When Five Percent Of Your Group Is Dangerous - Page 4 - Politics and Economics

Racists can't use this OP as stated. Because it wasn't just that five percent are dangerous. It also stated that this figure was 100 times normal. That perhaps applies to West Africans flying to America, people who own assault rifles, and Muslim extremists, but not to any race.

Except we've seen people do exactly this in the SMP forum in the last few months.

Quote:

Also you should realize that I like "these types of questions" regardless of whether they apply to politics or anything else. Thinking about them helps your brain.

Yes, I get that you like them and that you think there's some value in them. I'm just saying that the actual value is a lot smaller than you think it is.

10-27-2014 , 04:15 PM

#77

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anais

Here's the important part you seemed to not understand, LAS, bolded so yo don't miss it again:

gun control laws

Here's the important part, these are the groups and people who are pushing for these laws. What do you think their endgame is?

10-27-2014 , 04:26 PM

#78

AsianNit

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 9,881

This question could be deconstructed into yet another variation of deontology vs consequentialism. The question devolves into asking whether or not it is right to make a decision based upon a cost-benefit analysis of knowing that a certain action will save lives. For some, it depends on weighing the level of inconvenience vs the number of lives saved. For others, it is only okay so long as you don't violate rights or other deontological observations.

10-27-2014 , 04:45 PM

#79

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,096

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

Yes, I get that you like them and that you think there's some value in them. I'm just saying that the actual value is a lot smaller than you think it is.

If everyone was willing to agree that many real world problems are partially analogous to poker problems we would all be a lot better off.

10-27-2014 , 04:48 PM

#80

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

If everyone was willing to agree that many real world problems are partially analogous to poker problems we would all be a lot better off.

well that's a different kettle of fish. I mean if everyone thought the same way I do the world would be fantastic (in my opinion, at least).

10-27-2014 , 05:18 PM

#81

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

I'm pretty sure you'd be bored out of your mind.

10-27-2014 , 05:29 PM

#82

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,912

Rimmerworld comes to mind

10-27-2014 , 05:37 PM

#83

bobman0330

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,234

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

If everyone was willing to agree that many real world problems are partially analogous to poker problems we would all be a lot better off.

If there's one area where the average person is actually worse at drawing correct inferences than politics, it's got to be poker.

10-27-2014 , 05:58 PM

#84

Anais

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 6,663

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Here's the important part, these are the groups and people who are pushing for these laws. What do you think their endgame is?

I think I don't care what fringe people with no chance of getting their crazy laws passed want.

I'm sure somewhere there's someone who wants free speech banned, but I don't care about them.

10-27-2014 , 06:37 PM

#85

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

I was really hoping that this thread was about an ebola quarantine.

10-27-2014 , 06:39 PM

#86

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anais

I think I don't care what fringe people with no chance of getting their crazy laws passed want.

I'm sure somewhere there's someone who wants free speech banned, but I don't care about them.

You should care, I can sum it up in 5 letters.

UIGEA

10-27-2014 , 07:14 PM

#87

David Sklansky

Administrator

Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 17,096

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

I was really hoping that this thread was about an ebola quarantine.

For the most part it was.

10-27-2014 , 07:49 PM

#88

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

For the most part it was.

Even staring at the possible end of civilization (and somebody's going to argue about that assuredly) you can't get past the civil rights at all costs crowd until death is at their door.

10-27-2014 , 07:52 PM

#89

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

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. 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Money2Burn

I was really hoping that this thread was about an ebola quarantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

For the most part it was.

In the case of Ebola, I think it's a damned if you do damned if you don't. My gut says that the belief is the chance of a Ebola pandemic is so low, it's not worth the political fallout. And since the government operates reactive instead of proactive, drastic measures will only be taken if it's too late.

10-27-2014 , 07:59 PM

#90

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

I'm shocked that Howard literally thinks Ebola is the end of the world.

10-27-2014 , 08:07 PM

#91

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

I'm shocked that Howard literally thinks Ebola is the end of the world.

I said 'possible' you 'need to buy reading glasses person', you. A nurse chafing at a few weeks inconvenience is causing an uproar and ppl take up her moan. We are playing w/ fire and I get a barb tossed at me, jfc. All we need is a hundred active cases and all hell will break loose. You want to fool around w/ the potential for that you rosy optimist?

10-27-2014 , 08:15 PM

#92

AsianNit

banned

Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 9,881

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard Beale

Yes.

10-27-2014 , 08:19 PM

#93

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Howard, you could stay at home till it blows over or burns out. But that would inconvenience you. Much better to inconvenience someone who is trying to help, just in case.

10-27-2014 , 08:31 PM

#94

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianNit

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Howard, you could stay at home till it blows over or burns out. But that would inconvenience you. Much better to inconvenience someone who is trying to help, just in case.

Typical.

10-27-2014 , 08:43 PM

#95

LASJayhawk

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 2,900

Howard, if we start locking people up for projectile vomiting and massive diarrhea we will be quarantining every person that eats at the Circus Circus buffet.

10-27-2014 , 09:24 PM

#96

Anais

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 6,663

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

You should care, I can sum it up in 5 letters.

UIGEA

Since when was Internet gambling a constitutionally protected right?

Or are you willing to admit that you are making a bad comparison?

10-27-2014 , 10:49 PM

#97

Howard Beale

Formerly red

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 22,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by LASJayhawk

Howard, if we start locking people up for projectile vomiting and massive diarrhea we will be quarantining every person that eats at the Circus Circus buffet.

Me and mom stay at The Orleans where we get 6 room nights for $40 and eat the buffet at Wynn.

10-27-2014 , 11:02 PM

#98

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,852

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsianNit

Yep, exactly this. Which is why I'd be against the extra scrutiny for the group with 5% dangerous people. We had this thread in SMP some years ago I believe, and I don't think DS believed that I actually believed my position.

10-28-2014 , 12:02 AM

#99

domer2

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 34,140

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngusThermopyle

So you think that there are 80 million dangerous Muslims (5%) in the world, but only a million (0.05%) dangerous Christians in the world.

Probably closer to 10% for Muslims -- from the perspective of those that support suicide bombings/terrorism.

If you consider wanting people dead for apostasy "dangerous," you're going to start approaching 40-50% of worldwide Muslims.

10-28-2014 , 12:31 AM

#100

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 10,852

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

We had this thread in SMP some years ago I believe, and I don't think DS believed that I actually believed my position.

Here it is: When Does Statistical Crimefighting Become OK

And here's where DS didn't believe me

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

whether there should be some statistical threshold where the "immorality" of profiling goes away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ganstaman

I'm going to say that there is no threshold, I don't think profiling should ever be done. However, I know that people will point out that this is bad and can't work and I'm a hypocrite, etc, and I'm willing to accept that I should draw a softer line here, but I won't budge on the general concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Sklansky

You don't mean what you wrote even if you don't realize it. Because there is a threshold you wouldn't disagree with. Namely the point where the chances a member of a certain group is so much more likely to be dangerous that innocent members of the group would be in favor of profiling, in spite of the downsides to them. If two percent of people with tatoos on their face are known to be disruptive on an airline the other 98% would approve of the extra scrutiny they would be subjected to.

Page 4 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last

...

Page 4 of 5

First

1 2 3 4 5

Last