Despite constituting about half of all HIV cases, homosexual men make up a tiny minority of the population.

 

Now did you make the jump?

 

Likewise if the majority of all would-be terrorists in the US (or even half, or 40%, 30%, 20%, or even 10%--no one should be disagreeing with this very broad premise) are middle eastern or south asian men, and if someone told you south asian/middle eastern men comprise a tiny percentage of the population (that is several times less than the percentage of terrorists who are mideast/s.asian men), would you then be able to see why a randomly selected individual from this group would be several times more likely to be a terrorist than a randomly selected individual outside this group? If you're still not seeing it, look at steps 1-3. This isn't complicated logic by any means.

 

The majority of child molesters in the US are white men. Okay. But wait, the majority of men in the US are white....so can we still conclude that a white man would be more likely to molest kids than a non-white man? Do you see what foiled up this example?

 

Now before someone points out the obvious--that it's impossible to quantify what proportion of "would-be terrorists" are "brown"--how on earth is this necessary? Is it that hard to realize that a disproportionate % of them would be brown, relative to the % of brown folks in the population? Of course a brown man is far more likely to be a terrorist than a non-brown man...I didn't even realize that needed to be explained.

 

The relative ineffectiveness and the poor cost-benefit profile are good arguments against random screening. Throw in the question of ethics/civil rights and you've got a good argument against using race as a consideration when screening. But you two are barking up the wrong tree if you think you can coherently refute the very simple logic required to notice that brown men are much more likely to be terrorists.

 

While you're at it, explain to me why this isn't the month of August.

Thanks for all the extraneous information about your dinner life. You really should learn to be less inane though.

 

No offense but you didnt read what I said very well or maybe Im not making it clear and easy enough for you to understand the logical difference. The language you seem to continually miss is statistical significance-not more likely-but significantly more likely(the relevant language you were unable to comprehend. So Ill show you.

 

Lets say there are 100 arabs in this country right now that want to actually blow something up(a number much larger than the amount who have actually blown something up IN THE US). Now lets quantify the number of arab people in this county. A quick search reveals that the U.S. Arab population is 1.2 million. Now 100/1.2 million*100 is 0.0083% chance that a randomly selected Arab (as per your AIDS hypo) is a terrorist. Conduct the same test for the general populace and its 0.00004 percent chance that the person is a terrorist. Subtract said numbers you get a 0.00826% impovment on your chances by selecting only Arabs. There, buddy, is your "much more likely" crap. Now add in black and asian people as terrorist threats and its even worse. Now quantify the financial and personal burden and harm on the many Arabs and "brown people". Add in the humility, the lateness for work, etc etc and youve effecitvley made my point for me. Thanks. :thumbup

They? Again, you miss the point. Look past your own rhetoric and you'll notice that not all Arabs or even the majority of Arabs have threatened to hurt us.

I've said not all Muslims are terrorists, but in this era of Muslim extremism those that want to hurt us share common beliefs.Those that want to hurt us may share common beliefs (as in "they want to hurt us") but they don't all share the same race. Yet you persist in believing that racial profiling is appropriate.

 

 

With the manner you focus on minute wording I'm sure you'll make a lot of friends on this board.

Frankly, if those on this board tend to make bigoted comments, I don't want to be anyone's friend.

 

Is racial profiling better than random profiling? You say yes, yet you bear no proof. Again, my point stands that random checks combined with profiling of suspicious behavior bears the best results.

Question:

 

Is random checking infringing on our rights?

891224[/snapback]

Perhaps. Take a look at the case in NY where they have enacted random searches in their public transit system. Illegal search and seizure sound familiar?

People need to grow thicker skin.

892071[/snapback]

I would argue that if people were to recognize our civil rights, most wouldn't need to grow thicker skin. Like it or not, that's a price of democracy.

No offense but you didnt read what I said very well or maybe Im not making it clear and easy enough for you to understand the logical difference. The language you seem to continually miss is statistical significance-not more likely-but significantly more likely(the relevant language you were unable to comprehend.

:notworthy

 

I'd recommend you consult your high school or college statistics textbook to look up the meaning of that term you've now repeatedly used. Maybe Cape or some of the other AP stats students here could help you out. It might be useful the next time you attempt to use that relevant language in an argument.

 

The statistical significance of an Arab man being more likely to be a terrorist is extraordinary. After you read up, you'll understand what I'm talking about here.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, you've made a compelling argument (in fact, one that I agree with) for why searches in general are relatively inefficient in most situations. If there's a 0.00004 percent chance a given person is a terrorist, why would we waste our time searching anyone in the first place?

 

Of course that argument fails to appreciate the fact that, given that a random searching/screening procedure already is or will be instituted, the effectiveness of that already-inefficient screening procedure at catching potential terrorists skyrockets if more emphasis is placed on searching people who fit the profiled population. That's all I'm stating, and it's impossible to argue the statistical logic there. I'd quantify it for you, but something tells me it's not worth my time.

 

On another note, dude, don't (didn't) you go to law school? I'd imagine having a grasp of basic statistical concepts would be critical--say, in case you're ever put in a situation where you have to look up or cite scientific literature in a malpractice case.

I'd recommend you consult your high school or college statistics textbook to look up the meaning of that term you've now repeatedly used. Maybe Cape or some of the other AP stats students here could help you out. It might be useful the next time you attempt to use that relevant language in an argument.

 

 

Since when did we have to operate with terms of art on a frikkin message board conversation. You know exactly what I am taking about so give up the blatant attempt at a red herring.

 

The statistical significance of an Arab man being more likely to be a terrorist is extraordinary. After you read up, you'll understand what I'm talking about here.

 

Ill wait for you to present that evidence. Please enlighten the rest of us. Present the studies done to prove this. Present evidence that it is "extraordinary." So much so that its a program worth destroying the principles of our country for.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, you've made a compelling argument (in fact, one that I agree with) for why searches in general are relatively inefficient in most situations. If there's a 0.00004 percent chance a given person is a terrorist, why would we waste our time searching anyone in the first place?

 

Of course that argument fails to appreciate the fact that, given that a random searching/screening procedure already is or will be instituted, the effectiveness of that already-inefficient screening procedure at catching potential terrorists skyrockets if more emphasis is placed on searching people who fit the profiled population. That's all I'm stating, and it's impossible to argue the statistical logic there. I'd quantify it for you, but something tells me it's not worth my time.

 

No please, quantify for me. Explain to me how an inefficient program skyrockets in effectiveness. Because it sounds to me that you?ve flat out and unequivocally contradicted yourself. On the one hand you agree that a .00004 percent chance is relatively inefficient.(relative to what? What is something that is efficient? a 1% chance? a 0.01% chance?) But you can say that a 0.00083 percent chance is efficient, or at least enough to massively encroach on one's Constitutional right to equal protection under the law, which seems fine with you. But since you know so much about lawyers, you?d know that the law treats justification for unequal treatment based on race or religion to a much higher test. And you fail the test sooo badly.

 

(let me repeat this again in case you miss the point. Even if random searches are very inefficient, they don't seperate us based on religion or race. So its not big deal if they arent effective but are used. They dont violate the 14th amendment. But even if an alteration to the inefficient random searches makes them just a little less inefficient, that doesn't defend that alteration where that alteration treats us differently based on religion or race. That alteration must be so effective and necessary that we would be willing to put aside the 14th amendment just for that situation. Furthermore, we have to ask ourselves whether the benefit is enough and so clearly present that it would be worth the high burden of humilation and seperation based on religion and race. Reread my original point:

 

http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=887594

 

Thats been my point the entire time.)

 

 

On another note, dude, don't (didn't) you go to law school? I'd imagine having a grasp of basic statistical concepts would be critical--say, in case you're ever put in a situation where you have to look up or cite scientific literature in a malpractice case.

 

 

I love how personal you?re so trying to make this. What?s the old saying? When a debater makes an ad hominem attack, you know they don?t know what the hell they?re talking about.

 

But wait. I?ve got one just as corny. You go to med school? I'd imagine a lack of proof would lead to a lot of problems. Maybe that?s ok for doctors! Hey it was ok for you and Bill Frist on the Terry Schiavo debacle.

I'd recommend you consult your high school or college statistics textbook to look up the meaning of that term you've now repeatedly used. Maybe Cape or some of the other AP stats students here could help you out. It might be useful the next time you attempt to use that relevant language in an argument.

 

 

Since when did we have to operate with terms of art on a frikkin message board conversation. You know exactly what I am taking about so give up the blatant attempt at a red herring. Are you for real? I've heard the words "statistical significance" about 10,000 times in my life and each time they have only meant one thing. There's nothing else I could have possibly assumed you were talking about. Hell, you even stopped and lectured me for not paying attention to your terminology.

 

The statistical significance of an Arab man being more likely to be a terrorist is extraordinary. After you read up, you'll understand what I'm talking about here.

 

Ill wait for you to present that evidence. Please enlighten the rest of us. Present the studies done to prove this. Present evidence that it is "extraordinary."How can I explain something to you when you don't understand the underlying concept? I'm not being facetious here--If you really want to understand that point, go look up the concept of statistical significance. I don't have 2 hours to sit here and explain it to you when you could just as easily spend 20 seconds looking on google. After you understand the concept, you won't even need me to explain this to you.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, you've made a compelling argument (in fact, one that I agree with) for why searches in general are relatively inefficient in most situations. If there's a 0.00004 percent chance a given person is a terrorist, why would we waste our time searching anyone in the first place?

 

Of course that argument fails to appreciate the fact that, given that a random searching/screening procedure already is or will be instituted, the effectiveness of that already-inefficient screening procedure at catching potential terrorists skyrockets if more emphasis is placed on searching people who fit the profiled population. That's all I'm stating, and it's impossible to argue the statistical logic there. I'd quantify it for you, but something tells me it's not worth my time.

 

No please, quantify for me. Explain to me how an inefficient program skyrockets in effectiveness. Because it sounds to me that you?ve flat out and unequivocally contradicted yourself. Efficiency and the effectiveness at catching potential terrorists who wish to bomb the train system (otherwise known as the "sensitivity" of a screening procedure) are two very, very different concepts.

 

Since you asked, I'll quantify the gain in effectiveness for you.

 

1.) Let's say random screening method #1 searches 1 out of every 5 people before they hop on the train. In this scenario, it's inefficient because it's a pain in the ass to search that many people during rush hour, especially since the likelihood of getting bombed is so slim.

 

1*(1/5) = 0.2 = 20%

 

Because one out of every five people are being searched, it will catch 20% of all potential terrorists to hop on the train. Thus, for screening method #1, we say the sensitivity--or the effectiveness at catching a potential terrorist who wishes to bomb the train system--is 20%.

 

 

 

2.) Now let's say 75% of potential terrorists who wish to bomb the train system are Arab/non-black brown men. (Yes, it's an assumption, but you could easily lower the number to 50%, 30%, or even 20% and still get quite a jump in sensitivity.). Let's also say that individuals from this population (Arab/non-black brown men) comprise 3% of our train ridership.

 

"Random" screening method #2 somehow happens to search 100% (you can easily adjust this number down and still see a huge effect) of people in that group (think airport shoe screening shortly after richard reid) and 0.85 out of every 5 people outside of that group. It, too, is inefficient because it's a pain in the ass to search 1 out of every 5 people during rush hour.

 

0.25*(0.85/5) + 0.75*1 = 0.7925 = 79%

 

Thus, "random" screening method #2 would catch almost 80% of potential terrorists wishing to bomb the train system, while still searching one out of every five riders. Its effectiveness essentially skyrocketed. This should be one of those "ahhhhhhh" moments.

 

 

 

3.) Suspicious behavior is tough to quantify, but I'll try. Let's say 30% of potential terrorists who wish to bomb the train system act "suspiciously" or have a ticking noise emanating from their big backpacks before they get on the train. I'm totally pulling this out of my ass, but let's say 5% of ridership also acts sufficiently "suspiciously" to warrant a search.

 

Screening method #3 happens to search 100% of people in that group, 100% people in the group for screening method #2, and 0.6375 out of every 5 people outside the two groups. Again, it's inefficient because one out of every five riders is being searched.

 

0.7*(0.25*(0.6375/5)) + 0.7*(0.75*1) + 0.3*1 = 0.8473 = 85%

 

Screening method #3 snags 85 percent of potential terrorists, while still searching one out of every five riders. It's much more effective at catching potential terrorists than method #1.

 

All said, I don't see how it's possible to continue to argue the statistical point I've been making this whole time. Step back from the irrelevant numbers for a second and appreciate the fact that profiling the "target" demographic boosts sensitivity by a ton.

 

My take? Random searches are inefficient in most cases, but if you're going to search, you better make sure the search is sensitive enough to effectively do its job. Pure random searches have piss poor sensitivity. Fortunately, in practice, there's no such thing as a "random" search; this is something you and me both have firsthand knowledge of.

 

On another note, dude, don't (didn't) you go to law school? I'd imagine having a grasp of basic statistical concepts would be critical--say, in case you're ever put in a situation where you have to look up or cite scientific literature in a malpractice case.

 

 

I love how personal you?re so trying to make this. If you can dish it, you can take it, brohan. :thumbup

 

(And btw, I've held that Terri Schiavo was a vegetable all along. The question of abuse was raised by a forensic pathologist years ago, and I thought it made sense, considering the husband's apparent motives. I guess we can both be wrong at times, huh?)

I see your point. And in fact if you look at that linked post, I stated the same thing about the effectiveness aspect. I stated that if we deport every brown person in this country, the policy becomes 100% effective in getting rid of AQ terrorists who are brown. If we arrest all low income black people, crime would drastically decrease and it would be effective.

 

But let me clarify my language to make what I was asking from you more clear. What makes that inefficient program skyrocket in efficiency or at least makes it worthy of our laws? What makes a 0.00083 percent chance efficient. Because as far as I can tell, there are very few terrorists in this country, 99.999 percent of brown people are innocent and would be burdened by the policy, and the policy seems only barely less efficient than checking the entire population. Let me ask again, what makes it efficient enough such that it justifies violation of the 14th amendment rights, burdening a brown train rider with daily morning stops(IMO the biggest aspect to defend because if you?ve ever ridden mass transit to work, you know its already really annoying as is), and treating millions of Americans as second class citizens? Imagine going to get on the train in the morning and having to go over to a seperate, and likely very long, line of only brown people who are all being searched while all the non browns are all going through. Because that?s been my view. That although most terrorists are brown, millions of brown people are not terrorists and shouldnt be treated as such.