When Five Percent Of Your Group Is Dangerous - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

When Five Percent Of Your Group Is Dangerous

...

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5

10-26-2014 , 03:20 PM

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

And 95% isn't. Is it OK or not to subject that group to extra scrutiny and inconvenience if the general population is safer if you do? Suppose for example that non members of the group are 100 times less likely to be dangerous in the same way. And that if the group is in fact singled out hundreds of lives will probably be saved. Is it right to do or not?

10-26-2014 , 03:34 PM

DudeImBetter

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 10,666

I've never been all that against racial profiling in general TBH.

10-26-2014 , 03:40 PM

cocanat

centurion

Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 117

If only 5% of snakes are rattlesnakes, does that mean we should drop our guard?

10-26-2014 , 03:53 PM

Anais

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 6,663

Men commit a lot more violent crime than women, better start profiling them penis-havers

10-26-2014 , 03:57 PM

Happy_Fish

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 7,497

Yeah any group is going to be 5% dangerous. Better profile anybody who belongs or could belong to a group!

10-26-2014 , 04:20 PM

duffee

banned

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,218

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

It’s a more efficient use of limited resources. Whether it’s “OK” or not is another matter. We kind of do that already by expending more police resources per capita toward inner cities and high crime areas. The problem is the Clearance Rate (reported crimes cleared by arrest) is so low for everything other than murder, that we’re not doing much more than spending a little less per captured crook in a cost/benefit sense.

10-26-2014 , 04:32 PM

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,092

ya 5% of muslims in the west are not dangerous, which is the obvious if unstated premise here.

10-26-2014 , 04:41 PM

chytry

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,338

Any unit of at least 2 people should be scrutinized!

10-26-2014 , 04:47 PM

adacan

old hand

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1,276

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anais

Men commit a lot more violent crime than women, better start profiling them penis-havers

You don't? If I am walking around somewhere late at night I am much more on guard if there is a male around then if there is a female. Females definitely are a much lesser threat in general than males.

10-26-2014 , 05:04 PM

#10

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,088

5%? Let's at least be honest about the math here.

10-26-2014 , 05:11 PM

#11

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

Are we talking about health professionals returning from West Africa?

10-26-2014 , 05:31 PM

#12

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

The two posts above me don't seem to realize that my question is only about some hypothetical group. The groups in the news don't get to five percent. Nor does the stop and frisk group. But what if they, or some other identifiable group did?

10-26-2014 , 05:39 PM

#13

AngusThermopyle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 14,929

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The two posts above me don't seem to realize that my question is only about some hypothetical group.

Then I would deploy my hypothetical perfect screeners who could detect those 5% of the group who are dangerous and leave the other 95% alone.

But then it might look like "Minority Report" (the original story, not the garbage movie).

Hypothetically.

10-26-2014 , 05:52 PM

#14

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

Why not just ask the people in your hypothetical group if they would welcome this hypothetical extra scrutiny because it makes the good ones safer, too?

10-26-2014 , 06:16 PM

#15

neg3sd

banned

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 3,335

TSA is strip searching grandmas. How many grandmas have committed acts of terrorism?

10-26-2014 , 06:35 PM

#16

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by DudeImBetter

I've never been all that against racial profiling in general TBH.

Ethnic/gender/age and w/e else I'm not thinking of should be included but, yes, I'm ok w/ profiling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neg3sd

TSA is strip searching grandmas. How many grandmas have committed acts of terrorism?

My mother, in her wheelchair, got searched. 'Can she get out of her wheelchair?' 'No' 'Bring her over here' jfc. She got wanded and patted down and now we won't fly anywhere and I'm dreading a funeral that might compel us. What may be the worst part is that nobody is allowed to object unless they want those idiots coming down on them like a ton of bricks.

10-26-2014 , 06:48 PM

#17

jokerthief

No reason to get excited

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,765

I'd be interested in seeing someone who thinks no post something that is not a joke or logical fallacy.

10-26-2014 , 06:51 PM

#18

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,141

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

You mean if a plane arrives from an area with a dangerous epidemic and its estimated 5% could be infected then is it okay to subject all those passengers to extra scrutiny beyond that of other passengers arriving at the airport?

10-26-2014 , 06:57 PM

#19

Bill Haywood

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 5,249

95% of the 1% are a menace, what should we do with them?

How about lock in Liberian ebola ward?

10-26-2014 , 06:57 PM

#20

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWookie

Why not just ask the people in your hypothetical group if they would welcome this hypothetical extra scrutiny because it makes the good ones safer, too?

Its a slam dunk if they said yes. But they may say no because their risk versus reward equation is different than those who aren't inconvenienced. In other words the acceptance by the group being "profiled" is a sufficient but maybe not necessary condition.

10-26-2014 , 07:03 PM

#21

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,155

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

In this example everyone would say yes. But what if only a certain race could easily get this disease and they had a 5% chance? Others are 200-1. Or what if it was only a certain religion that was 5% because of the way they prepared their food?

10-26-2014 , 07:10 PM

#22

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,092

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

The two posts above me don't seem to realize that my question is only about some hypothetical group.

Probably because it is obviously about muslims. Oh sure you don't explicitly state it and couch it in a "hypothetical", but don't try and pretend it is anything but exactly that.

Any question like this is going to depend on the details and degree or whatever specific example we are talking about. So even if you really, really don't want to dare say the word Muslim, unless you speak about a specific instance, and specific types of "extra scrutiny" it is going to be impossible to evaluate.

10-26-2014 , 07:12 PM

#23

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37,088

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Probably because it is obviously about muslims. Oh sure you don't explicitly state it and couch it in a "hypothetical", but don't try and pretend it is anything but exactly that.

idk if that was DS's intention, but it's pretty easy for posters to connect the dots. Why put this in politics and not SMP where are the other loopy hypothetical go?

10-26-2014 , 07:14 PM

#24

Chips Ahoy

help me help you

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,869

If you tell people they are your enemy, they will become your enemy.

10-26-2014 , 07:20 PM

#25

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 47,141

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

I'm trying to get my head round a group that has a 5% chance of some deadly disease that they could pass on to their families (at least) and who don't want to be screened for it.

The general profiling question depends on the situation and here I can't imagine one to consider. My guess is we would take their kids away and section them.

Page 1 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last

...

Page 1 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last