Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I greatly respect Walter Williams. This is a great essay:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEW ... /page/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is absolutely and completely right on target. This thing we have where we won't allow use of rational profiling to manage our approaches is absurd. There is nothing unconstitutional about focusing efforts using valid conceptual models.

Penalty. Use of an ultrarightist Conk rag for a source. Poster's credibility compromised. Fourth down.

JohnStOnge wrote:I greatly respect Walter Williams. This is a great essay:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEW ... /page/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is absolutely and completely right on target. This thing we have where we won't allow use of rational profiling to manage our approaches is absurd. There is nothing unconstitutional about focusing efforts using valid conceptual models.

Profiling may be acceptable in some cases, but in general it isn't right.


Then again, aren't you the guy that thinks incest is perfectly natural?

Ibanez wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I greatly respect Walter Williams. This is a great essay:

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEW ... /page/full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is absolutely and completely right on target. This thing we have where we won't allow use of rational profiling to manage our approaches is absurd. There is nothing unconstitutional about focusing efforts using valid conceptual models.

Profiling may be acceptable in some cases, but in general it isn't right.


Then again, aren't you the guy that thinks incest is perfectly natural?

Is that why his daughter walks with that pronounced limp???????

Penalty. Use of an ultrarightist Conk rag for a source. Poster's credibility compromised. Fourth down.

So are you going to attempt to rebut anything Dr. Williams wrote?

Profiling may be acceptable in some cases, but in general it isn't right.

Why? Seriously. In this culture people get caught up in these slogans. One of them is that "profiling" is wrong.

But why is it wrong if it is rational?

I suppose it might not be wise to limit oneself to profiling as the only tool. But why not use it as a tool? Read the linked article and think about it. Why ignore means that really do make it more likely that you will detect problems?

It's kind of like the thing with illegal immigration right now. People act like it's HORRIBLE to focus somewhat more on people that look Mexican. But, for Pete's sake, that's completely rational. It's related to an obvious reality.

It's kind of like if you go to certain tropical areas you take steps to protect yourself from malaria. You are "profiling" those areas when you do that. It's not "bad." It's smart. It's stupid to ignore probability realities in order to adhere to some kind of radical egalitarian framework.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Profiling may be acceptable in some cases, but in general it isn't right.

Why? Seriously. In this culture people get caught up in these slogans. One of them is that "profiling" is wrong.

But why is it wrong if it is rational?

I suppose it might not be wise to limit oneself to profiling as the only tool. But why not use it as a tool? Read the linked article and think about it. Why ignore means that really do make it more likely that you will detect problems?

It's kind of like the thing with illegal immigration right now. People act like it's HORRIBLE to focus somewhat more on people that look Mexican. But, for Pete's sake, that's completely rational. It's related to an obvious reality.

It's kind of like if you go to certain tropical areas you take steps to protect yourself from malaria. You are "profiling" those areas when you do that. It's not "bad." It's smart. It's stupid to ignore probability realities in order to adhere to some kind of radical egalitarian framework.

Sort of like when big bad cops pull you over because you fit the profile of a whiny pissant drunk?

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Why? Seriously. In this culture people get caught up in these slogans. One of them is that "profiling" is wrong.

But why is it wrong if it is rational?

I suppose it might not be wise to limit oneself to profiling as the only tool. But why not use it as a tool? Read the linked article and think about it. Why ignore means that really do make it more likely that you will detect problems?

It's kind of like the thing with illegal immigration right now. People act like it's HORRIBLE to focus somewhat more on people that look Mexican. But, for Pete's sake, that's completely rational. It's related to an obvious reality.

It's kind of like if you go to certain tropical areas you take steps to protect yourself from malaria. You are "profiling" those areas when you do that. It's not "bad." It's smart. It's stupid to ignore probability realities in order to adhere to some kind of radical egalitarian framework.

Sort of like when big bad cops pull you over because you fit the profile of a whiny pissant drunk?

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Why? Seriously. In this culture people get caught up in these slogans. One of them is that "profiling" is wrong.

But why is it wrong if it is rational?

I suppose it might not be wise to limit oneself to profiling as the only tool. But why not use it as a tool? Read the linked article and think about it. Why ignore means that really do make it more likely that you will detect problems?

It's kind of like the thing with illegal immigration right now. People act like it's HORRIBLE to focus somewhat more on people that look Mexican. But, for Pete's sake, that's completely rational. It's related to an obvious reality.

It's kind of like if you go to certain tropical areas you take steps to protect yourself from malaria. You are "profiling" those areas when you do that. It's not "bad." It's smart. It's stupid to ignore probability realities in order to adhere to some kind of radical egalitarian framework.

Sort of like when big bad cops pull you over because you fit the profile of a whiny pissant drunk?

reps....oh wait

Profiling, aka common sense law enforcement...

The article isn't even about law enforcement.

Taxi cab drivers intentionally refusing service to black folks is racist. Assuming a black person is prone to violence is the fucking epitome of racism.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The article isn't even about law enforcement.

Taxi cab drivers intentionally refusing service to black folks is racist. Assuming a black person is prone to violence is the **** epitome of racism.

You did read the article, didn't you?

He didn't say cabbies were justified in avoiding all black people...the avoidence of ghetto dressed black people in poor neighborhoods was in context and makes sense. In that case, they are using race as part of their decision.

Sort of like when big bad cops pull you over because you fit the profile of a whiny pissant drunk?

I can see we're about to go off on a tangent but I'll bite. The problem with the DUI hysteria isn't a cop pulling somebody over because he thinks they might be intoxicated. It's with considering the process through which "DUI" is established as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Profiling is a means by which one focuses attention on someone or maybe makes a judgement to avoid. Nobody is arguing that profiling should be sufficent to convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are all kinds of problems with the DUI laws. Breathlyizers do not provide measurements of BAC. They provide estimates that are subject to sometimes substantial error. They rely on assumptions that are never exactly true. For instance, they rely on the assumption that there is 2100 times as much alcohol in one milliliter (ml) of a person's blood as there is in one ml of the same person's breath. That is not a reliable assumption as this "partion ratio" can vary substantially from individual to individual as well as from time to time within an individual.

There is also the assumption that a particular BAC means that an individual cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. Sure, at some point it might be safe to say that nobody could safely operate a motor vehicle. But 0.08 ain't that point. No way.

If a cabby profiles and excludes some potential patron that cabby will probably exclude people who wouldn't hurt him. But that's different than using the kind of crap they use to convict people of DUI in an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Sort of like when big bad cops pull you over because you fit the profile of a whiny pissant drunk?

I can see we're about to go off on a tangent but I'll bite. The problem with the DUI hysteria isn't a cop pulling somebody over because he thinks they might be intoxicated. It's with considering the process through which "DUI" is established as demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Profiling is a means by which one focuses attention on someone or maybe makes a judgement to avoid. Nobody is arguing that profiling should be sufficent to convict someone of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are all kinds of problems with the DUI laws. Breathlyizers do not provide measurements of BAC. They provide estimates that are subject to sometimes substantial error. They rely on assumptions that are never exactly true. For instance, they rely on the assumption that there is 2100 times as much alcohol in one milliliter (ml) of a person's blood as there is in one ml of the same person's breath. That is not a reliable assumption as this "partion ratio" can vary substantially from individual to individual as well as from time to time within an individual.

There is also the assumption that a particular BAC means that an individual cannot safely operate a motor vehicle. Sure, at some point it might be safe to say that nobody could safely operate a motor vehicle. But 0.08 ain't that point. No way.

If a cabby profiles and excludes some potential patron that cabby will probably exclude people who wouldn't hurt him. But that's different than using the kind of crap they use to convict people of DUI in an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.

I think you should blather on for several more paragraphs.

<<I think you should blather on for several more paragraphs.>>

Maybe I should. Or maybe I should just say that, while profiling is valid for narrowing efforts or making personal/private decisions about such things as whether or not to pick up somebody in a taxi, it is not just to actually convict someone of a crime based on "profiling." It's also not real swift to rely on a police officer to judge impariment level with respect to somebody he or she has never even seen before. As discussed before, there are all sorts of problems with the current DUI hysteria and the witch hunt accompanying it.

But, yes, I have no doubt that profiling can narrow efforts and increase the chances of identifying someone who would blow a >=0.08 estimate on a breath test.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The article isn't even about law enforcement.

Taxi cab drivers intentionally refusing service to black folks is racist. Assuming a black person is prone to violence is the fucking epitome of racism.

No, it's the epitome of the ability to read violent crime statistics.

No, it's the epitome of the ability to read violent crime statistics.

I don't think it's just race either. Like I'd bet if a black guy looks like the guy in the picture below he'd have no problem being picked up by taxis.



To me it's like some people want to go out of their way to look weird then they complain when people are put off. If a White guy looks like the picture below I'd bet could have a problem with getting picked up too.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:The article isn't even about law enforcement.

Taxi cab drivers intentionally refusing service to black folks is racist. Assuming a black person is prone to violence is the **** epitome of racism.

No, it's the epitome of the ability to read violent crime statistics.

So, you believe black people are naturally more inclined to violence than white people? Why am I not surprised? The "Citadel" next to your name kinda gives that away.

I'm aware of violent crime statistics. It's got nothing to do with race. It has to do with poverty. Those that grow up in poverty are more likely to commit violent crimes. Blacks are disproportionately impoverished. Blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime statistics.

Believing blacks are naturally inferior is fucking racist as hell. Period.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
No, it's the epitome of the ability to read violent crime statistics.

So, you believe black people are naturally more inclined to violence than white people? Why am I not surprised? The "Citadel" next to your name kinda gives that away.

I'm aware of violent crime statistics. It's got nothing to do with race. It has to do with poverty. Those that grow up in poverty are more likely to commit violent crimes. Blacks are disproportionately impoverished. Blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime statistics.

Believing blacks are naturally inferior is fucking racist as hell. Period.

Got any more excuses up your sleeve?

AZGrizFan wrote:
Got any more excuses up your sleeve?

Excuse?

You think blacks are naturally more prone to violence as well?

A bunch of unabashed racists on this board.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Got any more excuses up your sleeve?

Excuse?

You think blacks are naturally more prone to violence as well?

A bunch of unabashed racists on this board.

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said or what CitGrad said (unless you're LOOKING to slant something a certain way)....

YOU'RE the one sitting here giving them excuses about WHY they are prone to act the way they do.

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said or what CitGrad said (unless you're LOOKING to slant something a certain way)....

YOU'RE the one sitting here giving them excuses about WHY they are prone to act the way they do.

Then tell me why it is. You seem awfully opposed to the idea that it's due to their environment.

A black person that grows up in wealth is no more likely than a wealthy white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in the middle class is no more likely than a middle class white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in poverty is no more likely than an impoverished white person to commit a violent crime.

Do you disagree? If so explain.... and try to do so in terms that aren't racist. Good luck.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said or what CitGrad said (unless you're LOOKING to slant something a certain way)....

YOU'RE the one sitting here giving them excuses about WHY they are prone to act the way they do.

Then tell me why it is. You seem awfully opposed to the idea that it's due to their environment.

A black person that grows up in wealth is no more likely than a wealthy white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in the middle class is no more likely than a middle class white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in poverty is no more likely than an impoverished white person to commit a violent crime.

Do you disagree? If so explain.... and try to do so in terms that aren't racist. Good luck.

Your superior condescension, talking about blacks from on high the way you just did is just as bad as what you perceive AZ and others as doing.

And BTW... I have a house on Willow Mountain and have heard the N word in and around the ASU campus much more than I EVER heard it at The Citadel.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
No, it's the epitome of the ability to read violent crime statistics.

So, you believe black people are naturally more inclined to violence than white people? Why am I not surprised? The "Citadel" next to your name kinda gives that away.

I'm aware of violent crime statistics. It's got nothing to do with race. It has to do with poverty. Those that grow up in poverty are more likely to commit violent crimes. Blacks are disproportionately impoverished. Blacks are disproportionately represented in violent crime statistics.

Believing blacks are naturally inferior is **** racist as hell. Period.

You are making a juvenile arguement. Cab drivers profile due to personal experience. If you have been robbed by a black guy at 2 AM (for example), human nature will dictate that you think twice about picking up someone who looks similar to the robber.

Also nobody is saying that blacks are inherinetly more violent or inferior, but stats show that they are (at least inner city black men) more violent and more prone to crime than any other group. It is really irrelevent to the cabby if natrure or nuture caused the problem, he just knows the end result and that is all that mattters. The fact is that inner city black men go to jail and commit crimes at an incredible rate. It could be due to poverty and culture, but in the end it doesnt really matter. They are more violent as a group and will be profiled until they behave.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said or what CitGrad said (unless you're LOOKING to slant something a certain way)....

YOU'RE the one sitting here giving them excuses about WHY they are prone to act the way they do.

Then tell me why it is. You seem awfully opposed to the idea that it's due to their environment.

A black person that grows up in wealth is no more likely than a wealthy white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in the middle class is no more likely than a middle class white person to commit a violent crime. A black person that grows up in poverty is no more likely than an impoverished white person to commit a violent crime.

Do you disagree? If so explain.... and try to do so in terms that aren't racist. Good luck.

Your statistics are wrong, skelly, but nobody here is opposed to the idea that environment affects behavior, and nobody is blaming black people for being black.

You are just making up a bunch of false "racist" bullsh!t to create controversy and argument, and maybe to feel sorry for yourself or morally superior (go figure!).

Behavior is what intelligent people profile, knucklehead.