TheRealMafoo said:
Lets say your in a car accident and badly injured with a small kid, but the kid was just fine, and you needed leave him with someone while you were taken to the hospital. You expected them to take your kid to the hospital waiting room. Let's say you also knew no one at the scene. There were two groups of people there you could leave him with. One group looked like some gang members overlooking the accident, and the other group were police officers. Are you telling me you think the average chance that leaving your child with either group would yield the same results? I hope your not. Now I am sure there are people in the group that look like gang members that will do the right thing, but on average, the odds are not in there favor. Now let's say those two groups of people were Legal Mexicans on one side, and illegal Mexicans on the other. I think what your telling me, is you think there is absolutely no statistical difference in outcome based on what group you leave your kid with. If that's what your saying, I am telling you your wrong. |
Why dont you make it a fair analogy. How about dirty cops who work skim off drug busts and get prostitues vs people who look like gang bangers that attend a community college and all have no criminal records?
Mafoo, your analogies are ridiculous and dont actually pose intelligent thought or discussion, we all have biases and judgments, would i want a child molester watch my kids? no. Would i let a stranger watch my kids? no? So does that mean i feel a stranger is as bad as a child molester? Absolutely not, but if I had to choose? Obviously the stranger....oh wait then it turns out hes a murderer, becuse the thing about REAL LIFE is you dont get to make up fancy little scenerios to suit your argument, there are more variables with real outcomes affecting real lives.
Id rather side with the people who say theres no way to get it perfect but lets help 80% than people who say we have 20% bad in a group of 100% so everyones out.








