What's exactly wrong with honeybee?

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Yea but we can build more oil wells, we could call it Exxon-Iraq.

Who is we ?

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
Who is we ?

me and bush

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
me and bush

2 monkeys sitting in a tree controlling one of the deadliest weapons on earth... reassuring

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
2 monkeys sitting in a tree controlling one of the deadliest weapons on earth... reassuring

nukes are fun though, even better than flamethrowers.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
nukes are fun though, even better than flamethrowers.

Napalm strikes are cool

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
Fortunately I'm just as American as you are, hailing from Great Britain. So your attempts at being a smart ass have failed miserably. Why is it you presume I am American. Is it my view points ?

Im sure you would be offended if I labelled you an as coming from IRAQ.

For shame, your racism has no place here.

Ok, first things first Apologies for calling you an American

Secondly I don't have any problems other than a mis-interpretation of facts, if you called me as coming from Iraq.

Thirdly, if calling you an American makes me a racist, what do you call the US that's going on profiling its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

Very interesting post of yours I didn't know being inadvertantly called an American could be such a great insult Apologies again

.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by honeybee
Ok, first things first Apologies for calling you an American

Secondly I don't have any problems other than a mis-interpretation of facts, if you called me as coming from Iraq.

Thirdly, if calling you an American makes me a racist, what do you call the US that's going on profiling its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

Very interesting post of yours

.

A true democratic and patriotic land, filled with physical as well as spiritual riches?





















Naa, I'm just joking, it's called communism

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee

Very interesting post of yours I didn't know being inadvertantly called an American could be such a great insult Apologies again

Dont worry about it, it isn't. If you had presumed I was from any other country you would have had an equal response. My problem was that you presumed I was American based upon my point of view.

I dont really understand your third point, you do seem quite racist, is this ok though because the US profiles its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

As I'm not American you may as well speak to me about Brazil, it has recently created a new police unit and will increase river and air patrols in its border region with Argentina and Paraguay to combat drugs and arms smuggling.

This has about as much relevance to the discussion, which is "What is wrong with Honeybee". I think what is wrong is that your racist, argumentative and bored.

[Wally Pipp]

As far as I'm aware there's only one human race. You can be biased/prejudiced towards certain cultural trends, beliefs or physical appearances but there is only one human race.

[mendhak]

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

[davebat]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
As far as I'm aware there's only one human race. You can be biased/prejudiced towards certain cultural trends, beliefs or physical appearances but there is only one human race.

Yes. But I am not refering to the human race, I am talking about a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:

[Wally Pipp]

that's called bigotry

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
Dont worry about it, it isn't. If you had presumed I was from any other country you would have had an equal response. My problem was that you presumed I was American based upon my point of view.

I dont really understand your third point, you do seem quite racist, is this ok though because the US profiles its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

As I'm not American you may as well speak to me about Brazil, it has recently created a new police unit and will increase river and air patrols in its border region with Argentina and Paraguay to combat drugs and arms smuggling.

This has about as much relevance to the discussion, which is "What is wrong with Honeybee". I think what is wrong is that your racist, argumentative and bored.

I would like to know how I become a racist if I call you an American, or if I criticize the policies of American government. What's your definition of racist that you can apply to me but not to the others?

About Brazil? Well as long as they don't pick up every Muslim, Arab or Asian or essentially a coloured person and frisk him while letting the white go, I couldn't call them racist. Brazil hasn't published a list of essentially Muslim countries as being suspect. Brazil doesn't fingerprint every visitor to the country.

Brazil isn't racist

.

[mendhak]

Ah, so that's your definition of racism, profiling people at airports? Or do you simply change your definition of racism whenever it conveniently fits into the discussion?

Racism is basically discrimination. Therefore, everyone is racist. Ergo, calling someone a racist is just stating the obvious. We all are racists deep down inside.

Brazil = racist.
You = racist.
Me = racist.
Barney the purple dinosaur = *******.

[davebat]

I would agree with that, the only one who is not racist would be someone deaf and blind.

Honeybee I define you as racist becuase you put me into a category (American) based on my opinion.

Ergo you believe all Americans to have the same opinion and so therfore are racist.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by davebat
Honeybee I define you as racist becuase you put me into a category (American) based on my opinion.

Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?

For example, would it have been racist if HB had, instead of calling you an American, called you a pro_american-military-in-Iraq_actionist?


BTW, Why is profiling considered a bad word?

Consider the case of a Grocery store. Say last year this store recieved bushels of apples from several different farms. Lets say Farmer B had provided bushels which, based upon a sampling of 2 %, had made it to the shelves. Unfortunately the 2% were right off the top and it turned out the underlayers were rotten to the core. All the other farmers bushels were pretty much good.

So this year, the store is still accepting Farmer B's bushels, but instead of doing a 2% inspection, is performing a 75% inspection on every bushel. All of the other farmers are recieving the standard 2%.

Is this a bad policy for the store?


BTBTW, the "Profiling" at mass transports is not supposed to be going on. As far as I've heard, Everyone is being scoped. Grannies, babies, Students, Married, widowed, Black, White, Red, Blue, Purple, Bald, Blonde, Polka dotted.


-lOU

DARN THAT CAPS LOCK!!!

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?

For example, would it have been racist if HB had, instead of calling you an American, called you a pro_american-military-in-Iraq_actionist?


BTW, Why is profiling considered a bad word?

Consider the case of a Grocery store. Say last year this store recieved bushels of apples from several different farms. Lets say Farmer B had provided bushels which, based upon a sampling of 2 %, had made it to the shelves. Unfortunately the 2% were right off the top and it turned out the underlayers were rotten to the core. All the other farmers bushels were pretty much good.

So this year, the store is still accepting Farmer B's bushels, but instead of doing a 2% inspection, is performing a 75% inspection on every bushel. All of the other farmers are recieving the standard 2%.

Is this a bad policy for the store?


BTBTW, the "Profiling" at mass transports is not supposed to be going on. As far as I've heard, Everyone is being scoped. Grannies, babies, Students, Married, widowed, Black, White, Red, Blue, Purple, Bald, Blonde, Polka dotted.


-lOU

DARN THAT CAPS LOCK!!!

In fairness, they may claim that profiling doesn't go on, but I can pretty much guarantee it does. Whenever any of my direct family travel through the States, none of us have ever been stopped (we're all white-Brits). Now, my uncle happens to be Indian/Pakistani. None of his family have ever made it through an airport since Sept '01 without being taken in for questioning. (They're Candian citizens by the way). Coincidental (out of about 15 flights per family?).

Now the laugh of this (in a sick way) is that Britain has many links to terrorists.

But back to your apples example: More blacks in the US are convicted of crimes than whites? Does that mean we should be investigating every black person on the street? After all, statistics say it's true.

And to extrapolate out, maybe people who have birthdays in April are statistically more likely to commit crime than those born in May... maybe we could use that as a basis for looking for criminals. No, I don't think it works that easily.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be screening people at the airports based on statistics (I'm not decided either way), I'm just saying that statistics is a very dubious source to rely on, especially when the terrorists themselves know what criteria you are using (country of origin, name etc.), and can easily circumvent them. Look, it's good old "Richard Reid" from England, he can't possibly be a terrorist.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?
...

Is this a bad policy for the store?

How about taking an example of ourselves, using spam filters is itself a type of discrimination. We're profiling. That's on a small scale, and since "everyone's doing it" we don't think much of it.

On a large scale, when everyone can notice what's going on, it's labeled as paranoia and racism. Does it safeguard your interests? If it does, then go ahead with it. Since I have no hidden agenda and am not a terrorist, I shouldn't have anything to fear, right?

Damn your caps lock.

[Wally Pipp]

you just extrapolate, you don't extrapolate out

[mendhak]

Originally posted by Ex-FB


I'm not saying that they shouldn't be screening people at the airports based on statistics (I'm not decided either way), I'm just saying that statistics is a very dubious source to rely on, especially when the terrorists themselves know what criteria you are using (country of origin, name etc.), and can easily circumvent them. Look, it's good old "Richard Reid" from England, he can't possibly be a terrorist.

Stats are not 100% accurate, agreed.

Suppose stats show that 93% of all Scotsmen are sheep-shaggers. And we suddenly, for some reason, need to protect our sheep from being molested.

Should we keep Scots away from our sheep?
or
Should we keep everyone away from our sheep?
or
Should we just pretend that the world is in black-and-white and let everyone near our sheep?

The problem, I feel, is that a lot of people want things in black-and-white, where it's seemingly safe, where it's easy to figure out things, not much thinking to do, and so on. The problem, is trying to be 'politically correct' and 'unbiased', without realizing that it's just not possible.

[mendhak]

P.S. Richard Reid wouldn't be let into my planet without a shave first.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
More blacks in the US are convicted of crimes than whites? Does that mean we should be investigating every black person on the street? After all, statistics say it's true.

If a crime is commited, and a witness describes the person as purple, then purple people should be scoped.

If a crime is commited by a group of people who share ideas and motivations, and all come from a specific spot, and this group of people had never commited such an act in this area before, and others of the same group, sharing similar traits and motivations state furthur such acts will occur, then it would be logical to keep an eye open for people who share these traits entering the country, and scope them more so than others.


-lou

PS.
But to scope people based on, not that there has been promises made to commit a crime, but based on crimes occur, and a particular group seem to commit crimes more, well, I'd have to say that is wrong.

Two totally different scenarios.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
you just extrapolate, you don't extrapolate out

Well I do...... maybe it's too hard to do for you Belgiums.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by mendhak
Stats are not 100% accurate, agreed.

Suppose stats show that 93% of all Scotsmen are sheep-shaggers. And we suddenly, for some reason, need to protect our sheep from being molested.

Pft, As if there's a whole 7% of the Scottish population that haven't tried "animal husbandry".

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by mendhak
Ah, so that's your definition of racism, profiling people at airports? Or do you simply change your definition of racism whenever it conveniently fits into the discussion?

Racism is basically discrimination. Therefore, everyone is racist. Ergo, calling someone a racist is just stating the obvious. We all are racists deep down inside.

Brazil = racist.
You = racist.
Me = racist.
Barney the purple dinosaur = *******.

Barney's a sick ass mutha****a, I saw him spraying some niggas downtown last week, no ****

[vbNeo]

If it works in Mosaic and Gecko then it's almost certainly a rendering error by the users specific rendering engine version, check up what he uses, get more information - and if possible, report it as a bug.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by vbNeo
If it works in Mosaic and Gecko then it's almost certainly a rendering error by the users specific rendering engine version, check up what he uses, get more information - and if possible, report it as a bug.

Mmmmmm. Wise words.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Was that relevant to anything?

Stratified sampling is justified when sampling a population that is composed of clear strata where there is a good reason to believe that the strata will perform differently.

It's the last bit of that that causes problems. Do we know the strata will perform differently when it comes to terrorism? Prior to 9/11, our number one terrorist in the US was a blond haired blue eyed guy. Now we profile for middle eastern looking folks. Are our biases correct, or just biases? If our sampling is based on a rational examination of the data, then it is fine. If our sampling is a reflection of our own biases, then it is not fine.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Was that relevant to anything?

Stratified sampling is justified when sampling a population that is composed of clear strata where there is a good reason to believe that the strata will perform differently.

It's the last bit of that that causes problems. Do we know the strata will perform differently when it comes to terrorism? Prior to 9/11, our number one terrorist in the US was a blond haired blue eyed guy. Now we profile for middle eastern looking folks. Are our biases correct, or just biases? If our sampling is based on a rational examination of the data, then it is fine. If our sampling is a reflection of our own biases, then it is not fine.

No... you got it all wrong, It's pronouned Gecko[Geko] see, fast - now try again... I won't hurt you

[Shaggy Hiker]

Originally posted by vbNeo
No... you got it all wrong, It's pronouned Gecko[Geko] see, fast - now try again... I won't hurt you

You win, I have re-read my post, and I have NO idea what you are talking about.