3 ms·

The business of considering all military-age males as combatants is really not all that surprising to me. I live in New York and here, in some neighborhoods, t

The business of considering all military-age males as combatants is really not all that surprising to me. I live in New York and here, in some neighborhoods, the police consider all minority males 14-40 (I really have no idea of the top end) to be suspected criminals worthy of a random search while simply walking down the street. This is the way we treat people. We deem one group of people to be a threat and they immediately lose their rights. Edit: I seemed to have forgotten that it is black and hispanic males in New York who are stopped.

jellicle 13y ago
Not white males.
- dopamean 13y ago
  I don't know how I left that bit out. Edited.
khafra 13y ago
> We deem one group of people to be a threat A minority male between 14 and 40 is more likely to mug someone than a 70 year old caucasian woman; that's not something made up by racist conservatives. But if there's such a thing as rights, they must apply even to higher-threat demographics. One interesting exercise is thinking about base rates of mugging, and likelihood ratios for mugging, and discerning your own personal "4th amendment suspension" breaking point for each percentage.
- dopamean 13y ago
  I didn't call anyone a racist conservative. Also, I dont have a breaking point for "4th amendment suspension" in the case of people not suspected of a crime walking on a public street.
  - khafra 13y ago
    > people not suspected of a crime walking on a public street. But they are suspected of a crime, because of their demographic category. I should have explained the thought experiment more: Suppose future sociologists identify some identifiable cluster of traits that corresponds with a 99.9% likelihood of committing a mugging on any given day--if you see someone with these traits, it's overwhelmingly likely that they've either just mugged someone, or they're just about to mug someone. With that level of certainty, you're either in favor of unreasonably searching them and seizing their mugging weapons (or some other intrusive measure like constant monitoring), or you're in favor of unnecessary muggings. The reason this is a thought experiment is that no real-world identifiable group is that likely to commit crimes. But there is a measurable likelihood ratio, even if treating everyone equally is more important than it.

jellicle 13y ago

Not white males.

dopamean 13y ago
I don't know how I left that bit out. Edited.

khafra 13y ago

> We deem one group of people to be a threat A minority male between 14 and 40 is more likely to mug someone than a 70 year old caucasian woman; that's not something made up by racist conservatives. But if there's such a thing as rights, they must apply even to higher-threat demographics. One interesting exercise is thinking about base rates of mugging, and likelihood ratios for mugging, and discerning your own personal "4th amendment suspension" breaking point for each percentage.

dopamean 13y ago
I didn't call anyone a racist conservative. Also, I dont have a breaking point for "4th amendment suspension" in the case of people not suspected of a crime walking on a public street.
- khafra 13y ago
  > people not suspected of a crime walking on a public street. But they are suspected of a crime, because of their demographic category. I should have explained the thought experiment more: Suppose future sociologists identify some identifiable cluster of traits that corresponds with a 99.9% likelihood of committing a mugging on any given day--if you see someone with these traits, it's overwhelmingly likely that they've either just mugged someone, or they're just about to mug someone. With that level of certainty, you're either in favor of unreasonably searching them and seizing their mugging weapons (or some other intrusive measure like constant monitoring), or you're in favor of unnecessary muggings. The reason this is a thought experiment is that no real-world identifiable group is that likely to commit crimes. But there is a measurable likelihood ratio, even if treating everyone equally is more important than it.